Additionally, asking them to prove they are a cop is part of MY safety, especially in street clothes, a civilian or unmarked vehicle, and NOT displaying a badage or anything else that readily identifies them as such.

IF that was in deed the case, that dude was on a major power trip and should have understood he was CLEARLY in the wrong.

 

Exactly with out proof that they are a cop I would not trust them. I would even be skeptical if an unmarked non crown vic car tried to pull me over I would more than likely drive to the nearest barracks.

 

I agree...I'd be calling the police first and asking for verification (which not only keeps you safe, but gives you a chance to communicate to the officer too before he actually stops you).

 

Yes there is, he doesn't have a reason to. "Because those kids look to young to be able to own that car" is not a valid reason to pull someone over. That's why most road blocks are unconstitutional in nature. The Supreme Court ruled that DWI check points are unconstitutional, but they said it was ok cause it saves a lot of lives (which is BS but that's another story). Cops can't just fish for people doing something wrong, they have to a reason to detain.

Not saying that they don't do it all the time, but they shouldn't. The civil liberties of every 20yo that can afford an M3 are of far more importance then some guy that get's his car stolen.

 

Ask yourself.. and honestly answer.. HOW MANY TIMES have you been pulled over in the last calendar year.

 

What the hell does that have to do with what I was saying? I was adressing what he said about there being nothing wrong with cops pulling people over based on age and type of car. Actually for any physical attribute for that matter. It's wrong, and against the law.

I don't drive an M3, so how many times I've been pulled over is irrelevent, but if you would like to know it has been twice. Once in Nahant and once in the middle of no where in VT yesterday..

 

Oh trust me that's exactly how it went down we weren't yelling or making a scene just walking and talking and we weren't just carryin in the open either it was in a brown bag and I wouldn't have shown ID if I didn't know him but when he got out of the car I recognized him.....and BTW i've been in a car that's been pulled over and the cop asked for everyones ID and we gave them up w/o thinking twice because arguing with a cop isn't a smart idea.

 

LOL that's my bro in mid sneeze hahaha

 

If you are in the us arm forces you can drive any where you wont with expired tags and license. This called the sailers act and was started in the late 70s. This would be a violation of your rights. If you are from a state who don't require you to register a vehicle to after a two year period the ticket will be dismissed but has the right being in his and his state laws to site you. The officer still has the right if probable cause is their and to carry you to the magistrates office to bond or place you in jail if he thinks that the situation warrants proper investigation do to flight and or no show in court. and if you talk that talk and walk that walk he has the right to

 

And of those TWO times (out of 365 days) what percentage were you actually guilty of what you were pulled over for.. and did you get a break either time? Answer honestly.

 

That's interesting

To the original poster, just give 'em your stuff and that's that. I had the same thing happen to me as a passenger, and I didn't have mine. It could've been a lot worse since the driver was merely on a permit, but I digress... I've been pulled over several times, I have also been guilty of what the cop said I was doing. I was polite, followed instructions, didn't give the officer any reason to suspect anything was up, and that was that. It's not worth trying to play mind games with police IMO, as I've yet to see anyone win

Mr. B are you a cop?

-J

 

I left the Federal Bureau of Prisons, NYC Probation Warrants, and local Sheriff's Dept after 16 years.. primarily in Corrections.

 

Guilty both times and got a break both due to being a vet and the other I knew a friend of the cop. You're still not going to make a valid point of this being that my 2 situations were different from what I'm commenting on.

 

I rest my case.. I ask for a lonnngggg adjournment to allow obsolete346 to gain some life experience.

 

Well congrats for making no sense and coming off as a condescending *** to someone you know nothing about. I commend you on your obviously stellar ability to psychoanalyze people from a few written sentences. I believe you have a profitable future in Freudian psychology. I suggest you reread what I wrote, why I wrote it and what I wrote it about. With all your law enforcement accomplishments you, more then most, should know pulling someone over simply based on age and type of car is illegal. Not to mention if it was proved to be true it could get evidence thrown out if there was a criminal case that came about because of the stop. Your questioning of my being pulled over for CAUSE has nothing to do with a police officer pulling over someone for NO CAUSE. If you had bothered to comprehend what I wrote you would realize that I was commenting on that specific situation. Once again congrats on your failure to make a logical and valid argument and showing your ignorance about me.

 

Do you know what was put out in the muster room *before* he (the cop) started his shift, or what was transmitted to his radio, or what he deemed important by virtue of his "prior training and experiences as a cop for x-amount of years as a police officer" and familiarity of his sector.. etc.. etc..

So you REALLY have no idea if it was for cause or not for cause, do you?

Even if it wasn't what you deem for cause.. guess what:

He can still stop and question ANYONE he wants- acting pursuant to his job title. Just accept it- they got it like that..

 

Famous legal opinion by Judge Cardozo:

Cardozo was not a criminal lawyer, but criminal cases were an important part of the workload of the New York Court of Appeals and even of the United States Supreme Court. Cardozo addressed criminal law problems and issues with his usual attentiveness.

His most famous criminal law decision is People v Defore, a case in which he refused to adopt the exclusionary rule for New York State. His opinion is famous for his unforgettable summation that politely ridiculed the arguments favoring adoption of the exclusionary rule: "The criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered."

In Defore, an illegal search and seizure occurred, and the question was whether to change New York's existing rule in order to exclude the illegally obtained evidence.

Cardozo's criminal procedure opinions show a judge whose general attitude was to enforce criminal statutes and to respect the roles of the jury and the lower courts. Although the rules of procedure existed to assure that the goals of justice were achieved by just means, they were not to be pursued so tenaciously as to defeat the larger goal of the legal system to punish the guilty. Thus, where there was clear evidence of guilt, Cardozo would not use technical errors to reverse a conviction unless reversal served a major public need.

 

It's not what I deem cause, it's what the courts have deemed prejudice. Like I said before it is illegal to stop someone based solely on age and type of vehicle, but as I stated before it happens regularly because the cop will just give another reason because the burden of proof would be on the person who was stopped. It still doesn't change the legality of using prejudice to stop and question.

“As a general rule, “the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred.” Whren v. United States, 517 U.S. 806, 810 (1996). In examining the legality of a traffic stop, the proper inquiry is not the subjective reasoning of the officer, but whether the objective facts support a finding that probable cause existed to stop the defendant. See State v.McClendon, 350 N.C. 630, 635, 517 S.E.2d 128, 132 (1999). Probable cause exists when there is a fair probability or substantial chance a crime has been committed and that the defendant committed it. See Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 245-46 (1983). Thus, the United States require an officer who makes a seizure on the basis of a perceived traffic violation to have probable cause to believe the driver's actions violated a motor vehicle law. See McClendon, 350 N.C. at 635-36, 517 S.E.2d at 132 (adopting the reasoning of Whren v. United States in interpreting Article I, Section 20 of the North Carolina Constitution). The standard of probable cause is a basic tenet that applies regardless of whether the action is taken by a deputy sheriff, a city police officer, a state Alcohol Law Enforcement agent, or a wildlife enforcement officer.”

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914)[1], is a case in which the United States Supreme Court held unanimously that illegal seizure of items from a private residence constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment.1 It also set forth the exclusionary rule that prohibits admission of illegally obtained evidence in federal courts. The Mapp case brought it down to the state level. There are certain cases that exempt the exclusionary rule but usually the evidence is not admissible. Just because one judge exempted it doesn’t mean it’s the opinion of the SCOTUS.

Well then he would have a cause wouldn’t he.

I never denied that fact that it happens. I did however say that it is wrong. Which it is.

 

Also none of this case quoting makes your original line of questioning any more relevant. It still has nothing to do with my original statement. Nor does it absolve you of making an incorrect, ignorant, knee-jerk judgment on my life.

 

DWI/DUI Sobriety Road Blocks or Checkpoints
by David J. Hanson, Ph.D.

The Bill of Rights refers to the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution, the fourth of which states that:

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.

Thus the Constitution protects people from being stopped without a search warrant or at least “probable cause” that they have committed a crime.

The Michigan Supreme Court found sobriety checkpoints to be a violation of the Fourth Amendment. However, in a split decision, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Michigan court. Although acknowledging that such roadblocks violate a fundamental constitutional right, Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that they are necessary in order to reduce drunk driving. That is, he argued that the end justifies the means. Attorney and law professor Lawrence Taylor refers to this as “the DUI exception to the Constitution.” 1

Dissenting justices emphasized that the Constitution doesn’t provide exceptions. "That stopping every car might make it easier to prevent drunken driving ... is an insufficient justification for abandoning the requirement of individualized suspicion," dissenting Justice Brennan insisted. 2

Chief Justice Rehnquist had argued that violating individual constitutional rights was justified because sobriety roadblocks were effective and necessary. But dissenting Justice Stevens pointed out that "the findings of the trial court, based on an extensive record and affirmed by the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicate that the net effect of sobriety checkpoints on traffic safety is infinitesimal and possibly negative." 3 And even if roadblocks were effective, the fact that they work wouldn’t justify violating individuals’ constitutional rights, justices argued.

While the U.S. Supreme Court has made the DUI exemption to the Constitution, eleven states have found that sobriety checkpoints violate their own state constitutions or have outlawed them. In these states, individuals have more protections against unreasonable search and police sobriety roadblocks are prohibited.

Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), which strongly promotes them, implies that sobriety roadblocks are legal throughout the entire United States without exception. It says that “the U.S. Supreme Court on June 14, 1990 upheld the use of sobriety checkpoints to detect and deter impaired drivers. Previous appeals to the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of such checkpoints had been declined, which allowed high state court rulings to stand. The June 14, 1990 ruling clearly upheld the constitutionality of such enforcement measures.” 4

MADD also dismisses those who question the use of sobriety checkpoints by asserting that “opponents of sobriety checkpoints tend to be those who drink and drive frequently and are concerned about being caught.” 5 MADD provides no evidence of this assertion and none has been found in any published research study. There are, however, published reports that opposition is especially strong among civil libertarians, judges, law enforcement leaders and conservatives. 6

There are many arguments both for and against the use of roadblocks in our effort to reduce drunk driving. For example, many law enforcement officials and researchers believe that roving patrols are much more effective and are a better use of scarce resources. People of good will can and do disagree on such important matters.

Unfortunately, MADD’s effort to discredit and marginalize those with whom it disagrees is unproductive and doesn‘t help us make the best decisions about how to reduce impaired and drunk driving, whether or not that involves police roadblocks.