User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:26:56 AM EDT
[#1]
1. no problem 2. no problem 3. have the car towed and ticketed |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:33:27 AM EDT
[#2]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:35:15 AM EDT
[#3]
I made a lot of arrests which started as equipment violations.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:37:00 AM EDT
[#4]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:39:09 AM EDT
[#5]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:40:11 AM EDT
[#6]
Ah ok, i thought it was an empty car in the fire lane. Yea i'd ask what's going on. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:40:51 AM EDT
[#7]
Yes. The case law all says it's okay. I'm asking your opionion if you think it should be allowed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:43:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Yes.
+1. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:45:45 AM EDT
[#9]
hey, if someone on the run for murder doesnt have enough common sense to fix his tailight, stop him and lock him up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:47:04 AM EDT
[#10]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:49:54 AM EDT
[#11]
One of the local officers uses this gem. Any sticker in a window and bam, cause for stop.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:50:53 AM EDT
[#12]
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?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:51:47 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:52:40 AM EDT
[#14]
Here no parking zones are marked by a painted red curb. Called a "fire lane" in some states. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:53:34 AM EDT
[#15]
Lots of arrests start as traffic violations.
Hell, Timothy McVeigh was pulled over for a traffic violation. That's how he got caught. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:54:38 AM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:54:55 AM EDT
[#17]
Yes they should be legal, but you shouldn't always expect everyone to bow to your wishes. You can ask to search my car but the only way you'll do it is if I'm cuffed in the back of yours.
In the other cases, if you're doing lots of stuff wrong then you shouldn't get pulled over. I'm always amazed at the stupidity of people running drugs who are speeding, not using their turn signals, don't have an inspection sticker, etc. Those people need to go to jail just for being stupid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:56:12 AM EDT
[#18]
Would we expect an LEO to let Bin Laden go becuase he was originally stopped for a busted tail light?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:57:06 AM EDT
[#19]
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.
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 9:58:47 AM EDT
[#20]
45% of AR15.com says yes. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:03:04 AM EDT
[#21]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:05:53 AM EDT
[#22]
As long as he has a valid license and proof of insurance, sure. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:10:44 AM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:15:08 AM EDT
[#24]
After some of the other discussions, I'm surprised it's not a lot higher. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:17:33 AM EDT
[#25]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:22:12 AM EDT
[#26]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:22:22 AM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:25:05 AM EDT
[#28]
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:30:14 AM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:07 AM EDT
[#30]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:33:55 AM EDT
[#31]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:34:59 AM EDT
[#32]
Thats not a pretext stop. Thats an unlawfull detention and you should file a complaint. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:39:15 AM EDT
[#33]
That is absolutely mind boggling. In my opinion if your a criminal, I don't care how they catch you. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:46:27 AM EDT
[#34]
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"). |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:48:32 AM EDT
[#35]
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.
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:49:08 AM EDT
[#36]
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. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:51:59 AM EDT
[#37]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:53:48 AM EDT
[#38]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:08 AM EDT
[#39]
If you don't see the similarities, then you are a part of the problem, my dear friend.
It's just 'fishing.' It's precisely the same, only in Perot's suggestion the scope is grander.
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
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:38 AM EDT
[#40]
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.
exactly...we're on the same page |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:55:51 AM EDT
[#41]
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. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 10:56:25 AM EDT
[#42]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:01:27 AM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:04:04 AM EDT
[#44]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:07:13 AM EDT
[#45]
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. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:15:57 AM EDT
[#46]
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:30 AM EDT
[#47]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:22:49 AM EDT
[#48]
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:24:06 AM EDT
[#49]
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. 
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2006 11:35:49 AM EDT
[#50]
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. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
