Video: Police harass a tourist.

[Jesda]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqq6KCOkdM[/youtube]


Summary:
A tourist from Ohio drove to St Louis to visit the Star Trek exhibit at the St Louis Science Center. He was pulled over while driving home on I-70. The officer accused him of weaving out of his lane then asked to search the vehicle for drugs. Officer Reichert then coerced a drug-sniffing dog into giving a false positive off camera to gain probable cause and search the vehicle.

The search came up empty. To cover himself, Officer Reichert claimed that the dog must have detected some “shake.”

Officer Michael Reichert has a criminal history for lying in a federal drug case and for selling knockoff sunglasses. He was previously fired and then rehired.

Madison County has a history of using asset forfeiture on I-70 to generate revenue.

Additional details:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/3 ... 64087.html

http://www.kmov.com/home/Man-says-Colli ... 97395.html

The city of Collinsville:
http://www2.collinsvilleil.org/

[RCA]

Interesting. So my question is when will Officer Michael Reichert be fired. Also when will the person who rehired Officer Michael Reichert be fired?

[frapjap]

What a giant jerk off. I hope this guy gets hit by a vehicle on the side of the highway.

[Mr1der]

sounds like they need a couple good ol boys from Hazzard county to shake things up.

[bigbadberry3]

Illinois

[MinisterofDOOM]

This video is a great demonstration of why I have trouble caring what anyone says anymore. The guy has a legitimate case to be upset, but he throws just as much speculation into his video as the officer does into that traffic stop. It doesn't change what happened or how wrong it was, but it sure does make it harder for me to listen with an open mind to what the guy is saying. He doesn't know how police dogs work and needs to stop imagining otherwise. A couple youtube videos of some random blonde and a drug dog don't change that.

I'm generally nervous during traffic stops, so I've always found the whole "acting nervous" thing disgusting. I rarely even drink beer, have never even smoked pot, and have less interest in drugs than I have in cutting off my own limbs, so the fact that "being nervous" could lead to a car being rifled through for drugs offends me to the core. I'm the kind of guy who would just consent to a search to get it over with, but THAT offends me because I shouldn't have to.

I've never liked the tactic--no matter where it might be used--of making the subject so uncomfortable that they'll admit to or accept pretty much anything because they're either not thinking straight or are feeling trapped. It's foul. Psychologically, it's not hard to make someone feel guilty for nothing, and then turn that guilt around to prove any idea you want. Especially if you're an authority figure and especially if that person isn't used to being put on the spot for the kind of mistakes that bring down that kind of heat.

The whole situation...it doesn't even make me mad. It goes way past that. I feel like the stereotypical dad: I'm not angry, son...just disappointed.

I'm extra disappointed in the creator of the video, though. If he'd stuck to the facts instead of introducing his own nonsense speculation his story would carry more weight.

[krash]

http://people.howstuffworks.com/police-dog6.htm

Seems like he's done research. It would be easy to train the dog to do whatever.

Not trying to be a d!ck, but I doubt someone in his position is going to just post a video like that with no background research.

[Jesda]

The officer who detained him has a criminal record and was previously fired for being dishonest (and they likely rehired him because he's good at generating revenue). It's not like his questions and concerns are without merit.

[MinisterofDOOM]

It's not like his questions and concerns are without merit.

Of course. That wasn't my point at all. I'm simply saying that it should be enough to say "He searched my car unlawfully" and not have to add "Oh, AND I hear he slept with your daughter!" I tend to have more respect for people who stick to the facts.

[krash]

It's not like his questions and concerns are without merit.

Of course. That wasn't my point at all. I'm simply saying that it should be enough to say "He searched my car unlawfully" and not have to add "Oh, AND I hear he slept with your daughter!" I tend to have more respect for people who stick to the facts.

??

Its not a "fact" that the dog was giving a false positive, since you conveniently cant see what the officer is doing, but how else is a dog going to find drugs in a car that doesn't have drugs in it?

Also, "The wind is pushing the smell to the front bumper", really?

[MinisterofDOOM]

Its not a "fact" that the dog was giving a false positive, since you conveniently cant see what the officer is doing, but how else is a dog going to find drugs in a car that doesn't have drugs in it?

Not what I said. Not what I meant.

The "speculation" I was talking about was several other statements throughout the video, including some "I'd bet..." comments that I found stupid and pointless.

Again, this stuff disappoints me and lowers my already low expectations for individual members of the human race, and I'm not disputing the fact that the traffic stop was a joke of the worst kind. I'm not stating that the guy's story is bogus; in fact I'm getting at the opposite: when you have a valid point to make, don't smear with with bullcrap. Stick to the point. No one cares what "you'd bet" is on other videos of that officer's stops. Prove it or STFU. Stick to the point. Your story stands on its own.

[speedeast]

Police dogs don't alert when they pick up a scent. They alert when they're as close to the source as they can be. So the "shake" is in the front bumper, of course. :p

[Jesda]

Not what I said. Not what I meant.

The "speculation" I was talking about was several other statements throughout the video, including some "I'd bet..." comments that I found stupid and pointless.

It's not exactly a risky bet. This particular cop is an unethical thug with a marred professional and criminal record. I've encountered the checkpoints in Collinsville more than a few times on my way east. They put signs up a mile in advance and don't actually pull anyone over unless they exit ahead of the checkpoint, at which point they make up an excuse. The Collinsville PD aren't legally allowed to run a drug inspection checkpoint on a federal interstate so that's how they get around the law.

Most importantly, there were no drugs in his car. "Found some shake" my a**. If there was any trace of illegal substances Officer Reichert would have seized his property and allowed him to deal with the court costs and legal fees later. That's what Collinsville's not-really-a-checkpoint is for -- to collect revenue.

I grew up just a few miles south in St Clair County. His speculation is spot-on. These little southern Illinois towns only exist because the interstate happens to run through their otherwise forgettable communities. They want to play toll collector.

[MinisterofDOOM]

Yes. I am not saying his speculation was incorrect. I am saying it was not necessary.

You wanna sell me a car? Tell me about the car. Don't need to know about your wife's blender.

[300ZXttZMAN]

Police dogs don't alert when they pick up a scent. They alert when they're as close to the source as they can be. So the "shake" is in the front bumper, of course. :p

Exactly it automatically throws up a red flag... If the dog really did smell something then the dog would alert where the strongest scent is coming from which would more than likely be a door jam.. NOT conviently out of the camera's view...

I really feel sorry for that guy, it was his 40th birthday and he had to deal with that crap.

[krash]

Yes. I am not saying his speculation was incorrect. I am saying it was not necessary.

You wanna sell me a car? Tell me about the car. Don't need to know about your wife's blender.

It was kind of necessary since establishing a trend would help his case.