You’re going to end up on the wrong side of a state case.
5 Likes
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
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
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
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
Kinda wrong there, a simple and easy amendment to the bill of rights would say otherwise.
Simply change that to something like this: Citizens can be frisked based on reasonable suspicion, and searched based on probable cause.
When the bill of rights says “reasonable grounds” it does not specify if it means reasonable or probable, meaning that bills can decide what “reasonable” would mean.
Additionally, theres no such thing as frisking really, you can only search someone in v2. And its illegal to search someone based on a reasonable suspicion according to a law, you need probable cause
But if frisking was added, which it should be, laws can be amended to make our ro-nation more real.
Plus I think Fed mentioned something on frisking/searching for V3, as their a strong difference in real life.
Sure, it could be added. But laws would have to be made in order to define if frisking is reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
But the main topic in this thread is about how officers make broad BOLO’s, not about searches
tbh even as SCFD i’ve done more efficient BOLOs (they’re specifically just descriptions for offenders that take off after screwing with our scenes) and there’s always a 65% success rate if LEOs get to the scene fast enough
vehicle (if applicable)
- color
- make & model (CV/ DC/ SRT/ Explorer, etc)
- partial/ plate of vehicle (if able)
suspect
- race/ skin color (white, Caucasian, black, specify skin color if other)
color of following: - hats
- shirt & pants
- additional accessories
username if applicable or able to gather it from that instance in case they try to FRP to evade (which happens most of the time because they’ve messed with us already)
last known direction of travel (‘RW BVLD from CD to DOT’, ‘road from DOT to FD’, etc)
charges/ offenses occurred for LEO interpretation once they encounter them
all presented in a nice little package for LEOs
i typically also include all this in 911s
what sucks is that the other 35% of the time, the LEO either can’t find Waldo in the picture and just pull up to the scene not realizing they’ve already gone, or they get distracted even though they’re right there and don’t do anything about it
point at hand being here though, the BOLO > ProbC system does need clarification, and a lot of this could be avoided if people were specific
2 Likes
whoever said that’s impossible your wrong, it worked in docklands at one point
If people need reminding that you need to actually describe the suspect in detail in a BOLO, I can see why the quality of policing in FSP and SCSO has been so low lately.
This is one of the most basic assumptions in policing. You want to find someone? Put in as much detail as you can.
The only time it’s justifiable si when something happens fast enough to a point where your brain didn’t have enough time to process who you were looking at.
A undetailed BOLO is never probable cause, yet officers think it is.
If you have a undetailed BOLO, the most you can do is detain them.
This is not just for BOLO’s of a car, saying BOLO: Black Shirt is not a good enough BOLO.
Infact, I JUST saw this problem. The bolo was Orange DC, so they pulled one over, even after I said “Advise he is wearing A blue shirt, green pants and yellow with roblox badge.” The man had done nothing wrong.
EDIT: He didn’t even pay attention to car type, or it wasn’t listed. He said “I just stopped him because its orange.” And attempted to Felony Stop it.
Well are you going to offer a solution? I agree that BOLOs don’t always have the best descriptions but you can’t just complain without offering a solution. And Realisticly, as a LEO, I can say that there isn’t much we can do. In roblox, sight doesn’t work like it does irl. We can only read license plates at certain angles, and we can’t see detail from afar. Until you have a solution stop complaining kthx
Of course detain them, you can’t just arrest someone without strong evidence or witnesses here.
When I meant that comment, I meant if someone desperately wants to get that suspect, despite the speed of them, those crappy descriptions will be your best piece of information. If it means having to stop certain people or cars, then that’s how it has to be.
Obviously don’t grab them out the car and stuff, just be friendly and ask the officer if what you have is match.
Heres the thing, its both illegal and its unconstitutional to search / arrest someone for a broad BOLO.
Solution or no solution, arresting someone for a BOLO such as “Black CV” is not going to work, and you can get your job removed, your POST Certification removed, and you can mess up someone else’s career based on a broad BOLO such as “Black CV”. Regardless of if theres a “solution” or not, you can’t do broad BOLO’s.
If you end a pursuit, and all the description you have is a Black CV, I myself would just not do any BOLO, and say “Pursuit terminated, No BOLO avaliable”
Either read about the topic and comment about it, or don’t comment about it at all.
This thread is about how officers make broad BOLO’s that can cause a false arrest to be made.
agree
1 Like