Bailey23

As an LEO myself I think the supervisor handled the problem very well, but the main issue with these types of situations is that for the most part these aren't regular citizens that just have an interest in videotaping the police. They are organized groups of individuals who seek out conflict with the police and do whatever they can to get a rise out of us. I liken them to bullies in school that pick on other kids, they just want attention and they thrive off of the reaction they receive. With that said, I encounter situations like these on rare occasions and my agency does a great job of keeping us updated on the various laws regarding videotaping in the public and at what point this legal behavior crosses the line into being obstruction. I have no problem with people that want to videotape me doing my job, but I do have an issue when they intentionally try to upset me by not following my instructions or getting too close to my scene or investigation. Luckily, I haven't found myself on Youtube yet, but I try to be nice to people as much as possible. There is going to be increase in these types of videos because of the attack on government and public service by the Occupy movement and other anarchists. Unfortunately that is the world we live in today and people don't realize that we are humans just like everyone else. We have bad days, we lose our tempers, etc... We also understand that we are held to a higher standard than others, but sometimes we let our hair down and get nasty with people. It's sad that people devote much of their time to "bullying" the police with these tactics, but there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. If only these idiots went out and got jobs rather than being bums driving around the country and filming/protesting the police, but that's just my opinion.

The computer is housed in the trunk, but the interior of the vehicle includes a touchscreen monitor and keyboard in the center console/dash area.

No, but be honest about prior drug use. My agency doesn't allow any drug use within 3 years of application, so if discovered that you used illegal drugs within 3 years then you'd simply be denied employment with us. The whole goal of the recruitment and screening division is to employ great deputies with integrity and commitment to the office, not to arrest people for crimes they may or may not have committed in the past. I can't speak for your specific situation, but I'd be very surprised if legal action was taken based on information discovered in a polygraph unless it was something very serious such as child abuse, sex crimes, homicide, etc...

Information from the polygraph can be used to initiate an investigation, but the specific results of the polygraph will not be used as evidence in court in the US. Minor things aren't going to be an issue, we've all made mistakes. Based on what I've seen with my agency, they would only go after you for major violations (mostly felonies).

I took multiple polygraphs in order to get hired on with my sheriff's office where I currently work. The process was pretty simple, I would sit down with the examiner and she and I would essentially carry on an interview regarding my application, my past history, affiliations, etc... These would be the exact questions that I would be asked during the actual polygraph, so there were no surprises and I knew what was coming. The whole idea was for me to be forthcoming and honest with all of my responses, then the polygraph would simply verify my integrity. During the interview portion before being hooked up to the machine, I could ask questions and clarify what the examiner meant with her questioning so that I knew exactly what I was answering to. I also found that she would ask the same questions multiple ways or by changing some key aspect of the question in order to insure I was answering consistently to the same premise. Although it can be quite intimidating and it certainly raises my anxiety, the examiners are trained for this and the machine is only going to recognize legitimate deception and not just nervousness. I did have to sign a waiver that anything I say during the polygraph examination could be grounds for prosecution, but if there is nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about. They aren't going to go after you for the pack of gum you stole as a kid (statute of limitations would apply anyway), but obviously if you admit to a felony I'm sure they wouldn't be happy about it, but why would you be applying for this line of work with questionable integrity to begin with? At my sheriff's office, to my knowledge the people who fail the polygraph typically do so because they lie about aspects of their application: prior drug use, prior employment, criminal history, etc...

Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a mole-hill... "Security Forces" or "Security Police" is just a general term synonymous with a police officer (don't always trust what you hear on Wikipedia, but that's beside the point). What Eagle described in his first post is not the same as the "security police" described by Nutt and others. The security police described in that Wikipedia link are sworn law enforcement officers at one of the government levels (local, county, state, federal, etc...) just like any other law enforcement officer. They go through an "academy" just like any other patrol officer would. Most of those governmental police officers go through here: http://www.fletc.gov/ As for the main point of this thread, security guards... Within my county where I'm a sheriff's deputy we have a few security companies that are hired by neighborhoods or businesses to provide armed security. I won't discount their job because I certainly wouldn't want to do it, but they are nothing more than what you think a normal security guard is except some carry guns (which is scary because I can tell you they aren't trained to a fraction of the level I'm trained, but I digress). In my specific zone, one of the primary companies is CIS (http://cisworldservices.org/services/patrol.html) and their website make them sound like an incredibly well-trained government agency, but they are nothing more than security guards. They usually patrol neighborhoods and then alert us if anything is going on. Most importantly, they certainly deter crime especially due to the fact that their vehicles look quite intimidating and similar to law enforcement vehicles. The problem with these guys is that they have no law enforcement powers and therefore tend to let their egos get in the way. In a couple of the neighborhoods in my zone they either initiate calls for us (open doors, prowlers, suspicious people/vehicles, etc...) or I think they listen to our scanners and respond to calls we get dispatched on because occasionally they show up or even beat me to the call. Sometimes they are a nice help such as when my district is very busy and it is going to be tough to get a backup unit to my location in a timely fashion to clear a residence with an open door or signs of forced entry. I don't like to clear structures alone, so sometimes one of them goes in behind me if I'm not going to wait on another deputy to come with me. They usually enjoy the chance to draw their gun and act like a cop for 10 minutes, so it works for both of us. However, I had an incident where the guy was clearly poorly trained and kept flagging me with the muzzle end of his firearm so after a couple times of that I finally told him to holster his gun and get out of my sight. I don't need someone like that on a call with me. Short version: The security companies, as described in the first post, are nothing more than your typical security guards who patrol and report suspicious activity to police. In most places they have no authority beyond what is afforded to every citizen, protect yourself from imminent great bodily harm if needed but they can't take any legal action against someone unless it is a felony in progress. In most states, a "citizens arrest" can only legally be performed if a felony is in progress.

This is by no means directed at the poster above (my argument is with the concept of the comparison between vehicles), but that is about the stupidest video I've seen in a long time. You simply can't compare all wheel drive with rear wheel drive vehicles when it comes to a loose surface such as the one used in the video. Obviously the all wheel drive vehicles are going to perform better on that specific surface. What the video fails to mention is the countless number of years of vehicle use in law enforcement that proves front wheel drive and usually all wheel drive cannot handle the stress put on the transmission and the vehicle with law enforcement use. If this video had been a comparison of top speed it would be like comparing a Ferrari to a golf cart.

Well it's hard to answer that one. For me personally, I can stop you and write a ticket and have you back on your way within 5-10 minutes (we don't hand-write tickets any longer, I fill it out on my MDT and print it within my car), but it depends on the officer. I can get a book's worth of information, but that stuff usually comes back to my screen in multiple pages and it includes links to open up to more stuff. When I run a tag, it sends me back about 4 pages, but with experience I know what I'm looking for on each page so I skim all the info in about 10 seconds. I do this before I activate my lights to stop the vehicle and all I'm looking for is if the vehicle is stolen, the vehicle registration expiration, registered owner and if they have warrants, and that's about it. Once I stop the car, I get their driver's license and return to my car and we have the handy dandy ID card swipes now so I just swipe the DL like a credit card and it automatically inputs the information and runs it for me. Then it kicks me back one page of information on the person which lists all of the information I described in my previous post. On that page for a basic traffic stop, I just look to make sure you don't have warrants and then I look at the person's criminal history and driving history. It only takes a few seconds. Now, to address your comment specifically. As soon as the vehicle stops I immediately approach it for a basic traffic stop. If the person wanted to fight me, shoot me, hide drugs, etc..., it gives them less time to react or less time to plan how to hurt me. I also HATE when people get out of their cars and try to come back to my car. My policy is that if you get out of your car, I get out of mine. I never let anyone have the advantage when I'm dealing with them. So the short answer is that it depends on the officer. :smile:

Everyone who has posted is correct so far. The requirements vary by state, but generally speaking you must have a driver's license, registration for the vehicle, proof of insurance, etc... Some states require vehicle inspections, and in states that do not require inspections I know of some insurance companies who require inspection before you can insure your vehicle with them if it isn't a new vehicle being purchased. As for what is going to come back in the MDT, that is going to vary not only by state but also by agency. For example, my MDT system is linked with NCIC (National Crime Information Center), FCIC (Florida Crime Information Center), and then also my sheriff's office specific information and the police departments' info within my county. Information returned (and I'm only listing the big things because a lot of information comes back): NCIC/FCIC - linked with the FBI. If I simply run a vehicle tag, it's going to return all information on the vehicle that the tag is registered to and also includes insurance information in some cases (I don't know why it doesn't do it in all cases) and then all information on the registered owner(s) including any warrants they may have (where they are out of, if the agency who entered the warrant wants extradition, etc...). It also returns similar matches and the level of "certainty" of the hit, so if somebody is wanted with a very similar name and identity it will give me a percentage match. This is useful for people using false information that may be close to their real identity. On the registered vehicle owner or if I run the person specifically, it gives me all of their information (date of birth, social security number, last known address, last known phone numbers, last known occupation/employer, demographics, etc...). It can also include mug shots if applicable and pictures uploaded by other LEOs (only holds one mug shot and one picture). Within the same search, my MDT also returns local information from my sheriff's office and police departments in our jurisdiction. That includes all past involvement with police (whether as a suspect, victim, witness, etc...) and all applicable police reports, street checks (which are short entries I can submit in a person's record documenting my experience with them), and then records flags which inform me of their past history such as if they have previously fought law enforcement, known to have weapons, drug use, martial arts experience, etc... I've left plenty of information out, but you can start to see the big picture which is that I get a ton of information back to my laptop within seconds regarding my inquiries. Just by skimming the pages of information I get back I can learn a lot about who I am dealing with. Now that I typed all this up I realized you wanted specifics on vehicles which I kind of described above... oops I can run a license plate tag or a VIN (Vehicle Identification Number) and it will send back all information on the registered vehicle, all information on the registered owner(s), and its past involvement in local cases in my county such as whether it was the entity of a burglary or other past incident, or maybe used as a getaway vehicle, etc...

cp702: Policy states I can't transport medical emergencies in my patrol car, but that's just "policy". I was previously an Emergency Medical Technician so I have more advanced training than a police officer has in terms of medical treatment, so I'd do what I can (I keep a trauma bag in my trunk as well) and wait for an ambulance. If I'm close to a hospital, then I might go ahead and transport in my car if I think it is life-threatening, but most injuries aren't. Now, I did drive my zone partner to the hospital when he got very sick on duty but that is a different story and he was too far away from a fire station to the point that I could get him to the hospital running code before the ambulance would have even arrived. Unr3al: I wouldn't ticket or arrest a man for driving his wife to the hospital in a reckless manner, but I wouldn't allow him to continue doing so after my stop. Drive the speed limit or wait on an ambulance. If he wrecks and his wife and unborn child die in the crash, I don't see the benefit of driving 106MPH... but that's just me lol. stormoffires: Florida does have the move-over law (FS 316.126(b) http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0300-0399/0316/Sections/0316.126.html). It's near impossible to enforce because if I'm stopped then it is going to take another deputy to pull over the vehicle, AND, I have to have them on radar or laser to prove their speed. Enforcement of this law only works when two LEOs are working together to enforce this specifically because the officer with lights activated must be actively on a call such as a traffic stop or car crash (I can't just sit on the side of the road with my lights on and then pull people over).

Slimory, I'll explain how this scenario you described would play out in Florida, and this likely applies to almost anywhere in the US (I could see exceptions in small towns, but I digress). My agency policy restricts us from doing any type of "escort" for civilians, so if I stopped a vehicle that was enroute to the hospital I would not be able to escort them for safety reasons. I would call an ambulance at that point which is really what the people should have done from the beginning. I can see where it is important for someone to get to the hospital quickly, but that doesn't give anyone the right to violate laws or place other people's lives in danger by driving in a reckless manner. If what you say is true in Canada, I would just hate to see a tragedy occur from an unskilled and untrained driver violating traffic safety in order to reach the hospital. However, concepts that work in the United States may not be suited for use in Canada or other countries and vice versa. It'd be a disaster here if people were allowed to do as you describe (and that's an understatement if you've seen how terrible some US drivers are). :smile:

Reckless Driving (no property damage or personal injury) is a criminal traffic citation in Florida punishable as a 2nd degree misdemeanor (maximum 90 days in jail and/or maximum $500 fine). It is NOT a civil infraction. It requires a mandatory court appearance. Reckless driving becomes a felony if you cause great bodily injury to another person. I just had court two weeks ago on a reckless citation I wrote. The judge gave him 30 days in jail and $315 fine. Unreal: Our version of "operating to endanger" is our reckless driving charge and I can arrest the driver on that offense. Additionally, in Florida I have the option of requiring a driver to retake a driving exam following any citation I issue. I have to have proper justification in doing so, but it is as simple as checking a box in our driver's database (DAVID). I usually do this for elderly individuals or teenagers based on certain offenses and/or their attitude regarding the stop. Florida has a ton of good traffic statutes on the books, so if you're like me and stay proficient with the various traffic statutes then you can find reasons to stop almost anybody. I'm not about writing a bunch of tickets (I usually just give verbal warnings), but I do have certain pet peeves or certain violations that I think are inexcusable.

As a sheriff's deputy in Florida myself I've had more of a front-row seat for all of this drama in the past few months. What many people aren't aware of is the amount of tension between the law enforcement agencies in the Miami area to include FHP. Agencies in the Miami area have a history of corruption that exceeds the "average" found in other areas, and this particular incident only highlights the already poor relations between agencies in the Miami area. FHP has a pretty poor reputation statewide, including in my general area of Tampa. FHP is known for writing other law enforcement officers tickets in their personal vehicles on a frequent basis, which there is nothing wrong with, but typically we provide a level of professional courtesy to other officers. It is sad that situations like these have come to light, but it really is no surprise due to the terrible working conditions that Troopers have and the relationship between sheriff's offices/police departments with our highway counterpart. This particular traffic stop highlights terrible tactics, attitudes, and procedures from BOTH individuals and both agencies. I don't know how they operate in Miami in terms of mutual aid agreements, but here in the Tampa area we have procedures in place for situations such as these. If for whatever reason I have an issue with a fellow officer from another agency, our policy is to inform dispatch of the situation and have them contact the other agency and speak to a supervisor. We do NOT stop other law enforcement vehicles unless an exceptional emergency exists. Speeding would not be one of them. It does raise suspicion when an officer is outside of their jurisdiction and driving in this manner, but the simplest and most professional way to handle this specific incident would have been for the Trooper to contact a supervisor with the police officer's department and provide the license plate or vehicle number. Then a disciplinary process or investigation can be started and any criminal traffic violations, citations, etc... could be filed from that point forward. It works best this way and I can speak from experience. I passed a Trooper on a county road one night running about 80 MPH in a 45 MPH zone (6 lane divided road) while I was approaching a convenience store robbery in progress, thus no lights or siren. The Trooper apparently noted my tag or vehicle number and contacted my agency to inform them what I was doing. They reviewed my call history and pulled the GPS from my vehicle and determined I was enroute to a priority call. Nothing further came from it, there was no embarrassing traffic stop, and no media coverage. Couldn't have been handled better. Plus, if I'm enroute to a call I'm not stopping for a Trooper anyway and I'll let dispatch know so they can inform FHP's dispatch that I'm enroute to a call.

This amendment to the law isn't designed to censor anybody. It is designed to deter and stop criminal activity online such as hacking, piracy, cyber-terrorism, etc... As is the case in all situations in life, don't break the law and you won't have any problems.

I don't personally see any problems with CISPA. Unfortunately I think the media and the internet culture are influencing opinions with inaccurate information. I think any measures to strengthen cyber security should be taken especially when it is optional for private companies and websites to send the information back to the government. Theft of intellectual property is a growing problem and attempts should be made to prosecute these criminals. "Civil liberties" and "freedom of speech" don't excuse the illegal act of intellectual property theft or the transmission of property obtained illegally. No where in the amendment to the National Security Act does it state the government is going to spy on emails and/or other forms of personal communication. It more properly defines cyber security and intellectual property theft, and gives remedies to companies and websites (much like LCPDFR) when they are the unfortunate victim of cyber attacks.