I live in Oklahoma,driver consented to search. I was patted down 2 times,told to lift my shirt up to the bottom of my bra and patted down . This was the second patt down . My brother in law standing right next to me emptied his pockets but never patted down. I was planted and I don't know how to prove it! The police say there is no video from the police car video camera. Although there were approx. 6-7 police cars there. What do I do?

In my opinion (legal qualifier, ie do not practice law)
-- It depends how serious you are. You can file a formal complaint against the police man with the department. That alone is a good deterrent for the next time. Nobody wants that kind of attention from the boss.
-- You can file a complaint with the oversight person, mayor, governor, etc.
-- You can file a law suit against the cop. There is a good chance he will settle out of court, rather than face bad publicity.
-- get an affidavit from the driver and any other witness (see instructions in the course)
-- check out the various websites for holding bad cops accountable.
-- If you file a claim sui juris, it will only cost you to file the case. I would not notify the cop or department if you intend to sue. In any case, win or lose, it will cost the department a bunch, and you will deter the next cop. They will have to hire a lawyer at $250 an hour or more, and pay work time to investigate.
-- this is not a game. Before you do this know you are messing with someone's career.

The lynchpin in such cases as this where a public officer has acted outside the scope of his or her lawful authority is just that. Once such an officer, no matter what level of government, acts in a manner not authorized by his "job description" (to put it generally), he or she is no longer protected by immunity defenses. An officer of any part of our government is only protected by immunity defenses when that officer acts WITHIN the boundaries of his or her lawful authority. Damages resulting from an officer's actions outside his or her authority are compensable by legal proceedings ... however such an officer's supervisors may also be liable if it can be PROVEN that they did not properly instruct the officer with regard to the SCOPE of authority the officer is legally authorized to act.

PLEASE TELL EVERYONE ABOUT THIS COURSE ! ! !

I know this won't help you now. If this happens again tell the officer you do not consent. Just because the driver consented, that does not give the police officer permission to search everyone in the automobile. The police officer violated your rights. Also, remember a police officer can not lawfully stop you without probable cause of a crime. It might shock you knowing what is and is not a crime. Good luck

This is a perfect example of the abuse of the Police powers.

They are NOT the knights in shining armor, and the public walk around like zombies chanting 'Back the Blue!'

NO! Back the Blue WHEN they are acting LAWFULLY, and prosecute the Blue when they are NOT!

Did you consent to a search also?

Hello KELLY3,

It's been quite awhile since you posted your message, or since someone last responded. I'm curious if you went forward with this matter.

I work in Oklahoma myself. Have you considered filing sexual discrimination complaint? Within the government, various discrimination charge are taken quite serious.

I'm a federal employee. Recently this month, a fellow employee made a false complaint against me. He works on a different shift, and reported to his supervisor that I was in violation of a certain policy. His supervisor forwarded the complain to my supervisor, who verbally counseled me.

I wasn't satisfied with the action taken against me, and began my own investigation as to who made the complain against me. After I found the person, I asked his supervisor for a meeting. I asked the person, who made the complaint, to cite the policy to which he said I was in violation. He stated that he couldn't. At that time I told him that I went to H.R. and found out that there is no such policy.

I also maneuvered him into admitting that he was aware of a 2nd employee who supposedly violated this same policy; but the 2nd employee wasn't reported on. The supervisor tried to cover for this worker who made the false statement against me. Stating that it was an honest mistake.

I refused to let this go. To make a long story short, this 2nd employee is Caucasian, and I'm Black. I files a Racial Discrimination counter-claim. This elevated the matter out of the hands of the immediate supervisors and straight to the E.E.O office.

I received immediate Remedy, and an apology from the employee making the false statement against me.

Just a thought for the future if anyone feels that they are being singled out and discriminated against. But only if you are in one of the protective groups. Race and gender are two of the various protected groups.

Study the class on discovery of evidence and class on compelling evidence and use the tools and forms there to prove the lies. There is no other way to prove the lies. I you will PLEASE study ALL of my course these questions will be answered for you in the course.

AND PLEASE TELL OTHERS THIS COURSE WORKS!

Katz v. United States: Established that warrantless searches are unconstitutional if they violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy.

** Weeks v. United States: This case introduced the Exclusionary Rule, stating that evidence obtained from an illegal search is inadmissible in court. The Supreme Court ruled that the warrantless search of Mr. Weeks' home violated the Fourth Amendment.

New Jersey v. T.L.O.: The Supreme Court held that school officials can search students if they have reasonable suspicion, which is a lower standard than probable cause. This case balanced students' rights with the school's responsibility to maintain a safe environment.

Safford Unified School District v. Redding: The Court ruled that a strip search of a student by school officials was unreasonable and violated the Fourth Amendment, as there was no evidence suggesting that the student was carrying dangerous items.

Board of Education v. Earls: The Supreme Court upheld a school district's policy of random drug testing for student athletes, stating that it did not violate the Fourth Amendment as it served the school's interest in preventing drug use among students.

Key Principles of Fourth Amendment Protections:

Probable Cause: Law enforcement must have sufficient evidence to believe a crime has occurred before conducting a search.

Warrants: Generally, searches require a warrant issued by a judge, detailing the specific place and items to be searched.

Exclusionary Rule: Evidence obtained through illegal searches cannot be used in court, reinforcing the protection against unreasonable searches.

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement: Certain situations allow for warrantless searches, such as exigent circumstances, consent, and searches of vehicles under probable cause.