Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:25:27 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:36:38 AM EDT by AR15fan]
A pretext stop is a police officer using a violation of law to stop a driver for purposes known only to the officer such as checking to see if the driver has a valid license, if he hads wearrants, if the car is stolen, or asking for a consent search for narcotics. The case law is clear that they are lawfull. As long as the cop has a lawful reason to detain the motivations behind the detention dont matter.

Examples of a pretext stop would be.

1. Stopping a driver for an equipment violation then checking to see if the car is stolen, the driver has a license, and if he has any warrants.

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

3. Contacting the occupants of a car parked in a red zone infront of the bank and asking them questions about why they are there.

I recently arrested two burglars in a stolen car on a pretext stop. Saw a POS car occupied by two sucked up tweekers speeding. Stopped the car for the moving violation and they had just stole the car in another city and were using it to commit burglaries in my city.

Explain your answer.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:26:56 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:
A pretext stop is a police officer using a violation of law to stop a driver for purposes known only to the officer such as checking to see if the driver has a valid license, if he hads wearrants, if the car is stolen, or asking for a consent search for narcotics. The case law is clear that they are lawfull. as long as the cop has a lawful reason to detain the motivations obehind the detention dont matter.

Examples of a pretext stop would be.

1. Stopping a driver for an equipment violation then checking to see if the car is stolen, the driver has a license, and if he has any warrants.

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

3. Contacting the occupants of a car parked in a red zone infront of the bank and asking them questions about why they are there.

I recently arrested two burglars in a stolen car on a pretext stop. Saw a POS car occupied by two sucked up tweekers speeding. Stopped the car for the moving violation and they had just stole the car in another city and were using it to commit burglaries in my city.



1. no problem
2. no problem
3. have the car towed and ticketed
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:33:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
3. have the car towed and ticketed


at least 99:100 times its just someone in a hurry waiting for a friend inside the bank. Every once in awhile its the getaway driver for a 211. Towing every car would be excessive and in many states not even allowed.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:35:15 AM EDT
I made a lot of arrests which started as equipment violations.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:37:00 AM EDT
Don't they do that already?

I've seen plenty of Cops episodes where they pull someone over after visiting a crackhouse. They search the vehicle. But IIRC it starts out as a broken taillight, seat belt, etc.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:39:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Bama-Shooter:
I made a lot of arrests which started as equipment violations.



Every cop has but lots of people consider pretext stops "fishing expeditions."

Without pretext stops lots of wanted persons would never get caught and burglars/car theives lives would be much easier. Hell Tim Mcveigh was caught by a pretext stop.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:40:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By falaholic1:
3. have the car towed and ticketed


at least 99:100 times its just someone in a hurry waiting for a friend inside the bank. Every once in awhile its the getaway driver for a 211. Towing every car would be excessive and in many states not even allowed.



Ah ok, i thought it was an empty car in the fire lane. Yea i'd ask what's going on.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:40:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By deej86:
Don't they do that already?



Yes. The case law all says it's okay. I'm asking your opionion if you think it should be allowed.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:43:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:44:20 AM EDT by deej86]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By deej86:
Don't they do that already?



Yes. The case law all says it's okay. I'm asking your opionion if you think it should be allowed.


Yes.


Hell Tim Mcveigh was caught by a pretext stop.

+1.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:45:45 AM EDT

hey, if someone on the run for murder doesnt have enough common sense to fix his tailight, stop him and lock him up.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:47:04 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 9:48:03 AM EDT by Tanam]
Number1 and 2 seem fine to me. The only fishing expedition i see is that one city that started pulling over good drivers to "reward them". Please explain what exactly is the red zone is in front of a bank.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:49:54 AM EDT
One of the local officers uses this gem. Any sticker in a window and bam, cause for stop.


It shall be unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle upon a highway with any sign, poster, or other nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wing vents, or side or rear windows of such motor vehicle other than a certificate or other paper required to be so displayed by law. The front windshield, side wing vents, and side or rear windows may have a visor or other shade device which is easily moved aside or removable, is normally used by a motor vehicle operator during daylight hours, and does not impair the driver's field of vision.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:50:53 AM EDT
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?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:51:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tanam:
Number1 and 2 seem fine to me. The only fishing expedition i see is that one city that started pulling over good drivers to "reward them". Please explain what exactly is the red zone is in front of a bank.



No parking, for emergency vehicle access.

ie they are parked as close to possible to the front doors, as if for quick easy access to and from the bank. AKA armed robbery parking spot.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:52:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tanam:
Please explain what exactly is the red zone is in front of a bank.



Here no parking zones are marked by a painted red curb. Called a "fire lane" in some states.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:53:34 AM EDT
Lots of arrests start as traffic violations.

Hell, Timothy McVeigh was pulled over for a traffic violation. That's how he got caught.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:54:38 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Kooter:
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?



Why don't the cops just come into your house for a health an welfare inspection?

Because the police need RAS/PC to stop and question people. Generally they need a warrant or consent to enter a person's house.

Stopping people leaving a suspected crack house, and questioning them, is a good way to gather that RAS/PC to get the warrant to search the suspected crack house.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:54:55 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:56:12 AM EDT
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:57:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:00:03 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By Kooter:
Why don't you go in a bust the people in the known crack house



There is a greater expectation of privacy in a home than a vehicle. Even if the home is a crack house. So you need a search warrant for that, which is above the pay grade so to speak of a patrol cop.


..instead of the people that are leaving the crack house?


But your average patrol cop will be able to arrest the customers comming and going if they have a good understanding of narcotics laws and search & seizure law. Those arrests can be used later by investigations to add to the PC needed to get the search warrant necessary for the house.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 9:58:47 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?



45% of AR15.com says yes.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:03:04 AM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:05:53 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?



As long as he has a valid license and proof of insurance, sure.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:10:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:16:14 AM EDT by OBird]
Yes, because the alternative is completely idiotic:

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.

Obviously, such alternatives would be totally without logic, so yes, we should allow it. Whether you see it as a good tool or a neccessary evil, there's really no way around it.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:15:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?



45% of AR15.com says yes.



After some of the other discussions, I'm surprised it's not a lot higher.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:17:33 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:22:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:

But cops pulling over people for a broken tail light so they can go fishing is BS.



Why? They have every right to pull someone over to remind them their tail light is out anyways, regardless of suspicions. 95% of the time they will just give you a friendly reminder to change the bulb. Are you suggesting that anyone should automatically be exempted from the laws regarding burnt out lights as soon as they are suspected of being criminals/drunk drivers/etc. ? Now THAT would be BS.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:22:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Mall-Ninja:
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.



It's the same thing. I had no intention of writing a speeding ticket. I have only written 1 or 2 in my entire career. Had they not been speeding, but had a broken tail light, i would have stopped them for that.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:25:05 AM EDT
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.

I would bet it would be incredibly effective....in smothering the Bill of Rights completely.

There's a reason they call Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes, 'police states.'

Eric The(LiveFreeOrDie)Hun
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:30:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
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.

I would bet it would be incredibly effective....in smothering the Bill of Rights completely.

There's a reason they call Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes, 'police states.'

Eric The(LiveFreeOrDie)Hun



Thank you for bringing totally non-relevant subjects into the discussion....


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.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:07 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:
Yes, because the alternative is completely idiotic:

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.

Obviously, such alternatives would be totally without logic, so yes, we should allow it. Whether you see it as a good tool or a neccessary evil, there's really no way around it.



That pretty much sums it up. If pretext stops were illegal then in example three if the cop walked up the the car infront of the bank and the occupants were wearing ski masks, body armor and had weapons in plain veiw the cops would have to let them go with a parking ticket and instructions to move the car.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:34:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:
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.



Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:39:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ORinTX:

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?



As long as he has a valid license and proof of insurance, sure.



That is absolutely mind boggling.

In my opinion if your a criminal, I don't care how they catch you.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Va_Dinger:
That is absolutely mind boggling.

In my opinion if your a criminal, I don't care how they catch you.



I do. There is this thing called the BOR/Constitution that guarantees rights, even though the Government/Courts/Police have basically made it a worthless piece of paper.

There are valid pretext stops, but many are simply fishing expeditions ("Show me your papers").
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:48:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:50:53 AM EDT by legalese77]
Poll choice #2 is a bit misleading. LE IS restricted to investigating the original reason for the stop, as long as it is legitimate (pretextual or not) unless they learn something else in the course of the stop.

e.g., Pretext stop of known narcotics dealers for a california stop. Officer issues citation for failure to yield and therefore completes the purpose for the stop and then says, without any basis beyond mere suspicion "mind if I search?" and the suspect consents...even if he finds 10 kilos in the trunk, he's just botched the bust.

On the other hand, if the stop is legit, pretextual or not, and Johnny Law sees a baggie of white powder in plain view in the passenger compartment and conducts a search prior to completing the stop and finds the blow, he's in good shape.

I'm sure you already know this but I just wanted to clarify that eliminating pretextual stops will not restrict LE to acting only upon the initial justification for the stop as your poll choice implies.



Originally Posted By AR15fan:
I recently arrested two burglars in a stolen car on a pretext stop. Saw a POS car occupied by two sucked up tweekers speeding. Stopped the car for the moving violation and they had just stole the car in another city and were using it to commit burglaries in my city.

Explain your answer.



Would you have stopped them if they were driving a shiny Benz? If they appeared neatly shaven and clothed? Why not? If you would have, I would suggest that the stop was not pretextual at all.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:49:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By triburst1:
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.



Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint.



Right, cause that'll go over well.

I've never been stopped when I wasn't doing something wrong. Sometimes it's for a burnt out light. Mostly it's been for speeding.

Then again, I don't have long hair.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:51:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:54:53 AM EDT by AR15fan]

Originally Posted By legalese77:
Poll choice #2 is a bit misleading. LE IS restricted to investigating the original reason for the stop, as long as it is legitimate (pretextual or not) unless they learn something else in the course of the stop.

e.g., Pretext stop of known narcotics dealers for a california stop. Officer issues citation for failure to yield and therefore completes the purpose for the stop and then says, without any basis beyond mere suspicion "mind if I search?" and the suspect consents...even if he finds 10 kilos in the trunk, he's just botched the bust.



Not in this state. In fact here we can even ask for consent to search before the ticket is issued. as long as the search doesnt take any longer than scratching out the cite would have it's not a overdetention.

You do not need any reason to ask for consent in this state.

ETA: Perhaps i misunderstood your post. If your saying that further detaining the driver AFTER the initial reason for the stop is done, then your right. However you can issue the cite then tell the driver he is free to go and ask him to voluntarily remain while you do a consent search. I've never seen that done though. Here SOP is ask for consent before you write a cite.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:48 AM EDT
Well, I dont have a problem with it but I do have a problem when a LEO type makes up a BS reason to stop someone. For example, saying the car was swerving eradically, didnt use a turn signal. Basically things that are LEO's word against driver. I know that many LEO types use this and it is bullshit.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
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.

I would bet it would be incredibly effective....in smothering the Bill of Rights completely.

There's a reason they call Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes, 'police states.'

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.

It's just 'fishing.'

It's precisely the same, only in Perot's suggestion the scope is grander.

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.

Clever boy, why not just stop all vehicles equally?

Is that too simple for you?

I try to do what I can, but the Lord gives me such poor material to work with....nowadays.

Eric The(ShakingHisHead)Hun
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 10:56:41 AM EDT by legalese77]

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Not in this state. In fact here we can even ask for consent to search before the ticket is issued. as long as the search doesnt take any longer than scratching out the cite would have it's not a overdetention.

You do not need any reason to ask for consent in this state.



You can ask here too before the cite is issued. In fact, that's when you SHOULD ask. If the purpose of the stop has been completed, that's it...game over. If it has not, it's a different ball game. You don't need a reason to ask consent here, either. I believe that this is supported by SCOTUS law... it is definitely the LOTL here in IL.


Originally Posted By AR15fan:
ETA: Perhaps i misunderstood your post. If your saying that further detaining the driver AFTER the initial reason for the stop is done, then your right. However you can issue the cite then tell the driver he is free to go and ask him to voluntarily remain while you do a consent search. I've never seen that done though. Here SOP is ask for consent before you write a cite.



exactly...we're on the same page
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:51 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By triburst1:
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.



Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint.



Once I was detained for 45 minutes while the officer accused me of being a drug user and tried to talk me into letting him search my vehicle. Obviously, he had no PC or he would have obtained a warrant. The nonsense stopped only when I called the County Attorney at home(he happens to be a shooting buddy) from my cell phone. The officer was in his vehicle when I made the call and about two minutes later, he came up and told me to have a nice night.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 10:56:25 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Valkyrie:
Well, I dont have a problem with it but I do have a problem when a LEO type makes up a BS reason to stop someone.



Everyone should have a problem with that. There has to be a lawfull reason to stop. Good thing about patrol video systems is if you didnt use that turn signal it will be on the tape.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:01:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By triburst1:
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.



Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint.



Once I was detained for 45 minutes while the officer accused me of being a drug user and tried to talk me into letting him search my vehicle.


you should have filed a complaint. no traffic stop should take 45minutes. As for trying to talk you into consenting to search. thats a 10 second conversation "Is there anything illegal in your vehicle." Yes/no. "Can i search your vehicle?" Yes/No. end of conversation. If they say no you don't resort to scare tactics like "i could get a warrant." or "If you dont have asnything to hide.." If a cop resorts to that he's got a good chance that if he talks you into consenting, and finds something, he may lose it in a supression hearing because the defense will argue the consent was coerced.
Our DA requires you use exact quotes in the report as to the way you asked for consent and how the suspect answered. Those quotes better match the audio recording.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:04:04 AM EDT
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.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:07:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By triburst1:

Originally Posted By AR15fan:

Originally Posted By triburst1:
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.



Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint.



Once I was detained for 45 minutes while the officer accused me of being a drug user and tried to talk me into letting him search my vehicle.


you should have filed a complaint. no traffic stop should take 45minutes. As for trying to talk you into consenting to search. thats a 10 second conversation "Is there anything illegal in your vehicle." Yes/no. "Can i search your vehicle?" Yes/No. end of conversation. If they say no you don't resort to scare tactics like "i could get a warrant." or "If you dont have asnything to hide.." If a cop resorts to that he's got a good chance that if he talks you into consenting, and finds something, he may lose it in a supression hearing because the defense will argue the consent was coerced.
Our DA requires you use exact quotes in the report as to the way you asked for consent and how the suspect answered. Those quotes better match the audio recording.



I found out later that he apparently thought I was some guy who was banging his ex girlfriend. He had some other issues with judgement and was thankfully not rehired. I was happy for the citizens and the honorable officers who caught a bad rap because of that prick.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:15:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:45:37 AM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
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.

I would bet it would be incredibly effective....in smothering the Bill of Rights completely.

There's a reason they call Cuba, and other totalitarian regimes, 'police states.'

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.

It's just 'fishing.'

It's precisely the same, only in Perot's suggestion the scope is grander.

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.

Clever boy, why not just stop all vehicles equally?

Is that too simple for you?

I try to do what I can, but the Lord gives me such poor material to work with....nowadays.

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're quite adept at saying things like "I'm a part of the problem" and calling me "poor material", yet you don't actually answer the question. Please, by all means, share your alternative plan of action instead of just attacking my character and using paranoid, emotionally fueled "arguments".

This thread is NOT about random searches. It is about whether or not a person can be held accountable for other, incidental (intentionally or unintentionally) violations while being investigated for committing a seperate violation. Your scenario simply regarded random searches of houses with no initial violation. Duh, of course there are technically "similarities," (though only on a very basic level, i.e., the word "search") but they are STILL SEPERATE TOPICS. There are also "similiarities" (i.e., the presensce of military action) between the German invasion of Russia and the American liberation of Iraq/Afghanistan, but they, too, are SEPERATE TOPICS. The historic presence of one unrelated, morally unfounded scenario (German invasion) does not mean the other, present-day justified scenario (US liberation of Iraq/Afghanistan) is automatically evil just because there are technical "similariteis." The same applies to your statement: the presence of one unrelated, morally unfounded scenario (random searches of innocent households) does not mean the other, present-day justified scenario (legal pretex stops) is automatically evil just because there are technical "similarities."

Once a pretext stop has no credible reason for the stop (a scenario that IS akin to your example), it is no longer a pretext stop and simply an illegal search and therefore unrelated to this discussion. One subject is totally legal and done all the time (regardless of whether Eric the Hun likes it or not), the other is unconstitutional and incurs heavy discipline when committed. They ARE seperate topics, one cannot simply be used as an argument against the other.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:30 AM EDT
Personally I have no problem with pretext stops as long as the officer either lets the person go, or arrests them in a timely manner, say 15 minutes. If you pull someone over for a busted tail light and can't find anything else wrong within that time limit then you need to give them a warning, or a citation for the original offense and let them go.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
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.

Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:24:06 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/16/2006 11:28:54 AM EDT by OBird]

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:

Originally Posted By OBird:

Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
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.
Link Posted: 3/16/2006 11:35:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By efpeter:
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.



There is no reason to make a vehicle stop unless you have an equipment issue or made a moving violation. Going gun shopping is not pc for a stop.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 5
Top Top