Cops Play Wii During Undercover Drug Raid 251
An anonymous reader writes "Guns drawn, cops busted down the door of a suspected south Florida drug dealer, then proceeded to kick some ass on Wii bowling. A security cam captured some playing video games while others searched for drugs and weapons. Clearly they just misunderstood when they were told to search the house for Weed."
Least of our problems (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Monitored while on duty is fine. Off-duty, no way. Officers aren't slaves and they can have a personal life.
Re: (Score:2)
I kinda think that was a given, AC.
Seems like a good idea to me. People aren't as God-fearing as they used to be, but now we have the tech to make sure the ones in power _are_ constantly watched by higher-powers now.
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not always considered on duty, otherwise they would always be in uniform.
They are not "still exercising their powers;" it's just that they retain the ability to exercise them in the case where they see something illegal in the same way that an EMT retains his ability to help out in medical emergencies. If I'm not mistaken, they (police) don't have the same legal protections when doing police work while off-duty, nor are they acting as a representative of the police while doing off-duty things
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are not always considered on duty, otherwise they would always be in uniform.
They are not "still exercising their powers;" it's just that they retain the ability to exercise them in the case where they see something illegal in the same way that an EMT retains his ability to help out in medical emergencies. If I'm not mistaken, they (police) don't have the same legal protections when doing police work while off-duty, nor are they acting as a representative of the police while doing off-duty things like going to the bar, making love to their wives or, yes, playing Wii Sports.
You *do* know that in TFA, the officers playing Wii Sports were on duty in the middle of conducting a raid?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Least of our problems (Score:4, Funny)
I hate to quote an overused quote, but who watches the watchmen?
Lots of people - it was a box office hit.
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think this is a trolling comment - if you've ever gotten pulled over you've probably heard the "If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about..." justification when an officer feels like searching your car.
I got pulled over for speeding on a Superbowl Sunday, and submitted to the breathalyzer. Blew a zero, and obviously the guy was on DUI patrol because now he wanted to search the car. Just giving me a speeding ticket was apparently not an option. I heard this explanation several times, along with the accusation "What's wrong, you have a little joint in there? A bit of a roach in the ashtray? If there's nothing in there then it won't hurt to have a look, right?" He wouldn't believe me, go figure. He seemed like a good guy, so I traded a search for a warning. I would not advise people to do the same, better to ask if you are free to go and pay the speeding ticket. But I'm weak sometimes when it involves outrageous fees.
I would mod this "+1 funny, in a sad frustrated sort of way"
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I commend you on solid negotiation, and getting away with it. He could've agreed to the trade, and given you the speeding ticket anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, that is how it works. I've dodged two traffic tickets in the same county in less than a year with one simple strategy: act submissive. The last time, I acted all afraid of the officer and when he asked me what I was worried about, I said something about my mom being upset with me when she finds out I got pulled over (was 27 at the time). Then the officer gave me a blank stare and let me off with a written warning.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Trading the search for the warning at least got you something. I do hate the whole "if you've got nothing to hide why don't you let me search" garbage. The right answer to that is - "There's nothing to find so you don't need to search the car" Your time is valuable and your privacy is valuable. That's why we require the police to justify searches.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Insightful)
a couple of police officers getting paid to goof off
This isn't like the library staff caught playing Rock Band. These were investigators at the scene of a drug raid playing a Wii owned by the person being arrested while evidence was being collected on the premesis. This could potentially be a pretty big problem. A defense lawyer could use this to their advantage when attempting to invalidate the evidence collected.
Re: (Score:2)
My imagination is failing me.
How could this be used to advantage by the defense?
Re: (Score:2)
My imagination is failing me. How could this be used to advantage by the defense?
Try imagining the fourth amendment. It unambiguously requires a warrant to describe specifically what is to be searched. I'm quite sure the Wii was not mentioned in the warrant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it probably could be considered a seizure, but since nothing evidentiary was gained from it I don't think a defense attorney can use it too much. Maybe, if the judge allowed it in, he could use it to sort-of attack the credibility of the officers involved, but that's kind of doubtful. Then again, IAAL, but not a criminal defense o
Re: (Score:2)
So, how about if they sat on the couch, or used the bathroom? Does that count as them "seizing" the couch, or "seizing" the toilet paper? And does that invalidate the entire search warrant? No. Flat out, no. They didn't "seize" the Wii any more than they "seized" the front door when they opened it or "seized" the floor by using it
Re: (Score:2)
So, how about if they sat on the couch, or used the bathroom?
I don't know about "seizing", but surely it could count as contaminating a crime scene?
No, seriously. Personally I'm not really sure why GP brought up the 4th amendment, as a defense lawyer would probably have a better chance at arguing that by "goofing off", the chain of evidence was broken, so any evidence gathered is suspect.
Hell, even the 3rd amendment would probably be easier to argue for than the 4th. But IANAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if they didn't use any of his things, the simple fact that officers were playing games while conducting the search shows them to be unprofessional and arguably irresponsible, so irresponsible in fact that they can't be trusted to accurately document evidence. Or so any half-wit lawyer could argue, and likely win.
Oh, I doubt it. A judge would likely find the behavior a harmless error. The guy whose house it was may try to press trespass charges, tho', as a separate matter.
I, personally, can't get outraged over this specific incident. A little slack on the job isn't such a bad thing, and playing a WII isn't so invasive. The cops involved should get yelled at a little, since allowing it would be a poor general rule, but let's not pillory them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If the Wii doesn't have any evidence, then there is nothing to exclude.
I don't think that warrants get voided en toto, due to one (rather trivial) error. Even if it's argued that the Wii was "seized", does this mean anything at all, since there was no evidence on it (nor much expectation for there to be)?
Re: (Score:2)
I imagine the warrant covered the premises, of which the Wii was most certainly a part. It would have no material effect on the submitted evidence, but it might be embarrassing enough to the police that the DA might want to take a pretty lenient plea bargain to keep the tape from being shown in the courtroom, because that lack of professionalism would speak volumes about character to a jury.
Plus, the cops can always say that they didn't understand this technical mumbo-jumbo and thought the drugs might be h
Re: (Score:2)
Just read the article (the actual article [tbo.com] rather than the linked blog); this is already being used by the defense attorney to claim the whole search should be invalidated:
Re: (Score:2)
Well according to that interpretation of the term "used", we need to wait until the actual trial before it is possible for it to be "used" by the defense attorney. But I think talking to the press about why this search was illegal is certainly a "use" of this information.
Re: (Score:2)
I think PP's point is that the quoted defense attorney is not actually representing the defendant; he's just this guy who is a defense attorney that the reporter knew well enough to ask a few questions.
Re:Least of our problems (Score:5, Insightful)
The defending attorney simply claims that this proves the police were either poorly trained, or often deliberately went against training. Then the prosecution is caught in a forking argument where trying to prove the police aren't incompetent makes them look wilfully malicious instead, and vice versa. Anything else a cop says afterwards that relates to following procedures, why should the jury believe them?
Here, let me nudge your imagination. Under defense cross-exam, a police witness says "I took all the seized narcotics directly to the evidence room. I watched as the evidence locker custodian weighed the drugs, and logged the ticket showing that weight, and made sure he gave me a copy for the record book." The attorney simply asks "Is that standard procedure?". "Yes". The defense attorney than says "Are you sure you know standard procedure - Earlier, with the Wii, you indicated you didn't?.", and maybe makes closing remarks about how the police have flip-flopped on how well they follow procedure to where their testimony is 'deeply flawed'.
Alternately, the attorney asks "And do you always follow procedure?" knowing that the policeman in question has already admitted he didn't with the Wii, and is going to have to say "No." or perjure himself.
That last is one of the biggest advantages possible for the defense if they can get it. It's great to cross-examine witnesses who are constantly worried they are going to sink their careers, make their whole department look like fools when the press gets hold of it, or actually get themselves charged with perjury (although the last is very rare for cops, even if occasionally deserved.).
Those particular cops can expect to be cross examined at least twice as long as the others, and if the defense is any good they will pounce on anything else said that can be used to make it worse for the prosecution. That's another advantage for the defense - they already know of some witnesses that are particularly likely to screw up, and to look bad to the jury.
Re: (Score:2)
My imagination is failing me.
How could this be used to advantage by the defense?
Ok, I'm not a lawyer, I just hang out with lawyers sometimes... but...
How about tainting the warrant by arguing that the *real* reason the cops wanted in the guy's house when he wasn't there was to play with his toys? Especially if the probable cause is at all weak or disputable, the attorney *might* be able to get the warrant thrown out, thus invalidating all evidence gathered.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah, I guess it could be used to influence the jury into making unwarranted assumptions and generalizations. I wouldn't call that a "good argument".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apologies to Training Day (Score:5, Funny)
Should have played Wii Boxing (Score:4, Funny)
Might have been able to pass it off as Physical training on the job.
Completely unacceptable (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
On an interesting question, how many police officers play Grand Theft Auto?
Re:Completely unacceptable (Score:4, Funny)
On an interesting question, how many police officers play Grand Theft Auto?
Hey, they could always be playing the 'police missions'!
Re: (Score:2)
--We need more whistle blowers out there.--
What good would that do without oversight? But anyhow, I don't think he will get out of it just for videoing that. He'll just get 15 minutes of fame. The real question that I have to ask that I didn't se an answer for: Did he give them permission to play or not?
Can the defense now get the search thrown out because of it? If so, then no they didn't do their job right. I'm really hoping that there is less "bad apples" among the police than there is among the general
Re: (Score:2)
The real question that I have to ask that I didn't se an answer for: Did he give them permission to play or not?
As he was being detained elsewhere at the time, I doubt it. But maybe so. Maybe the cops on the scene called in to wherever he was being detained and asked him "Mind if we bowl a few rounds while we're here?"
Re: (Score:2)
That was exactly my thinking as well, but I wasn't sure, but still it just seems a little bit unprofessional. Maybe there is no more to it than that and the problem will be fixed in the future at least with that department. What the head said about the supervisor, not supervising might be more of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think there are more then a few or at least the bad apples cluster together, before you can get more whistle bowers you need an environment where it is ok to blow whistles. Although this is bad behavior and coming from the private sector myself I would say they should get fired not suspend for such actions, but for someone to risk the quality of their life, harassment from other cops, Possible retribution, etc... It would need to be more serious then cops playing video games when they should be working.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for doing your good job and taking it seriously. There are some really good cops like you in every city and town in the country, and that's important to remember whenever a story like this comes up.
As a serious question, do internal affairs squads help prevent this sort of thing? Are there other official measures besides whistleblowers that can help? And what do you recommend the general public do to stop the bad cops that doesn't put good cops at risk?
Re:Completely unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
So their jobs are stressful. So what? Mine is too. But I don't come in and check out a GOV for joy-riding. Nor do I go to the lab and fire up the lasers to burn smiley faces on things. And those are government assets - Abusing personal assets is far worse.
You wanna play Wii? Fine - Buy one or befriend somebody who has one. Breaking into somebody's house (warrant or no) is NOT grounds for just playing around with their stuff.
Should this invalidate evidence found on the premises? Hell no. Should those officers be suspended for taking control of and playing with property that was completely aside from the investigation? Hell yes. They're probably short of theft, but if they're just playing in the guy's house - Charge 'em with trespassing.
Re: (Score:2)
Now I'm not saying it's exactly the same. Clearly they should not have been playing someone else's Wii during a drug bust and I hope they are suspended without pay for a week.. but everyone goofs off a bit at work, it helps up regain focus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were playing the department's Wii, no. They weren't. They were playing a suspect's Wii.
Re:Completely unacceptable (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you dense?
Here's an analogy, I'm an EMT. If I come to your premises, after /you/ call 911, and you decide you don't want treatment, but I think "No, this guy's messed up, I'll just have a look at this", I'm committing criminal assault and battery. If I stick around in your house, after, you can call 911 again, and have me arrested for trespass. Let alone pull up a pew and decide I'm going to have a few games of Wii Bowling, especially against your consent.
I am staggered that you think the real issue here is that the suspect thinks that this is inappropriate or unacceptable behavior. Don't even start me on "after doing their highly stressful job". So what? You go back to the station, to your home, you don't de-stress there. How could you ever think that was acceptable? Maybe they should have pulled a few brews out of the fridge too? Hell, maybe rolled themselves a joint from the evidence!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can bet your ass if my chief found that I had done similar, I would be looking for a new job.
What relevance does his Wii have to their ability to execute the warrant? None. Ergo you have no right to do as you wish beyond the scope of the warrant. You are on pr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
uh oh... (Score:2)
It's Wii this time. Next time it will be something more serious.
Guitar Hero?
Re: (Score:2)
Counter Strike, it's serious business
Re:Completely unacceptable (Score:4, Insightful)
After entering a premises and doing their highly stressful job, they played some Wii. Big Whoop. The real story is that attorney are trying to say this counts a seizing property. That's the abuse here.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
That's the word on the street anyhow. Also known as the fourth amendment of the US Constitution. Entering someone's private residence with a warrant is serious business. There's a time to blow off steam, but it's not during the execution of a search warrant.
cops (Score:2, Insightful)
I think most people realize that cops are just bullies fulfilling their dream of getting paid to be a bully.
Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.
Re:cops (Score:4, Insightful)
>Not only that, but anyone willing to ruin someone's life over a little pot (like these cops) has a serious lack of ethics.
The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law. Considering you are in a democracy you are just as guilty as anyone else for these laws being in existance. Perhaps having a scapegoat makes you feel better about yourself, but youre 100% wrong to target the police on these matters.
If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.
What about some basic personal responsibility? If owning pot is such a legal nightmare that it can ruin your life if arrested, as you state, why dont these people move to countries where it is legal instead of pretending they have immunity and then blaming the police for getting caught?
Re: (Score:2)
When
Re:cops (Score:5, Interesting)
You're missing a key point. Legalise marijuana and at least 25-35% of all North American police officers will be redundant. They are fighting for their jobs.
In Canada there is only one association of legal professionals who oppose decriminalisation. Guess who? Yup, the police associations.
So yes, they are to blame.
Ask any dealer how many times they have purchased confiscated material. They have us coming and going. I also happens to provide a convenient excuse for discrediting people whose political views upset the status-quo. Enforcement is totally at the option of the police. Don't you see anything wrong with that?
Marijuana use is so common that they have the option to cherry pick their victims. The intention is not to eliminate marijuana use. It is to exploit it.
This kind of short-sightedness depresses me and tells me that this device of oppression will not be defeated without violent revolution.
CARNIVORE that you fuckers. They know we're not going to take this forever, but the only language they understand is blood. So let it be theirs.
Re: (Score:2)
The police are the enforcers of the law. It blows my mind that people blame the lowest guy on the ladder for laws and policies. Joe Cop isnt writing state and federal law.... If you ever got off your high horse and talked to some cops you might have many share the same attitudes you do.
That's true. And as an example of how it can work, the Travis County Sheriff's Department lobbied for a Texas law that would allow them to simply write tickets for misdemeanor possession rather than having to arrest the off
Re: (Score:2)
Turn about is fair play.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the guy was running a chop shop and had a house of stolen goods that will easily be traceable.
These are the scumbags who collect all the stuff from your car that had its window smashed in to grab that thing that is worth $5, still doesn't justify this though. Although this happens all the time where officers go through these drug deals houses and they have all the latest expensive gadgets and toys.
Although to be truthful, I have seen silly stuff like this even on the show COPS. I remember they did
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That falls into the same category as believing the earth is flat or only 6,000 years old. It's horseshit.
Ah. Now I understand - you think it's unethical to enforce the law, and thus those who enforce the law must be bullies.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah. Now I understand - you think it's unethical to enforce the law, and thus those who enforce the law must be bullies.
Is it ethical to enforce an unethical law?
Re: (Score:2)
No, I've never been arrested. Actually, I've heard cops say similar things - "oh you must have been on the end of charge"...
Re:cops (Score:4, Insightful)
Which part of smoking pot is the part that makes it worth criminalizing?
The part where we are a democratic country full of stuffy neo-puritans.
Statistically, a majority of Americans have tried pot.
Also, a majority of Americans are opposed to legalization.
Which means there are a significant number of assholes in this country who think it's perfectly fine if they use pot and get away with it, but YOU should go to jail if you get caught doing the same thing.
Most libertarian crackpots like me are painfully aware that "live and let live" is not actually a majority philosophy, and we've got an uphill battle to sell our political views to the rest of society.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you considered the possibility the majority of Americans who've tried pot and are now opposed to legalization are opposed because they've come to the conclusion that it sho
Felonwii or misdewiinor? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor? (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry grammar nazis, *PUNISH the criminals*.
I don't know, I think a public bitch slap from a judge would be pretty cool.
Re: (Score:2)
You were modded as funny, but honestly, I think public humiliation could do a hell of a lot more to stop people from being stupid than a suspension with or without pay. Sometimes it really is too bad that we have that whole "cruel and unusual punishment" thing in our Constitution.
Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they are criminals. Remember in the U.S. that is determined by a court of law, not bozos like us reading summaries of news reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they are criminals. Remember in the U.S. that is determined by a court of law, not bozos like us reading summaries of news reports.
Replace "court of law" with "corporate lobbyists and corrupt judges," and you'll be correct. Every law should be criticized and scrutinized. Every arrest should be investigated. Remember innocent before proven guilty?
Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor? (Score:4, Insightful)
Look, the cops have a job to do, and that is uphold the law. they are NOT supposed to interpret it how they see fit, but uphold the currently written law.
If they can't execute a drug raid to the tee of their procedures (IE NOT using the suspects property), then they should get reprimanded and the suspect should have the charges dropped.
If the cop can't follow one simple procedure (playing Wii in a suspects premise during a raid is NOT part of their job duties at all), who is to say they are doing the rest of their job correctly?
How do we know they didn't plant the drugs there? how do we know they didn't steal some of his money or his weed?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Felonwii or misdewiinor? (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not ludicrous.
The Officers were NOT doing their jobs correctly, not following procedures, etc.
If the police officers did NOT include their usage of the Wii on their raid report or whatever it would be called, that is example #1 of the police officers not reporting exactly what they did.
If they lied about that, who is to say they haven't lied before in other cases or other parts of the report for this one?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.
This is akin to arresting you and taking your car out for a joyride spin. Sure you can argue they waste gas for the car, but they wasted electricity for their entertainment.
Besides, this is unlawful search. I would like to think that unless they had a warrant for this specific task, they could NOT search digital devices. Seeing how it was a drug deal, they could only search physical items (like maybe take apart the wii at the very worst case, but they could NOT digitally open it, or go through all their m
Re: (Score:2)
What if one of the cops who violated procedure was also in custody of the evidence at some point. Maybe he didn't follow procedure there either? If you were on the jury for this case, would you still take that particular cop's word over the supposed perp's? Would you, knowing the cop either wilfully ignores proper procedure, or is so poorly trained he ignores it randomly?
It's not a case of a lesser sentence, it's a case of complete acquittal if conviction rests on these particular cop
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not saying the officers shouldn't be reprimanded to acting unprofessionally but this should in no way affect a judge's decision as how to punch the criminals.
The fourth amendment requires otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Only if the only evidence they got was from the wii, and it was not listed on the search warrant.
So... (Score:3, Insightful)
9 Hours? (Score:2)
New CSI Miami Episode? (Score:2, Funny)
To be fair... (Score:2)
Wii Sports is a lot of fun... and a lot of good cops have fallen to its dangerous and seductive powers. What can society do when Wii is in the hands of the very people sent out to protect us from it?
Maybe . . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Maybe . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Yeah, they should be spared.
Wii (Score:2, Funny)
Erm... if this is a security camera ? (Score:2)
Seems fishy to me.
Doughnuts anyone? (Score:2)
Other games cops play (Score:2)
An ex-cop I know once told me that during a search they would compete with each other to see who could find the vibrator first. Apparently there was always, without fail, a vibrator somewhere in every home.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Slacking off every once and a while is one thing. The police chief even admitted that most house searches have "downtime." Still, playing Wii Bowling for 9 hours is a bit excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
A Polk County sheriff's detective cataloging evidence repeatedly put down her work and picked up a Wii remote to bowl.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Which of the laws are ridiculous? I kind of like the laws against theft, murder, rape and other things.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If cops put the same effort into those laws as they do into useless laws, it would be a better world. Why do they bust "johns" who hire prostitutes, and not go after the pimps who coerce and abuse the prostitutes? Why do they spend thousands of man hours setting up undercover drug operations, and not thousands of hours infiltrating gangs that go around raping and murdering?
When it comes to the good laws against rape, murder, theft, etc, the police are almost 100% REactive. With bullshit like drugs and prost
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
>> Why do they spend thousands of man hours setting up undercover drug operations, and not
>> thousands of hours infiltrating gangs that go around raping and murdering?
1. Because they are afraid they might get shot while chasing dangerous gang members. In other words, they are too cowardly to do the job they are paid to do.
2. Because according our current ridiculous search-and-seizure laws, the local police force gets to keep a percentage of the proceeds from selling whatever they seized in a dru
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you can associate Wii use with excessive force unless they didn't use the wrist straps properly. But, yes, these particular cops do not deserve our thanks. They've acted in such a way that they make the whole team look unprofessional. The cost of prosecuting this particular case will be much higher, and there looks to be a fair chance it will result in an acquittal.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on your post, I can CONCLUDE that you jump to CONCLUSIONS and emphasize your assumptions using ALL CAPS.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Burma Shave!