On Mon, 26 May 2003 20:09:14 GMT, brown@a1.us (BB) wrote:
McSting lacked franchise approvalU.S. 41 drive-through officer catches law-breaking customersBy MIKE HOYEMFort Myers police recently manned a new battle station in their fightagainst crime: the drive-through window at McDonald's.Dressed as a McDonald's employee, an undercover officer worked thedrive-through window March 21 and April 25 and spotted enoughwrongdoing inside customers' cars to warrant six arrests and 29citations.
The law probably requires anyone working in a McDonalds to have a
Health Card to ensure they don't have TB, etc. Did the cop working
the window have such a card? If not, he should be prosecuted to the
fullest extent of the law. I'm sure that, as usual, the illegality on
the part of the cops will be completely ignored.
--
Remove HEADfromBUTTOCKS to reply
Jingo.
06-29-2003, 09:00 PM
"> >Dressed as a McDonald's employee, an undercover officer worked thedrive-through window March 21 and April 25 and spotted enoughwrongdoing inside customers' cars to warrant six arrests and 29citations. The law probably requires anyone working in a McDonalds to have a Health Card to ensure they don't have TB, etc. Did the cop working the window have such a card? If not, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure that, as usual, the illegality on the part of the cops will be completely ignored.
Most cops have MORE documentation than that health card to show their
lack of TB among other things. But the question is, did that cop have the
LEGAL right to be there in the capacity of a cop. 'Plain View' doctrine
applies to an officer who is walking past a car for a reason OTHER than to
look into that car, and if he sees something illegal, he can make an arrest.
So, if there was a LEGAL reason for that cop to be dressed like a McD's
employee, he'd be okay (i.e., to look for marijuana sales customers from
probable cause that there has been marijuana sales by employees through that
window). But if it was simply to 'fish' for things, it's unconstitutional.
Jingo.
Barry Bridges
06-29-2003, 09:29 PM
"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
news:DBOLa.2769$zE.670@fe1.columbus.rr.com... "> >Dressed as a McDonald's employee, an undercover officer worked thedrive-through window March 21 and April 25 and spotted enoughwrongdoing inside customers' cars to warrant six arrests and 29citations. The law probably requires anyone working in a McDonalds to have a Health Card to ensure they don't have TB, etc. Did the cop working the window have such a card? If not, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I'm sure that, as usual, the illegality on the part of the cops will be completely ignored. Most cops have MORE documentation than that health card to show their lack of TB among other things. But the question is, did that cop have the LEGAL right to be there in the capacity of a cop. 'Plain View' doctrine applies to an officer who is walking past a car for a reason OTHER than to look into that car, and if he sees something illegal, he can make an
arrest. So, if there was a LEGAL reason for that cop to be dressed like a McD's employee, he'd be okay (i.e., to look for marijuana sales customers from probable cause that there has been marijuana sales by employees through
that window). But if it was simply to 'fish' for things, it's unconstitutional.
Actually the plain view doctrine applies at any time. Any time a cop sees
something that is illegal, he can make an arrest for it whether it's through
a McDonald's drive through window, or if it's on a traffic stop. Fishing
expeditions are legal and have been upheld by the courts. In other words,
if you don't want to go to jail, don't carry marijuana in your car.
--
jaybird
I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.
---------
Jingo.
06-29-2003, 09:55 PM
"> Actually the plain view doctrine applies at any time. Any time a cop
sees something that is illegal, he can make an arrest for it whether it's
through a McDonald's drive through window, or if it's on a traffic stop.
I've known it to be constitutional *IF* that cop has a LEGAL right to be
there, which encompasses most situations, but bars 'fishing' expeditions in
a situation where a cop is walking down side streets in the hood with the
purpose of looking into every car. However, I agree, and stand corrected,
that it is constitutional to have a fishing expedition in the McD's case.
Jingo.
Barry Bridges
06-30-2003, 07:10 AM
"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
news:PoPLa.5372$ND.1910@fe2.columbus.rr.com... "> Actually the plain view doctrine applies at any time. Any time a cop sees something that is illegal, he can make an arrest for it whether it's through a McDonald's drive through window, or if it's on a traffic stop. I've known it to be constitutional *IF* that cop has a LEGAL right to be there, which encompasses most situations, but bars 'fishing' expeditions
in a situation where a cop is walking down side streets in the hood with the purpose of looking into every car. However, I agree, and stand corrected, that it is constitutional to have a fishing expedition in the McD's case.
I think it would apply in that situation too. If the vehicles are parked in
a public place, anything observed in plain view is admissible whether the
cop was looking in every car, or just looking randomly.
--
jaybird
I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.
---------
Skip
06-30-2003, 08:19 AM
On Mon, 30 Jun 2003 14:10:27 GMT, "jaybird" <nospam@me.com> wrote:
"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in messagenews:PoPLa.5372$ND.1910@fe2.columbus.rr.com ... "> Actually the plain view doctrine applies at any time. Any time a cop sees something that is illegal, he can make an arrest for it whether it's through a McDonald's drive through window, or if it's on a traffic stop. I've known it to be constitutional *IF* that cop has a LEGAL right to be there, which encompasses most situations, but bars 'fishing' expeditionsin a situation where a cop is walking down side streets in the hood with the purpose of looking into every car. However, I agree, and stand corrected, that it is constitutional to have a fishing expedition in the McD's case.I think it would apply in that situation too. If the vehicles are parked ina public place, anything observed in plain view is admissible whether thecop was looking in every car, or just looking randomly.
The plain fact is, according to the Supreme Court, "The eye cannot
commit a trespass." If you don't want anyone to see what you have,
hide it.
Jingo.
06-30-2003, 06:40 PM
"> I think it would apply in that situation too. If the vehicles are parked
in a public place, anything observed in plain view is admissible whether the cop was looking in every car, or just looking randomly.
Hm. I was told by a lawyer-cop (and a Lt. of a major Police Department
at that) that if a cop were to admit he was looking in that car without
reasonable suspicion, and had approached that car just to look into it, it'd
be unconstitutional.
Jingo.
Barry Bridges
06-30-2003, 09:24 PM
"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
news:LE5Ma.7175$xv.3514@fe3.columbus.rr.com... "> I think it would apply in that situation too. If the vehicles are
parked in a public place, anything observed in plain view is admissible whether
the cop was looking in every car, or just looking randomly. Hm. I was told by a lawyer-cop (and a Lt. of a major Police Department at that) that if a cop were to admit he was looking in that car without reasonable suspicion, and had approached that car just to look into it,
it'd be unconstitutional.
I'd tend to disagree, and there are a few court cases out there that are
important in determining this. A few deal with these situations and clearly
state that an officer does not need reasonable suspicion to approach a
person sitting in a car in a public place. The person is free to leave and
doesn't have to answer questions if they're not officially detained. But,
if something is viewed during that approach, it is admissible.
--
jaybird
I am not the cause of your problems. I am the result of your actions...
Your life is not my fault.
---------
Cricket
06-30-2003, 09:38 PM
"Jingo." <Martian@columbus.rr.deletethissection.com> wrote in message
news:LE5Ma.7175$xv.3514@fe3.columbus.rr.com... "> I think it would apply in that situation too. If the vehicles are
parked in a public place, anything observed in plain view is admissible whether
the cop was looking in every car, or just looking randomly. Hm. I was told by a lawyer-cop (and a Lt. of a major Police Department at that) that if a cop were to admit he was looking in that car without reasonable suspicion, and had approached that car just to look into it,
it'd be unconstitutional. Jingo.
Are you sure he didn't mean looking as in when you're looking in your in a
cupboard for something; ie, opening it and rummaging a bit, as opposed to
just "looking"? The yardstick for admissible that I've always been told was
that if you (or a cop) could see something without having to do something
unusual, ie, use binoculars, stand on your head, whatever, that that was
okay, since anyone walking by could have seen whatever it was and reported
it to the cop who would than *have* had reasonable cause. The people
telling me this all had a fair bit of experience at getting busted (okay,
they were a bunch of old hippy's who smoked a little...), but not lawyers.
Marke DB Johnston
10-06-2003, 04:38 AM
"Skip" <skipfromla@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:iel0gv8t2el5ojlv5vha3mcu6o75jg51rj@4ax.com... The plain fact is, according to the Supreme Court, "The eye cannot commit a trespass." If you don't want anyone to see what you have, hide it.
Peeping toms of the world rejoice! here's yer defense! quote it in court!
Skip
10-06-2003, 07:36 AM
On Mon, 6 Oct 2003 07:38:56 -0400, "Marke DB Johnston" <changetoall4initials@mindspring.com> wrote:
"Skip" <skipfromla@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:iel0gv8t2el5ojlv5vha3mcu6o75jg51rj@4ax .com... The plain fact is, according to the Supreme Court, "The eye cannot commit a trespass." If you don't want anyone to see what you have, hide it.Peeping toms of the world rejoice! here's yer defense! quote it in court!
Absolutely, as long as you happen to be in a place that's legal to be.
