TrophyHusband 0 #26 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteWhoa. Random checkpoints are a whole different story. Since it's been 10 years since I've done any study on it I'll set aside comment... It seems like the implication would be that sobriety checkpoints are still good, whenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. some states agree with that, and some states don't. i'm curious if this decision will have an impact in future cases. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #27 April 22, 2009 I'm pleasantly surprised at this decision. Very, very surprised that Scalia and Thomas voted with the majority. So many thoughts, but most of them have been expressed in the previous posts, so I won't be redundant. I predict this will result in an uptick of officers "asking for permission" to search cars during traffic stops (and a corresponding uptick in pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained thereby). Also likely to see more cars being temporarily impounded (either at the scene, or at secure locations) to preserve evidence while the search warrant application is pending. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #28 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote5-4 decision today in which Scalia wrote a separate concurrence. Thomas was also in the majority. Honestly, how much money would you have bet that Thomas would be the swing vote on this one? Hardly surprising he wrote his own opinion, though. QuoteWho's opinion would you expect him to write? Kelp meant nothing sinister by that; all that means is that justices often sign-on to opinions written by other justices, without writing their own individual opinions. Thomas wanted to express his own specific reasoning in a separately-written concurring opinion. QuoteI see Thomas as a man who understands the meaning of our constitutional rights. Speaking as someone who's lived and breathed constitutional rights for a living virtually my whole life, I strongly disagree. I personally think Thomas - as a general rule, at least - doesn't really give a genuine shit about Constitutional rights, by and large. QuoteWe may or may not agree but there is no doubt he has more insight on it. No, I don't think Thomas has more insight on Constitutional rights. Unlike most SCOTUS justices, who more often than not tend to be brilliant or close to it, and unlike his own law clerks, who are also probably brilliant attorneys, Thomas is a mediocre intellect, attorney and judge at best. And unlike Scalia, a brilliant scholar who is often craftily intellectually dishonest in pursuit of his personal ideologies, I think there are often instances where Thomas just doesn't "get it" beyond his own personal biases. If he didn't have brilliant law clerks writing his opinions (i.e., trying to make silk purses out of the sow's ears he dumps on them), and had to write those opinions himself, he'd probably look even more like a dimwit than he already does. (It's no accident that Thomas so often simply signs-on to opinions authored by Scalia: Scalia does the brain work, and Thomas is the loyal sycophant.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites jcd11235 0 #29 April 22, 2009 Quotewhenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, I don't mind being asked for my license and proof of insurance when stopped. Trying to search my vehicle for no good reason, on the other hand, is something I do have a problem with.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #30 April 22, 2009 Thoams did not write the opinion or a separate concurrence. Also, I am NOT surprised that Thomas and Scalia are on this side. This is the essence of the problem - an activist decision. I can't help but giggle at Roberts and Alito being in the minority on this. I recall the persistent questioning of both during their confirmations about respect for stare decisis. Maybe that was fresh in their minds - the dissent indicates as much. On another front the dissent is interesting in exposing the often pragmatic considerations - before we had a bright line rule. Now we don't. Finally - regarding Thomas I personally like the guy a lot. He doesn't display the dazzling intellectual firepower of some of the other justices. But I find myself agreeing with him more than any other justice. He is openly critical of the expansion of the Commerce Clause, gives 4th Amendment views like this, and openly calls bullshit. I frequently disagree with Scalia but I am usually hard pressed to find flaws with his reasoning. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #31 April 22, 2009 QuoteThoams did not write the opinion or a separate concurrence. Also, I am NOT surprised that Thomas and Scalia are on this side. This is the essence of the problem - an activist decision. I can't help but giggle at Roberts and Alito being in the minority on this. I recall the persistent questioning of both during their confirmations about respect for stare decisis. Maybe that was fresh in their minds - the dissent indicates as much. On another front the dissent is interesting in exposing the often pragmatic considerations - before we had a bright line rule. Now we don't. Finally - regarding Thomas I personally like the guy a lot. He doesn't display the dazzling intellectual firepower of some of the other justices. But I find myself agreeing with him more than any other justice. He is openly critical of the expansion of the Commerce Clause, gives 4th Amendment views like this, and openly calls bullshit. I frequently disagree with Scalia but I am usually hard pressed to find flaws with his reasoning. JC - that was nonsense - you are supposed to follow the rules: name the justices you have differing political opinions with and call them idiots and trash them personally and state they are lousy judges - especially if they are not activist on your personal agendas - (regardless if they follow the law in their jobs rather than swing to supporting a political agenda). Make it grade school insulting and very personal, even to the point of it just being about hygeine or otherwise. then name the justices that agree with your politics and call them genius and competent and clear minded - especially if they diverge from law to push your agendas stop being fairminded - it makes me uncomfortable ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Amazon 7 #32 April 22, 2009 QuoteI'm pleasantly surprised at this decision. Very, very surprised that Scalia and Thomas voted with the majority. So many thoughts, but most of them have been expressed in the previous posts, so I won't be redundant. I predict this will result in an uptick of officers "asking for permission" to search cars during traffic stops (and a corresponding uptick in pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained thereby). Also likely to see more cars being temporarily impounded (either at the scene, or at secure locations) to preserve evidence while the search warrant application is pending. I wonder what recourse one would have... if ... you know there is no reason to search my car.... and you tell them no you do not consent and they arrest you, detain you, tow your car away and search with a warrent anyway. Would this be considered to be false arrest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites TrophyHusband 0 #33 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuotewhenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, I don't mind being asked for my license and proof of insurance when stopped. Trying to search my vehicle for no good reason, on the other hand, is something I do have a problem with. driving being a privilage and not a right has nothing to do with it. if i'm speeding and get pulled over, i have no problem showing the police my license and proof of insurance. the part i have a problem with is getting stopped when i haven't broken the law have them just check to see if i'm legal. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites AggieDave 6 #34 April 22, 2009 QuoteWould this be considered to be false arrest? You skipped a couple of steps. For instance, in Texas you can be arrested for any traffic offense except speeding and open container. However, if you refuse to sign the citation stating that you will appear at which ever court, you will be detained in handcuffs and transported to the court to be magistrated. That is not technically an arrest. So using your example, you would have been arrested for what ever violation of the transportation code you committed. Maybe your license plate frame covers more than 1/2 of the lettering of Texas. That is now an obscured license plate. That is technically an arrestable offense (although I couldn't fathom arresting someone for that). If there is a reasonable suspicion, but no probable cause to search the vehicle, then the officer could have a K9 officer respond and have the dog walk the car. If the dog hits, then there is PC to detain you even further and search your car. On a personal level, I'm a strong advocate of personal rights. However, most people's understanding comes from watching Law and Order (or similar). So they don't actually understand their rights and how the process works. They also don't know what actual steps they can take to protect their rights, with out committing an offense. An example is someone who believes a traffic stop or personal detention to be unlawful refuses to give their name and DOB. Well, in my experience the person simply doesn't have a working knowledge of law and doesn't understand what offense they had committed. If they would have taken time to educate themselves, then that could have been prevented. Also, due to their uneducated belief, they have now possibly committed another offense by giving either false information or refusing to give information to the officer that had detained them. The moral of the story is if you want to protect your rights, understand some major case law such as this, Miranda, Terry, etc. Also educate yourself about your state's law. In Texas I would suggest reading and studying the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Alcoholic Beverage Code and the Transportation Code. Committing those codes to memory will give you a better understanding, which will help you protect your own rights.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Niki1 2 #35 April 22, 2009 [ Lawrocket's second bit of advice when operating a motor vehicle: "Only break one law at a time." i.e., if you are carrying 50 kilos of coke, don't do 90 mph. If you're smuggling guns in your trunk, don't do so while driving drunk. if you are gonna let your registration expire, don't drive drunk. Etc.. We used to go by: "If you're going to break big laws, don't break little ones." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 April 22, 2009 Quotewhenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, I don't mind being asked for my license and proof of insurance when stopped. Trying to search my vehicle for no good reason, on the other hand, is something I do have a problem with.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #30 April 22, 2009 Thoams did not write the opinion or a separate concurrence. Also, I am NOT surprised that Thomas and Scalia are on this side. This is the essence of the problem - an activist decision. I can't help but giggle at Roberts and Alito being in the minority on this. I recall the persistent questioning of both during their confirmations about respect for stare decisis. Maybe that was fresh in their minds - the dissent indicates as much. On another front the dissent is interesting in exposing the often pragmatic considerations - before we had a bright line rule. Now we don't. Finally - regarding Thomas I personally like the guy a lot. He doesn't display the dazzling intellectual firepower of some of the other justices. But I find myself agreeing with him more than any other justice. He is openly critical of the expansion of the Commerce Clause, gives 4th Amendment views like this, and openly calls bullshit. I frequently disagree with Scalia but I am usually hard pressed to find flaws with his reasoning. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #31 April 22, 2009 QuoteThoams did not write the opinion or a separate concurrence. Also, I am NOT surprised that Thomas and Scalia are on this side. This is the essence of the problem - an activist decision. I can't help but giggle at Roberts and Alito being in the minority on this. I recall the persistent questioning of both during their confirmations about respect for stare decisis. Maybe that was fresh in their minds - the dissent indicates as much. On another front the dissent is interesting in exposing the often pragmatic considerations - before we had a bright line rule. Now we don't. Finally - regarding Thomas I personally like the guy a lot. He doesn't display the dazzling intellectual firepower of some of the other justices. But I find myself agreeing with him more than any other justice. He is openly critical of the expansion of the Commerce Clause, gives 4th Amendment views like this, and openly calls bullshit. I frequently disagree with Scalia but I am usually hard pressed to find flaws with his reasoning. JC - that was nonsense - you are supposed to follow the rules: name the justices you have differing political opinions with and call them idiots and trash them personally and state they are lousy judges - especially if they are not activist on your personal agendas - (regardless if they follow the law in their jobs rather than swing to supporting a political agenda). Make it grade school insulting and very personal, even to the point of it just being about hygeine or otherwise. then name the justices that agree with your politics and call them genius and competent and clear minded - especially if they diverge from law to push your agendas stop being fairminded - it makes me uncomfortable ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #32 April 22, 2009 QuoteI'm pleasantly surprised at this decision. Very, very surprised that Scalia and Thomas voted with the majority. So many thoughts, but most of them have been expressed in the previous posts, so I won't be redundant. I predict this will result in an uptick of officers "asking for permission" to search cars during traffic stops (and a corresponding uptick in pretrial motions to suppress evidence obtained thereby). Also likely to see more cars being temporarily impounded (either at the scene, or at secure locations) to preserve evidence while the search warrant application is pending. I wonder what recourse one would have... if ... you know there is no reason to search my car.... and you tell them no you do not consent and they arrest you, detain you, tow your car away and search with a warrent anyway. Would this be considered to be false arrest? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #33 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuotewhenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, I don't mind being asked for my license and proof of insurance when stopped. Trying to search my vehicle for no good reason, on the other hand, is something I do have a problem with. driving being a privilage and not a right has nothing to do with it. if i'm speeding and get pulled over, i have no problem showing the police my license and proof of insurance. the part i have a problem with is getting stopped when i haven't broken the law have them just check to see if i'm legal. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #34 April 22, 2009 QuoteWould this be considered to be false arrest? You skipped a couple of steps. For instance, in Texas you can be arrested for any traffic offense except speeding and open container. However, if you refuse to sign the citation stating that you will appear at which ever court, you will be detained in handcuffs and transported to the court to be magistrated. That is not technically an arrest. So using your example, you would have been arrested for what ever violation of the transportation code you committed. Maybe your license plate frame covers more than 1/2 of the lettering of Texas. That is now an obscured license plate. That is technically an arrestable offense (although I couldn't fathom arresting someone for that). If there is a reasonable suspicion, but no probable cause to search the vehicle, then the officer could have a K9 officer respond and have the dog walk the car. If the dog hits, then there is PC to detain you even further and search your car. On a personal level, I'm a strong advocate of personal rights. However, most people's understanding comes from watching Law and Order (or similar). So they don't actually understand their rights and how the process works. They also don't know what actual steps they can take to protect their rights, with out committing an offense. An example is someone who believes a traffic stop or personal detention to be unlawful refuses to give their name and DOB. Well, in my experience the person simply doesn't have a working knowledge of law and doesn't understand what offense they had committed. If they would have taken time to educate themselves, then that could have been prevented. Also, due to their uneducated belief, they have now possibly committed another offense by giving either false information or refusing to give information to the officer that had detained them. The moral of the story is if you want to protect your rights, understand some major case law such as this, Miranda, Terry, etc. Also educate yourself about your state's law. In Texas I would suggest reading and studying the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Alcoholic Beverage Code and the Transportation Code. Committing those codes to memory will give you a better understanding, which will help you protect your own rights.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Niki1 2 #35 April 22, 2009 [ Lawrocket's second bit of advice when operating a motor vehicle: "Only break one law at a time." i.e., if you are carrying 50 kilos of coke, don't do 90 mph. If you're smuggling guns in your trunk, don't do so while driving drunk. if you are gonna let your registration expire, don't drive drunk. Etc.. We used to go by: "If you're going to break big laws, don't break little ones." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #36 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteWould this be considered to be false arrest? You skipped a couple of steps. For instance, in Texas you can be arrested for any traffic offense except speeding and open container. However, if you refuse to sign the citation stating that you will appear at which ever court, you will be detained in handcuffs and transported to the court to be magistrated. That is not technically an arrest. So using your example, you would have been arrested for what ever violation of the transportation code you committed. Maybe your license plate frame covers more than 1/2 of the lettering of Texas. That is now an obscured license plate. That is technically an arrestable offense (although I couldn't fathom arresting someone for that). If there is a reasonable suspicion, but no probable cause to search the vehicle, then the officer could have a K9 officer respond and have the dog walk the car. If the dog hits, then there is PC to detain you even further and search your car. On a personal level, I'm a strong advocate of personal rights. However, most people's understanding comes from watching Law and Order (or similar). So they don't actually understand their rights and how the process works. They also don't know what actual steps they can take to protect their rights, with out committing an offense. An example is someone who believes a traffic stop or personal detention to be unlawful refuses to give their name and DOB. Well, in my experience the person simply doesn't have a working knowledge of law and doesn't understand what offense they had committed. If they would have taken time to educate themselves, then that could have been prevented. Also, due to their uneducated belief, they have now possibly committed another offense by giving either false information or refusing to give information to the officer that had detained them. The moral of the story is if you want to protect your rights, understand some major case law such as this, Miranda, Terry, etc. Also educate yourself about your state's law. In Texas I would suggest reading and studying the Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Family Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Alcoholic Beverage Code and the Transportation Code. Committing those codes to memory will give you a better understanding, which will help you protect your own rights. So if they decide to trump up some bullshit like the license plate.... you are toast. So basiclly if I comply with their request for my papers and let them search in their fishing expedition as much as they want... I should not be arrested for anything. Great Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #37 April 22, 2009 Quotename the justices you have differing political opinions with and call them idiots and trash them personally and state they are lousy judges - especially if they are not activist on your personal agendas - (regardless if they follow the law in their jobs rather than swing to supporting a political agenda). Make it grade school insulting and very personal, even to the point of it just being about hygeine or otherwise. You forgot refering to them by a name that, while similar in spelling to their actual name, is either vaguely excretory, sexual, or implies diminished capacities. For Clarence Thomas I suggest Crapence Dumbas, or something along those lines. - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #38 April 22, 2009 QuoteSo if they decide to trump up some bullshit like the license plate Its not trumped up. Its actual law. That's why I said you should study up. QuoteSo basiclly if I comply with their request for my papers and let them search in their fishing expedition as much as they want... I should not be arrested for anything. Actually, this new ruling should prevent your fears, making it less likely then in the past. A judge has to sign a search warrant. You have to have more then "she refused a request for a search" to get a judge to sign a search warrant. So if you're driving suspiciously, leaving a high drug area, after having driven up to a known crack house, rolling down a window and then leaving after talking to someone leaned through your open window, then I would be worried (although if you're doing that, then you should be worried about your life overall). If you're just driving too fast to the grocery store, then I would be worried about getting a speeding ticket. What the ruling is preventing is a search of the vehicle after an unrelated arrest out of the vehicle. So if you're arrested for no insurance, the vehicle can't be searched for drugs. Don't take my word for it, look up the similar codes for your state and read them (not just read them, STUDY and memorize them). Then read up on the typically applied LE case law. The more you know, the better off you are.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #39 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteSo if they decide to trump up some bullshit like the license plate Its not trumped up. Its actual law. That's why I said you should study up. QuoteSo basiclly if I comply with their request for my papers and let them search in their fishing expedition as much as they want... I should not be arrested for anything. Actually, this new ruling should prevent your fears, making it less likely then in the past. A judge has to sign a search warrant. You have to have more then "she refused a request for a search" to get a judge to sign a search warrant. So if you're driving suspiciously, leaving a high drug area, after having driven up to a known crack house, rolling down a window and then leaving after talking to someone leaned through your open window, then I would be worried (although if you're doing that, then you should be worried about your life overall). If you're just driving too fast to the grocery store, then I would be worried about getting a speeding ticket. What the ruling is preventing is a search of the vehicle after an unrelated arrest out of the vehicle. So if you're arrested for no insurance, the vehicle can't be searched for drugs. Don't take my word for it, look up the similar codes for your state and read them (not just read them, STUDY and memorize them). Then read up on the typically applied LE case law. The more you know, the better off you are. Well then since I am not doing anything wrong... other than a propensity to stick within 5 to 10 MPH of the speed limit.... I should have nothing to worry about. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #40 April 22, 2009 QuoteWell then since I am not doing anything wrong... other than a propensity to stick within 5 to 10 MPH of the speed limit.... I should have nothing to worry about. As a side note. There has been other case law, at least in Texas, about asking each traffic stop for a consent to search and then basing attempts with K9s and search warrants on no other suspicion besides the refusal. It was ruled in the favor of the citizen and their rights. Contrary to some persons in SC beliefs, LEO aren't typically out there trying to screw over everyone. LEOs are out there working hard to take the worst of the worst off the streets. Trying to clean up neighborhoods and areas of their town/city. Trying to get a handle on the drug trade, trying to stop the gang bangers from shooting at each other and trying to get people to drive safer.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #41 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuotewhenever i've been through a dui checkpoint i've been asked for at least a drivers license and sometimes proof of insurance. in my opinion, being stopped and asked for my papers for no reason is a violation of my 4 th amendment rights. Since driving is a privilege, not a right, I don't mind being asked for my license and proof of insurance when stopped. Trying to search my vehicle for no good reason, on the other hand, is something I do have a problem with. driving being a privilage and not a right has nothing to do with it. if i'm speeding and get pulled over, i have no problem showing the police my license and proof of insurance. the part i have a problem with is getting stopped when i haven't broken the law have them just check to see if i'm legal. If the courts decide that checkpoints are illegal, then your argument has merit. Without such a judicial interpretation, however, the police seem to be acting within their power. If you don't like it, don't drive through checkpoints.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #42 April 22, 2009 QuoteAn example is someone who believes a traffic stop or personal detention to be unlawful refuses to give their name and DOB. Interesting. I did not realize one was required to give their DOB. I've been under the impression that name and address were the only info one had to provide to LE if asked. Is that something that varies from state to state, or is it pretty standard across the nation?Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TrophyHusband 0 #43 April 22, 2009 QuoteIf the courts decide that checkpoints are illegal, then your argument has merit. Without such a judicial interpretation, however, the police seem to be acting within their power. If you don't like it, don't drive through checkpoints. in some states courts have decided they are illegal, and not in others. now we go back to my original query of whether or not this ruling will have an effect on states that have deamed these checkpoints legal. as far as not driving through a checkpoint, i'm guessing that making a u-turn in front of a checkpoint is going to get you a whole lot more attention than just complying. "Your scrotum is quite nice" - Skymama www.kjandmegan.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #44 April 22, 2009 QuoteIs that something that varies from state to state, or is it pretty standard across the nation? I do not know if that's standard across all 50 states. It would make sense that DOB would be required. Address is also required under the Texas law. In Texas failure to identify becomes a criminal offense if there is a legal reason for the detention or if you have been placed under arrest. It goes into more detail and varying levels of offense, but I'm sure no one here really cares.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #45 April 22, 2009 QuoteQuoteWell then since I am not doing anything wrong... other than a propensity to stick within 5 to 10 MPH of the speed limit.... I should have nothing to worry about. As a side note. There has been other case law, at least in Texas, about asking each traffic stop for a consent to search and then basing attempts with K9s and search warrants on no other suspicion besides the refusal. It was ruled in the favor of the citizen and their rights. Contrary to some persons in SC beliefs, LEO aren't typically out there trying to screw over everyone. LEOs are out there working hard to take the worst of the worst off the streets. Trying to clean up neighborhoods and areas of their town/city. Trying to get a handle on the drug trade, trying to stop the gang bangers from shooting at each other and trying to get people to drive safer. And I do believe most do a very good job..... BUT You and I both know there are those who are on a power trip and flush with self importance who stretch limits for self aggrandizement. Those are the ones who will use the light bulb out....the license plate.. or even a tire that appears to be low.. for a "safety" stop and fishing expedition. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #46 April 22, 2009 Quote Quote So if they decide to trump up some bullshit like the license plate Its not trumped up. Its actual law. That's why I said you should study up. Quote So basiclly if I comply with their request for my papers and let them search in their fishing expedition as much as they want... I should not be arrested for anything. Actually, this new ruling should prevent your fears, making it less likely then in the past. A judge has to sign a search warrant. You have to have more then "she refused a request for a search" to get a judge to sign a search warrant. So if you're driving suspiciously, leaving a high drug area, after having driven up to a known crack house, rolling down a window and then leaving after talking to someone leaned through your open window, then I would be worried (although if you're doing that, then you should be worried about your life overall). If you're just driving too fast to the grocery store, then I would be worried about getting a speeding ticket. What the ruling is preventing is a search of the vehicle after an unrelated arrest out of the vehicle. So if you're arrested for no insurance, the vehicle can't be searched for drugs. Don't take my word for it, look up the similar codes for your state and read them (not just read them, STUDY and memorize them). Then read up on the typically applied LE case law. The more you know, the better off you are. I actually carry printed copies of a couple statutes so that if I am pulled over and an officer might be thinking he cannot resist the urge to make an arrest or seizure that might be very unlawful he can be presented with the actual statute form ILCS. Then continuing to do something contrary to the law he opens himself to prosecution PERSONALLY. In other words they cannot make up laws that FEEL are broken and in fact presented with the actual law they might feel otherwise Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #47 April 22, 2009 Quote Quote Quote So if they decide to trump up some bullshit like the license plate Its not trumped up. Its actual law. That's why I said you should study up. Quote So basiclly if I comply with their request for my papers and let them search in their fishing expedition as much as they want... I should not be arrested for anything. Actually, this new ruling should prevent your fears, making it less likely then in the past. A judge has to sign a search warrant. You have to have more then "she refused a request for a search" to get a judge to sign a search warrant. So if you're driving suspiciously, leaving a high drug area, after having driven up to a known crack house, rolling down a window and then leaving after talking to someone leaned through your open window, then I would be worried (although if you're doing that, then you should be worried about your life overall). If you're just driving too fast to the grocery store, then I would be worried about getting a speeding ticket. What the ruling is preventing is a search of the vehicle after an unrelated arrest out of the vehicle. So if you're arrested for no insurance, the vehicle can't be searched for drugs. Don't take my word for it, look up the similar codes for your state and read them (not just read them, STUDY and memorize them). Then read up on the typically applied LE case law. The more you know, the better off you are. I actually carry printed copies of a couple statutes so that if I am pulled over and an officer might be thinking he cannot resist the urge to make an arrest or seizure that might be very unlawful he can be presented with the actual statute form ILCS. Then continuing to do something contrary to the law he opens himself to prosecution PERSONALLY. In other words they cannot make up laws that FEEL are broken and in fact presented with the actual law they might feel otherwise STOP RESISTING......STOP RESISTING..... uh huh.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #48 April 22, 2009 My guess is that you did not understand that this is during the course of a conversation that is POLITE. Once the argument type of confrontation starts, I would rather just shut up and sick the lawyer on him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #49 April 22, 2009 QuoteI did not realize one was required to give their DOB. I've been under the impression that name and address were the only info one had to provide to LE if asked. I don't think a court would have a problem with this. Information that is used for administrative identification is not considered the same as that with the right to remain silent. Date of Birth is just another piece of information that helps to positively identify you. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #50 April 22, 2009 QuoteMy guess is that you did not understand that this is during the course of a conversation that is POLITE. That's quite a guess considering ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
