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

Ever watch "Cops"? I have seen it a few times, and people genuinely amaze me with their capacity for stupidity.
Guy gets pulled for speeding. Cop asks if he can look around the car. Guy says "No problem". Cop finds blanket sitting on back seat wrapped around various stolen and illegal firearms. WTF!?! Just how stupid can somebody be?
Reply to
Tweak
Loading thread data ...
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
HOW can it be legal when they had NO probable cause or warrant for the stop? (at a "DUI" checkpoint)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
Yes it does,as they have to have reasonable cause to stop any citizen going about their business(travelling)."reasonable" is defined as "probable cause or warrant".
Legal means of travel has nothing to do with it.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
David Erbas-White wrote in news:EJ3Fd.3501$Wp.3016@lakeread07:
If that "law" is unconstitutional,it is NOT "reasonable". The 4th defines "reasonable" searches and seizures as needing probable cause or a warrant.
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)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
It SAYS right in the 4th;"upon probable cause or warrant". THAT'S what "reasonable" is. Anything else is weaseling.
How can you debate plain English?
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Tweak wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.giganews.com:
The fact that one chooses one particular legal manner of travel does not negate the 4th Amendment. W.E. Fred Wallace seems to not understand that.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
"W. E. Fred Wallace" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@boe.com:
Then it is no longer 'law',but whatever some judge feels like on any particular day. Then there are no rights or laws any more.
No thank you. We are a nation of laws and clear limits on government. I wish it to stay that way.
Reply to
Jim Yanik
Jerry Irvine wrote in news:01rocket- snipped-for-privacy@corp.supernews.com:
Why should Cal require a separate road? They should provide a "pass-by lane" for those who do not want to volunteer for the search.Why should ODCs have to deviate from their travels for some unconstitutional checkpoint?
(ODC= ordinary decent citizen)
Reply to
Jim Yanik
I'm afraid a disagree with your interpretation of this.
Read it carefully.
They are allowed to do REASONABLE searches/seizures without a warrant or probably cause.
The can not pass beyond the bounds of a REASONABLE search into doing an UNREASONABLE search without a warrant or probably cause.
Thus, as I stated previously, this all hinges on what a jury would consider to be 'reasonable'. I weigh the cost vs. benefit ratio in my own mind, and I (as a fairly average individual) find it REASONABLE to have a sobriety checkpoint, at times of day when there is historical evidence of DUI occurrences, in areas where there is historical evidence of DUI occurrences. However, I only find it REASONABLE if those who are actually guilty of the crime are convicted and punished on a fairly stringent basis (i.e, not just a slap on the wrist). If the cost (both fiscal and social) doesn't provide the benefit (i.e., making strong strides towards lowering the DUI rate by incarcerating repeat offenders), then (and only then) do I find it UNREASONABLE.
I would add that if DUI weren't such a serious problem, I would find it UNREASONABLE to do stops for it. For example, especially in these days of ABS systems and warning lights, it is very rare for cars to have accidents due to brake failure. Thus, if a checkpoint were opened up to ensure that brakes were properly operating, I would find it UNREASONABLE, because the problem of brake failures is statistically very small (with modern cars). DUI is both a problem with the frequency of occurence, and the severity of the results. It's also a crime where the victim is totally 'chosen at random' and can't do anything to prevent it -- and where the perpetrator usually lives when the victim is killed. All of these things lead me to the stand that DUI checkpoints are a REASONABLE solution.
I would agree, by the way, that if a search of the car trunk were performed as a matter of course at a DUI checkpoint, that would be UNREASONABLE. There is no correlation with the DUI problem and having ANYTHING in your trunk...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
Please don't ask why I kept saying 'probably' cause (substitute 'probable'). Must be a defect in my keyboard...
David Erbas-White
Reply to
David Erbas-White
warrant
I didn't even notice, and having piqued my curiosity, I had to go back and re-read. It was only then, when I read, "Read it carefully.", that I completely spit my coffee about the office. LOL! thank you, steve :>)
Reply to
default
I agree. Stopping people without probable cause is just plain wrong, a clear violation of the Constitution. It doesn't matter how you dress it up with words like "safety" or "the greater good".
Fred W. wrote:
The Fourth Amendment spells it out: There must be probable cause. Stopping people at random to look for violations is not probable cause.
Reply to
RayDunakin
... or the color of your skin.
Every stop for DWB is a civil rights violation that should result in a cop going to jail.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow
Apparantly he feels any highway travel, driver or passenger, or car owner, is a privelidge and not a right.
Jerry
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
I am glad you have gotten to know Fred Wallace.
He speculates to government agencies "on behalf" of folks too.
[whether] "Mr. Irvine has complied with the instructions provided him, with no response from your office unless he has taken liberties with the truth, there are problems he has failed to disclose, resulting in a delay in the response from you or your office, and or both." - W.E. "Fred" Wallace, MDRA 6-26-01 letter to DOT
Reply to
Jerry Irvine
Exactly correct. I don't have a problem with a cop who actually observes erratic driving, and pulls someone over for DUI. In fact, they need to spend more time doing just that instead of sleeping at the side of the road with their radar gun set to wake them up when someone goes 37 in a 35 mph zone. But proper law enforcement is just too much work.
Correct again. I've actually asked for a search warrant at airport screenings. And I've NEVER given my permission for their illegal searches. But I've never physically stopped them from doing so. Maybe next time.
Bob Kaplow NAR # 18L TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD" >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD!
Reply to
Bob Kaplow

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.