Hacker News Reader

Comment by KT-222 | Hacker News Reader

I'm 20 minutes into the bodycam.

1) She has no paperwork for the rental vehicle. physical or email.

2) She has an operating radar detector. (illegal in Oklahoma. I didn't know this was still a thing)

3) She admits to a 2 night stay in California driving from Missouri.

4) She has a lot of luggage for a 2 night trip to California. (Officer's opinion, she doesn't necessarily disagree about the quantity of luggage, but makes an excuse)

5) When the officer tells her his dog is going to search after she refuses consent, she admits to having marijuana which is still illegal in Oklahoma.

To me this is might be probable cause without any Flock information. She admitted to driving a rental car that she has no information on during the 4k mile, 2 night trip to California. She admitted to possessing marijuana. I think this whole scenario goes the same way if Flock cameras didn't exist.

View on HN

Had he not had flock or Vigilant, he would not have stopped her. That’s the probable cause he was missing.

Anything gathered after that is dismissed because of the fruits of the poisonous tree.

literally from the federal case we are discussing...

"Given Kyle's speed, Alaniz had an objectively reasonably basis to stop the Mazda for violation of 47 O.S. 11-310""

https://imgur.com/a/dVSUhIh

pdf https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.oknd.76...

You are correct that the judge ruled the stop was "justified at its inception"; but the section immediately following your quote is titled

> Alaniz did not Have Reasonable Suspicion to Extend the Traffic Stop.

That's the newsworthy part. For example, Kyle stated that she had the marijuana only after Alaniz detained her so that he could attempt to search the car without her consent. If that detention was illegal then her statement isn't admissible, and that's what the judge ruled here:

> Because the government does not identify any adequate exception to the exclusionary rule, all evidence obtained after Alaniz initiated the ALPR search must be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree.

ETA: And while the initial stop was lawful, the grandparent comment is probably correct that it wouldn't have happened without Flock. Alaniz performed a Flock search that included "traffic violation" as the reason, but he hadn't yet observed a traffic violation at that time. Based on that ALPR history he correctly suspected drug trafficking, and followed the car until he observed a traffic violation that justified the stop (but not the subsequent fishing expedition).

Forcing police chases and traffic stops for simple things like speeding is so silly. Sane countries just send you the fine per mail.

If you’re running from simple things the expectation is that you’re guilty of something more complicated.

I don’t personally know anyone who has ever ran from the cops to evade a traffic violation.

> I don’t personally know anyone who has ever ran from the cops to evade a traffic violation.

I do... you would be shocked how many people actually do this. You just don't hang out with the wrong enough friends.

Objectively reasonable? How is that measured again?

Except that courts have recognized that cops can find a reason to pull anyone over if they want, so minor traffic violations do not create probable cause to extend traffic stops beyond resolving the minor traffic violation. Otherwise there is no actual requirement of probable cause.

6) The dog was going to alert regardless of what was in or not in the car. That's their usual go-to for parallel construction for probable cause when they ping a plate with Flock.

I'm not sure it's legal to do a dog search just because you pulled over a car for a turning light violation.

No one gets pulled over for turning light violations for safety reasons, but that's beside the point. I just hate how many laws we have that are just selectively enforced.

And that's why they love field sobriety tests on the basis of 'You were unusually slow' or 'You swerved over the line' or 'You were driving an older car in a known drug hotspot' or 'A car matching your description...'.

This quickly escalates to 'Why are you so nervous? You're sweating', 'Your speech patterns and eye dilation gives me probable cause to suspect you', or simply 'What's that I smell?'.

Everybody needs to buy at least one dashcam with motion record, and learn two simple statements:

"I don't answer questions" "Am I being detained"

Even if you're a shark of a criminal attorney, this is literally all you should ever be saying to an American law enforcement official.

Everything you're describing happened after pulling her over, but they needed a valid reason to pull her over. Flock was supposed to be that reason.

I guess you and the federal court in the Tenth Circuit disagree on that...

"Given Kyle's speed, Alaniz had an objectively reasonably basis to stop the Mazda for violation of 47 O.S. 11-310"

https://imgur.com/a/dVSUhIh

If a cop wants to pull you over, and they follow you for 30 minutes, eventually there will be some small mistake that is technically a moving violation. Following too close is a crime we all commit occasionally.

Radar detectors are only illegal on commercial vehicles in Oklahoma. Totally illegal only in the peoples republic of Virginia and DC.

Radar detectors are not illegal in Oklahoma.

Depends on the vehicle:

https://law.justia.com/codes/oklahoma/title-47/section-47-11...

2, 3 and 4 are not illegal or probable cause for arrest. Refusing a search (5) is not even probable cause for arrest.

1 is likely probable cause for arrest, sure. Admitting to having marijuana in the vehicle (5) gives them probable cause to search the vehicle. But probable cause to search the individual's travel history over the last month? No, that requires a warrant.

And a very important point is given in the article, yes, here in that case the abuse of power worked because she was doing drug traffic. But, as they said, often such abuse of power are only known for the positive cases that goes to court, and it allows to disclose what is maybe happening also with thousands of innocent people being illegally searched without any probable cause in the first place.

she 'admits to a 2 night stay in california', and that's part of your reasoning for probable cause? I feel like you shouldn't be a police officer, either.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com