Michigan State Police Defend Themselves

21Apr/1110

Michigan State Police Defend Themselves

I was initially skeptical when I read the foxnews report yesterday, and Dan's reference to the issue didn't change my skepticism. Cops aren't stupid, and they all have to work with prosecutors to build cases. None of them want to be the guy who brings about a lawsuit that ends up creating case law that is detrimental to their work, so they tend to be very careful with how they search vehicles. This includes the way they access cell phones.

It seems my skepticism is somewhat validated, although not completely because it's still a he-said/he-said deal. My initial complaint, and still my main one, is that conservatives who can't stand the ACLU are buying the ACLU's accusations without reservation. The ACLU was basing their allegation on nothing more than the fact that the MSP actually has the machines that can download cell phone data. They mentioned no citizen complaints, which the MSP says don't exist anyway (a claim that can easily be debunked if it's false). Well, that's not their only basis, the other being their general animosity towards police anyway.

Adam Wells

Living life at 84 mph and 7000 feet. All I ask is that you don't block traffic, act like a professional, and don't act all surprised when your actions have consequences. Oh, and don't complain about the refs; trust me, they don't care if your team wins or not.

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (10) Trackbacks (0) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Dan Collins
April 21st, 2011 - 18:21

Agree I should have been more skeptical, but concerned that they haven’t disavowed use at traffic stops. It was in the context of the Denver story about police selling impounded cars of exonerated drivers that I reacted.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Adam Wells
  April 22nd, 2011 - 08:40
  
  Regarding the use at traffic stops, I’m not as concerned. Mainly, they hadn’t really responded to the accusations at all yet; they were probably making sure before they commented. In one sense, it’s what the FDL should have done in your other story. I don’t mean waiting to make sure everyone has their story straight; I mean waiting to make sure the person issuing the statement had all the pertinent facts. That, and traffic stops that lead to investigations almost always start as routine traffic stops. Besides, their discussing this with the freaking ACLU; they’re bound to be a bit careful with their language here.
  As for the context regarding Denver; that doesn’t fall on the DPD. It falls on the city of Denver for passing that ordinance to begin with. I’ll have to do some research on that issue today if I can fit it in at work. Again, it has a fishy ring to it that gives me pause.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
quiznilo
April 21st, 2011 - 19:13

Knowing the police, and their predilections for abuse and over-reach, I didn’t see anything in the article that surprised me. Not only do I consider myself conservative, but have nothing but animus towards the ACLU. Even so, this does not mitigate my distrust of the police. Frankly, this sounds like something they would pull.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Mr. Galt
April 21st, 2011 - 19:16

I would take exception to your contention that the police “aren’t stupid” and they tend to “be very careful with how they search vehicles.” Indeed, I’ve seen several abuses of this type in the area where I live, including trumped up charges of “resisting arrest”, “suspicious behavior”, etc. The reality you’re ignoring, is that most juries probably believe whatever the cops say, and many people haven’t the financial resources or internal fortitude to fight gratuitous abuses of police power. And no, I’m not talking about the ghettos, but even in suburban areas.

Odd this involves the Michigan State Police. In the afore-mentioned police abuse cases, they were eventually called in to investigate some serious violations of the civil rights of citizens in my rather small town, after 2 officers were accused of sexually harassing and abusing underage girls (and that was just the tip of the iceberg). Although the officers in question were fired, the investigation results were mysteriously never made available, and the story was buried. These clowns look out for their own, not you, not me.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
jefferson101
April 21st, 2011 - 22:01

If they have the ability to do it, they will. They may not have done so just yet, but they will, just because they can.

We’ve already established that complaining about TSA is a reason for TSA to harass you. We’ve already established that disrespecting the NYPD will get you arrested. We’ve already established that they will steal vehicles from people who are innocent of any crime. (They’ll also steal your cash, if you have more than they think you ought to.)

Why would you think that they would not tap into your cell phone if they wanted to do so? If you can’t prove that they actually did it, that’s even more reason to assume that they would.

I know a whole lot of LE folks who are upright and solid folks. But I wouldn’t put that past any of them, if they thought they could do it undetected. They all play a “Us versus Them” game, a lot of the time, and anyone that they don’t personally know is “Them”, and there are no rules as long as whatever they do can go undetected in the violation of them.

As I noted. They are no longer “Peace Officers”. They’re Law Enforcement, and they will find a law to enforce if they want to do so.

Salve, Sclave!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
sammy small
April 21st, 2011 - 23:33

When confronted by the police, just remember that they have ALL the power, and you have none at that moment. You can certainly withhold consent, but you will pay in other ways. They will harass you because they CAN, with the backing of their legal structure. You will be accused of any number of offenses as justification for an arrest. They will make up whatever works for them. They know all the standard phrases to write up in their reports. It happens all over.

I’m following one civil rights lawsuit in San Diego that is going to be a whopper when it comes to trial, probably in the millions. The city attorney will be hating life about that time. The police, well, they don’t really care.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- Adam Wells
  April 22nd, 2011 - 08:43
  
  Good grief, virtually everything they do now is on camera; audio and video. If you deny consent, they can’t do the stuff you accuse them of. Feel free to deny if you so choose. There are other reasons to consent, but fear of retribution is not one of them.
  
  Again, not that there aren’t isolated cases of this, but the problem isn’t systemic or even widespread.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )
  - SDN
    April 22nd, 2011 - 17:24
    
    Oh, you mean like the audio and video that mysteriously completely disappeared after the guy was shot by the cops while attempting to comply with their instructions in Las Vegas last year?
    
    Which leads to at least one motive for this: how eager would you be to try and film these guys knowing that all your contact info could be seized for future attention?
    
    Like or Dislike: 0 0
    ( REPLY )
    - Adam Wells
      April 22nd, 2011 - 17:37
      
      I’m not saying there aren’t dirty cops. Hell, 400 in NYC are looking at varying degrees of disciplinary action for fixing tickets.
      
      I’m not even saying there aren’t dirty cops that run some departments.
      
      I am saying, however, that it’s wrong to simply assume the worst of every department simply because they possess an investigative tool that could possibly be abused.
      
      I can’t speak to the Vegas issue because I don’t know enough background. But next time you think a cop may have overreacted, remember, just for a second, all the cops who have been killed on “routine” duty assignments such as traffic stops.
      
      Sometimes, the camera batteries fail. Sometimes, they get tampered with. Usually people lose jobs and do jail time over that, but not always. But does that mean we take all their tools away?
      
      Like or Dislike: 0 0
Adam Wells
April 22nd, 2011 - 08:36

You all can take exception to it all you want, but the fact is it’s true. I never said there weren’t abuses, but I will say they aren’t generally systemic. From what I’m reading here, you guys think it’s systemic everywhere. That’s just paranoia, folks, plain and simple. Well, that and perhaps some willful ignorance.

Cops may balk at the idea that there may be dirty cops in their midst, but I can tell you definitively that they hate the dirty cops even more than you do because it makes their job harder. They hate them for the same reason, albeit on a different level, that I hate Tim Donaghy and Bradley Manning. Because idiots take isolated cases of abuse and extrapolate that to assume cops will abuse their authority “just because they can.” That’s a ridiculous blanket assumption.

Will a cop abuse it? Perhaps, but are you going to take all their tools away just because one is bound to abuse them?

Monitor them (and believe me, these tools are monitored), but don’t handcuff them out of ignorance and fear.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )