Officials Call For Federal Investigation Into Traffic Stop Involving Delaware State University Lacro

Officials Call For Federal Investigation Into Traffic Stop Involving Delaware State University Lacro

Jan Carabeo reports.

You may also like...

35 Responses

  1. Jason Pinilla says:

    There was no PC for them to search and seize. All I heard was “there are a bunch of school girls on that bus, there’s probably some weed.” Are you serious? They didn’t smell anything or see any paraphernalia in plain sight that would lead them to that conclusion. Now, someone please correct me if I’m wrong, but that doesn’t sound lawful at all.

    That county deserves the heat it’s getting. You would think after all the negative press law enforcement is getting they would try to be an example and just do their jobs as “civil servants,” instead of looking for things they have no reasonable cause to presume are there.

    • Jesus Gonzalez says:

      Everyone know about the police in Georgia. Why is this all of a sudden coming to light.

    • Candy A says:

      This type of thing happens all the time everywhere. It’s not right.

    • John Collins says:

      @Brian Speed It’s a basic business decision. We buy a dog and some dog chow and we get to search anybody we want. Make perfect sense to me.

    • Spook TV says:

      @nrf2009 officers can’t search peoples bags without probable cause no matter where they are. Doesn’t matter if it’s on the ground next to the bus, under the bus, or if the student was sitting on top of it. As long as somebody claims ownership an officer can’t just decide to go through someone’s property.The 4th amendment protects us (supposedly) from unreasonable searches without probable cause (there are some exceptions). Of course consent pretty much nullify’s all of that. That’s where real grey area is and where where officers are trained play – get as much consent as you can, and you can say almost anything to get the consent as long as you don’t say “you have to”.

    • Zion Negus says:

      @Digitally Marketable The officers never ask the driver if they could search the bus. They just brought the dogs out and start sniffing around. That’s illegal.

  2. SouthernSlav says:

    I’m a truck driver with over ten years of experience and these traffic stops on the interstates involving a search of a vehicle are the most dangerous traffic stops for everyone on the interstate. It slows down the traffic flow to a crawling speeds because of onlooking passing vehicles and thus it causes traffic to come to a complete stop quarter mile up the road and sometimes even less than that. The probability of accidents occurring is really high, even fatalities. Notice how there is no traffic passing by and I wonder why. I’m absolutely certain that there is data available and it just needs to be gathered in order to get statistics involving traffic stops on the shoulders of our interstates and how many accidents they cause. Even a simple speeding traffic stop should not be performed on the interstate shoulder, but on the off ramp of an exit. It should be mandatory and enforced by the law. Shoulders are for an emergencies, not a source of an income and traffic laws can be enforced in a much safer way.

  3. Todd Raymond says:

    The deputy on body-cam said any vehicle with six wheels and air brakes cannot travel in the left lane. However, Georgia Code actually states “any vehicle equipped with more than six wheels, except buses and motorcoaches.”

    So, it was an illegal stop. But that’s just the beginning.

    After this illegal stop, deputy shifted into a criminal investigation without articulating reasonable suspicion that criminal activity is occurring.

    According to Georgia law, without this reasonable suspicion, “the extension of an otherwise completed traffic stop in order to conduct a free-air search of a vehicle using a drug dog violates the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.”

    Under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution, any detention of a vehicle or its occupants beyond that required to complete the purpose of the traffic stop must be supported by independent facts sufficient to justify the additional intrusion.

    We have lawmen breaking their own state laws, and not knowing the U.S. Constitution. Or they’re targeting due to race hoping for glory with a big bust. Either way, misuse of resources that need to be retrained or fired.

    • J23 H44 says:

      @Slo-poke Trolls only target the good ones

    • George L says:

      @Civil War Guy You’re misreading it.

      It says that you cannot prolong the traffic stop for anything other than enforcement of the offense. You’re reading into it thinking this has to do with time. It doesn’t. It has only to do with the unlawful search as per the 4th Amendment. It’s not about how long it takes to write out a ticket. It has to do with the police purposefully looking for things beyond the scope of the stop.

      The law allows an officer to act upon anything in plain sight, that would be construed as suspicious as to a crime, while conducting an investigation into a traffic infraction. What an officer cannot do is use that traffic infraction as an excuse to investigate around for possible other crimes. If you show the officer’s intent to do that, it is inadmissible.

      This case is a great example of the same: It satisfies both factors. The K-9 search had NOTHING to do with the traffic infraction, and created a prolonged search with no reasonable suspicion. It is further aggravated by the fact that they didn’t have their dog pinpoint whether it was the bus itself that set off the dog or the property of any persons in the bus. They conducted a general search of belongings without any specific indication by the dog.

      Also, while I appreciate you reading the case, what would really help you is reading the appellate court’s decision and the reasoning for it. There’s no need to create your own opinion. The judge’s opinion is right there and it eliminated open air dog searches in the state of Georgia.

    • Slo-poke says:

      @J23 H44 Racism?

    • George L says:

      @Nick Nitro That has no relevance. Denying consent doesn’t play any role. There was no ambiguity there to begin with.

    • Zion Negus says:

      @Slo-poke I saw the entire cop video and no one gave them consent.

  4. Tim fahey says:

    The lady who is the coach spoke with poise. Good for her!!!

  5. Griffin Reitz says:

    ” If we find anything then we can’t help you” They aren’t there to “help” you. They are there to arrest you or steal from you. They should have never been allowed on the buss.

    • wesley gary says:

      They should never have been travelling in the passing lane.

    • Randall Smerna says:

      That second “s” should have never been allowed on the “bus”..

    • Yerp Derp says:

      It’s sad to me that cops, folks who are supposed to be public servants in enforcing law and order, are increasingly portrayed as folks you can’t rely on. It’s for good reasons too so you can’t dismiss the distrust out of silliness of claims when you have videos like this (and there are much worse out there). We’re slipping into dark times…

    • Nick Nitro says:

      Excuse me sir, but would you help me put you in jail by just answering a few questions? It would really help me out…?

  6. HBosse90 says:

    what disgusting behavior… “theres a bunch of school girls on that bus theres gotta be some weed” just LOOKING/HOPING/TAKING a shot in the dark?? what a GUESS!! all of these officers should be fired because NONE of them were policing the streets this day… they were trying to get little girls in trouble for NOTHING.

  7. Cinema Scenes 101 bin says:

    The Lacrosse team should take legal action and stop rogue cops from doing this again. As a Georgian this is a disgrace and should not be let go. Officers involved should be suspended and reprimanded.

  8. quagmirefx says:

    Supreme court has ruled you cannot extend a traffic stop beyond the time it takes to write up the initial infraction (usually 20mn max). Police cannot delay a stop to wait for a drug dog to be called in. Police tried this on me and said I would have to wait for the dog to arrive. I told them the law and they still made me wait 45mn (which brought the total time stopped to over an hour. I sued and won a nice settlement and got the officer fired. Know your rights.

    • ShockMaster says:

      @playpen partner, I’ve sat on both sides of the room. 4 years as a prosecutor before I was fired for getting a DWI. I’ve been working in criminal defense for the past 3. I don’t expect you to follow my word as gospel, but I fear for people who take bad advice

    • playpen says:

      @ShockMaster another internet liar

    • playpen says:

      @Iain Bagnall suddenly, another internet hero goes silent. lol

    • ShockMaster says:

      @Randall Smerna it’s considered excessive if the officer doesn’t have reasonable suspicion that he or she can articulate in court . If they do, they can’t wait all day for a dog almost . I practice criminal defense . I am concerned about people getting bad advice

  9. giggy miggins says:

    If a cop ever says to you: “tell me now so that I can help you” and you’re not suffering a medical emergency or are in an active shooter situation, they aren’t really there to ‘help’ you.

  10. The Timekeeper says:

    Wow, the sheer amount of intimidation being used while trying to come across as helpful and concerned. Disgusting.

    Would’ve loved to be a fly in that bus when the cop opened that little box and found something like sanitary products in there. The visible disappointment would have been delicious.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.