Is it ethical for cops to lie, coerce?

[Backroads]

So... heard about this story yesterday. Incident occurred Wednesday night.

I love my little sister. She is a wonderful and good girl. She is also a total ditz and a terrible driver.

Wednesday, she drives over to a friend's house in an area with which she is not familiar. They have a regular girls night, watch movies, bake brownies, etc., etc. Really, all good clean fun. As the night wears on, it starts to rain. Little Sister is a tad worried as her wind shield wipers aren't trustworthy, but the rain soon lets up and she figures it's safe to drive home.

Immediately, she makes a bad turn and drives the wrong way, getting pretty far out before realizing her error. She turns around towards home. It starts to rain. Windshield wipers, true to form, decide not to work. She slows down... quite a bit. She has trouble seeing through the rain. She has no idea where she is.

Four calls go to the police about some girl with impaired driving. Two miles from home, Little Sister gets pulled over by four cops who make her do the breathalizer, walk the line, the whole shebang. She insists she is not drunk or doped up. They don't believe her and search her car... only to find her share of the brownies, which they want to take to test for drugs. My dad finally comes and convinces the cops to turn her over to him.

No harm, no citation, and the family thinks it's all pretty hilarious. Even Little Sister is now laughing over her terrible driving skills and is humbled enough to accept when she isn't good to drive. Lesson learned.

However, the one thing that does bother me is the cops apparently insisted to her they smelled alcohol on her... when she did not drink.

I figure this just might get a technique to get an actually drunk person to admit to drinking, but it also is essentially a lie.

How appropriate is that?

[Bini]

It's likely a tactic. I don't know for sure, I'm not a police officer, although a friend of mine's husband is a cop here in SLC but it's not like I've ever inquired about his work or how he handles stuff. I think law enforcement gets a bad rap all too often, that's not to say that they're perfect in what they do but they have big shoes to fill, with all that maintaining and keeping things orderly, etc. My friend's son has a classmate, whose father is an undercover agent that does drug stings or whatever they're called, and if the TV shows are at all accurate - I know those guys are put in less than ideal situations in order to "bust" the bad guys. So it's definitely a line of work where sometimes honesty goes out the window and no one gets out squeaky clean.

[Blackmarch]

So... heard about this story yesterday. Incident occurred Wednesday night.

I love my little sister. She is a wonderful and good girl. She is also a total ditz and a terrible driver.

Wednesday, she drives over to a friend's house in an area with which she is not familiar. They have a regular girls night, watch movies, bake brownies, etc., etc. Really, all good clean fun. As the night wears on, it starts to rain. Little Sister is a tad worried as her wind shield wipers aren't trustworthy, but the rain soon lets up and she figures it's safe to drive home.

Immediately, she makes a bad turn and drives the wrong way, getting pretty far out before realizing her error. She turns around towards home. It starts to rain. Windshield wipers, true to form, decide not to work. She slows down... quite a bit. She has trouble seeing through the rain. She has no idea where she is.

Four calls go to the police about some girl with impaired driving. Two miles from home, Little Sister gets pulled over by four cops who make her do the breathalizer, walk the line, the whole shebang. She insists she is not drunk or doped up. They don't believe her and search her car... only to find her share of the brownies, which they want to take to test for drugs. My dad finally comes and convinces the cops to turn her over to him.

No harm, no citation, and the family thinks it's all pretty hilarious. Even Little Sister is now laughing over her terrible driving skills and is humbled enough to accept when she isn't good to drive. Lesson learned.

However, the one thing that does bother me is the cops apparently insisted to her they smelled alcohol on her... when she did not drink.

I figure this just might get a technique to get an actually drunk person to admit to drinking, but it also is essentially a lie.

How appropriate is that?

Probably not ethical in regards to the title-question....

However in this case its coming down to various peoples word, with only one side of the story available so i really cant say. Whok knows maybe he smelled something that he mistakenly took for alcohol, or maybe the cop was trying to bait her... Im pretty sure that there if they were pretty sure that she had been drinking they could have issued a breathylizer test.

[pam]

Remember there are thousands of "innocent" people in our jails. I'm sure they've heard "I'm not drunk" so many times that they have to use some kind of tactic in their work.

[Dravin]

They don't believe her and search her car... only to find her share of the brownies, which they want to take to test for drugs. My dad finally comes and convinces the cops to turn her over to him.

Wow, I'm kinda surprised that pulling over someone who (presumably) passed the field sobriety test resulted in having probable cause to search the car.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Dravin

[ruthiechan]

Wow, I'm kinda surprise that pulling over someone who (presumably) passed the field sobriety test resulted in having probably cause to search the car.

She may have been high on something else. . . that's why they wanted to check the brownies for drugs. Perfectly reasonable.

Also, overripe strawberries smell like alcohol. If she ate anything that was overripe. . .

[Dravin]

She may have been high on something else. . . that's why they wanted to check the brownies for drugs. Perfectly reasonable.

I don't find it surprising that they wanted to test the brownies, I find it surprising that they had probable cause to search the car. If she failed the field sobriety test Daddy shouldn't have been able to talk them out of it, she should have gotten a pair of stainless steel bracelets until more conclusive tests could determine things. Which is why I assume she passed the field sobriety test.

And yes, I'm aware I'm not privy to all the details of what actually happened. I'm not accusing the cops of procedural malfeasance, it's just as explained I suspect something wasn't recounted. The simplest thing being that they simply asked her for permission to search the car and she consented.

Edited April 1, 2012 by Dravin

[Just_A_Guy]

One of the issues is that practically speaking, if you're unreasonably searched your main remedy is what's called the "exclusionary rule"--whatever they found in the search can't be used against you. If you were innocent to begin with, the exclusionary rule doesn't do you a heckuva lot of good.

(However, one of the more entertaining moments in my legal career was immediately prior to a suppression hearing when I overheard a prosecutor lecturing the police officer who pulled my client over: "No, you can't threaten the suspect with Obstruction of Justice just because she doesn't want to lead you to where she's hidden the drugs.")

Edited April 1, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[dahlia]

However, the one thing that does bother me is the cops apparently insisted to her they smelled alcohol on her... when she did not drink.

I figure this just might get a technique to get an actually drunk person to admit to drinking, but it also is essentially a lie.

How appropriate is that?

It certainly seems unfair, but cops can lie to get you to confess. I knew a black couple who were pulled over. The white cop swore they were drunk driving. Well, the man was the music minister of his church, his wife a Sunday School teacher and lay minister. Neither ever drank liquor and they were not drunk on this occasion. I imagine the cop's face when they said they were ministers.

My friend ended up suing the city for racial profiling.

[Guest DeborahC]

Sounds to me like they were doing their job. Especially if she was driving slow and the wrong way. And as far as cops lying, they're human. There are good cops and bad cops. I like to think most are good... like people. My step-dad and two grandfathers were policemen. My step-dad was Chief of Police. It's a very difficult and stressful job. Seems no matter what you do, someone won't be happy. You're either too lenient or too tough. Pray for policemen...

[Traveler]

Often when I am asked if something is ethical or "okay" to do - I respond in context of -or- compared to what? In this case I would say it is much more ethical to tell someone that their driving is so bad - so poor that one is rather convinced that they are drunk (and is so concerned that they are "fishing" for evidence) than it is to know that one's driving habits are so poor - so bad that they could easily (not deliberately but none-the-less) kill or mane - not just one but several innocent individuals.

In the case of this thread to know one is a such a poor driver that they are a danger to society - to know that the windshield wipers do not meet minimum safety standards required by the law - then to put other lives at risk and then laugh about it??? Or call into question the ethics of cops who's duty it is to protect from noticing bad behavior from doing what we expect them to do is very unethical - almost criminal. So much so that I believe the only reason we need (unethical) cops is because so many are too stupid and uncaring to behave ethically themselves - especially if it is inconvenient to them at the time.

The Traveler

[applepansy]

I think lying to do any job is unethical.

[Guest]

I think she needs to get her wipers fixed!

[Backroads]

Often when I am asked if something is ethical or "okay" to do - I respond in context of -or- compared to what? In this case I would say it is much more ethical to tell someone that their driving is so bad - so poor that one is rather convinced that they are drunk (and is so concerned that they are "fishing" for evidence) than it is to know that one's driving habits are so poor - so bad that they could easily (not deliberately but none-the-less) kill or mane - not just one but several innocent individuals.

In the case of this thread to know one is a such a poor driver that they are a danger to society - to know that the windshield wipers do not meet minimum safety standards required by the law - then to put other lives at risk and then laugh about it??? Or call into question the ethics of cops who's duty it is to protect from noticing bad behavior from doing what we expect them to do is very unethical - almost criminal. So much so that I believe the only reason we need (unethical) cops is because so many are too stupid and uncaring to behave ethically themselves - especially if it is inconvenient to them at the time.

The Traveler

Hey, I'm glad they pulled her over and I agree about the windshield wipers. But I also doubt lives were at risk--slowing down, as my sister did, is usually recommended in inclement conditions.

It sounds like you're supporting cops lying, as if that would be preferable to a simple "we don't like your driving and we feel the need to pull you over".

[Backroads]

Sounds to me like they were doing their job. Especially if she was driving slow and the wrong way. And as far as cops lying, they're human. There are good cops and bad cops. I like to think most are good... like people. My step-dad and two grandfathers were policemen. My step-dad was Chief of Police. It's a very difficult and stressful job. Seems no matter what you do, someone won't be happy. You're either too lenient or too tough. Pray for policemen...

indeed, I tend to support policeman.

Oh, for the record... she wasn't driving the "wrong way" as in traffic lanes.... she aimed for the wrong city, wrong way.

[Backroads]

I'm not accusing the cops of procedural malfeasance, it's just as explained I suspect something wasn't recounted. The simplest thing being that they simply asked her for permission to search the car and she consented.

That was about it. After she passed all the tests, including breathalizer, they decided she must be on something else (despite the continued "we smell alcohol" and asked permission to search the car. She figured she had nothing to hide.

[john doe]

Hey, I'm glad they pulled her over and I agree about the windshield wipers. But I also doubt lives were at risk--slowing down, as my sister did, is usually recommended in inclement conditions.

It sounds like you're supporting cops lying, as if that would be preferable to a simple "we don't like your driving and we feel the need to pull you over".

If this happened in Utah, she was lucky to not receive a ticket for the wipers. A car with non-operational wipers or blades is a safety issue, and the car will not pass the inspection if they don't satisfactorily clean the windshield within a couple of wipes of the arm. How would your family feel if she had gotten into an accident and injured or killed someone or herself simply because her wipers weren't working properly? That would be an awful burden to have to live with.

[Backroads]

If this happened in Utah, she was lucky to not receive a ticket for the wipers. A car with non-operational wipers or blades is a safety issue, and the car will not pass the inspection if they don't satisfactorily clean the windshield within a couple of wipes of the arm. How would your family feel if she had gotten into an accident and injured or killed someone or herself simply because her wipers weren't working properly? That would be an awful burden to have to live with.

Indeed, we would have felt awful. She noticed the issue with the wipers really acting up on the way to her friend's. She considered staying the night, but said a prayer and said she felt comfortable driving home after that. It wasn't raining when she had left.

I would have been happier if she had been ticketed for the wipers (I think it would have been a perfectly valid ticketing) that some cop ignoring the problem and insisting she's drunk despite numerous tests.

My complaint here is attacking a fake problem instead of a real one. Would it not be wiser to accuse someone for an obvious problem than to make one up? Would not more good be done?

Here's more of the situation:

Sister said "I was driving slow because I had trouble seeing due to windshield wiper malfunction".

Cops didn't care about that. Shouldn't have that been something to look at it even if you thought the driver was drunk?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Backroads

[Dravin]

That was about it. After she passed all the tests, including breathalizer, they decided she must be on something else (despite the continued "we smell alcohol" and asked permission to search the car. She figured she had nothing to hide.

My philosophy is thus: If I have nothing to hide there is no reason for them to do a search, so the answer to the request for consent is a polite but firm no.

[Backroads]

My philosophy is thus: If I have nothing to hide there is no reason for them to do a search, so the answer to the request for consent is a polite but firm no.

Sounds very wise. I think if I were in such a situation I would be afraid to say no!

[Just_A_Guy]

Sounds very wise. I think if I were in such a situation I would be afraid to say no!

My response:

"Officer, I respect your authority; and if you believe you have probable cause then I understand I have no legal grounds to stop you. But please know that I do not consent to this search."

[beefche]

This thread is crying out for mirkwood. MIRKY! COME COMMENT, PLEASE!

[Dravin]

My response:

"Officer, I respect your authority; and if you believe you have probable cause then I understand I have no legal grounds to stop you. But please know that I do not consent to this search."

A most wonderful example of polite but firm.

[annewandering]

Ok it was obvious why she was driving slow. If she was driving fast with no wipers in the rain then they would have had even more reason to stop her.

Do people with bad wipers tend to be drunk or stoned? If not then what was the probably cause to harass her into letting them search her car?

She didnt smell like a drunk since she didnt drink. She proved she was not drunk with the test. If they thought she was impaired they can do the walking the straight line etc.

I think they wanted to justify having four cop cars there to check out her driving. Lying or not it was a misuse of authority.

[John11111]

My sister had same thing happen to her she got a low tire and cop pulled her and her friends over he said he smelled alchohol. They had just come from a youth dance and were giggling about something... gratefully nobody spiked the punch.

My friends and I got pulled over after we were driving off from a tp spree the cop asked if we had been drinking or doing drugs and said he smelled weed! Then once at the park we had a cooler with sodas and were playing football I guess someone called the cops saying we were drinking and fighting. Cops came and when they were questioning us seperately cop told us our other friends admitted we had been drinking already if we confessed we wouldnt be in as much trouble... (why would anyone admit to drinking if none of us had been that was classic lol)

I have had my fair share of dealing with officers imo abusing power - pulled over for going 51 in a 50, not having my headlights on when the sun had yet to dip below the horizon, for having my hand outside the window weaving it through the air, once for "turning too wide" onto a one lane road (you only have so much room hehe so?) and then once for cutting through a parking lot to "avoid a red light" (we were going to a blockbuster on the otherside of that lot..lol) In my 13 years of driving I have never gotten an actual ticket though.

While I dont exactly agree with how police do things if it works and it is catching the real dwi/dui offenders then I guess I cant complain. It is the few who screw up that mess things up for the rest of us. I think we should be blaming them and not the officers trying to keep us safe. Same things go for officers there are a few bad apples but we cant paint all officers in a bad light because of the few who are.