What is everyone working on now that its cold and windy?

kaplow snipped-for-privacy@encompasserve.org.TRABoD (Bob Kaplow) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@eisner.encompasserve.org:
And "probable cause" does not include the manner of transportation you happen to be using or the time of day/night you are travelling.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Loading thread data ...
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
The 4th Amendment; "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."
"to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,AND EFFECTS..against unreasonable searches"(no warrant or probable cause equals unreasonable)
This amendment is intended to limit government from interfering with the citizens going about their business,unless there is probable cause or warrant for doing so.
What mode of travel one uses,or the time of day/night one travels,should not matter.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
"Mind if you show me your warrant?"
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
You tell me. You did read them all, didn't you?
I wrote most of some of them, some of a couple, but two of the last 3 were not written by me at all!
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
People are FAR too intimaded and ignorant (while their civil rights are being uncharacteristicly violated) to have the presence of mind to say that. That is a fact these CHECKPOINTS brely on.
In CA a checkpooint must have an "exit street before the checkpoint" for people to turn off on if they do not want to go through the checkpoint.
EVERY car that uses it is pulled over by twice as many cops on the turn-off as are at the checkpoint proper.
There is no SPECIFIC rule against that and it is OBVIOUSLY against the spirit of the rule.
Police have no morals or ethics. They justify their moral vacancy by claiming it is up to the judge. Unfortunately a DA is in the mix with unbelievable power in the mix.
Including the ability to **coerce** a defendant into a plea bargain (extortion) with no legal recourse.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Did I pull your chain?? (:-)
And just like fishing, sometimes you catch a keeper and sometimes you don't.
Fred
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
But unlike fishing, if you catch one out of season without a license, there's no game warden to make you throw it back... the cops seem to think it's OK to keep those anyway.
-dave w
Reply to
David Weinshenker
I guess it all depends on how you understand "unreasonable search"..
How can I debate such emotional retoric/logic??
Fred
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
In principle I agree also, but the reality of today's world indicates the need for flexibility in the way constitutional law is applied.
Fred
"Odor Destroyer.com" wrote:
Reply to
W. E. Fred Wallace
Unfortunately, the game warden (i.e. the US Supreme Court) has determined that it's OK for the Police to "fish" whenever they want.
Mario Perdue NAR #22012 Sr. L2 for email drop the planet
formatting link
"X-ray-Delta-One, this is Mission Control, two-one-five-six, transmission concluded."
Reply to
Mario Perdue
I'm not trying to start any kind of flame war here (really, I'm not), and I'm also one of those who doesn't appreciate some/many/most of the things in this vein, but...
I thought the term used in the Constitution was 'due process', not 'due cause'. Further, other related terms would be 'unreasonable search and seizure'.
If the law has been approved by the legislature (at whatever level), then 'due process' has been performed.
The only real 'open' question then becomes whether or not such a search is 'unreasonable'.
My own opinion is that it is unreasonable given the current state of affairs where drunk drivers receive a slap on the wrist. However, if the punishment for those convicted of drunk driving were actually higher, I wouldn't necessarily find the 'drunk driving traps' unreasonable.
I realize this may sound a bit convoluted, but the fact that drunk drivers aren't prosecuted is what makes the stops 'unreasonable' in my eyes. And others may have opinions, but the reality is that one of the things that jury trials are for is to apply the 'reasonable man' standard...
Welcome any (non-flaming) comments on this...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
A few years ago, about 20 miles south of town, a State trooper pulled a pick-up truck over for a minor offence on Interstate 57. While writing the ticket, the trooper asked if he could search the truck. The driver said "sure, go ahead". The trooper found a couple of kilos of cocaine in the spare tire. When a reporter asked the trooper what he would have done if the driver had refused to let him search the truck, the trooper said "I would have let him go." Just another fishing expedition, and conclusive proof that drugs really do make you stupid.
Reply to
Christopher Deem
Did you see me quaff the 5th of Bacardi and then drive off? Is there blood dripping from the trunk of my car? If not, it's unreasonable. The fact that I am operating a vehicle does not mean that carte blanche has been granted to community revenue enhancement officials to stop me/search my vehicle/test my sobriety/etc. etc. etc., all in the name of safety.
What emotion or rhetoric?
The 4th ammendment is pretty easy to comprehend. What is incomprehensible is the blitheness with which people give up those rights contained therein.
Reply to
Tweak

Site Timeline

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.