2nd Circuit To Cop: Someone Observing All The Laws Is Not ‘Probable Cause’ For A Search
www.techdirt.com
It’s about the stupidest thing anyone could claim in defense of an unlawful detention and search, but Waterbury, CT police office Nicholas Andrzejewski did it anyway. He actually told a court…
  • FuzzyRedPanda@lemm.eeEnglish
    33·
    3 months ago

    I hope this guy’s settlement includes a six-figure payout, as well as firing and banning the cop and sergeant from any future career in law enforcement.

    Hey, let me dream.

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      19·
      3 months ago

      We need a federal law that blatantly illegal actions over some threshold of good faith by a law enforcement officer is an automatic federal crime. Unsubstantiated search against someone doing nothing anyone could consider suspicious? A year in federal prison.

      It can’t be just any unlawful search. For example, when they there’s an actual crime in progress and they think there’s exigency but the court rules otherwise, they shouldn’t get in trouble for that. If the court rules there wasn’t probable cause, but it’s understandable where the cop is coming from, maybe that’s a learning experience.

      But aggressively approaching someone for doing literally nothing, then doing an obviously illegal search? Federal crime.

      • Delphia@lemmy.world
        13·
        3 months ago

        I used to say this on Reddit, make “Abuse of the public trust” a federal felony and make providing any form of law enforcement require a federally issued licence that you cannot hold if you have ever been convicted of a felony and should have to have being charged with one investigated. Dont even attatch a huge jail term to that charge, but guilty means you cant just move towns, cities, states or agencies and get another LEO job.

        Now its awfly unpopular on here but I am a moderate when it comes to the cops. I think their biggest problem is the lack of trust from the community. Officers who make an honest mistake should be subject to a (stricter than it is) disciplinary procedure. But officers who willingly and knowingly abuse their power, plant evidence, take bribes etc should immediately be charged with a federal felony.

        Now Inb4 defund the police, acab and all that shit… I just want the government to force the cops to live up to the badge. Embody the protect and serve motto. Be the people who deserve the respect they think they are owed. It should be a well paying job, it is dangerous and it isnt easy. But you shouldnt be protected if you are willfully abusing your power or deliberately breaking laws.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          61·
          3 months ago

          The reality is you have to have law enforcement. There are perverse incentives from traffic enforcement all the way through civil asset forfeiture and fucking prison headcount quotas, but the structure of laws and enforcement are how we have a society.

          With that power comes responsibility, which is why abuses of power need to be treated extremely harshly.

          And spend those big bucks on training instead of equipment. Good people make bad decisions when they’re not prepared properly for a situation. Prepare them instead of arming them to the teeth.

      • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
        2·
        3 months ago

        That’s pretty much what Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law is. It’s a very broad law that has a punishment up to and including the death penalty. As with most things today, the problem is not the law, it’s a lack of will to enforce it.

    • shininghero@pawb.social
      9·
      3 months ago

      Nah. Aim higher. Take the officer’s pension plan.
      You don’t get to retire comfortably on taxpayer dollars if you pull this shit.

      • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
        8·
        3 months ago

        Require malpractice insurance like doctors. More claims against you raises your premiums, too many and you’re uninsurable and can’t work anymore.

  • memfree@beehaw.orgEnglish
    12·
    3 months ago

    There are additional details from ammoland.com (emphasis from source article):

    Mr. Soukaneh claims that Officer Andrzejewski demanded that he tell the officer where the prostitute and drugs were located. The officer searched Soukaneh pulled out pills from the man’s pocket. The officer thought he found illicit drugs. In reality, what the officer discovered was Soukaneh’s nitroglycerin pills for his heart condition. In addition to the heart medication, the officer seized the $320 in cash plus a flash drive that contained pictures and videos of Soukaneh’s deceased father. Neither the flash drive nor the money was returned to Soukaneh.

    They also mention that the cops DID run a check on the gun permit before figuring out how to write Soukaneh up.

    Officer Andrzejewski ran Soukaneh’s gun permit and found it to be valid. Shortly after, another officer and a sergeant arrived on the scene. Andrzejewski asked the two what he should “write him up for.” The sergeant told Andrzejewski what to write into the computer system.

    Note, however, that the PDF of the ruling linked by techdirt has a footnote on page 6 saying, "It is unclear from the record when Andrzejewski determined that Soukaneh held a valid firearms license, and whether that determination occurred before, after, or during Andrzejewski’s search of Soukaneh’s car. Andrzejewski does not specify whether he ran the check on the firearm license before or after he searched Soukaneh’s vehicle. "

    Of course, the medication, cash and flash drive were all found through an illegal search of the car, so that whole chunk is somewhat irrelevant, and thankfully, it looks like the lawyers all knew that because the PDF suggests it was only the cop who suggested a legal gun was probable cause to search the car.

    So Soukaneh is suing the cop. It has now gone through two courts. Per the Techdirt piece:

    Unsurprisingly, the lower court rejected the officer’s request for immunity, pointing out that while the initial encounter may have been justified, nothing that followed that (pulling Soukaneh from the car, handcuffing him, searching his vehicle, detaining him for another half-hour while trying to figure out what to cite him with) was supported by probable cause.

    The Second Circuit comes to the same conclusion. Simply being made aware Soukaneh possessed an item millions of Americans also own legally is not probable cause for anything the officer did past that point.