Quoted: Hmmm, do you have any idea of the number of states that have outlawed 'pretext stops'? Any idea, at all? Let's see you put up...or shut up. Yes, this IS a test.

Is this a dick size contest?  If y'all need to exchange pictures to get it over with, please don't do that publicly.  Instead of bickering and trying to show who can stump the other guy, like a bunch of children, it would be more productive to cite facts.

I do not know how many states have outlawed them and would be interested in the number.  If it's 0, I'd think they must be supported by the courts.  If it's a lot more than 0, I'd be curious if this is a trend that's becoming more common over time, like shall issue CCW laws.  That information would be far more compelling and harder to argue with than "put up or shut up" which sounds suspiciously close to "neener neener neener" in this thread.

As I've previously stated, I'm divided on the issue because I know they're used for good and have personal experience showing abuse.  However, I also recognize that this country isn't run based on my personal life experience.  Until I'm elected emperor, I'll continue to listen to input from a variety of people.  However, I'm probably not the only one who dismisses the views of people who aren't really contributing to the discussion.

No, I live in Illinois  .    When the Illegals take over,  driving while white will be outlawed.

And no , I'm not an 88.  

If ya wanna go fishing, paddle  in a lake.       I'll turn my papers over right after the I A 's do.  Maybe not.

Quoted: Quoted: Oh....my....goodness. What happened? Dropped your doughnut? I know I'm trying to ignore you, but your thick-headedness is just too compelling. No, you're not. You're simply lying about even trying to ignore me. What a doofus you must be in real life. Heck, I don't even really need to discuss this with you anymore, you're doing such an abysmal job on your part that you've pretty much destroyed your own "arguments". Yes, and yet you 'feel' compelled to answer my arguments. Again, how utterly bizarre you are. Are you blind or something? I've posted my "non-cogent" question twice, but I'll post it again for the benefit of your apparently limited reading abilities: Repeating the same limp-assed question does not give it cogency, Sonny. If you wish for pretext stops to be illegal, one of two things must happen: Either A) all enforcement of "minor" stuff like speeding, burnt out lights, etc., would have to cease as soon as you suspect there might actually be a criminal driving the car (in other words, traffic codes would automatically not apply to you if you're a suspected murderer/drug dealer/drunk driver), or B) if you stop someone with a "minor" violation and he happens to be Osama himself in a rolling meth lab with dead bodies in the passenger seats, you automatically can't do anything about it and must send him on his merry way with just his $100 speeding ticket. Which of those two things are you suggesting happen? What an incredible lack of reasoning you exhibit in insisting that only these two results could occur! Incredible! Give it a bit more thought, if you're not too busy polishing off a doughnut from the Crusty Hole Bakery. What you actually did portray was what might be the likely result IF LEOs continue to insist on their 'right' to make 'pretext stops.' My advice - make routine traffic stops of one and all, from the mayor in his Benz to the illegal alien in his Yugo, when you observe malfunctioning equipment on a vehicle, or traffic violations. The officer who does so will have a history of being fair and impartial in their routine and when they do happen to stop Osama for a burned out taillight, he will be SOL. BTW, isn't that what they're supposed  to be doing? Quite honestly, I'm amazed at your inability to argue a simple point. I'm shocked! You, sir, have a sickeningly over-inflated ego. And you, Sir, are wisely modest, as you have a great deal to be modest about, I am certain. Somehow I doubt that the Son of God likes it when you complain about how the "Lord gives me such poor material to work with" when attempting to engage in a discussion. Somehow I doubt that the Son of God considers this Discussion Board, at all. Or that He is even mildly interested in our discussions here. Please. Get serious. That is basically identical to saying "The Son of God has surrounded me with idiots that are too inferior to my intelligence for me to discuss things with," with the added irony of you not being able to answer a simple question or stay remotely on topic, and having at least four people in one thread come out and try to tell you how much of an idiot you are making out to be. You know, I do like the way you put it - The Son of God has surrounded me with idiots. Glad you picked up on that. Do you think he likes you referring to an LEO or someone who simply disagrees with you as a "pencil-necked geek, JBT-wannabe, or asshat" as opposed to trying to actually make a valid point? Sorry, but I am a witness to the truth. I am honestly beginning to think that you are one of the most hypocritical posters on Arfcom. You claim to be a devout follower of Christ, yet you put yourself on such a high pedestal and take no shame in blatant name-calling in place of reasoned arguments. Gee, I guess I won't be on your Christmas card list again this year, either? Get over yourself, m'boy. You're not that important. Here's a friendly hint: your totally presumptuous claims and non-related rantings aren't getting you anywhere. I'd say you should quit now before you lose any more credibility. I can hardly even argue against the crap you're posting now it makes such little relevant sense. Hmmm, do you have any idea of the number of states that have outlawed 'pretext stops'? Any idea, at all? Let's see you put up...or shut up. Yes, this IS a test. Eric The(YouWillBeGraded,Accordingly)Hun

"Again, how utterly bizarre you are."

Funny how there are so many people in this thread saying things to that effect..........about you.

"Repeating the same limp-assed question does not give it cogency, Sonny."

Translation: I can't answer your question, so I'll try to insult you instead.

Nice try, "sonny".

"Give it a bit more thought, if you're not too busy polishing off a doughnut from the Crusty Hole Bakery."

A doughnut joke? My, how original. And convincing - you got me there.

"Somehow I doubt that the Son of God considers this Discussion Board, at all.



Or that He is even mildly interested in our discussions here."

Then you are an idiot. To imply that the Lord simply ignores a lot of your sins or that He doesn't know they exist either implies that you deny His perfect justice or His omniscence, either of which makes you a simple fool.

"Sorry, but I am a witness to the truth."

So, is that a "yes" (or are you trying to evade another question)? You feel that God enjoys your hate/anger-fueled name-calling? Um....yeah, good luck with that.

"What an incredible lack of reasoning you exhibit in insisting that only these two results could occur!"

And what an incredible lack of reasoning you exhibit by not being able to give me an alternative!

In essence, your failure to answer the question has proven yourself wrong. Your suggestion that basically everyone be pulled over for minor violations was simply a description of what is done right now (at least in legal terms...which is what we are discussing): anyone - from "the mayor in his Benz to the illegal alien in his Yugo" - already CAN be pulled over for any violation. The arbitrary fact that the LEO manpower simply doesn't exist to pull everyone over for every single violation is the only difference between your suggestion and what is already in place. So, essentially, your suggestion is that pretext stops remain legal, thereby contradicting yourself. Your blatant assertations that all pretext stops are automatically "racially biased" are unprovable - and, quite fraknly, unimportant. Regardless of what race a person is, if they speed/blow stop signs/etc., they can STILL be stopped for such perfectly legally. And if another crime is encountered during the course of this traffic stop, they are still just as guilty as a white guy. Even if pretext stops could be proven to all be racially motivated, what could you do about it? Ban traffic stops on all minorities? Require "race quotas" (i.e., you must stop X number of white drivers before you can stop a minority driver)? Obviously that would be idiotic. Even if you outright banned all pretext stops to fight these percieved "racial motivations", we're back to square one: which amongst my list of alternatives (of which, BTW, you were NOT able to add to) would you enforce?

"You know, I do like the way you put it - The Son of God has surrounded me with idiots."

"You're not that important."

"And you, Sir, are wisely modest, as you have a great deal to be modest about, I am certain."

Thank you for beautifully proving my point about your overly-inflated ego.

"Hmmm, do you have any idea of the number of states that have outlawed 'pretext stops'?"

Totally? None. There have been (basically unenforcable/joke-like) anti-racial profiling legislation measures put into effect in some states (like Florida), and limitations on drug-related pretext stops (like California...which, I should add, is not even a State ban, but a California Highway Patrol policy change), but no state has totally banned the practice of "pretext stops." In fact, there have been several Supreme Court decisions (such as Whren vs. US) upholding them in the past decade or so. For example, in all 50 states in America, if you pull someone over for speeding and you think something is "fishy" (for whatever reason), and see a dead body in the back seat when you go up to the driver's window, that guy is going to jail on suspicion of murder. That would technically be a pretext stop, and there is NO state where that would be an illegal arrest.

Actually, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here: even if a state or two did totally ban them (or if some states have partially "banned" them, like California), that only proves my point: in any of those cases, either of my two pretext stop alternatives ARE enforced. Either you can't stop someone for anything if you suspect they might have drugs in the car, or - if you do - you can't do anything about the drugs when you see them. That's exactly what I was saying the two alternatives are, and that's exactly what they are in real life. If there are more, you certainly have proven yourself beyond the ability to spell them out for all the "inferior intelligences" in here.

Your consistent, bumbling failure to endorse either of those alternatives or come up with an alternative that isn't already technically in place is your downfall in this discussion. As you said, either "put up or shut up," and it appears that it is time for you to shut up (and there are plenty of people in this thread alone trying to get you to do exactly that...I suggest you listen to us before you make yourself look like any more of a joke).

ETA: BTW, qwijibo, I hope that will pretty much answer your questions.

FWIW:  The Califronia Highway Patrol is not allowed to ask for consent to search. no matter how suspicious a drivers actions or the items they see in the car during a stop, they may not ask the driver for permission to search the car.

Doesnt really effect them much though since they are all about speeding tickets, DUI arrests and traffic collision reports.

If your a drug courier or coyote you're safe from the CHP as long as you are not driving drunk.

One day, this will all be used against us.

ETA: one day, we will be the "criminals".

Quoted: FWIW:  The Califronia Highway Patrol is not allowed to ask for consent to search. no matter how suspicious a drivers actions or the items they see in the car during a stop, they may not ask the driver for permission to search the car.

Unfortunately, you're absolutely correct.

Quoted: For our safety again. sorry that's gun grabber talk JW.

No, expecting officers to not use LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL means at their disposal to try and protect the public is just silly.

BTW -- As I said, you can use your turn signal all day long. But there are rules governing HOW you use your turn signal, and if you break them you can still be stopped and cited for failing to signal.

Read your traffic laws sometime.

Quoted: I did not see a middle ground between the two positions on your poll. I was pulled over regularly in my previous car due to the fact that it was a piece of crap. That was not really a problem for me, but when my vehicle was consistantly searched w/o consent, it got to be a little irritating.

Constantly searched without your consent?

Did you file any complaints?

Absent PC, an officer CANNOT search your vehicle. IF you have nothing in the car and he searches it, he is doing so illegally.

Quoted: It's absolutely a legitimate tool as long as there was a valid reason for a stop in the first place. It's also absolutley legitimate not to answer the officer's probing questions and keep the conversation focused on the reason for the stop.

+1

What if an LEO were to say that they stop ALL vehicles they see with said infractions? Would there still be as many people saying that it's racially biased and infringes on the Constitution? So a cop pulls you over for lack of turn signal and searches you, illegally. File a complaint. Ask for a badge number or name. Do something, but don't sit here and use that as a reason to get on a soap box about how all LE are crooked, hate the Constitution or want to lock the world up.

You CANNOT make sweeping judgements about ANYONE on this planet. Easier said than done, I know. But it's interesting how those who criticize LE for profiling, etc. are doing the same thing they're preaching against, and that's stereotyping a group because of one bad apple.
Lumping everyone in a group together because of one asshole is extremely narrow minded.

And think about this; what if you went to the doctors office for a routine checkup, maybe even a flu shot. That's your reason for going to the doctor, and that's what you intend on getting done. But while you're there, the doc finds out you have some illness or problem that needs to get taken care of immediately. Are you going to say, "Well, I didn't come here for that, I just wanted a flu shot, so piss off". No, you're going to most likely let him work. Same thing with stops that lead to more serious infractions. Broken tail light, then find a crack pipe on the backseat? Of course you're going to pursue it.

Maybe i'm too optimistic because i'm new to LE work. But despite how many assholes i've come across, all the douchebags i've dealt with or ungreatful people i've seen, I still do the job for the one person who is honestly thankful that I helped. I don't sit there and say to myself, "Well this citizen was a tool, so screw all of them". Taking that stance towards ANYONE doesn't do anyone any good.

Quoted: What if an LEO were to say that they stop ALL vehicles they see with said infractions?

Then i would ay that officer works a very small community or is a liar. I work a city with a daytime population of 300,000. There are usaully 3 cops on duty.  Do you think we could stop every car for every violation of the vehicle code?

I meant every vehicle the officer could feasibly stop. Not ignoring serious calls, time to kill, and he views a vehicle with said infraction.

Let me rephrase it so that i'm clear. I don't mean that every single vehicle in the entire city that has an obscured tag or broken tail light gets stopped. I meant that when the officer sees the violation, and has the opportunity to act on it, he does. He doesn't sit there and say, "Oh, it's a white guy driving, i'll let him and his busted tail light go".

ETA: When I wasn't running calls and i'd run traffic, if I saw something, i'd go after it unless something precluded me from doing so (Getting a call, etc.). That's what I meant.

Quoted: I made a lot of arrests which started as equipment violations.

Amen....

Question to the masses...do you want your street free from criminals?  Pretext stops do just that MANY time each and everyday in cities all across this country....

If I'm in a suspicious place at suspicious hours looking, well suspicious I have NO problem being stopped for rolling a stop sign, or a brake light out.  I have nothing to hide and want law enforcement looking for bad people...not just responding to calls of crimes already committed.

Quoted: Let me rephrase it so that i'm clear. I don't mean that every single vehicle in the entire city that has an obscured tag or broken tail light gets stopped. I meant that when the officer sees the violation, and has the opportunity to act on it, he does. He doesn't sit there and say, "Oh, it's a white guy driving, i'll let him and his busted tail light go".

That certainly the most fair way to do it.  However it's inefficient.  It completely discounts/voids the officers experiance and training in detecting crimes in progress. For example Parolees from the California prison system have certain mannerisms that you do not find in the general population. If you see a soccor mom and a parole driving identical vehicles with identical equipment violations I think the community is better served by stopping the parolee than the soccor mom.

Same with gang members.  you see two identical cars with identical equipment violations.  You know the driver of one car is the owner of the local gunstore.  you know the driver of the other car is a documented member of the local street gang on probation for ADW.  Stopping the store owner is not the most efficient use of resourses.

US Vs. Cortez says that police officers should draw from their training and experiance when determining who to detain. US Vs. Sokolow says its okay to profile criminals as long as race is not used as a factor in the criminal profile.  See also Ornelas Vs. US and Whren Vs. US.

Quoted: Quoted: Let me rephrase it so that i'm clear. I don't mean that every single vehicle in the entire city that has an obscured tag or broken tail light gets stopped. I meant that when the officer sees the violation, and has the opportunity to act on it, he does. He doesn't sit there and say, "Oh, it's a white guy driving, i'll let him and his busted tail light go". That certainly the most fair way to do it.  However it's inefficient.  It completely discounts/voids the officers experiance and training in detecting crimes in progress. For example Parolees from the California prison system have certain mannerisms that you do not find in the general population. If you see a soccor mom and a parole driving identical vehicles with identical equipment violations I think the community is better served by stopping the parolee than the soccor mom. Same with gang members.  you see two identical cars with identical equipment violations.  You know the driver of one car is the owner of the local gunstore.  you know the driver of the other car is a documented member of the local street gang on probation for ADW.  Stopping the store owner is not the most efficient use of resourses. US Vs. Cortez says that police officers should draw from their training and experiance when determining who to detain. US Vs. Sokolow says its okay to profile criminals as long as race is not used as a factor in the criminal profile.  See also Ornelas Vs. US and Whren Vs. US.

I agree with you that it's inefficient to stop the little old lady as opposed to the known felon. I was just making a point to those that believe pretextual stops violate the Constitution.

Quoted: Quoted: For our safety again. sorry that's gun grabber talk JW. No, expecting officers to not use LEGAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL means at their disposal to try and protect the public is just silly. BTW -- As I said, you can use your turn signal all day long. But there are rules governing HOW you use your turn signal, and if you break them you can still be stopped and cited for failing to signal. Read your traffic laws sometime.

For our safety again. sorry that's gun grabber talk JW

If you don't think the popo won't take a mile with that inch, look at NO and the gun theft by the cops. think the owners will ever see their guns again? not a fucking chance.
one day they will get to you, inevitable. may it sting as bad as getting jerked around for looking/dressing/ or being the wrong color



[finger] police state bullshit.

Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed

Quoted: Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed

that's an understatement.

Quoted: Quoted: Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed that's an understatement.

Yep. That's why I read everything i can get my hands on about search & seizure law and study case decisions on the subject.  Because cops dont care about the constitution.

How many hours a week do you spend learning more about the subject?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed that's an understatement. Yep. That's why I read everything i can get my hands on about search & seizure law and study case decisions on the subject.  Because cops dont care about the constitution. How many hours a week do you spend learning more about the subject?

search and seizure law is laid out in plain language just like the right to bear arms.
Sorry you can't get me to agree with raping the constitution on the 2nd anymore than the 4th. all just as important.

now, if you can rip apart the 4th in the name of safety, them libs have every right to tear at our 2nd IMHO, if one isn't worth protecting, none of them are. YMMV of course.

[finger] a police state

Initiating a traffic stop for an actual violation of traffic law is raping the Constitution. Right...

Anything else you would like to cite for your conclusion that we're living in a police state?

And you also mentioned ripping apart the 4th amendment. So, a vehicle without a license plate. A traffic stop is initiated and as you approach the vehicle on the passenger side, you can clearly see a bong sticking out from under the drivers seat. You also detect the strong odor of what you believe to be Marijuana. That equals PC. All of that started from a traffic violation.

How is that tearing the 4th amendment apart?

If you cant spare five minutes for a cop to run your info then you have gotten yourself into a big damn hurry over nothing. Slow the fuck down,nothing in this world is worth the rush you you get yourslef into to to get there.

Quoted: Initiating a traffic stop for an actual violation of traffic law is raping the Constitution. Right... Anything else you would like to cite for your conclusion that we're living in a police state?

as I mentioned before, goes right to abuse. the no turn signal BS I was accused of.  and the other poster in their beat up car saying he was constantly  pulled over.

again, plain english it is written. you want a fishing expedition, rent a head boat. you want to rifle my shit, get a warrant.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed that's an understatement. Yep. That's why I read everything i can get my hands on about search & seizure law and study case decisions on the subject.  Because cops dont care about the constitution. How many hours a week do you spend learning more about the subject? search and seizure law is laid out in plain language just like the right to bear arms.

Yep.  And in plain english its says you are protected from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. The same founding fathers came up with the idea of the supreme court to decide what was "unreasonable" and what is not.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Our Founding Fathers said no when they wrote our Constitution. The only thing that has changed is the court. The Constitution's 4th and 5th are still there. Of course, the fuzz don't really care what it says. If not on plain sight, any evidence seized should be tossed that's an understatement. Yep. That's why I read everything i can get my hands on about search & seizure law and study case decisions on the subject.  Because cops dont care about the constitution. How many hours a week do you spend learning more about the subject? search and seizure law is laid out in plain language just like the right to bear arms. Yep.  And in plain english its says you are protected from "unreasonable" searches, not all searches. The same founding fathers came up with the idea of the supreme court to decide what was "unreasonable" and what is not.

just as many other decissions you guys here complain about from the scotus, this is another travesty.

[finger] police state.

If in your state it's against the law to not use a turn signal, how is that BS?

Like i've mentioned before, just because a small violation is enforced doesn't equal harassment. One LEOs abuse of authority isn't indicative of a police state.

Quoted: If in your state it's against the law to not use a turn signal, how is that BS? Like i've mentioned before, just because a small violation is enforced doesn't equal harassment. One LEOs abuse of authority isn't indicative of a police state.

mainly because I used my turn signal and the cop was full of shit.

that's how it was bullshit.

Quoted: Quoted: If in your state it's against the law to not use a turn signal, how is that BS? Like i've mentioned before, just because a small violation is enforced doesn't equal harassment. One LEOs abuse of authority isn't indicative of a police state. mainly because I used my turn signal and the cop was full of shit. that's how it was bullshit.

Cops are never wrong. Ask them, their superiors, and the DA

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: If in your state it's against the law to not use a turn signal, how is that BS? Like i've mentioned before, just because a small violation is enforced doesn't equal harassment. One LEOs abuse of authority isn't indicative of a police state. mainly because I used my turn signal and the cop was full of shit. that's how it was bullshit. Cops are never wrong. Ask them, their superiors, and the DA

That's how we became subjects and not citizens to the boys in blue.

No offense to the 50% who think this should NOT be legal,  but FUCKING READ...

The cop has a legitimate reason to pull the asshole over. IT IS legal. It SHOULD be legal. Would you argue that cops shouldn't pull anyone over for a moving/equipment violation at all? If not, then why should a fucking crackhead get a break because he is a bigger fish to fry?

Half of you guys piss and moan (rightfully too) about how criminals have more rights than soldiers and victims and then you vote for shit like this. Utterly amazing.

I voted no, they should not be legal because...

People should be pulled over because of what they are doing wrong, not because of what you think you can get on them.

BUT...

If other suspicious acitivity is noticed during the stop then go with it.  Alcohol or weed breath, a bleeding human skull in the back seat, a bloody crowbar in the passenger seat, whatever.  

Oh yea, I love the strawman arguments - Osama...lol.   All we're missing is a few more Nazi references.

Quoted: No offense to the 50% who think this should NOT be legal,  but FUCKING READ... The cop has a legitimate reason to pull the asshole over. IT IS legal. It SHOULD be legal. Would you argue that cops shouldn't pull anyone over for a moving/equipment violation at all? If not, then why should a fucking crackhead get a break because he is a bigger fish to fry? Half of you guys piss and moan (rightfully too) about how criminals have more rights than soldiers and victims and then you vote for shit like this. Utterly amazing.

They can pull someone over for speeding, etc. They do not have the constitutional right, when it is read literally, to search you or your car unless they see something in the open like an open beer. They do not have the right to open your trunk or arrest you if you refuse. That is police state, not America

If you used your turn signal and he still pulled you over, then you are correct in being upset and it was BS. But like I said before, file a complaint, get his name and badge, etc.

And i'll be the first to say that LE is not always right. Everyone make's mistakes and there are people the abuse power, but that happens in anything, not just LE.

That still isn't a police state.

Quoted: Quoted: No offense to the 50% who think this should NOT be legal,  but FUCKING READ... The cop has a legitimate reason to pull the asshole over. IT IS legal. It SHOULD be legal. Would you argue that cops shouldn't pull anyone over for a moving/equipment violation at all? If not, then why should a fucking crackhead get a break because he is a bigger fish to fry? Half of you guys piss and moan (rightfully too) about how criminals have more rights than soldiers and victims and then you vote for shit like this. Utterly amazing. They can pull someone over for speeding, etc. They do not have the constitutional right, when it is read literally, to search you or your car unless they see something in the open like an open beer. They do not have the right to open your trunk or arrest you if you refuse. That is police state, not America

That's what we're debating, whether stopping for a smaller violation that leads to a more serious crime should be allowed. No one here, at least none that i've noticed, has said that LE should be able to search whomever for whatever reason.

Quoted: Quoted: No offense to the 50% who think this should NOT be legal,  but FUCKING READ... The cop has a legitimate reason to pull the asshole over. IT IS legal. It SHOULD be legal. Would you argue that cops shouldn't pull anyone over for a moving/equipment violation at all? If not, then why should a fucking crackhead get a break because he is a bigger fish to fry? Half of you guys piss and moan (rightfully too) about how criminals have more rights than soldiers and victims and then you vote for shit like this. Utterly amazing. They can pull someone over for speeding, etc. They do not have the constitutional right, when it is read literally, to search you or your car unless they see something in the open like an open beer. They do not have the right to open your trunk or arrest you if you refuse. That is police state, not America

EDIT: Shogun187 put it in better words than I did....what you are talking about is what we are saying: catching something in plain view is exactly what we are talking about with pretext stops. Searching your car w/out permission or reasonable suspicion is illegal, and is unrelated/irrelevant to this thread.

Umm....I don't know where you get your legal advice, but yes....the police CAN arrest you without your permission. If they couldn't, nobody would ever be arrested. They need probable cause, of course, but they don't need your stamp of approval.

Quoted: If you used your turn signal and he still pulled you over, then you are correct in being upset and it was BS. But like I said before, file a complaint, get his name and badge, etc. And i'll be the first to say that LE is not always right. Everyone make's mistakes and there are people the abuse power, but that happens in anything, not just LE. That still isn't a police state.

yes, yes I should go right out and place a target on my chest. as was mentioned above

Cops are never wrong. Ask them, their superiors, and the DA

I'm certain that'll be productive.

Quoted: Good grief....reading comprehension, people. Pretext stops have NOTHING to do with searching your car without your permission. A pretext stop occurs when an officer pulls you over for doing something illegal, and in the process sees something in plain view that constitutes another illegal activity.

As I've mentioned above, I agree that this is absolutely okay.  

BUT,  the original question was stated as....

A pretext stop is a police officer using a violation of law to stop a driver for purposes known only to the officer...

This is entirely different from stopping and noticing something else illegal.


In the given example:

2. Stopping a car for a moving violation after it leaves a crack house then asking for consent to search the vehicle.

I say it should be okay to stop the car and ask to search it because it did just leave the crack dealers house.  If you want to stop it for a moving voilation then have at it, but the reason to stop it should be more forward and less deceptive.  "I've pulled you over because you just left the house of a suspected drug dealer".  

Seems like you'd get more people turning in their drug dealers that way.  

Then again, like everyone else here, I'm just another internet commando throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.  

yes, yes I should go right out and place a target on my chest. as was mentioned above

If your local PD "targets" people for complaining, then you have bigger problems to worry about than whether pretextual stops should be allowed or not.

Not every LEO is out to get you, harass you, or jack you up but I sincerely hope that your future interactions with LE are more agreeable in nature.

Quoted: yes, yes I should go right out and place a target on my chest. as was mentioned above If your local PD "targets" people for complaining, then you have bigger problems to worry about than whether pretextual stops should be allowed or not. Not every LEO is out to get you, harass you, or jack you up but I sincerely hope that your future interactions with LE are more agreeable in nature.

I've had good and bad. The bad left a very bad taste in my mouth for their deceit and lies to get their fishing expedition.  I'll certainly never trust one to be honest again.

Quoted: Quoted: Good grief....reading comprehension, people. Pretext stops have NOTHING to do with searching your car without your permission. A pretext stop occurs when an officer pulls you over for doing something illegal, and in the process sees something in plain view that constitutes another illegal activity. As I've mentioned above, I agree that this is absolutely okay.   BUT,  the original question was stated as.... A pretext stop is a police officer using a violation of law to stop a driver for purposes known only to the officer... This is entirely different from stopping and noticing something else illegal. In the given example: 2. Stopping a car for a moving violation after it leaves a crack house then asking for consent to search the vehicle. I say it should be okay to stop the car and ask to search it because it did just leave the crack dealers house.  If you want to stop it for a moving voilation then have at it, but the reason to stop it should be more forward and less deceptive.  "I've pulled you over because you just left the house of a suspected drug dealer".   Seems like you'd get more people turning in their drug dealers that way.   Then again, like everyone else here, I'm just another internet commando throwing out ideas and seeing what sticks.

Yup, you are more or less correct from a sort of...."philosophical" standpoint. Make no mistake, I fully see your point.

From a legal standpoint, however, it becomes difficult to get that specific. The problem is that there is no way to prove or disprove what the officer was intending to actually use a traffic stop for, IF he actually has a legitimate reason to stop the person.

Using the crack house scenario as a way to clarify what I'm saying, when the cop pulls the guy over after coming out of the crack house, it would be illegal to do so with no reason other than the officer has a sneaking suspicion that the car is up to "no good." If the cop has no probable cause to initiate a stop, he has no reason but his own suspicions to stop the car and can therefore be realistically pursued for having broken the law/dept. policy. However, if the people in the car actually do something illegal, such as fail to stop at a stop sign, etc., there is absolutely nothing you can do at that point to prove (in court, in legislation, in dept. policy, etc.) that the cop had some sort of alternative motive for initiating the stop. We can assume that he was simply using the traffic violation (or whatever, it could be anything, even murder) as an excuse to "go fishing," but if a traffic violation (or whatever) was still comitted regardless, we CANNOT legally fault the officer for furthering investigations/initiating traffic stops on the said car based on assumptions which are intangible and legally unprovable. In America, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The same applies here: you can't penalize a cop (or make laws to that effect) for having ulterior motives when it is literally impossible to prove that those ulterior motives even existed.

It all goes back to "number 1" on my short list of possible alternatives to pretext stops: any legal action taken to avert this scenario would have to require the cop to purposely give the crack house car more leeway in terms of statute enforcement than the average, law-abiding citizen would get (in effect, putting criminals on a higher pedestal - legally - than the average Joe).

So, in sum, the problem here is reconciling what would be ideal (to some people) with what would be possible. Requiring that an officer not have any alternate suspicions when initiating a stop might be ideal to many people from a "philosophical" standpoint, but it is something that is more or less impossible to enforce, so we are basically left with no legal (i.e., legislative) choice but to allow pretext stops to continue, IF you don't want to either A) give criminals greater protection under law than law-abiding citizens or B) force LEO's to ignore major crimes as they occur incidentally.

But thank you for remaining civil, and yes I totally see what you are saying.

Quoted: mainly because I used my turn signal and the cop was full of shit. that's how it was bullshit.

And as I have said SEVERAL times, apparently without effect, there is a certain minimum distance you are supposed to have the signal on BEFORE you make the turn or lane change in most jurisdictions.

What is the minimum distance in your jurisdiction, and are you sure you observed it?

If you cannot answer both, then the police officer was not "full of shit". You were breaking the law.

Quoted: Quoted: mainly because I used my turn signal and the cop was full of shit. that's how it was bullshit. And as I have said SEVERAL times, apparently without effect, there is a certain minimum distance you are supposed to have the signal on BEFORE you make the turn or lane change in most jurisdictions. What is the minimum distance in your jurisdiction, and are you sure you observed it? If you cannot answer both, then the police officer was not "full of shit". You were breaking the law.

Quoted: If you used your turn signal and he still pulled you over, then you are correct in being upset and it was BS.

Not in Virginia, it isn't.

There is a minimum distance you are supposed to signal in advance of a turn or a lane change. If he did not observe that minimum distance, he can STILL be cited for failing to signal under Virginia law.

That's one of those laws few people know about but it is in the code.

Quoted: yes, yes I should go right out and place a target on my chest. as was mentioned above

So now cops murder people who file complaints??? Care to cite some examples of this?

Jimeny christmas. Just how many friggin boogey men hide under your bed at night?

Quoted:

From the Virginia code:

§ 46.2-849. How signals given.

A. Signals required by § 46.2-848 shall be given by means of the hand and arm or by some mechanical or electrical device approved by the Superintendent, in the manner specified in this section. Whenever the signal is given by means of the hand and arm, the driver shall indicate his intention to start, stop, turn, or partly turn by extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle in the manner following:

1. For left turn or to pull to the left, the arm shall be extended in a horizontal position straight from and level with the shoulder;

2. For right turn or to pull to the right, the arm shall be extended upward;

3. For slowing down or stopping, the arm shall be extended downward.

B. Wherever the lawful speed is more than 35 miles per hour, such signals shall be given continuously for a distance of at least 100 feet, and in all other cases at least 50 feet, before slowing down, stopping, turning, or partly turning.

Like I said: How fast were you going, and how many feet did you signal before making your turn? If you did not observe those minimum standards, the police officer who pulled you over had EVERY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO.

For a Constitutional expert and legal scholar, you don't seem to know much about the Constitution OR the law....

Quoted: Quoted: yes, yes I should go right out and place a target on my chest. as was mentioned above So now cops murder people who file complaints??? Care to cite some examples of this? Jimeny christmas. Just how many friggin boogey men hide under your bed at night?

who said murder JW? sheesh get off your high horse. may it be you one day too.

Quoted: I've had good and bad. The bad left a very bad taste in my mouth for their deceit and lies to get their fishing expedition.  I'll certainly never trust one to be honest again.

Were you searched or not? Was your vehicle searched or not?

Quoted: Quoted: From the Virginia code: § 46.2-849. How signals given. A. Signals required by § 46.2-848 shall be given by means of the hand and arm or by some mechanical or electrical device approved by the Superintendent, in the manner specified in this section. Whenever the signal is given by means of the hand and arm, the driver shall indicate his intention to start, stop, turn, or partly turn by extending the hand and arm beyond the left side of the vehicle in the manner following: 1. For left turn or to pull to the left, the arm shall be extended in a horizontal position straight from and level with the shoulder; 2. For right turn or to pull to the right, the arm shall be extended upward; 3. For slowing down or stopping, the arm shall be extended downward. B. Wherever the lawful speed is more than 35 miles per hour, such signals shall be given continuously for a distance of at least 100 feet, and in all other cases at least 50 feet, before slowing down, stopping, turning, or partly turning. Like I said: How fast were you going, and how many feet did you signal before making your turn? If you did not observe those minimum standards, the police officer who pulled you over had EVERY LEGAL AUTHORITY TO DO SO. For a Constitutional expert and legal scholar, you don't seem to know much about the Constitution OR the law....

again JW


I obeyed the law.

Quoted: Quoted: I've had good and bad. The bad left a very bad taste in my mouth for their deceit and lies to get their fishing expedition.  I'll certainly never trust one to be honest again. Were you searched or not? Was your vehicle searched or not?

yes

Quoted: who said murder JW?

"Target on my chest", and you wonder where someone could see murder?

sheesh get off your high horse. may it be you one day too.

Looky here sonny, I have stared down the wrong end of a police issue Sig Sauer P226 and Remington 870 before.

But I didn't get all pissy about it and think that all cops are out to shoot me because of it.