Brickbat: You Have the Right …


Mount Olive Police
Mount Olive Police

Mount Olive, New Jersey, has settled for $60,000 a false arrest and excessive force claim brought by Carl J. Granese. Police arrested Granese for resisting arrest, obstruction and motor vehicle violations after he refused to give an officer permission to search his car after he was stopped for failure to signal a lane change.

NEXT: Unreasonable Searches Are Unconstitutional—and Common

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Gardner, who began working for the Mount Olive police in 2008 is now a detective for the department.

    Possibly promoted to fool the municopal judge into thinking he must be a supercop and not an hotheaded moron. The municipal judge who originally convicted him was also promoted to detective.

    1. We are talking about a rich suburban town in NJ (although parts of the Budd Lake side are a little trailer-parkish).

      What big crimes will he be investigating as a detective? Stolen bicycles? The dad who yelled at the Little League umpire?

  2. Is it really excessive force if it is the norm? It’s not like they killed him. It was probably for his own good. Who are we to question our betters?

  3. Granese is white (well, New Jersey White, which I suppose is a sort of permanent tan for the rest of us), so nobody cares.

  4. Well,,the guy had nothing to hide and still wouldn’t let them search,what did he expect?

  5. I bet this cop doesn’t even signal his own wife when he makes a lane change.

  6. A Morris County K-9 Unit that showed up soon after found no drugs in the car, the suit says.


    1. Use of canines on people’s cars is discriminatory against the poor, who are more likely to be driving a used car. Say the previous owner of the car always stashed drugs in the passenger’s headrest — a canine might find that, but how is the current owner supposed to know?

      Let’s look at it another way: say that I start a company that goes through your newly-purchased car, checking and cleaning it of any residual drugs, and that I stand behind the thoroughness of the service by offering to put up bail for you if you are ever arrested based on police canines signaling positive on your vehicle.

      Now, to keep the analysis simple, let’s stipulate both that you do not subsequently taint the vehicle, and that in searching your vehicle, a canine is not falsely signaled by his police handler — how much insurance should I carry against failure of my service?

      Whatever it is, it is eclipsed by the risk borne by every day, by every driver of a used car, even if they have never touched drugs in their entire life.

  7. You have rights. This is not in dispute.

    If you try to exercise them they will kick the shit out of you. Apparently this is not in dispute either.

    1. not true, the only right you have is the one you get after the left and the uppercut…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.