alt Hacker NewsI'm 20 minutes into the bodycam.
1) She has no paperwork for the rental vehicle. physical or email.
2) She has an operating radar detector. (illegal in Oklahoma. I didn't know this was still a thing)
3) She admits to a 2 night stay in California driving from Missouri.
4) She has a lot of luggage for a 2 night trip to California. (Officer's opinion, she doesn't necessarily disagree about the quantity of luggage, but makes an excuse)
5) When the officer tells her his dog is going to search after she refuses consent, she admits to having marijuana which is still illegal in Oklahoma.
To me this is might be probable cause without any Flock information. She admitted to driving a rental car that she has no information on during the 4k mile, 2 night trip to California. She admitted to possessing marijuana. I think this whole scenario goes the same way if Flock cameras didn't exist.
Replies
Everything you're describing happened after pulling her over, but they needed a valid reason to pull her over. Flock was supposed to be that reason.
6) The dog was going to alert regardless of what was in or not in the car. That's their usual go-to for parallel construction for probable cause when they ping a plate with Flock.
Radar detectors are not illegal in Oklahoma.
And a very important point is given in the article, yes, here in that case the abuse of power worked because she was doing drug traffic. But, as they said, often such abuse of power are only known for the positive cases that goes to court, and it allows to disclose what is maybe happening also with thousands of innocent people being illegally searched without any probable cause in the first place.
Had he not had flock or Vigilant, he would not have stopped her. That’s the probable cause he was missing.
Anything gathered after that is dismissed because of the fruits of the poisonous tree.