Quoted: As long as there is actually a violation of some type in the first place. I have been stopped three times and checked out when the cop couldn't even come up with an excuse as to why he stopped me.

Same here. I have been stoped twice in my car, and one time when I was walking home from a restaurant.  If somebody was really breaking the law, then haul away, However, they should not make totally BS stops just to go fishing.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Gee, I'm glad all these 'pretext stops' are catching Timmy McVeighs and crack dealers. I think it was H. Ross Perot who once suggested that the police should just cordon off Fair Park, the 'coloured area' near downtown Dallas and conduct a house to house search for drugs and illegal weapons. Eric The(LiveFreeOrDie)Hun Thank you for bringing totally non-relevant subjects into the discussion.... If you don't see the similarities, then you are a part of the problem, my dear friend. A pretext stop is NOT just seraching cars/houses randomly without probable cause. That is a totally different subject, they are not related. Seriously, I want to know what your suggested alternative is: should criminals/suspected criminals get automatic legal immunity from any sort of "minor" trafic violation, or should they just be allowed to get off scot free if they happen to be "caught in the act" during a routine traffic stop? I am curious as to which of those you are suggesting. Is that too simple for you? Eric The(ShakingHisHead)Hun You did a mediocre job of completely avoiding the question. I'll ask you again: What is your suggested alternative? You are wasting you time. He will lie, twist, and misquote, in response to your posts or questions. He will make assumptions, and create scenarios that no reasonable person ever would. All while trying to talk down to you or directly insult you. Unfortunately, I fear you are right. I have seen him discuss things like this before, and he rarely makes much sense/often does this sort of crap. I guess it's worth a try, though.

Don't bother.  You'll save a lot of time if you just scroll past him. Eric's been this way for years.

Quoted: (snip) Don't bother.  You'll save a lot of time if you just scroll past him. Eric's been this way for years.

I'll consider giving him one more chance to make some sort of sense, after that I'll probably take everyone's advice and just ignore him.

Thanks

Look, folks, it works like this:

Officer Bob is sitting on the side of the road running speed enforcement. Officer Bob sees a minivan with a middle aged woman driving go past at 5 MPH over the limit.

Officer Bob then has every legal right to pull the minivan over and cite the woman behind the wheel for speeding. Officer Bob decides not to do so, because the woman was driving safely and was in control of her vehicle. Officer Bob is using his discretionary authority in this case to let the woman go.

A few minutes later Officer Bob sees a car full of teenagers go past at 10 MPH over the speed limit. Two teens are hanging out of the rear window screaming. Officer Bob hits the blue lights and goes after them. Officer Bob has every legal right to cite the driver for speeding and the rear passengers hanging out the window for unsafe behavior. The officer also noticed the teenagers drinking from bottles, but could not tell what the bottles were at the quick glance he had. Officer Bob approaches the vehicle and the only bottles he sees are Coke bottles, and he recognizes that the teenagers are coming back from a big basketball game at the local high school. They appear to have been celebrating the victory a little too much.

Officer Bob issues a written warning to the driver and gives a stern warning to the others in the vehicle about their unsafe behavior, and tells them all not to let him catch them doing this again. This is also within Officer Bob's discretion, and is perfectly legal.

Officer Bob then goes back to speed enforcement at a different location in a rougher neighborhood. He notices a vehicle that switched lanes without signaling and is going 8 MPH over the speed limit. Officer Bob recognizes that the vehicle has pulled away from a suspected drug house.

Is officer Bob any less within his legal rights as an officer to stop this car than he was to allow the minivan to go or to stop the teenagers and issue a warning?

Absolutely not.

The vehicle STILL broke the traffic laws, and the officer is STILL within his legal authority to stop the vehicle, even though the officer suspects that there may be more than a traffic violation going on here. Officer Bob approaches the vehicle and smells the strong odor of MJ coming from the vehicle. Officer Bob arrests both occupants for posession after a search of their vehicle.

Officer Bob could only do this because while engaged in the traffic stop which was within his legal power to do, he had something that gave him probable cause to search the vehicle for contraband, namely the smell of MJ smoke.

Officer Bob goes back to waiting near the suspected drug house for another potential stop. Officer Bob sees another vehicle leave the place and stops this vehicle for not coming to a stop at the stop sign. Officer Bob approaches the vehicle. The driver provides a valid license and registration and proof of insurance.

Officer Bob sees nothing in the vehicle or on the driver that gives him probable cause for a search of the vehicle. Officer Bob writes out a citation for failing to stop at a stop sign, and the driver is on his way.

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.

Quoted: What about stopping a car leaving a gun store or gun show and asking if they would consent to a search for illegal weapons and ammunition.

First there has to be a lwfull reason for the stop.

Then there is the issue of who is in the vehicle? Ids the driver licensesd or suspended?  Is he on probation or parole? Assuming none of those things are true, then a lw abiding gun owner would simply have to refuse consent to search and would be sent on his way with either a citation for the violation he was stopped for or warned.  By now everyone here should know the correct answer when asked by the police if they can search your car is "i do not consent to a search of my vehicle."

I think demonstrating a pattern of enforcement for the smaller violations can be good for court. The defense attorney will probably have a more difficult time trying to make your stop seem pretextual or biased if you can show that you enforce those equipment violations, etc. the same as you would any other traffic law.

Quoted: I think demonstrating a pattern of enforcement for the smaller violations can be good for court. The defense attorney will probably have a more difficult time trying to make your stop seem pretextual or biased if you can show that you enforce those equipment violations, etc. the same as you would any other traffic law.

Bingo. I know a LEO who lost a drug case because he stopped a guy for not using a turn signal. Judge threw it out because he never wrote any tickets for said offenses.

I would write citations, warnings and log verbal warnings to cover me in this area.

Quoted: Quoted: I think demonstrating a pattern of enforcement for the smaller violations can be good for court. The defense attorney will probably have a more difficult time trying to make your stop seem pretextual or biased if you can show that you enforce those equipment violations, etc. the same as you would any other traffic law. Bingo. I know a LEO who lost a drug case because he stopped a guy for not using a turn signal. Judge threw it out because he never wrote any tickets for said offenses. I would write citations, warnings and log verbal warnings to cover me in this area.

I might hate your damn tickets, but that a smart move.

Quoted: Look, folks, it works like this:

Those particular examples of selective law enforcement sound just peachy. Of course, the same discretion that justifies ol' Bob's decisions in your hypotheticals also permit him to selectively enforce the law anytime he pleases.

What if Officer Bob doesn't like you? Officer Bob is well within his rights to ticket your ass for 1 mph over and make your stop as leisurely as he pleases. You have no practical remedy.

Maybe Officer Bob doesn't have a beef with you...maybe with your kid....maybe your kid's team is squaring off with Officer Bob's kid's team and your kid is a key starter. To Officer Bob, it looked a little like you were weaving in your lane. You'd better take Officer Bob's sobriety tests and pass else he'll hook you up and instead of being late to the game, neither of you will get there.

Maybe Officer Bob thinks your wife is cute and wants to see if she'll be grateful after he graciously decides to issue a verbal warning rather than write a citation.

While you are doing Officer Bob's sobriety tests on the side of the road or getting a citation for a couple over, or he's trying to scope your wife or daughter's bod, countless real criminals drive on their merry way.

Selective enforcement sucks, period. Either the law is the law, or the law is illusory and a farking joke.

Quoted: Quoted: Look, folks, it works like this: Those particular examples of selective law enforcement sound just peachy. Of course, the same discretion that justifies ol' Bob's decisions in your hypotheticals also permit him to selectively enforce the law anytime he pleases. What if Officer Bob doesn't like you? Officer Bob is well within his rights to ticket your ass for 1 mph over and make your stop as leisurely as he pleases. You have no practical remedy. Maybe Officer Bob doesn't have a beef with you...maybe with your kid....maybe your kid's team is squaring off with Officer Bob's kid's team and your kid is a key starter. To Officer Bob, it looked a little like you were weaving in your lane. You'd better take Officer Bob's sobriety tests and pass else he'll hook you up and instead of being late to the game, neither of you will get there. Maybe Officer Bob thinks your wife is cute and wants to see if she'll be grateful after he graciously decides to issue a verbal warning rather than write a citation. While you are doing Officer Bob's sobriety tests on the side of the road or getting a citation for a couple over, or he's trying to scope your wife or daughter's bod, countless real criminals drive on their merry way. Selective enforcement sucks, period. Either the law is the law, or the law is illusory and a farking joke.

There's NO WAY LEO's can stop and cite every violation they encounter.

Quoted: Quoted: Look, folks, it works like this: Those particular examples of selective law enforcement sound just peachy. Of course, the same discretion that justifies ol' Bob's decisions in your hypotheticals also permit him to selectively enforce the law anytime he pleases. What if Officer Bob doesn't like you? Officer Bob is well within his rights to ticket your ass for 1 mph over and make your stop as leisurely as he pleases. You have no practical remedy. Maybe Officer Bob doesn't have a beef with you...maybe with your kid....maybe your kid's team is squaring off with Officer Bob's kid's team and your kid is a key starter. To Officer Bob, it looked a little like you were weaving in your lane. You'd better take Officer Bob's sobriety tests and pass else he'll hook you up and instead of being late to the game, neither of you will get there. Maybe Officer Bob thinks your wife is cute and wants to see if she'll be grateful after he graciously decides to issue a verbal warning rather than write a citation. While you are doing Officer Bob's sobriety tests on the side of the road or getting a citation for a couple over, or he's trying to scope your wife or daughter's bod, countless real criminals drive on their merry way. Selective enforcement sucks, period. Either the law is the law, or the law is illusory and a farking joke.

The more stops you initiate the more chance of coming across something serious. It's not just the busted up Monte Carlo with smoke streaming out the windows that will have drugs or other contraband in it. It's starting to be more often the "mom" driving the mini van or the "family" on vacation. The mentality that you're letting to "real" criminals go by enforcing the smaller violations is what can get you in trouble in court.

And all of the instances you previously mentioned have nothing to do with selective enforcement but rather with a poor example of a police officer, period.

Quoted: Why don't you go in a bust the people in the known crack house, instead of the people that are leaving the crack house?

To answer this "known" and proved are two different things... To prove it's a crack house we need to develop probable cause for a search warrant. I'm way...!!! over simplifying this but that's what the stops do. You get several stops coupled with surveillance, criminal history of occupants and informant information.. etc.. and you'll get your warrant. What you find inside will likely lead to pc for arrest...

Quoted: Those particular examples of selective law enforcement sound just peachy. Of course, the same discretion that justifies ol' Bob's decisions in your hypotheticals also permit him to selectively enforce the law anytime he pleases.

In most cases, the officer has discretionary authority. That is a GOOD thing, as most mandatory arrest laws produce more idiocy than they solve.

What if Officer Bob doesn't like you?

Then don't break the law. Then Officer Bob can't pull you over.

Officer Bob is well within his rights to ticket your ass for 1 mph over and make your stop as leisurely as he pleases. You have no practical remedy.

Most judges will rip Officer Bob a new one for ticketing for 1 MPH over. And if you don't want to get stopped, obey the law. Fairly simple concept, really....

Maybe Officer Bob doesn't have a beef with you...maybe with your kid....maybe your kid's team is squaring off with Officer Bob's kid's team and your kid is a key starter. To Officer Bob, it looked a little like you were weaving in your lane. You'd better take Officer Bob's sobriety tests and pass else he'll hook you up and instead of being late to the game, neither of you will get there.

You're right!! We need to ban cops from ever pulling somebody over, because Officer Bob might abuse that authority!!

You do realize that dashcams are in most police cars, and that a citizen complaint will lead to a review of a traffic stop in most instances, right?

Maybe Officer Bob thinks your wife is cute and wants to see if she'll be grateful after he graciously decides to issue a verbal warning rather than write a citation. While you are doing Officer Bob's sobriety tests on the side of the road or getting a citation for a couple over, or he's trying to scope your wife or daughter's bod, countless real criminals drive on their merry way.

Uhh......dude......take off the tinfoil and breathe some.

Selective enforcement sucks, period. Either the law is the law, or the law is illusory and a farking joke.

The law IS the law. In most instances the officer has the discretion to decide what to do about law breakers. Would you really want to live in a world where an officer is on his way to sit and watch a suspected drug house but instead is required by law to stop and ticket you when you go 5 MPH over the limit?

Do you want a world in which the State Trooper sitting on the side of the road is forced by statute to stop and ticket you for doing 70 MPH in a 60 MPH zone, instead of sitting and waiting to nail the dunderheads that are flipping in and out of lanes and doing 85 MPH on Interstate 81?

Do you REALLY want a world in which police have no discretionary authority?

I don't think you have the slightest idea what you are asking for. You think cops suck now, wait until their every move is completely dictated by policy or statute. You will REALLY hate them then!

I constantly hear people on this site complain about cops following nonsense procedures and policies, and now you want them to have MORE??

Quoted: There's NO WAY LEO's can stop and cite every violation they encounter.

Precisely. For instance: How many know the minimum distance from a turn you are supposed to be signaling in your area? How many feet must you travel in a lane before you can legally change to another lane? What is the minimum legal distance you can drive from a vehicle in front of you?

Most people drive in such a way that they routinely violate some traffic law at least once a day. If cops were mandated to cite every traffic violation they see, they would be unable to do anything else. Then people really WOULD complain that the cops don't get the real criminals.

Quoted: I think demonstrating a pattern of enforcement for the smaller violations can be good for court. The defense attorney will probably have a more difficult time trying to make your stop seem pretextual...

Thats the whole point of the case law.  The defense cannot argue the stop on the bases of it being a pretext stop, becuase they are allowed.  I have had the defense try that angle more than once and the judge has always shut them down. If i had a lawfull reason to stop the car then it doesnt matter that i also knew there was an ounce of meth in the glove box and the driver was on parole.

Not only do some of the responses strike me as idiotic, but the poll results are just downright DUMBFOUNDING!  So if a cop knows that a car driver has a suspended license, he shouldn't be able to pull him over for a broken tail light to nail him for the misdemeanor aggravated unlicensed driving?

Better scenario...a cop pulls over a car for speeding, knows the driver is a huge drug dealer.  May have let you or I go with a warning, but looks EXTRA HARD inside the car when he's at the window.  Sees paraphanalia and makes arrest for coke.  Bad arrest because he KNEW this loser is a drug dealer?

You people are either fools or you need a SERIOUS reality check!

Quoted: And all of the instances you previously mentioned have nothing to do with selective enforcement but rather with a poor example of a police officer, period.

Precisely. Abuse of authority is always a possibility, but that doesn't mean we abolish authority. We can sit and dream up hypotheticals all day long, but the real truth is that most cops loathe traffic enforcement anyway, and if they had their preferences they wouldn't even bother with it except in egregious cases. I know cops who won't stop someone unless they are doing something irresponsible (90 in a school zone type stuff) or who they suspect of being drunk. Unfortunately they never have a problem generating tickets just by looking for those two types of problems.

Most cops are far too busy to go around harrassing people, regardless of what some of the tinfoil types think.  

Some really are jerks, but that happens in every profession. Most often the beat cops are the decent ones while their bosses are jackasses who couldn't find their rear ends with both hands and a flashlight.

For instance, I have been able to meet several Chicago cops who would actually WANT me to carry concealed in their city. But their bosses would go apesh*t over it.

Quoted: Quoted: I think demonstrating a pattern of enforcement for the smaller violations can be good for court. The defense attorney will probably have a more difficult time trying to make your stop seem pretextual or biased if you can show that you enforce those equipment violations, etc. the same as you would any other traffic law. Bingo. I know a LEO who lost a drug case because he stopped a guy for not using a turn signal. Judge threw it out because he never wrote any tickets for said offenses.

I think the judge erorred there. By the same logic the judge should dismiss every case where its a rookie officers first arrests for that offense. Did the state appeal the judges ruling?

BTW: Whenever the defense starts asking for numbers of investigations or arrests you have done for a specific violation/crime there are only 3 correct answers.  None, one or more than one. If you tell the defense you have made 506 methamphetamine arrests and in discovery they established it was really only 505 your credibility is shot.

Quoted: Thats the whole point of the case law.  The defense cannot argue the stop on the bases of it being a pretext stop, becuase they are allowed.  I have had the defense try that angle more than once and the judge has always shut them down. If i had a lawfull reason to stop the car then it doesnt matter that i also knew there was an ounce of meth in the glove box and the driver was on parole.

Bingo!

And if you stop a car on a minor traffic violation and have absolutely no PC, you can't search the car no matter how badly you want to search it.

Not even if there is a dog in the back seat that would make a particularly nice target....

Quoted: I think the judge errored there. By the same logic the judge should dismiss every case where its a rookie officers first arrests for that offense. Did the state appeal the judges ruling?

I should hope so! That is a judge who needs a good butt kicking! I don't care if the officer has never written any sort of citation in his life, if the basis of the stop is good then there is no way to just dismiss the results of the stop as "pretext".

Quoted:

You are wasting you time. He will lie, twist, and misquote, in response to your posts or questions. He will make assumptions, and create scenarios that no reasonable person ever would. All while trying to talk down to you or directly insult you.

'Talking down' to some of you is simply unavoidable!



See?

I can hardly help myself!

Eric The(PoliceLovePoliceStates)Hun

Interesting post John_Wayne777, but with selective enforcement like that it is all too easy for an officer's personal bias to affect their enforcement of the law.

As an example, in the city where I live the population is over 50% black.  The police enforce traffic laws, especially the minor ones, much more strictly in black neighborhoods than they do white ones.  I have about a dozen employees that drive 6+ hours a day, and they all know to drive much more carefully when in a black neighborhood.  I've been a passenger during dozens of stops here, and the ones in the black neighborhoods take much longer than the ones in the white neighborhoods.  The police also setup roadblocks much more often in the black neighborhoods than the white ones.

Another example, an officer that is in charge of taking property from the rightful owners to profit the city is an admitted racist.  I know the guy.  In the past month, he has started the process to take 154(the last count I know of) houses from the owners for nitpick reasons like peeling paint, poorly maintained sidewalk, uncut grass, etc..  Of those, at least 13 of them are just behind my office, and all 13 are occupied by blacks.  From glancing at the list, all of the others that I recognized the street address from the list are in predominately black neighborhoods.  This is the type of racial bias that should never be allowed to occur.z

Quoted: You can ask here too before the cite is issued. In fact, that's when you SHOULD ask.

- Interesting.  We are taught to ask after the citation is issued. Reason being, if you are still in the middle of the initial stop and ask for consent, the driver might not feel free to object to the search and consent due to coercion.

I do it all the time and have made hundreds of arrests off them...i.e. felony drug cases and stolen cars etc.  They are an LEO's best friend.  If you dont like them, them drive lawfully and have your equiptment up to standards.  There are also alot of cars I have to let go that I know are dirty because I do not have a valid stop.  If you stop a car on a weak stop, and you hit the mother load, it just all goes away when your stop get's thrown out in supression hearings.  Sure you can take them away from LEOs, but enventually the public will start crying like babies when crime increases and "the cops are'nt doing anything about it".  Been there done that...no vehicle pursuits..too forcible felony pursuits only now (which I agree with 100% given the dangers to both cops and the public in general).

Plus the laws and PC to stop and search vary from state to state, but all must fall under constitutional parameters that have all been tweaked through hundreds of court cases.  And most larger departments have tools in place to stop harassment and racial profiling...i.e. we clear our stops with the race and sex of the driver, and all complaints (BS or not) go through IA and are kept on file for review.  No decent cop is gonna screw a career...although there are those who do and they are fired anyway...the whole 1 bad apple saying.  I hear it all the time...1 bad cop makes us all dog killers...right?

And for all the LEOs out there...3 words...articulation, articulation, articulation.....forest gump/thats all I got to say bout that/forest gump

Quoted: Interesting post John_Wayne777, but with selective enforcement like that it is all too easy for an officer's personal bias to affect their enforcement of the law.

I have news for you: Selective enforcement is how police conduct most of their jobs. As I said before, do you really want to live in a world where police officers are mandated to stop you if you are 1 MPH over the limit? If your son is out with the wrong crowd and they are vandalizing something but the officer who catches them realizes that your son wasn't the one doing the bad stuff, but was instead along for the ride, do you want the officer to be forced to arrest your son anyway?

Officers NEED discretionary authority to properly do their jobs and to promote the cause of justice. The overwhelming majority of police officers know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are, and will act accordingly to try and be fair in how they do their job.

Mandating every single action and decision of the officer is a SURE way to create a world you really don't want. If that kind of world was created the people who whine and moan about cops now would be foaming at the mouth and in convulsions.

As an example, in the city where I live the population is over 50% black.  The police enforce traffic laws, especially the minor ones, much more strictly in black neighborhoods than they do white ones.

So?

I have about a dozen employees that drive 6+ hours a day, and they all know to drive much more carefully when in a black neighborhood.  I've been a passenger during dozens of stops here, and the ones in the black neighborhoods take much longer than the ones in the white neighborhoods.  The police also setup roadblocks much more often in the black neighborhoods than the white ones.

Where are most crimes reported? Where are most of their domestic violence calls? Where are most of the drug arrests happening? Where are most of the shootings and stabbings happening?

What you will most likely find is that police presence is highest and enforcement is highest in the areas that have the most crime. Police are not targeting those neighborhoods because they are "black", they are targeting those neighborhoods because THAT'S WHERE THE PROBLEMS ARE. Would it make you happy if the police were busy strictly enforcing traffic laws in the "white" neighborhoods while ignoring the drugs, violence, and problems in the "black" neighborhoods?

A policy where most of the attention and resources goes to the place that causes the most problems would seem to be an eminently sensible one to me.

Another example, an officer that is in charge of taking property from the rightful owners to profit the city is an admitted racist.  I know the guy.

Then perhaps you should file a complaint.

In the past month, he has started the process to take 154(the last count I know of) houses from the owners for nitpick reasons like peeling paint, poorly maintained sidewalk, uncut grass, etc..  Of those, at least 13 of them are just behind my office, and all 13 are occupied by blacks.  From glancing at the list, all of the others that I recognized the street address from the list are in predominately black neighborhoods.  This is the type of racial bias that should never be allowed to occur.

Please explain how an officer in your area can confiscate a house for peeling paint and untrimmed grass. Show us the laws that permit such a thing...

Quoted: Interesting post John_Wayne777, but with selective enforcement like that it is all too easy for an officer's personal bias to affect their enforcement of the law. As an example, in the city where I live the population is over 50% black.  The police enforce traffic laws, especially the minor ones, much more strictly in black neighborhoods than they do white ones.  I have about a dozen employees that drive 6+ hours a day, and they all know to drive much more carefully when in a black neighborhood.  I've been a passenger during dozens of stops here, and the ones in the black neighborhoods take much longer than the ones in the white neighborhoods.  The police also setup roadblocks much more often in the black neighborhoods than the white ones.

So? The majority of the crime and service calls came from two trailer parks populated mainly by white trash. That's were I spent a lot of time. And yes I stopped vechile violations there at a higher rate than just being out and about.

You go to where the crime/calls are coming from. It's called policing.

Quoted: Quoted: You are wasting you time. He will lie, twist, and misquote, in response to your posts or questions. He will make assumptions, and create scenarios that no reasonable person ever would. All while trying to talk down to you or directly insult you. 'Talking down' to some of you is simply unavoidable! See? I can hardly help myself! Eric The(PoliceLovePoliceStates)Hun

Good grief, you're not even trying any more.

I will take your consistent failure to even try and answer my question as a concession on your part. Thanks for playing, it was real, it was fun, but it wasn't real fun. I think I'm going to take everyone's advice and just ignore you from now on. I see now that they knew all to well what they were talking about...

If you don't agree with "pretext stops" then you just don't understand them.  I mean if I pull over a car full of gang members or tweekers, am I going on a "fishing expedition"?  I'm not looking to pull over law abiding citizens and "trump up" some charges on my "fishing expedition"  

Pretext stops are one of the best ways to be pro-active against crime.

This poll just proves my point that most people don't understand police work.....

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are wasting you time. He will lie, twist, and misquote, in response to your posts or questions. He will make assumptions, and create scenarios that no reasonable person ever would. All while trying to talk down to you or directly insult you. 'Talking down' to some of you is simply unavoidable! See? I can hardly help myself! Eric The(PoliceLovePoliceStates)Hun Good grief, you're not even trying any more.

Considering the mental level of 'other side' there's no reason for me to even try.

'Gangbangers'???

You mean blacks and Hispanics, thank you.

'Pretext stop'?

You mean racial profiling, and nothing more.

You can't even be honest when dealing with folks who think the same way you do!

How's that for honor and integrity?

(Must really smart to get your honor and integrity questioned by a...lawyer! )

I will take your consistent failure to even try and answer my question as a concession on your part.

When I see you post a cogent question, you will receive a cogent answer.

Until then, it's just fun and games.

Thanks for playing, it was real, it was fun, but it wasn't real fun. I think I'm going to take everyone's advice and just ignore you from now on. I see now that they knew all to well what they were talking about...

You know if folks really kept to their word, there wouldn't be a pencil-necked geek, JBT-wannabe, or asshat, who still responded to my posts.

But as we can see....there still are!



Thanks for participating!

Eric The(HonestAsTheDayIsLong)Hun

RE "Eric the Hun"

I've dealt with many people like you over my career.  You are the MOST racially prejudice person in the group and also the loudest one to proclaim the supposed prejudice of the officers on scene.  

You see everything the police do as "Gestopo like" and always take the bad guys side because "the cops must be lying".

The cops bend over backwards to be objective and treat you with respect, but since you have already pre-judged us you just can't see it and do nothing but hate..............................

What happened to you that your world view is so distorted?  (This is a serious, respectful question)

Quoted: If you don't agree with "pretext stops" then you just don't understand them.  I mean if I pull over a car full of gang members or tweekers, am I going on a "fishing expedition"?  I'm not looking to pull over law abiding citizens and "trump up" some charges on my "fishing expedition"   Pretext stops are one of the best ways to be pro-active against crime. This poll just proves my point that most people don't understand police work.....

How do you determine if they're a law abiding citizen or a "gang member" or "tweeker"?  If you have to search to do so, then you are likely also going to wind up searching a lot of law abiding people.  

Quoted: How do you determine if they're a law abiding citizen or a "gang member" or "tweeker"?  If you have to search to do so, then you are likely also going to wind up searching a lot of law abiding people.

Good question, you can't always tell.  But, do the job enough and you start to see certain patterns, in crime, in people, its called "Criminal Profiling" and it works quite well.  It's not racial profiling, in fact most of the criminals I arrest are white.  To give a simple example, you see a older car with 2-3 guys in it at 0200 hours, driving in your city.  The car has a marijuana leaf sticker on it.  Am I going to attempt to find a legal reason to stop that car?  Damn straight.

Wow there are alot off people here that must have warrants.

Quoted: Good question, you can't always tell.  But, do the job enough and you start to see certain patterns, in crime, in people, its called "Criminal Profiling" and it works quite well.  It's not racial profiling, in fact most of the criminals I arrest are white.  To give a simple example, you see a older car with 2-3 guys in it at 0200 hours, driving in your city.  The car has a marijuana leave sticker on it.  Am I going to attempt to find a legal reason to stop that car?  Damn straight.

I understand what you're saying, and I'm sure it's effective, but I still have a basic objection to the pretext stop.  Your car out at 2:00am may be full of potheads going to the grocery store or drive-thru for food, or maybe they're even going to buy drugs.  Maybe they haven't smoked pot in forever and they're going to the store for diapers or medicine.  You can't know without pulling them over.

Assuming they are operating the vehicle without driving recklessly or swerving all over the road, I think it's more than a little morally questionable to pull someone over for an air freshener that "obscures the driver's vision" or a dirty "obscured" license plate or other pretext excuse, when the real reason you pulled them over is that they're driving a shitty car with a sticker you don't like on it.  That isn't illegal.

If the driver is being reckless or swerving, speeding excessively, etc. then by all means run a DL search.  If the problem exists solely with the state of the vehicle the operator should be given a verbal or written warning.  JMHO.

Quoted: How do you determine if they're a law abiding citizen or a "gang member" or "tweeker"?  If you have to search to do so, then you are likely also going to wind up searching a lot of law abiding people.

Our local gang members wear a specific uniform right down to having a winter uniform and summer uniform.  its damn near as regulated as US military uniforms.

Tweekers have obvious physical indicators.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You are wasting you time. He will lie, twist, and misquote, in response to your posts or questions. He will make assumptions, and create scenarios that no reasonable person ever would. All while trying to talk down to you or directly insult you. 'Talking down' to some of you is simply unavoidable! See? I can hardly help myself! Eric The(PoliceLovePoliceStates)Hun Good grief, you're not even trying any more. Considering the mental level of 'other side' there's no reason for me to even try. 'Gangbangers'??? You mean blacks and Hispanics, thank you. 'Pretext stop'? You mean racial profiling, and nothing more. You can't even be honest when dealing with folks who think the same way you do! How's that for honor and integrity? (Must really smart to get your honor and integrity questioned by a...lawyer! ) I will take your consistent failure to even try and answer my question as a concession on your part. When I see you post a cogent question, you will receive a cogent answer. Until then, it's just fun and games. Thanks for playing, it was real, it was fun, but it wasn't real fun. I think I'm going to take everyone's advice and just ignore you from now on. I see now that they knew all to well what they were talking about... You know if folks really kept to their word, there wouldn't be a pencil-necked geek, JBT-wannabe, or asshat, who still responded to my posts. But as we can see....there still are! Thanks for participating! Eric The(HonestAsTheDayIsLong)Hun

Oh....my....goodness.

I know I'm trying to ignore you, but your thick-headedness is just too compelling. 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". 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:

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?

Quite honestly, I'm amazed at your inability to argue a simple point. You, sir, have a sickeningly over-inflated ego. 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. 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. 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? 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.


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.

fishing expedition. so no on your poll.

goes right with one of the quotes that make your blood boil
"If you're not doing anything wrong"

Ver are your papers?


Amendment IV

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

Quoted: Pretext stops are one of the best ways to be pro-active against crime.

They'll insist..actually, complain bitterly at times, that we are strictly reactionary. Show up afterwards and do a report. Heaven forbid we try to be proactive.............

Quoted: fishing expedition. so no on your poll. goes right with one of the quotes that make your blood boil "If you're not doing anything wrong" Ver are your papers? Amendment IV 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

How exactly does being stopped for running a red light violate your 4th ammendment rights???
H

Quoted: Quoted: fishing expedition. so no on your poll. goes right with one of the quotes that make your blood boil "If you're not doing anything wrong" Ver are your papers? Amendment IV 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 How exactly does being stopped for running a red light violate your 4th ammendment rights??? H

more like the ole "didn't use your turn signals " ploy bullshit. the popo have used that one on me.  wide open to abuse IMO


as some of us know, give the police an inch and a mile they will take. it's for your safety.

Quoted: If you don't agree with "pretext stops" then you just don't understand them.  I mean if I pull over a car full of gang members or tweekers, am I going on a "fishing expedition"?  I'm not looking to pull over law abiding citizens and "trump up" some charges on my "fishing expedition"   Pretext stops are one of the best ways to be pro-active against crime. This poll just proves my point that most people don't understand police work.....

Is it the duty of every citizen to know how and why police act as they do?  That's beyond unreasonable.  People form opinions based on their perception.  If there are enough negative examples and not enough positive examples that are common knowledge, people will believe the stops are bad.

One show I watched on DUI's had an officer explaining the different things drunk drivers do.  One of the things that made someone suspect was going exactly the speed limit, always signaling, coming to a full and complete stop at stop signs, etc.  While I'm all in favor of nailing people who are stupid enough to be DUI, there is the perception that DUI laws can be used to justify stopping anyone.  

Someone going over the speed limit can be stopped for speeding, someone going at or under the speed limit can be stopped for impeding the flow of traffic in all but the most rural areas.  It's a catch-22.

When the laws can be used to justify stopping every single driver on the road, that breeds contempt.    In effect, it does give the officer a legal justification to pull someone over for "black guy in a mercedes" or in my case a long time ago "guy with long hair in an old car in Palo Alto, CA".  This is what I think a lot of people are thinking when they vote no on this poll.  That is why I voted no.  I'm split 51/49% on the issue.  I know it's used for a lot of good stops to catch people who are doing something else wrong that the officer just can't prove YET.  On the other hand, having to cite people for common, harmless activities like "failing to signal when there was no one to be impacted by an otherwise safe lane change" just creates the impression that it's artibrary and selective enforcement.

Police officers don't think of themselves as politicians, but they are judged more on appearance than fact, like politicians.  Nobody is going to fault a police officer for the stops involving tweekers and gang bangers.  I think we can all agree on them.  It's the impact on less clear cut cases that most people react to.  Should I be pretext stopped for being within 10mph of the speed limit usually, driving in a pretty expensive neighborhood in a Toyota Corolla that almost never gets washed, except when it goes into the shop for service?  Sometimes, it's even towing a Harbor Freight trailer, making it look totally goofy.

If I were emperor, I'd have civilians like myself ride along with these officers to act as an impartial third party.  Of course, if I were doing that job, for every unhappy face I put by the name of an officer, there would probably be another stop where I'd rule "too stupid to live - if you shoot him, I'm reporting that he was coming right for you."  

Quoted: more like the ole "didn't use your turn signals " ploy bullshit. the popo have used that one on me.  wide open to abuse IMO

If you didn't use your turn signals, then they have every legal authority to stop you. If you did not signal the appropriate ammount of time prior to making your turn, then they have every legal authority to stop you. If you did not signal the appropriate distance before making a lane change, then they have every legal authority to stop you.

If you commit a moving violation or are in violation of registration, inspection, or equipment laws, then they have every legal authority to stop you.

They still require probable cause before conducting a search.

Honestly! It never ceases to amaze me how little folks seem to understand the Constitution....

as some of us know, give the police an inch and a mile they will take. it's for your safety.

Mercy.

Believe it or not, most cops have far better things to do than harass you...

Quoted: I see nothing wrong with you stopping the tweakers for speeding, then finding out they stole the car. But cops pulling over people for a broken tail light so they can go fishing is BS.

I said yes, but I'm thinking along these lines...

Quoted: Quoted: more like the ole "didn't use your turn signals " ploy bullshit. the popo have used that one on me.  wide open to abuse IMO If you didn't use your turn signals, nice try bud, one of my pet peeves of the road is turn signals, I'm as faithful in that as you are in you beliefs.then they have every legal authority to stop you. If you did not signal the appropriate ammount of time prior to making your turn, then they have every legal authority to stop you. If you did not signal the appropriate distance before making a lane change, then they have every legal authority to stop you. If you commit a moving violation or are in violation of registration, inspection, or equipment laws, then they have every legal authority to stop you. no sweat, but as I said that is open to abuse. just as the turn signal BS with me was. They still require probable cause before conducting a search. why they stopped you to begin with. lies and deceit Honestly! It never ceases to amaze me how little folks seem to understand the Constitution.... as some of us know, give the police an inch and a mile they will take. it's for your safety. Mercy. Believe it or not, most cops have far better things to do than harass you... like take fishing expeditions on the first thought of "he doesn't look right" then, the no turn signal ploy. you police apologists are the ones who seem to shred the constitution ./blue]

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

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.

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.

We're here to help you, this is not an illegal search.

The way I see it, if you pull a car over for any violation, whether it's speeding or a burned out tail-light, it only makes sense to run the license plates and take the drivers license to check for outstanding warrants.  I don't see how that could be a bad thing.  All you're doing is checking identification and seeing if it matches a list you already have.

Searches, on the other hand, I think are unacceptable unless you've seen probable cause like a driver or passenger obviosuly trying to hide something, or something illegal in plain sight.

Ok, off to read other replies now.

Quoted: RE "Eric the Hun" I've dealt with many people like you over my career.

I very, very seriously doubt that.

As a matter of fact, I would say that's simply a lie.

You are the MOST racially prejudice person in the group and also the loudest one to proclaim the supposed prejudice of the officers on scene.

And you, Sir, are a raving idiot.

You know absolutely -zero- about me, my little keyboard JBT, no more than I know anything, or wish to know anything, about you.

Let's just keep it that way, OK?  

You see everything the police do as "Gestopo like" and always take the bad guys side because "the cops must be lying".

Bullshiite, simple unadulterated, Grade A Bullshiite!

Save that shiite for the station house, 'cause it doesn't play well around here.

Among folks who know better.

I never take 'the bad guys' side' in any discussion, and some times, you know, the boys in blue turn out to actually be the bad guys.

Wow! Who would have thought it?

Want a list?

No, that would waste too much bandwidth. But you know it, I know it, and everyone on this Baord knows it.

So can the crap, Mister.

The cops bend over backwards to be objective and treat you with respect, but since you have already pre-judged us you just can't see it and do nothing but hate........

Most LEOs I know are fellow Masons or fellow gun enthusiasts, and it's very unlikely that I would 'hate' either.

Of course, these are not the LEOs who make headlines, and they are uniformly the last ones to defend some fellow officer who has shiite his pants.

Quite unlike some of y'all on this Board.

'Pretext' stops, eh?

Should that name alone be sufficient to deter its use?

'pretext' -  n 1: something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason

2: an artful or simulated semblance; "under the pretext of friendship he betrayed them"

Or, more to the point,

They suck the blood of those they depend on, under a pretext of service and kindness. --Sir Roger L'Estrange.

Whoa, that was a direct hit!

Or another favorite L'Estrange quote:

“Of all injustice, that is the greatest which goes under the name of law; and of all sorts of tyranny the forcing of the letter of the law against the equity, is the most insupportable”

What happened to you that your world view is so distorted?  (This is a serious, respectful question)

My worldview is quite clear, m'boy.

Not all cops are noble folks and not all denizens of ghettos and barrios are hoodlums.

The days of giving y'all the benefit of the doubt left when y'all stopped giving your fellow citizens the benfit of the doubt.

'Pretext stops' is simply an attempted admission that the Bill of Rights was wrong.

Eric The(Clear,Concise)Hun

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