An upstate New York sheriff's deputy is in hot water after he was caught on video allegedly slapping a young man who did not want his car searched.
Sgt. Shawn Glans of the Saratoga County Sheriff's Office has been suspended following the ugly incident in the town of Halfmoon on Friday.
Glans, a cop for 27 years, confronted the man and his friend after he noticed a .22-caliber rifle in the backseat of their car. The man's friend recorded the exchange.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/watch-upstate-new-york-deputy-slaps-man-article-1.2004502
Pretty nutty!
As long as a rifle or shotgun is not loaded its legal in your car.
The logical inconsistencies of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution and worrying about an unloaded rifle locked in a car would make my head explode.
It's getting more common. I am picking up more and more dislike and hearing the word (Pig) from more of general public. Just saying.
I don't know what the circumstances were that led him to that point, but either way it was unprofessional. He will be lucky if he doesn't get charged with assault.
Quote from: pacapcop on November 09 2014 03:13:47 PM MST
It's getting more common. I am picking up more and more dislike and hearing the word (Pig) from more of general public. Just saying.
And officers like that are the reason for that.
The edit was in the hands to the two young gentlemen, so what preceded the footage is unknown. What I see is relatively calm young men and a deputy dropping f-bombs and calling citizens a-holes. He should be deeply ashamed of his behavior there, and time off to think about it is the least he deserves.
To law enforcement everywhere... I will NEVER give my consent to a search without a warrant. I will always insist on a judge hearing the reason they feel it necessary to invade my personal space. Sorry guys, but any lawyer worth their salt will advise the same. I expect some level of respect upon letting an officer know that I value my constitutional rights.
Greg
I'm sure that's not the whole story, but it really doesn't matter. You don't treat people like that. >:(
Regardless of what happened before, officers of the law are paid to de-escalate potentially violent situations. This guys is not doing that. I served with bullies like this guy. I hated being called to back them up and finally got to where I would just send them away when I arrived on scene unless there was an actual melee in progress.
Guys like this are a big part of the reason I left law enforcement. I realized that someday a jerk like this was going to get me hurt or killed cause they couldn't pay attention in verbal judo class.
I only have two things to say:
1) I guess you need to be there or see the entire matter so you have exact context. We have no idea what happened prior to the video starting
2) Based upon what I saw these actions were unjustified and the officer TOTALLY unprofessional. I see no other potential than the Officer's actions to further aggravate the situation, not resolve the matter reasonably.
I wonder how many other unreported similar instances of this same thing the guy has done over his career? You can damn well be assured this was not the only time it happened. Sadly, this type of thing gives many, many great and highly professional law enforcement a needless black eye.
Pat
Pat
Pat
"Rip off your head and sh** down your throat.....".
What a big tough man; I wonder if he would have spoken like that to someone his own size. What a douche..... that guy needs to be knocked back down to earth. I hate it when people abuse their authority.
This guy is a nut case......he's already had other issues...why someone would hire this guy is pathetic. Of course, if the force is dire need of bodies, I guess he's a keeper.
Unfortunately, this guy gives all LEOs a bad name. :-[
Woosha,,,,,
Quote from: Wolfie on November 09 2014 02:12:25 PM MST
As long as a rifle or shotgun is not loaded its legal in your car.
Partially incorrect. Certain states have requirements of where a firearm may be carried in a vehicle. For instance, even if it is unloaded, if the firearm is in the trunk, the ammo must be locked in the glovebox and vice versa in some states. New York State has differing rules than New York City,but IIRC, they both state a firearm must be carried in the trunk "if so available" rather than in the passenger compartment. The trunk is considered any area behind the rear seats with the rear seats in a proper upright position. NYC in their newest bill stated the Glove Box was not an acceptable carry location for a firearm unless that firearm was in a locked case while in the glove box.
I prefer partially correct.
Lock it in the ammo can and avoid a problem.
Quote from: Geeman on November 09 2014 05:53:28 PM MST
To law enforcement everywhere... I will NEVER give my consent to a search without a warrant. I will always insist on a judge hearing the reason they feel it necessary to invade my personal space. Sorry guys, but any lawyer worth their salt will advise the same. I expect some level of respect upon letting an officer know that I value my constitutional rights.
Greg
In California, a law enforcement person can search your car without a warrant IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.
Quote from: sqlbullet on November 10 2014 07:44:33 AM MST
Regardless of what happened before, officers of the law are paid to de-escalate potentially violent situations. This guys is not doing that. I served with bullies like this guy. I hated being called to back them up and finally got to where I would just send them away when I arrived on scene unless there was an actual melee in progress.
Guys like this are a big part of the reason I left law enforcement. I realized that someday a jerk like this was going to get me hurt or killed cause they couldn't pay attention in verbal judo class.
Where I live, the police try to escalate a situation so they can make an arrest. They will make smart assed comments trying to get you to say something back at them which justifies them doing whatever they want.
Quote from: Pinsnscrews on November 10 2014 09:50:07 AM MST
Quote from: Wolfie on November 09 2014 02:12:25 PM MST
As long as a rifle or shotgun is not loaded its legal in your car.
Partially incorrect. Certain states have requirements of where a firearm may be carried in a vehicle. For instance, even if it is unloaded, if the firearm is in the trunk, the ammo must be locked in the glovebox and vice versa in some states. New York State has differing rules than New York City,but IIRC, they both state a firearm must be carried in the trunk "if so available" rather than in the passenger compartment. The trunk is considered any area behind the rear seats with the rear seats in a proper upright position. NYC in their newest bill stated the Glove Box was not an acceptable carry location for a firearm unless that firearm was in a locked case while in the glove box.
In California, I remember something about a 2 lock rule. You had to go through two locks to get to the gun: 1) Locked trunk. 2) Locked gun case; 1) Locked gun case. 2) cable lock through receiver. I think the ammo also has to be away from the driver.
The gun cannot be in the glove box.
.
Same In Penna. Prob cause.
Quote from: my_old_glock on November 10 2014 08:01:38 PM MST
In California, a law enforcement person can search your car without a warrant IF THEY HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE.
That is actually the way most states give authority to law enforcement. It's actually a fairly high burden to reach. The officer would need to prove that he/she had enough factually based knowledge that the subject was likely guilty of a specific crime. A gun being seen wouldn't reach that level and that officer knew it. If there was someone who said they saw the person do something illegal with a gun, added to the officer seeing the gun in the car would certainly raise to that level. The safe thing for the officer to do in that case would be to get a warrant anyway.
Never consent to a search without a warrant. If the officer insists anyway, he/she should be able to answer "What crime do you believe I'm guilty of and why do you believe it's me".
Probable cause is the exact same burden the officer has to meet to place you under arrest.
Greg
Geeman is spot on, if the cop had PC, he would have him in cuffs without saying a word.
The "probable cause" standard for searching a vehicle is changing in some states. In New Jersey and New Hampshire, you can no longer search a car with probable cause. You need to obtain a consent to search or a warrant. Other states may have this standard as well, or will be coming to it.
An uncased gun is indeed probable cause to search further in some northern states like NY. The fact that he was asking for consent indicates to me that NY State also has this standard fro consent / warrant when PC exists.
How does the cop articulate PC with this video?
Its illegal if there is ammo in the gun, does he have x ray vision?
Apparently not, the cop is cooked and the civilian will get paid and the taxpayers get jammed by a dumb cop of 27 years.
All he had was reasonable suspicion (enough to interview as we see on the interview) and was trying to get to PC.
http://www.timesunion.com/local/article/Saratoga-sheriff-to-discuss-viral-video-5883183.php
Cop resigns, actually he had his 25 so he will keep his pension, could lose health benefits though.
http://concealednation.org/2014/11/update-men-who-taped-slap-happy-sheriff-plan-to-sue-county/
Quote from: Wolfie on November 11 2014 09:34:40 AM MST
How does the cop articulate PC with this video?
Its illegal if there is ammo in the gun, does he have x ray vision?
Apparently not, the cop is cooked and the civilian will get paid and the taxpayers get jammed by a dumb cop of 27 years.
All he had was reasonable suspicion (enough to interview as we see on the interview) and was trying to get to PC.
What state are you from? In NJ an uncased gun is PC.
Regardless of PC or RAS, the cop is cooked because he abused two motorists, not because of his search and seizure protocols.
NY
This was in way upstate NY, hunting areas.
Most people do not realize, upstate NY is like being in the rural south.
In NY you have Reasonable Suspicion to look further, he should have detained until he got a search warrant.
Quote from: Geeman on November 09 2014 05:53:28 PM MST
Quote from: pacapcop on November 09 2014 03:13:47 PM MST
It's getting more common. I am picking up more and more dislike and hearing the word (Pig) from more of general public. Just saying.
And officers like that are the reason for that.
The edit was in the hands to the two young gentlemen, so what preceded the footage is unknown. What I see is relatively calm young men and a deputy dropping f-bombs and calling citizens a-holes. He should be deeply ashamed of his behavior there, and time off to think about it is the least he deserves.
To law enforcement everywhere... I will NEVER give my consent to a search without a warrant. I will always insist on a judge hearing the reason they feel it necessary to invade my personal space. Sorry guys, but any lawyer worth their salt will advise the same. I expect some level of respect upon letting an officer know that I value my constitutional rights.
Greg
I agree with never giving consent. But, one of the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant is a motor vehicle. This is nation wide, does not pertain to state laws. It relates to precedence established in the Supreme Court ( Carroll v. United States) . Can't insist on a judge hearing the reason. It is not an exception to requiring probable cause, but it is an exception to the requirement to have a judge's ok.
If you give consent, then it probably won't matter whether an officer has probable cause. If you don't give consent, if the officer believes he has probable cause he can proceed and you don't have a choice. If you are charged based on findings from that search there is still a possibility to perhaps argue whether it was a lawful search. If you have given consent, then trying to prove that it is an unlawful search becomes much more difficult to impossible.
Plain view is another exception to the requirement for a search warrant that may apply in this case.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 14 2014 09:55:05 AM MST
NY
This was in way upstate NY, hunting areas.
Most people do not realize, upstate NY is like being in the rural south.
In NY you have Reasonable Suspicion to look further, he should have detained until he got a search warrant.
Problem is....reasonable suspicion is not the standard for a search warrant. You have to have probable cause. RAS will give you a consent only. Plus with RAS you cannot detain them for long. Gotta have PC..
Thats why you ask for a judge to give you a search warrant. Why would you need a warrant if you had PC?
Quote from: DAVIDF on November 14 2014 12:51:02 PM MST
I agree with never giving consent. But, one of the exceptions to the requirement of a search warrant is a motor vehicle. This is nation wide, does not pertain to state laws. It relates to precedence established in the Supreme Court ( Carroll v. United States) . Can't insist on a judge hearing the reason. It is not an exception to requiring probable cause, but it is an exception to the requirement to have a judge's ok.
If you give consent, then it probably won't matter whether an officer has probable cause. If you don't give consent, if the officer believes he has probable cause he can proceed and you don't have a choice. If you are charged based on findings from that search there is still a possibility to perhaps argue whether it was a lawful search. If you have given consent, then trying to prove that it is an unlawful search becomes much more difficult to impossible.
Plain view is another exception to the requirement for a search warrant that may apply in this case.
I must say I don't disagree with a single thing you said. Spot on.
I'm also a believer in getting the interaction on video. I'd be letting the officer know I don't consent. I'd say probable cause is fact/facts that lead to a high probability of my committing a crime, and I'd ask what facts and what crime am I being accused of. I'd also try to get the officer to state what they believe they will find in this search. More info is better if you can obtain it. It might get them to see the bigger picture of what they were contemplating.
If an officer is hell bent on searching, you will not stop him/her. Don't try. If they are willing to tread on your rights, they might also decide to put you into some physical or legal jeopardy. All they need to say is "I smell something" and they are in anyway.
Greg
Quote from: Wolfie on November 14 2014 09:55:05 AM MST
NY
This was in way upstate NY, hunting areas.
Most people do not realize, upstate NY is like being in the rural south.
In NY you have Reasonable Suspicion to look further, he should have detained until he got a search warrant.
First, a rifle sitting open/uncased on the back seat of a car, in a Hunting area of NY "IS" Probably Cause for Poaching. I am not defending the officer in this instance in any way. His actions were uncalled for.
As has been mentioned, a Vehicle is under different jurisdiction then your home. A vehicle, other than a Motor Home or Travel Trailer, does not require a judge to issue a search warrant. The only requirement is that the officer requesting the search feels strongly enough to explain to a judge His reason for the search. Again, in a rural hunting area, especially during hunting season, fall and spring, a rifle sitting uncased on a seat is probable cause in and of itself under the poaching laws for the state. It is considered "At Hand" for shooting from a vehicle.
Quote from: Wolfie on November 14 2014 03:10:59 PM MST
Thats why you ask for a judge to give you a search warrant. Why would you need a warrant if you had PC?
This is what we have to do in New Jersey. The courts here have gone in this direction, and it is now my agency's protocol.
This is also the case in other northern states as well. I am working under the presumption that the officer in the above video was trying to operate this way also. An uncased gun would be PC in NJ.
What I DON'T understand is why the officer didn't simply just perform a frisk of the vehicle for weapons, though this would not have given him access the trunk, which he very well may have been trying to get into.
Guys, the individual state constitutions can give the public MORE protection than even what the Federal courts give but not LESS.
So, under the state constitution, the (courts) can require law enforcement to get a search warrant for probable cause during a motor vehicle stop which protects the public MORE. What the state CANNOT do is allow law enforcement to freely search a motor vehicle, say, without probable cause, or allow a search of a residence without a warrant.
I suppose the reason for the courts is to iron these kind of things out.
When reading the links, I assumed the firearm was "boxed", not out in plain sight. The subject was released upon producing a receipt for the firearm "purchased earlier in the day". There is a big difference between the two, and which was true would be big as to probable cause.
A side issue for me is I really haven't understood what crime had been the issue of wanting to do a search. Probable cause doesn't exist without a crime being likely committed. An uncased gun is not considered legal in many states. To my knowledge a gun in a manufacturer's box is legit unless its required to be locked in a compartment.
Greg
More comments from the peanut gallery ;D
I want to give the Sheriff a shout out for investigating the other two deputies that were present at this incident. They should have injected themselves into this and stopped him when he lost control of himself. If not, they should have reported the incident so the Sheriff didn't have to learn of it by a video going viral.
Cops should hold other cops to the same law as they hold the rest of us!!!
Greg
Quote from: Pinsnscrews on November 15 2014 01:24:44 AM MST
The only requirement is that the officer requesting the search feels strongly enough to explain to a judge His reason for the search.
I'm going to disagree with this.
An officers feelings, hunches, or desires have nothing to do with probable cause. Facts leading to near certainty of a crime being committed are what the judge would need to hear.
Greg
Overwhelming majority of Cops I've come into contact with are good and decent people doing a tough, dangerous, thankless job for a very modest living. For which they deserve my deep respect and appreciation. However, as in any other endeavor involving humans.....most are good but small percentages of bad exist. In fact otherwise good people do bad things at times.
Regardless of possible editing for effect; obvious to even the most casual observer, this officer abused his authority. There is simply NO justification for his bullying, threatening behavior and he clearly and uniqvically assaulted the man. The victim was correct to elect not yield his rights; leaving the officer several appropriate options to fulfill his responsibilities well short of physical intimidation and assault and battery.
Unlike some however, I'm not ready to brand this particular Officer a loser for life based on what we've seen. Encapsulating an entire life or body of work into a two minute video seems remarkably unwise and unfair. He's lost his profession and reputation. I would hope he'd face charges like any other citizen based on THIS situation. After that.... "go, and sin no more"
Geeman, the cop had 27 years on the job, it is unlikely that the other 2 had more seniority. If you don't have more seniority, its difficult to criticize a senior officer, not saying it is right, just saying what it is.
Quote from: Geeman on November 15 2014 07:27:47 AM MST
Quote from: Pinsnscrews on November 15 2014 01:24:44 AM MST
The only requirement is that the officer requesting the search feels strongly enough to explain to a judge His reason for the search.
I'm going to disagree with this.
An officers feelings, hunches, or desires have nothing to do with probable cause. Facts leading to near certainty of a crime being committed are what the judge would need to hear.
Greg
What I am saying is that an Officer who does not feel he has enough cause to stand in front of a Judge and explain his reason for Probable Cause is not going to do it. An experienced officer may declare probable cause in the field under "Less Evidence" than a Rookie who just got his butt chewed out by a Judge who declared his Search of a Vehicle invalid two days prior. Either way, both are working under the "Feeling" of if there is enough Cause for the Search.