U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 06-01-2007, 06:37 AM
 
123 posts, read 442,318 times
Reputation: 58

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logic316 View Post
First of all, it is you who have little understanding of the law. Courts require that cops have more than just "reasonable suspicion" (which in layman's terms means just a mere "hunch") to search you, your car, or your belongings. They require PROBABLE CAUSE, which is a somewhat stricter standard. The definition of probable cause is "an articulable reason to believe that a crime has been committed which can be documented and accepted in a court of law". A motorist merely having an "attitude", or insisting on his privacy does not even come close to meeting this criteria. No court in the U.S. would uphold a cop searching you just because you didn't want to be searched. Examples of sufficient probable cause for a vehicle search would be an officer witnessing you hide something under your seat, a K-9 unit smelling something funny around your car, blood dripping from your trunk, etc.

Second of all, law-abiding people DO have something to hide - their PRIVACY! I, for one, don't like a cop sticking his face, hand, or any other part of his body into my car and I prefer to only open my window far enough to hand out the paperwork. It's a rude invasion of personal space and there just isn't any reason for it. If a cop wants to enter or search my car in any way, let him come up with a legal reason for it first.
If I remember correctly from previous posts, AltX IS a cop, so he probably knows what he's talking about as far as the law. lol...

Thank you AltX for your work.

 
Old 06-01-2007, 08:29 AM
 
1,225 posts, read 3,620,891 times
Reputation: 1029
Oh no, not this post again.
 
Old 06-01-2007, 04:26 PM
 
3 posts, read 6,910 times
Reputation: 10
Default Really?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarp View Post
I refuse to allow officers to stick their breathalyzer flashlights into my vehicle space.
If you can tell me where I can purchase this, and which state would allow me to use in a court of law as evidence, I would be grateful. Law Enforcement has a job. As a baker you bake, a mortgage broker helps you buy a home, a Law Enforcement officer helps......anyone, anyone.....ENFORCE THE LAW. Any idiot who rolls the window down only an inch give a reasonable person to have suspicion that one may be doing something wrong.

If a glass is shattered at your home do you go in or call the LAW ENFORCMENT OFFICER to help? You call, right, because you suspect....

Open your eyes, you looked guilty. Did you have drugs, an illegal alien, Jimmy Hoffa?

sus·pi·cion Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[suh-spish-uhn] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. act of suspecting.
2. the state of mind or feeling of one who suspects: Suspicion kept him awake all night long.
3. an instance of suspecting something or someone.
4. state of being suspected: under suspicion; above suspicion.
5. imagination of anything to be the case or to be likely; a vague notion of something.
6. a slight trace, hint, or suggestion: a suspicion of a smile.
–verb (used with object) 7. Nonstandard. to suspect.



—Synonyms 2. doubt, mistrust, misgiving. Suspicion, distrust are terms for a feeling that appearances are not reliable. Suspicion is the positive tendency to doubt the trustworthiness of appearances and therefore to believe that one has detected possibilities of something unreliable, unfavorable, menacing, or the like: to feel suspicion about the honesty of a prominent man. Distrust may be a passive want of trust, faith, or reliance in a person or thing: to feel distrust of one's own ability.
 
Old 06-01-2007, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Fort Mill, SC (Charlotte 'burb)
4,730 posts, read 17,506,024 times
Reputation: 1008
Driving is a privelege, not a right, afforded to you by our great state gov't. Therefore they can do whatever the hell they want.
 
Old 06-01-2007, 04:51 PM
 
1,495 posts, read 3,275,522 times
Reputation: 1411
You've got to be kidding Tarp - sorry, but you brought this on yourself.
Everytime I've been pulled over I've deserved it. We have no idea the daily dangers these men/women face. If they ask me to jump I ask "how high?"
 
Old 06-15-2007, 05:52 PM
 
10 posts, read 18,914 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by jello212 View Post
But officers aren't prevented from looking in your car because it is in plain sight. What they can't do without your consent is check your trunk.
True. Any illegal weapons or contraband in plain sight is fair game. That doesn't mean cops can legally enter, commandeer, and ransack your car just because you don't want to roll your window down.
 
Old 06-15-2007, 05:55 PM
 
10 posts, read 18,914 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterboy526 View Post
Bottom line is if you had just complied to roll your window down in the first place everything would have been alright. I'll admit there are bad apples out there, just like in any profession, but by and large all officers are here to help us.
Sources, please?

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, by either quoting statute or case history, that merely not rolling your window down and giving access to your vehicle's interior at the request of an officer constitutes probable cause for him searching it. Courts have REPEATEDLY determined over the years that act of not consenting to a search does not by itself justify an officer performing a search. A person protecting his privacy and wanting to be left alone is NOT sufficient legal grounds for believing that he is committing a crime, a cop needs to have a better reason than that. And yes, having somebody roll his window down so you can have any access it's interior, smell what's in there, or whatever, does constitute a search.

The bottom line is, police and other agents of the government cannot be allowed to just enter people's personal areas and ransack their property unless they can provide a specific and articulable reason for believing that a crime has been committed. Otherwise, such acts are nothing more than theft and trespassing, which are no more justified when done by a cop than when done by a private citizen. Maybe that makes a cop's job harder, but that's just too bad. Random searches don't make anybody safer, and hassling everyone and compelling them prove their innocence for the sake of catching a few bad guys isn't acceptable in a free and civilized society. I'm not saying I have a problem with DUI checkpoints in general - sure, it's perfectly legal for cops to stop everyone coming through an area to observe for signs of intoxication or impairment, but in this particular case they overstepped their authority when they entered the original poster's vehicle. There is nothing whatsoever about the legality of a DUI checkpoint which exempts police from having to adhere to the standard of Probable Cause when searching somebody's car.

What it comes down to is that the law is a blunt and brutal tool that isn't appropriate for solving every social problem. By their very nature, laws only work if they can be enforced by threats, intimidation, and violence. Even the nicest cop is like a guy with a hammer who sees every problem as a nail. I say we already have ENOUGH legal solutions for stopping drunk driving, and should start looking for more technological solutions instead. Perhaps all auto manufacturers one day can install some kind of passive interlock ignition device in all cars. Any presence of alcohol in the air, and the car won't start. If some drunk tries to be a wiseass by having a friend start his car for him, the car will alert a warning and gradually shut down as the engine computer detects the booze. It can be done. Similar technology can be implemented for drugged and sleepy drivers as well. No need for intrusive confrontations with paranoid cops, and no need to worry about impaired people driving down the road.
 
Old 06-15-2007, 06:10 PM
 
10 posts, read 18,914 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by SALUKI_LOVER View Post
We have no idea the daily dangers these men/women face. If they ask me to jump I ask "how high?"
Daily dangers, my ass. I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of seeing this kind of garbage. Statistically, police officers are NOWHERE near being in one of the most dangerous professions. Even a housepainter or a fisherman is far more likely to get killed on the job than a cop, and yet you never hear about them on the news. Here's the proof to debunk the myth about how oh-so dangerous a cop's job is:

Dying To Work: America's Most Dangerous Jobs - Forbes.com
 
Old 06-15-2007, 06:30 PM
 
10 posts, read 18,914 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by groove1 View Post
Driving is a privelege, not a right, afforded to you by our great state gov't. Therefore they can do whatever the hell they want.
Driving is definitely a privilege which must be earned, and it can be suspended or revoked by the state for any reason it sees fit. But you don't surrender your fundamental civil rights just because you happen to be driving a car (in particular, those rights regarding searches and seizures). I would have no problem with a law that says "You must allow police to search your vehicle at random for any reason, or lose your license". It would be a rather stupid and impractical law, but it would probably be constitutional because you have the option of allowing the search and keeping your license, or protecting your privacy and forfeiting your license to drive. But under NO circumstances can a cop search your car over your objections, unless he has Probable Cause to believe you've committed a crime.

"Probable Cause: Facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being, or will be committed and the person arrested is responsible. At this stage, police may perform a search, and often an arrest. Probable cause generally means police know what crime they suspect you of and have discovered evidence to support that belief. Common examples include seeing or smelling evidence which is in plain view, or receiving an admission of guilt for a specific crime."

Taken from Definition of Probable Cause | FlexYourRights.org (http://www.flexyourrights.org/definition_of_probable_cause - broken link)
 
Old 06-15-2007, 06:33 PM
 
10 posts, read 18,914 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by HOltmans View Post
If I remember correctly from previous posts, AltX IS a cop, so he probably knows what he's talking about as far as the law. lol...
Arguing from authority is not an answer.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

And believe it or not, most cops aren't experts in the law since their job is basically just to bring in suspected criminals and let the courts, lawyers, judges and juries work out the details.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top