Sorry to post another "Eff you COPS" thread, but I'm not really sorry at all, pigs.
05-15-2009, 11:51 AM
#61
The guy is at a border check point, if he was hiding something wouldn't he have tried to drive around the border checkpoint? He knows it's a checkpoint and he knew he wasn't carrying anything. Cuz if I was carrying something I'd definitely NOT DRIVE TO A BORDER checkpoint. He chose to drive there because he knew he had nothing suspicious. BY constitutional LAW he has the right to refuse.
This probably cause thing has been blown out of proportion. A cop can almost make anything up for probably cause, this rule needs a backside like... Your department will be sued by the state for 5million dollars every time you fail to provide evidence. 5million is insane, but in this country, money talks.
This probably cause thing has been blown out of proportion. A cop can almost make anything up for probably cause, this rule needs a backside like... Your department will be sued by the state for 5million dollars every time you fail to provide evidence. 5million is insane, but in this country, money talks.
05-15-2009, 11:52 AM
#62
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,588
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
You don't really have an option to not cooperate at a security check point. I think people are forgetting that driving is not a right.
If a cop turns on his lights to pull you over, do you pull over? You have to. If you are at an LEO enforced security check point and they ask you questions (obviously not rediculous questions, or he would have birches about that in his video too) guess what, you get to answer them!
If a cop turns on his lights to pull you over, do you pull over? You have to. If you are at an LEO enforced security check point and they ask you questions (obviously not rediculous questions, or he would have birches about that in his video too) guess what, you get to answer them!
05-15-2009, 11:54 AM
#63
I have no issues stopping at a security check point if it stops one fruit cake from blowing up a plane or one illegal from smuggling himself and a bunch of drugs in to my country.
05-15-2009, 11:54 AM
#64
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
The guy is at a border check point, if he was hiding something wouldn't he have tried to drive around the border checkpoint? He knows it's a checkpoint and he knew he wasn't carrying anything. Cuz if I was carrying something I'd definitely NOT DRIVE TO A BORDER checkpoint. He chose to drive there because he knew he had nothing suspicious. BY constitutional LAW he has the right to refuse.
This probably cause thing has been blown out of proportion. A cop can almost make anything up for probably cause, this rule needs a backside like... Your department will be sued by the state for 5million dollars every time you fail to provide evidence. 5million is insane, but in this country, money talks.
This probably cause thing has been blown out of proportion. A cop can almost make anything up for probably cause, this rule needs a backside like... Your department will be sued by the state for 5million dollars every time you fail to provide evidence. 5million is insane, but in this country, money talks.
05-15-2009, 11:55 AM
#65
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
You don't really have an option to not cooperate at a security check point. I think people are forgetting that driving is not a right.
If a cop turns on his lights to pull you over, do you pull over? You have to. If you are at an LEO enforced security check point and they ask you questions (obviously not rediculous questions, or he would have birches about that in his video too) guess what, you get to answer them!
If a cop turns on his lights to pull you over, do you pull over? You have to. If you are at an LEO enforced security check point and they ask you questions (obviously not rediculous questions, or he would have birches about that in his video too) guess what, you get to answer them!
4th & 5th ammendments cover this topic.
A police officer can ask me for ID & I do not have to present it.
Now, the police can detain/arrest me, but they better have preeeetttyy good evidense that I did something wrong.
There's a huge difference between "police officer" and "agent of tyranny."
05-15-2009, 11:58 AM
#66
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
so you're saying you'd rather not have security check points at airports, border crossings, etc?
I have no issues stopping at a security check point if it stops one fruit cake from blowing up a plane or one illegal from smuggling himself and a bunch of drugs in to my country.
I have no issues stopping at a security check point if it stops one fruit cake from blowing up a plane or one illegal from smuggling himself and a bunch of drugs in to my country.
05-15-2009, 11:59 AM
#67
Registered User
Thread Starter
iTrader: (5)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: No Way
Posts: 6,826
Car Info: Nadda
I think probable cause should re-evaluated. You can't double back on it twice. A probable cause should be presented at the beginning, not midway through to pull someone over or make an arrest.
Definition of Probable Cause:
1) a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime
2) a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true
Example #1) If they saw smoke in his car from the start and smelled weed, that's probable cause.
Example #2) If he refuses with his 4th amendment right, that turns into probable cause?
There is something wrong with example 2, and it needs to be revised that it can't surpass constitutional rights without their proof of probable cause.
Definition of Probable Cause:
1) a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime
2) a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true
Example #1) If they saw smoke in his car from the start and smelled weed, that's probable cause.
Example #2) If he refuses with his 4th amendment right, that turns into probable cause?
There is something wrong with example 2, and it needs to be revised that it can't surpass constitutional rights without their proof of probable cause.
05-15-2009, 12:01 PM
#69
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Can one of you guys PLEASE explain to me why you think driving is a right, and dealing with LEOs infringed upon this right? After you explain your thinking, care to dig up the legal document supporting your idea?
05-15-2009, 12:01 PM
#70
Registered User
iTrader: (19)
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: South San Jose
Posts: 751
Car Info: 2007 WRX CGM
People have to also consider that the amendments were written during a time where micro-technology didn't exist. These days anyone can hide anything anywhere and when it comes down to it, these officer's best asset is their intuition.
05-15-2009, 12:07 PM
#71
iClub Silver Vendor
iTrader: (25)
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Participating in some Anarchy!
Posts: 15,494
Car Info: 2005 LGT wagon
We have check points.
We have a drug problem.
THat's what was funny.
An arbitrary checkpoint, maybe. Do you think you're entitled to drive where you want, when you want, without interference from LEOs?
Can one of you guys PLEASE explain to me why you think driving is a right, and dealing with LEOs infringed upon this right? After you explain your thinking, care to dig up the legal document supporting your idea?
Can one of you guys PLEASE explain to me why you think driving is a right, and dealing with LEOs infringed upon this right? After you explain your thinking, care to dig up the legal document supporting your idea?
However, I do have a right "to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures", meaning I can travel freely without hinderence by the gov't unless they have probable cause.
05-15-2009, 12:23 PM
#72
BanHammer™
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Wagonmafia Propaganda Lieutenant
Posts: 47,588
Car Info: 2001 Forester RS2 SPEC-F
An arbitrary checkpoint, maybe. Do you think you're entitled to drive where you want, when you want, without interference from LEOs?
Can one of you guys PLEASE explain to me why you think driving is a right, and dealing with LEOs infringed upon this right? After you explain your thinking, care to dig up the legal document supporting your idea?
Can one of you guys PLEASE explain to me why you think driving is a right, and dealing with LEOs infringed upon this right? After you explain your thinking, care to dig up the legal document supporting your idea?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
05-15-2009, 12:53 PM
#73
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sac
Posts: 9,923
Car Info: your mother crazy
i think people are forgetting that the constitution and subsequent amendments are not just pieces of paper.
05-15-2009, 01:20 PM
#74
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Posts: 22,776
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
Looks like I interchanges the terms arrested and detained, I'll correct that once I get to a real computer.
The nice thing about your right to remain silent, is that the only thing you can say (besides nothing) to retain that right, is that you want your lawyer present. Once you start running your mouth about anything else, you've waived your right. That's from a lawyer, not Internet theory
Paul, go ahead and dig up the ACLU's guide to your rights when dealing with LEO's. You'll see that I mixed up arrest and detainment, but you'll also see that you are required to show ID and vehicle registration upon request of the officer.
The 4th Amendment does protect you against searches without a warrant or probable cause (like I said earlier, the supreme court was working to remove your car from the list of areas protected by this).
