So Isiah Thomas was caught driving without a license, made a traffic violation, and was let off with a ticket? I can see why Rocket River would be so upset. The might as well have just lynched him for all that injustice, it would basically be the same thing.
Thats even worse than not having it at all. Zeke is a r****d. A hell of a basketball player but a total ass.
I think it is just the opposite. Sometimes, there is injustice and police harrassment. When that happens you need to speak up and denounce it (which Thomas has not done, btw; if harrassment did take place, which was never publically alleged, Thomas does the whole country a disservice by keeping quiet about it). But, if no injustice has occured, to suggest one has only deepens a rift between the groups in conflict. I'm all for putting a stop to racial police harrassment. But minorities are going to have to cut the cops some slack too. Admit that sometimes minorities commit crimes and sometimes the cops operate completely within the parameters of justice. If you cry racism every time a policeman and a black man cross paths then the policeman will know he can never get a fair shake because folks are prejudiced against him for being a cop. These situations have to be judged on their merits. In this case, no one with particular knowledge is saying the cops did anything at all wrong. So, why should anyone assume an harrassment that was never reported?
<blockquote><hr>sometimes the cops operate completely within the parameters of justice. <hr></blockquote> Not this time Juan. As described, that was an unlawful search. They are only allowed to search with consent, and only for reason that a felony crime is being committed or they are in the process of committing such crime. Cash (short of a full briefcase of cash) is usually not a valid reason. As described, had they found something illegal in that situation the search would have been supressed as unlawful . . . and not just because it was Isiah Thomas. Handcuffing him briefly is pretty extreme already, imo. But the search takes the cake and is c l a s s i c harrassment. There is also the issue that if he is not under arrest or there is no suspicion of a crime was/is/or is about to be commited, they cannot even open his briefcase. That's why I asked if Isiah was under arrest. believe what you want, but in my book, unlawful searches are 100% police harassment in 100% of the cases, regardless of minority status.
HP, if the search was indeed illegal, I'm behind you 100% (well maybe 99% - I still think Thomas was being an ass in not identifying himself). But, I'm unclear as to the legality or illegality of the search. It was my assumption in reading the articles that Thomas' consent to search his vehicle for his wallet was given when he indicated that his wallet was in his car. So, the cops had the right to look into the car. The money was found during the search for the wallet. At this point, the cops know they have someone from out of state driving late at night, breaking traffic laws, and carrying around a lot of cash. Do they need a warrant at that point to conduct a search without permission (we don't know, btw, if Thomas' consent was requested or given)? I'm not sufficiently familiar with the Indiana laws and court decisions that affect this call to say in any definite way. It seems to me they had reasonable suspicion that he was in the act of a crime (transporting drugs). If they were to pursue a warrant before searching the car, they would have to jail Thomas in the meantime to do it. Harrassment or not, though, what is up with refusing to provide ID when he's stopped? Do you think Thomas provided ID and they started to arrest him anyway and then made up a story when they found out it was Isiah freaking Thomas? If so, why didn't Thomas address that in his statement?
Juan, The Supreme Court had a very famous unanimous ruling on this. That search of the brief case was conducted when Isiah was under arrest (in handcuffs in the squad car). That is illegal. Isiah is already under arrest and the officer needs no more evidence for a refusal to identify charge. As incident to arrest, they are allowed to search for weapons which includes the passenger compartment and unlocked containers, but being that they already had him handcuffed, the ruling is there is no threat anymore. The Supreme Court unanimously said that you cannot ever search a car subsequent to a traffic ticket. And if it is an identification issue, then you can arrest them with no more need to search for evidence. The briefcase search was illegal. The dog search was further illegal by extension, and using an envelope of cash to start a full dog search will not hold up under the requirement that a felony crime was committed or is about to be.
<blockquote><hr>Harrassment or not, though, what is up with refusing to provide ID when he's stopped? <hr></blockquote> Juan, Call him an ******* all you want, but Law Enforcement Harrassment is intolerable. This has nothing to do with what Isiah did or said. imo, the cops were trying to harass him for his attitude to the point of doing unlawful searches. Cops are not allowed to make arrests just to punish people at traffic stops, and they are not allowed to do unlawful searches to punish people. That all constitutes harassment. They can arrest him and impound the vehicle and get a search warrant on the vehicle (which would have been denied). But they didn't do that. They harassed him, instead.
The article said he had "identification" (library card, NRA, breast inspectors card), but didn't specify whether he had a license or not. Him not having it makes more sense, but it could still go either way.
Invisible Fan, Just to clarify, with no point trying to be made, there are other articles that describe it better. There was a license in the wallet in the briefcase. He was given a traffic ticket. They did not ticket him for failure to identify, or lack of driver's license. here is the better article: http://www.indystar.com/print/articles/7/007067-2917-009.html
bobrek, Yeah, I really did not know, or think that he was arrested. Not under arrest would make everything twice as bad for what the cops did. However, I checked on that, and he is considered arrested upon handcuffing. According to the Supreme Court, the definition of arrest is whenever the person is reasonably aware that they are under arrest. The two examples cited are: (1) when the officer says so, and (2) when the officer handcuffs you or otherwise prevents your free movment. If you are handcuffed in a squad car, you are considered under arrest at that time. After they arrest you, if they want to investigate further with questions (as they did with Thomas), they are required to begin that after-arrest investigation with stating your Miranda rights. Without Miranda, nothing you say or they find due to what you say is admissable. just pure, utter harrassment.
I've been stopped by cops while riding w/ black friends in their cars approximately 12 times over the years. From NY to TX to LA. Every single time the pullover was completely unwarranted and the cop would fabricate some bs reason for having stopped us. The best one I remember was "You were driving like you looked a little lost and I just wanted to help you out with directions - where exactly are ya'll heading to?"
SJC, Let me say it again: The police under no circumstances can search a car during a traffic ticket citation. That is 100% absolutely correct. And it was a unanimous decision. Here are Rehnquist opening statement to the Fowles v Iowa decision: <blockquote><hr>Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. An Iowa police officer stopped petitioner Knowles for speeding, but issued him a citation rather than arresting him. The question presented is whether such a procedure authorizes the officer, consistently with the Fourth Amendment, to conduct a full search of the car. We answer this question "no."<hr></blockquote> Further, they cannot arrest for identication, place someone in a car, and go back to search the car for weapons/evidence. There is no further evidence required, and possible weapons are no longer an issue. There is no exception to the warrant requirement in this case, as described. A search incident to arrest does not apply here.
But isn't it true (not that it necessarily applies in this case) that if in stopping someone for a traffic ticket, you happen to see something in plain view (i.e. drugs, gun, paraphenalia, etc.) an officer then has the right to search the car and/or the driver?
this is a different animal HP. The police cannot search a vehicle over just a citation, but that isn't relevant here. Thomas was placed under arrest because he refused to identify himself. Like it or not, the cops can do that. Once arrested (as opposed to just a citation), they can search the vehicle. They found a wad of cash (a BIT of probably cause, but it's not like law is usually black and white), and so initatied the drug sniffing dog. This is NOT harrassment. This is a celebrity thinking he should be treated differently.
You misunderstand. Look, I could explain it to you, but then I would have to charge you. Let me just leave it at that: "The police under no circumstances can search a car during a traffic ticket citation." is obviously not correct. What would have been correct would have been to say that a mere traffic citation by itself does not constitute probable cause for a search. And a sidenote, just because you try to say things with more verve ("Let me say it again") does not make it more correct .
bobrek, What you said doesn't apply here, just like you said. I never disagreed with your point. Your point is Michigan v Long. But Long's pot was viewable from outside the car, not like the pipe found inside Knowles's car. Pole, That is why I asked if he was arrested. What defines warrantless searches in that case is New York v Belton. But the actual Belton search was because the officer smelled burnt mar1juana. The search is intended to be for the purpose of officer safety (weapons that Thomas could regain control of) and finding evidence of the crime they were arresting for. None of the judgements suggest they should be searching beyond the need for safety or for crimes that have nothing to do with the arrest. All of them involved clear evidence of illicit substances. Rehnquist directly says finding evidence of another crime seems remote. Hence the interpretation that openning the fanny pack was unreasonable considering weapons are not a threat, and Thomas told them the license was in the wallet. and in the end, they admit to profiling him based on being out-of-state license with cash in his fanny pack.
SJC, You misunderstand. seriously, have you read the opinion. The police officer admitted he had no probable cause to search, so that was already established. Iowa was saying that he didn't need it, that he could still do a search incident to citation. The Supreme Court said unequivocally "No," it is only permissible to "search incident to arrest." on a sidenote: do you realize that stats have shown that 40% of searches are unconstitutional.
