- Joined
- Jul 31, 2005
- Messages
- 36,705
- Reaction score
- 17,867
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Should this be legal ?
It should be completely illegal. No Warrant no Search.
Should this be legal ?
There's something not right about requiring a person to waive their Constitutional rights just to take part in an otherwise legal activity (i.e.: driving, etc.).
Spare me the "driving is a privilege, not a right" claptrap. Being free from unnecessary search and seizure without or a warrant for ANY crime is a right... though lately I'm starting to wonder.
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.Right or wrong the courts have backed this. Also, they do not search you until they have probable cause. ie: smell alcohol or slurred speech. I'm not a big fan either but the particulars should be properly presented. The courts have also ruled that these stops must be advertised so you can decide to go another way.
The official line is that these checkpoints are voluntary. Just try telling the officer that, or making a u-turn to avoid the checkpoint, that and see how it works out for ya.
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.
2) U-turns are generally illegal, so turn around in a manner consistent with your local traffic laws.
I disagree that anyone claims that submitting to checkpoints is voluntary. The actual rationale is that you've given your implied consent. You're confusing two separate things.
I see. So no arrest or search should ever occur without a warrant?
I see. So no arrest or search should ever occur without a warrant?
Not without probable case, no. If out couldn't get a warrant, you have no business conducting a search.
It's "implied consent" but there's not much choice to it. Less you live in a big enough city where public transport is adequate; functionally you often need a car. Which means you must agree to the government's terms.
Awesome, so if I'm driving drunk at 100 mph, get pulled over then stash the dope that had been in my passenger seat into the glove box as the cop is walking up to my window and he sees me, he needs to let me go until he can get an arrest and search warrant?
Maybe you missed the "not without probable cause" part. Drunk driving at 100mph is probable cause. Following all traffic laws is not.
Actually, I did. I thought you were agreeing with what I asked (that searches and arrests should only happen with a warrant). You'll be happy to know, that searches do require probable cause - unless the person consents to the search.
Actually, I did. I thought you were agreeing with what I asked (that searches and arrests should only happen with a warrant). You'll be happy to know, that searches do require probable cause - unless the person consents to the search.
Yet there are people who are reporting that the police are attempting to do searches without a warrant and without probable cause that anything illegal has actually occurred, through coercion or force or implied threats. That ought to be illegal. If they have a legally valid reason for performing a search that would hold up in a court of law, great. If not, then trying to push people to allow a search through threats ought never be allowed.
The whole point of the OP was to address wanton searches without warrant as they are occurring more and more. We're not talking about cases of probable cause but cases where there is NO probable cause and instead we are just seeing systematic and generalized searches of vehicles in specific zones.
Are you for or against that? Please clarify. Thank you.
Stop-and-frisk refers to a common practice within the NYPD where officers detain people on the street, and, in some instances, search them. The department, along with the mayor's office, both contend that the stops have contributed to a considerable decrease in violent crime in the city, particularly in low-income communities and communities of colour.........Adams claims he attended a meeting that included NYPD commissioner Ray Kelly, in which the senior officer stated that the reason stop-and-frisk is instituted at its current levels is to "instil in every young man from those communities [black and Hispanic] that any time they leave their house they can be searched by the police."
"That's illegal," Adams says. "It's not the role of the police department to instil that level of fear in civilians."
That is the choice you make when you choose to drive. You really don't see any compelling need in enforcing traffic laws? Personally, uninsured drivers annoy the **** outta me, so catching them is ok in my book.
I think that there are plenty of good traffic laws out there to increase safety and that driving, while it shouldn't be forced to come with 'implied consent" (which was just something the State made up in order to get around that pesky 4th amendment), it does not mean you can break all the laws. I don't understand why your examples and dissent have to be made to be so absurd. You could argue reasonably.
That's what is said, I had an officer shine his light into my vehicle without any cause, I know he didn't smell anything on me because I didn't have a drink that night, as well they only advertise that they are conducting a search, in a large area that is not sufficient for avoidance.
You first.
Ikari, I've never seen you support any law enforcement action. I mean, your sig pretty much indicates where you stand. Anything short of complete lawlessness, you take as evidence that we're headed for a police state.
This is more unreasonable argument on your part. You engage so liberally in hyperbole. I'm not an anarchist, nor have I ever claimed. My sig doesn't mean I want lawlessness, it means to watch out and don't trust the government nor its goons. At some point these silly and childish exaggerations should stop if you're interested in real debate.
Just so I'm clear, all cops are goons? Why don't you actually look at the positions I've posted in this thread and tell me what's so unreasonable about them? Is the fact that I believe law enforcement should actually have some tools to, y'know, enforce laws?