A question for LEO's

[Emperor]

Many times, a disposition of the charge is NOT shown. It will only show that you were arrested for the charge.

Sometimes the disposition on the charge is given. ie; Plead guilty, received probation, etc. but not EVERY time.

If you've been convicted of a serious FELONY and sent to prison, that information WILL be displayed.

Many people believe their record has been "expunged" but the original arrest may still show.

That was a yes or no answer?

Okay, let's say I want to get a brand new copy (today's date), of MY criminal history (I have two already (1 pre-expungement, 1 post), and I want to compare them. Can a street officer pull that on his/her laptop?

 

[Emperor]

I don't definitively know this answer to the questions about what post expungement info can and can't be seen at street level, but I am willing to be the guinea pig. I have no skeletons in my closet except for that time.......just kidding.

If it can be done without any of you LEO's getting in trouble, I would like to try.

To my direct knowledge you will not have to make an arrest after pulling it, I just really want to know what we come up with.

Update I: I have it on good intel, this experiment is not going to happen! So all you legal voyeurs and criminals with records waiting to see if you can ride the coat tails of my life can suck it!

PM me if doable. If not, no harm no foul; It ain't worth getting in crap over it.

Update II: This still stands! But I win until we find out for sure!

 

[Leadfoot]

The answer to if any cop can pull it up on his laptop - NO.

Criminal histories can only be run at a secure LLETS terminal by someone who has been fingerprinted and documented to do so.

Expungements can and are done. I'm not saying they aren't. But it can only be done by a judge and the documentation has to be sent to the Louisiana State Police for it to happen.

 

[Leonidas]

What about the other part of the 4th Amendment? If there is no probable cause to search one's vehicle/person, it stands to reason that there is no probable cause to seize one's vehicle/person.

No, sir, officer. I do not consent to search. And I do not consent to seizure. So, if I am not under arrest, I will be leaving, now. No, sir. I will not wait for the dog to arrive. Thank you for serving the community and have a pleasant day.

 

[GunRelated]

I was convicted of certain charges in LP when I was 19. I satisfied all terms of my probation and was granted benefits of article 894. After that, I had my attorney file for expungement which was granted. My charges/arrest record/expungement can only be seen when run by LSP. I have had my ID ran by LPSO, Mississippi, and Alabama LEO's and none of them came back with anything. I ran my own record at LSP headquarters and it showed my conviction and that it had been expunged. What I don't understand is the fact that in the court papers of my expungment, it clearly states that ALL records related to this case be destroyed via incineration by LPSO, LSP, and FBI; yet the records are still there on the state level and I am sure the FBI as well. I understand the reasoning of keeping the records, but why make a clear command to destroy them if there is never a plan to do so in the first place. The only way that I know of for your friend to totally get rid of his criminal record (may be different for his misdemeanor charges) is to be granted a pardon. I am currently awaiting Jindal's approval and signature on my own, as I was granted a recommendation from the board.

As far as your question on the stop, I posted about this in the 4th of july checkpoint thread. Sure, you can refuse the search. However, they will likely bring the dogs over and more than likely they will command the dog to hit the car if the dog doesn't hit on his own, which in turn allows them to enter your vehicle even without your consent. Not saying that all LEO's work this way, but it happens everyday to innocent people like yourself. Thank the lord that the seller of the car didn't happen to leave something illegal in the vehicle; that would have cost you a lot of time and money and possibly a record to go with it.

I am curious to hear a definite answer to Leonidas's question.

 

[bigtattoo79]

@ the OP, Are you sure it was your buddy's past and not the "cars" past?

Back in the day I bought a car that had a past and I can say the stops were not fun at all. Now I never buy used cars that stick out.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Thats pretty much what I'm getting at.


And ole heat. He has definitely made a change for the better, he's actually trying to get on with the fire department. Hes passed all the test and talked to the chief about his record when they start hiring again he's on the list.



Some people can change I was just raised to give people the benefit of the doubt. My parents always hired halfway house guys at there rv dealership when I was growing up sometimes they got screwed but that one person out of ten they were able to get in church and truly make a difference in made up for the others.

I would have searched your car with or without the knowledge of the passengers criminal record.

 

[MOTOR51]

What about the other part of the 4th Amendment? If there is no probable cause to search one's vehicle/person, it stands to reason that there is no probable cause to seize one's vehicle/person.

No, sir, officer. I do not consent to search. And I do not consent to seizure. So, if I am not under arrest, I will be leaving, now. No, sir. I will not wait for the dog to arrive. Thank you for serving the community and have a pleasant day.

He could always book him into jail on the traffic violations and then search his vehicle before it was towed off the street.


MOTOR51

 

[Leonidas]

I wondered about that. No tag is an arrestable offense?

 

[Crimson]

Nvm i'm just going to wait on emporer and his experiment I'm not concerned with the stop anymore.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

What about the other part of the 4th Amendment? If there is no probable cause to search one's vehicle/person, it stands to reason that there is no probable cause to seize one's vehicle/person.

No, sir, officer. I do not consent to search. And I do not consent to seizure. So, if I am not under arrest, I will be leaving, now. No, sir. I will not wait for the dog to arrive. Thank you for serving the community and have a pleasant day.

If probable cause exsist to make the stop, in this case the lack of a Liscence plate, the courts have ruled time and time again that a person can be detained for a reasonable amount of
Time while an investigation is conducted. Trying to leave while being detained under those circumstances would likely make the situation far worse.

 

[Leonidas]

Have the courts defined what a reasonable time is?

How long does it take to investigate the absence of a tag?

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

Judges asses what is reasonable during a Probable Cause Hearing. If I stop a car with no plate I'm running the occupants and the VIN as part of my investigation. That can take a Minute. Remember Timmy McVeigh? I do. Your zeal to not consent is admirable but the reality is the smart man goes along with the game in the street and then uses the established channels to handle the grievance via the courts.

 

[Leonidas]

No zeal. Just learning.

What constitutes a reasonable search?

 

[Crimson]

Judges asses what is reasonable during a Probable Cause Hearing. If I stop a car with no plate I'm running the occupants and the VIN as part of my investigation. That can take a Minute. Remember Timmy McVeigh? I do. Your zeal to not consent is admirable but the reality is the smart man goes along with the game in the street and then uses the established channels to handle the grievance via the courts.

pretty much I just went along with it, they are just doing there job, yes to me it was offensive but understandable given the situation, but afterwards I thought about it, and wondered for my friends sake, how long does it take before an officer see's that person as changed. It's just something I'm not accustomed too. I will say this though. I definitely respect what they do, as some people were driving by they were yelling ****ing pig aint got nothing else better to do and other profanities. I wouldn't have the patience for that if I were in law enforcement. They just continued with there job.

The whole underlying question here was once you have a record when if ever can you go on with your life without added hassles.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

A lawful search that doesn't violate the 4th Ammendment. It's a moving target because of the nature of put legal system and the process of Judicial Review. What was reasonable 2 years ago is not today. In this case the reasonableness of the search is moot because the OP Consented to it. To nullify his consent he would have to prove it was given under duress or coerced. If I'm not mistaken no mention of getting a dog wasted the OP just assumed that would be next and even if it had courts have ruled that detector dogs when used in that capacity are investigative tools not coercive tools.

 

[Kraut]

I'm just kind of curious how this works. About a year ago my neighbor was arrested for drug paraphanalia and put on diversion he was 18 at the time and hung with the wrong crowd. When I found out what happened I started mentoring him basically teaching him how to work on cars, etc. Keeping him away from the crowd he was in. He's cleaned up now and off diversion. I became friends with him and he works for my shop now. He was with me the other day and I got pulled over, no tags, just bought the car, I have thirty days to register it so no big deal but they ran his liscense and saw his record. All of a sudden I got profiled for drug use my car searched and everything else. Of course nothing was found. I basically have two questions from the incident. How long after the diversion will it take for the charge to not be visible. And second how is it people are suppose to stay away from their old life and friends to get clean, when the people that befriend them are being profiled for being with them. It really pisses me off because here he is a year later not back on drugs. Getting his life straight and because I took a chance on him I get punished. I have chp, own class iii guns, theres no way I would risk that or my reputation and its extremely embarrassing being searched in public like that having to sit on the hood of a police car. If I had just met him I probably wouldnt have taken the time to help keep him away from his old lifestyle after that. How do you expect people to change if you punish people willing to take a chance on them?

Diversion means he doesn't go before a judge for the charge unless he screws up before being finished. It does not mean automatic expungement of the offense from his record unless particular steps are taken through the judge and courts to achieve that. The majority of first offense DWIs that go through our municipal court are handled by pleading under article 894, it stays off of their driving record, but our local records still reflect the offense. Having that initial charge completely wiped from existence in his records will take a fair amount of paperwork.

You didn't get "profiled," you were stopped for a legitimate reason, and during the course of investigation of the stop the officers noted other circumstances that aroused their suspicion, and then took appropriate actions to either confirm or alleviate those suspicions. Once the suspicions were alleviated, didn't they then let you go?

How is this event going to mess up his life changes? He was briefly suspected but then vindicated.

Consider it from the eyes of the cops: A car they possibly even recognize from the previous shady owners you mention, suddenly seen with no tag giving perfectly valid reason to stop, yet again someone within the car has a drug history, where would you think they would go with those circumstances? Just having one drug arrest doesn't mean the person only committed one offense, it just means the person was CAUGHT once. Who do you think police see more frequently, people who learn their lesson and are never heard from again, or people who never learn their lesson and keep on breaking the law?

I don't know what your or his demeanor was like during the stop, but this may have been more of a positive than you know. Perhaps if the cops do recognize that car but now know it's not owned by the previous shady owners, they won't give it a second glance. Perhaps if they see him again and recall someone who came across as sincerely changed, they will blow off stopping the next car they see him in for some minor infraction. Perhaps they may give more benefit of the doubt to the next person they see you riding around with because they perceived someone making an honest living and giving someone a chance. Maybe they'll know to spend their time checking out someone else. Or, maybe, they'll remember two guys giving exasperated sighs, glaring and crossing their arms, and making snide ******** remarks about "profiling."

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

pretty much I just went along with it, they are just doing there job, yes to me it was offensive but understandable given the situation, but afterwards I thought about it, and wondered for my friends sake, how long does it take before an officer see's that person as changed. It's just something I'm not accustomed too. I will say this though. I definitely respect what they do, as some people were driving by they were yelling ****ing pig aint got nothing else better to do and other profanities. I wouldn't have the patience for that if I were in law enforcement. They just continued with there job.

The whole underlying question here was once you have a record when if ever can you go on with your life without added hassles.

I don't think your passengers arrest had much to do with how the stop was conducted. I would have handled the same way they did and I never run Criminal History's on the road because they take too long.

 

[Crimson]

A lawful search that doesn't violate the 4th Ammendment. It's a moving target because of the nature of put legal system and the process of Judicial Review. What was reasonable 2 years ago is not today. In this case the reasonableness of the search is moot because the OP Consented to it. To nullify his consent he would have to prove it was given under duress or coerced. If I'm not mistaken no mention of getting a dog wasted the OP just assumed that would be next and even if it had courts have ruled that detector dogs when used in that capacity are investigative tools not coercive tools.

yes I have always assumed if you refuse search it's reason for them to think your hiding something and they would bring out the dogs, as far as them being an investigative tool, vs. a coercive tool, I didn't know that. I'm asking questions here because I don't know what common procedure is I don't know how it's suppose to work because I've never been in that situation. Had I been in my truck and pulled over for tint or something I would have still granted search to avoid the hassle of them bringing out dogs (if they do every time you refuse I don't know) I just wouldn't have been nervouse about knowing that I bought that truck new and all thats in it is my junk. not someone else's.

If you refuse search do they always bring dogs or is that just my assumption.

 

[Vanilla Gorilla]

yes I have always assumed if you refuse search it's reason for them to think your hiding something and they would bring out the dogs, as far as them being an investigative tool, vs. a coercive tool, I didn't know that. I'm asking questions here because I don't know what common procedure is I don't know how it's suppose to work because I've never been in that situation. Had I been in my truck and pulled over for tint or something I would have still granted search to avoid the hassle of them bringing out dogs (if they do every time you refuse I don't know) I just wouldn't have been nervouse about knowing that I bought that truck new and all thats in it is my junk. not someone else's.

If you refuse search do they always bring dogs or is that just my assumption.

Whether or not a dog is employed depends on so many variables its impossible to predict. The difference between coercive use and investigative use is simple. If I say I want you permission to search your vehicle if you don't give it to me I will have my dog bite you I have coerced you. If I say if you refuse I will use my dog to detect contravbamd I have not.