Is this a common occurrence???

[2003RedfireCobra]

Just wondering if this was common? I never thought you could make the dog indicate a drug find. Im not starting trouble just wondering. I hope you can post videos here. If not my bad, can you tell me where to post them?



Cop Abuses Power By Searching Star Trek Fans Car For No Reason Video

 

[svtcop]

tl;dw

 

[2003RedfireCobra]

tl;dw

Thanks for your opinion svtcop.

 

[jshen]

Mma

The question you pose suggests you believe, hook, line and sinker, all the video and comments posted by the trekker to be true. My answer is "yes" idiots can post defamatory videos on the web and by virtue of their comments have people, like you, obviously believing trekker is innocent victim.

First of all- in my career I have reviewed hundreds of such video encounters.
The reason for the stop is not on video and therefore, since officer says he was weaving and driver says he wasn't- who do you believe- one who is paid to watch or two trekkers who may have been discussing day's events and not paying attention.

Second, just because officer says motherf**cker in his car to himself..isn't wrong. In fact of what I view as argumentative and an increasingly upset driver, officer's behavior was quite good.

Third, the officer does have the right to briefly hold one on the highway- here the offense was weaving- while the officer fully investigates and cases in my area hold that wait can be as long as 40 minutes. So officer is ok here.

Fourth, dog cases I've handled also involve a walk around from a standard point such as the front. My handlers don't talk with dog until after scan regardless of results- then after scan they will reward. But the tape has been altered with editors comments and video proving to me this video is not to be, and cannot legally, be trusted....That's why trekkers version is inadmissible as evidence. The unedited version- whatever it shows is the "best evidence" and only that can come in to evidence.

In answer to the question "Can officers search your car based upon a legal stop and alert by drug dog?" Absolutely yes. Many cases hold the alert by a drug dog OR an officer on the smell of narcotics is sufficient to warrant a search of a car. For the officer, he must be able to articulate through his experience his ability to smell drugs. [ Case in point Ga State Trooper stops car on I-16 and smells raw marijuana- 40 lbs of it coming from car. - The marijuana was kept for jury to smell. I could smell it from my office when it came in building]

Two, should you believe internet posters on the web? Since we had all the blend ins of other scenes- it's obviously been altered and is not admissible evidence. This person has record and didn't share with officer. This person is the one who had motive to lie and obviously edited and manufactured the video-

I spent a lot of time trying to answer you- but next time try phrasing your question in an acceptable way.

 

[mswaim]

Keep in mind, these are grown men who hang out at trekker conventions. How pathetic is that?? :loser:

 

[RDJ]

Keep in mind, these are grown men who hang out at trekker conventions. How pathetic is that?? :loser:

look I am normally on the side of Law enforcement but this comment is just stupid. there is nothing wrong with going to a trekker convention. and it does not make one a loser. and no, I have not been to one, yet.

 

[oldmodman]

What a crappy video site. Too long a wait to fast forward. Then there is no funny.

And as a final slap in the face there is no "thumbs down" to give to it.

 

[type911]

There may be more to this. Looking for more credible sources. But if we are going to question the integrity of people based on their hobby we should also look at past legal troubles.
Pro Libertate

In 2006, Reichert was fired by the Collinsville PD “after a federal judge ruled he lied during a drug trial,” reported the April 19, 2009 edition of StLtoday.com. “They also cited a conviction on federal charges that he sold knockoff designer sunglasses." Irrespective of the merits of the federal case, Reichart was consciously defrauding consumers.

With the help of his union, Reichert appealed that ruling, and was he was reinstated in March 2009. However, about a month later the Collinsville Police and Fire Board suspended him without pay after “federal prosecutors … raised new concerns against Reichert again questioning his trustworthiness.”

 

[mswaim]

look I am normally on the side of Law enforcement but this comment is just stupid. there is nothing wrong with going to a trekker convention. and it does not make one a loser. and no, I have not been to one, yet.

Your entitled to your opinion, as am I.

 

[svtcop]

Thanks for your opinion svtcop.

Anything I can do to help. :thumbsup:

See below

next time try phrasing your question in an acceptable way.

So can you tell us what exactly are you wanting to know? Is what a common occurrence?

 

[svtcop]

look I am normally on the side of Law enforcement but this comment is just stupid. there is nothing wrong with going to a trekker convention. and it does not make one a loser. and no, I have not been to one, yet.

This where someone comments about the klingons near uranus. oke:

What a crappy video site. Too long a wait to fast forward. Then there is no funny.

And as a final slap in the face there is no "thumbs down" to give to it.

You can find it on youtube.

 

[carrrnuttt]

The question you pose suggests you believe, hook, line and sinker, all the video and comments posted by the trekker to be true. My answer is "yes" idiots can post defamatory videos on the web and by virtue of their comments have people, like you, obviously believing trekker is innocent victim.

First of all- in my career I have reviewed hundreds of such video encounters.
The reason for the stop is not on video and therefore, since officer says he was weaving and driver says he wasn't- who do you believe- one who is paid to watch or two trekkers who may have been discussing day's events and not paying attention.

Second, just because officer says motherf**cker in his car to himself..isn't wrong. In fact of what I view as argumentative and an increasingly upset driver, officer's behavior was quite good.

Third, the officer does have the right to briefly hold one on the highway- here the offense was weaving- while the officer fully investigates and cases in my area hold that wait can be as long as 40 minutes. So officer is ok here.

Fourth, dog cases I've handled also involve a walk around from a standard point such as the front. My handlers don't talk with dog until after scan regardless of results- then after scan they will reward. But the tape has been altered with editors comments and video proving to me this video is not to be, and cannot legally, be trusted....That's why trekkers version is inadmissible as evidence. The unedited version- whatever it shows is the "best evidence" and only that can come in to evidence.

In answer to the question "Can officers search your car based upon a legal stop and alert by drug dog?" Absolutely yes. Many cases hold the alert by a drug dog OR an officer on the smell of narcotics is sufficient to warrant a search of a car. For the officer, he must be able to articulate through his experience his ability to smell drugs. [ Case in point Ga State Trooper stops car on I-16 and smells raw marijuana- 40 lbs of it coming from car. - The marijuana was kept for jury to smell. I could smell it from my office when it came in building]

Two, should you believe internet posters on the web? Since we had all the blend ins of other scenes- it's obviously been altered and is not admissible evidence. This person has record and didn't share with officer. This person is the one who had motive to lie and obviously edited and manufactured the video-

I spent a lot of time trying to answer you- but next time try phrasing your question in an acceptable way.

Awesome. Question the credibility of the citizen [and those that chose to pay attention to him] even though there's even less evidence of the citizen's dishonesty as there is for the officer in question. Is this some kind of natural reaction taught to you at at PO Academy? Because we didn't get that in CO Academy.

Oh, and what about officer Riechert's prior charges and one conviction? Does that change your perspective a bit?

Funny how you should mention the video being "altered," when you know that A) you can always ask the guy who posted the video for the original, or B) there's always FOI, which is how the dashcam footage was obtained in the first place.

So, going back, you question the "alterations" in the video, yet don't take into mind that you can prove that such disingenuous changes easily. So why would the filmmaker incriminate himself in a such a way?

The dude's not even going to sue, despite the leeches and sharks that have been undoubtedly contacting him to take on his case. He just basically took time and money from himself to make sure that people are aware of Ofc. Riechert.

 

[FordSVTFan]

The question you pose suggests you believe, hook, line and sinker, all the video and comments posted by the trekker to be true. My answer is "yes" idiots can post defamatory videos on the web and by virtue of their comments have people, like you, obviously believing trekker is innocent victim.

First of all- in my career I have reviewed hundreds of such video encounters.
The reason for the stop is not on video and therefore, since officer says he was weaving and driver says he wasn't- who do you believe- one who is paid to watch or two trekkers who may have been discussing day's events and not paying attention.

Second, just because officer says motherf**cker in his car to himself..isn't wrong. In fact of what I view as argumentative and an increasingly upset driver, officer's behavior was quite good.

Third, the officer does have the right to briefly hold one on the highway- here the offense was weaving- while the officer fully investigates and cases in my area hold that wait can be as long as 40 minutes. So officer is ok here.

Fourth, dog cases I've handled also involve a walk around from a standard point such as the front. My handlers don't talk with dog until after scan regardless of results- then after scan they will reward. But the tape has been altered with editors comments and video proving to me this video is not to be, and cannot legally, be trusted....That's why trekkers version is inadmissible as evidence. The unedited version- whatever it shows is the "best evidence" and only that can come in to evidence.

In answer to the question "Can officers search your car based upon a legal stop and alert by drug dog?" Absolutely yes. Many cases hold the alert by a drug dog OR an officer on the smell of narcotics is sufficient to warrant a search of a car. For the officer, he must be able to articulate through his experience his ability to smell drugs. [ Case in point Ga State Trooper stops car on I-16 and smells raw marijuana- 40 lbs of it coming from car. - The marijuana was kept for jury to smell. I could smell it from my office when it came in building]

Two, should you believe internet posters on the web? Since we had all the blend ins of other scenes- it's obviously been altered and is not admissible evidence. This person has record and didn't share with officer. This person is the one who had motive to lie and obviously edited and manufactured the video-

I spent a lot of time trying to answer you- but next time try phrasing your question in an acceptable way.

Jeff, thanks for saving me a lot of typing. :beer:

 

[svtcop]

Awesome. Question the credibility of the citizen [and those that chose to pay attention to him] even though there's even less evidence of the citizen's dishonesty as there is for the officer in question. Is this some kind of natural reaction taught to you at at PO Academy? Because we didn't get that in CO Academy.

Oh, and what about officer Riechert's prior charges and one conviction? Does that change your perspective a bit?

Funny how you should mention the video being "altered," when you know that A) you can always ask the guy who posted the video for the original, or B) there's always FOI, which is how the dashcam footage was obtained in the first place.

So, going back, you question the "alterations" in the video, yet don't take into mind that you can prove that such disingenuous changes easily. So why would the filmmaker incriminate himself in a such a way?

The dude's not even going to sue, despite the leeches and sharks that have been undoubtedly contacting him to take on his case. He just basically took time and money from himself to make sure that people are aware of Ofc. Collins.

Ofc. Collins?

 

[carrrnuttt]

Ofc. Collins?

Oops. Was thinking of Collinsvile, IL.

 

[jshen]

Awesome. Question the credibility of the citizen [and those that chose to pay attention to him] even though there's even less evidence of the citizen's dishonesty as there is for the officer in question. Is this some kind of natural reaction taught to you at at PO Academy? Because we didn't get that in CO Academy.

Oh, and what about officer Riechert's prior charges and one conviction? Does that change your perspective a bit?

Funny how you should mention the video being "altered," when you know that A) you can always ask the guy who posted the video for the original, or B) there's always FOI, which is how the dashcam footage was obtained in the first place.

So, going back, you question the "alterations" in the video, yet don't take into mind that you can prove that such disingenuous changes easily. So why would the filmmaker incriminate himself in a such a way?

The dude's not even going to sue, despite the leeches and sharks that have been undoubtedly contacting him to take on his case. He just basically took time and money from himself to make sure that people are aware of Ofc. Riechert.

You obviously do NOT understand rules of evidence as you just don't know what is acceptable in court and what is not...Someone saying officer has a record is not admissible...nor do I accept that without proof of a certified convictions in hand. Same for you...some may say you are a convicted *whatever* but I would not believe it until I see conviction in hand...

Anyone can alter a video and I have seen quite a few- that's why the original is the only one admissible AND there has to be proof that it was not altered in any way. By the way the COPY of the dash cam from the agency is not admissible in and of itself...nor is the edited version. If posting something on YouTube makes one a "filmmaker"- then I guess there are millions out there and no I am not so gullable to believe what I see there.

The trekker has no case- based on this video. None. If you think so...please pm the name of the lawyer who does...

 

[Njc0las]

Barry cooper said he used to make his dog false alert all the time.