Lack of descriptions in BOLO's in firestone

Firestone Discussion
1

This thread will be talking about how Firestone troopers and deputies fail to make a proper BOLO in the county, and often lack detail to issue a BOLO.

Example

Lets say you are pursuing a white SRT going 90 SPS while you are going 80 SPS. you are unable to get a description other than its a white SRT. However, you still make a BOLO in the radio

BOLO: White SRT

This is a lack of a description in a BOLO, and there can be multiple white SRT’s in the county. Therefore it is not enough of a description to make a probable cause arrest.

Its more likley to be a false arrest if its a car of lower cost. Like a crown victoria for example. This is most likley to happen where theres a BOLO for a black CV, but theres 2+ black CV’s in redwood. I personally encountered this in redwood.

BOLO: Black shirt

There could be multiple people with a black shirt in redwood, can you get a more better BOLO?

Example: BOLO: Black shirt, blue jeans. White male. Low hair.

While its legal to detain someone for reasonable suspicion (i.e driving a black cv and you pull them over to check if they are the suspect, it is illegal to search them or arrest them without probable cause, and its impossible to prove if they are the suspect, as you have lack of a BOLO description to approve that it is them.

However, troopers and deputies do the illegal. And they usually search and/or arrest a suspect based on the broad BOLO that was given to them. Most of the time, it IS the suspect, but however sometimes you arrested a law abiding citizen for something they did not do. This can cause someone offduty to lose their job or someone that is trying to get in POST, for example to be unable to get in based on the false arrest you’ve given them.

Personally, I encountered being framed once when being offduty a few days ago when I was stopped by SWAT minutes after I obtained a legal gun and there was a shootout at CD. I stopped and was searched because SWAT thought I was the suspect and thought I was shooting through cars and such. However I was not the person, and they later released me. This is a common scene in firestone where you are falsley convicted, or detained for a crime you have not done.

What I did wrong however, was approve the search. So what they did was legal. If you are ever detained for something you did not do, never approve the search, as they need probable cause to do so, and if they override, you can sue them because they searched you for reasonable suspicion of a crime that you never did.

LAWS USED IN THIS THREAD

Section 2C: A Detainment shall be defined as: [The detention of an individual who is not permitted to leave when stopped by a law enforcement officer until given permission to do so]. A detainment shall require reasonable suspicion. If a law enforcement officer does not have reasonable suspicion when conducting a detainment on an individual, then that individual shall be free to leave at his or her’s own discretion.

Section 2E: Probable Cause shall be defined as an officer knowing that an individual has committed a crime since that he or she saw it be committed or by having received sufficient evidence of the crime an individual committed. All arrests and citations conducted by law enforcement officers shall require probable cause.

Section 2D: Reasonable Suspicion shall be defined as believing that an individual is going to commit, has committed, or is committing a crime. As stated within Section 2A if this legislation, all detainments shall require reasonable suspicion.

2 Likes
3

This is an example of police abusing their authority and power of arrest and detain

3 Likes
4

Yup. And this needs to be changed.

5

Oh no!!! You’ve been searched! It took 3-5 minutes of your lego gameplay!!! Oh no!!!

2 Likes
6

if you have nothing on you, why would you decline it? it doesnt make sense to me

2 Likes
7

Because if you did nothing wrong, and they have no probable cause to search you, and its therefore illegal.

If someone searches you, and you deny consent. And they have no probable cause, they can’t override search.

Would you like to make firestone into a state where illegal searches are done? What if you are searched illegally offduty?

Anyways this article is not focusing mainly on searches. Its talking about people being arrested for a crime they did not do, based on a broad, unable to legally do, BOLO.

3 Likes
8

I mean, someone declining a search and acting a bit sus just gives us probable cause that he is hiding something, thus resulting in us being able to search.

2 Likes
9

Although I can’t commit crimes (DOT and NG enlist) if someone denies the search, and there was a bolo for “Black man” or “White man” or “Hispanic man” , you can’t stop, search, and detain EVERY White, Black, or Hispanic man. You just need it to be more details, and they have the right to deny it. Just because they deny it, does NOT give probable cause for you to search them. You are allowed to run a Quote on quote K-9 ( You say you run one around them and the car and ask if it alert) then if the K-9 alerts THEN it is allowed. Otherwise, you are breaching their rights.

2 Likes
10

if someone denies a search, thats not probable cause that they are hiding something. Thats their rights.

Also “acting suspicious” is not probable cause, thats reasonable suspicion.

Please re-do POST if you do not know this, you can do something wrong and make a false arrest.

2 Likes
11

Yup, if theres a BOLO like that, the most you can do is detain them, not arrest or search

2 Likes
12

Also, acting “suspicious” is not a crime. YOU NEED Probable cause of a CRIME.

3 Likes
13

Probable cause is not reasonable suspicion. Acting suspicious is not freaking reasonable suspicion. GET THIS IN YOUR HEAD

2 Likes
14

Because the constitution. I hope to god you’re not law enforcement.

4 Likes
15

He is I think, and he should resign.

Aswell as @TheFirst30Minutes

3 Likes
16

I’ve seen one false conviction in a year, and that’s because AmericanLaw was an ass. But honestly, officers who arrest for this need to be fired and have their post certification revoked permanently.

2 Likes
17

You’re going to end up on the wrong side of a state case.

5 Likes
18

Firestone is personally lacking Frisking / Searching. The difference is important.

Frisking is based on reasonable suspicion that you believe someone is armed with a weapon. Frisking is only patting down the outer clothes to feel for anything. You can’t grab anything only brushing the outer clothes with your hands.

Searching is based on probable cause when you look through everything basically on their person or car.

Innocent people have the right to deny a search, and by them denying that DOES NOT give you probable cause, just suspicion which means you cannot search them, only frisk (which Firestone lacks). I’ve read in many cases where innocent people have granted officers the consent to search and officers legit tore their door frame off to search.

3 Likes
19

you talking about my case back in 2017 right? I was charged with treason for a V1 group or mafia I made back in 2016, I forgot I had it and they used it against me when I was in the house, I never wanted war with fs or going against them. I got charged when amer was in the room with the jury and there was less juries, Thanks to float I got that appealed. Are you talking about that? And the fact he didn’t like my lawyer so I had to fight by myself

2 Likes
20

Wrong. Theres no such thing as “frisking” in firestone. That would be horrible if something like that was added. And a lot of frisks could be done just because “oh i think he has a illegal gun!” for example.

So you can only search in firestone, we should not have frisking.

Also developer wise that would probably be impossible to do that.

1 Like
21

Wrong, while frisking if they had a gun in their inventory it would tell the officer “you’d feel something like a firearm”.

Also wrong, an officer can’t just say “oh I think he has an illegal gun”. He’d need reasonable suspicion to do so, i.e. a citizen telling him he saw someone pull out a firearm, and a officer sees someone matching the description he would be able to frisk.

Do officers go around saying “I think this guy sped before in his car, let me stop him with no report of it or me not seeing it!”? No they don’t.

Officers would not go up to anyone saying “I think you’re armed!” with no report of it or them not seeing a gun, if they did they’d have DPS (formally IA) on their ass.

1 Like