Lucky...

Samuel W. Bodman During his second week in office, the President put together a task force to address America’s energy challenges. The task force sent back more than 100 recommendations as part of a new National Energy Policy. And over the past four years, we have implemented 95 percent of those recommendations. http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20050309.html I try not to listen to too much of what the President says. He has a tendency to mislead so I prefer to look at the results. Before they implemented 95% of the energy industry's recommendations it cost me half as much fill up. Exxon/Mobile et. al. is reaping profits higher than any company in history. But why would you expect it to be any different considering that oil execs are holding our nations highest offices. They've even got at least one Supreme Court judge in their pocket. Pardon me while I remain cynical of the results finding no wrong doing. It's not unlike Halliburton's gas contract with Iran in spite of sanctions. Perfectly legal because it was handled through a Cayman fax machine. Wrong, but legal. Quack Quack. Yep, I knew one of the 26%ers would claim the investigation Congress ordered by the FTC was manipulated by Bush and his oil buddies. quack, quack. My outdoors thermometer went up and it got warmer. Do you think it's controlling the temperature? quack quack. Only sick people take pills. If I don't take pills, I won't get sick. quack quack. It's this kind of rhetoric that IS the Republican Party. What's with the 26%ers and 74%er? Is it that you are flipping the true percentage of Bush supporters?

Fortunately, the State of Texas has figured out a way to stop crimes like that. Our registration and inspection stickers are inside our front windshields now. So having a frame to prevent plate-cutting is not an issue. For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... do you realize a cop, if he's as dishonest as some of you seem to think many cops are, could pull you over and just make up whatever excuse he wanted? You swerved, you were 1mph over, you were 10mph under, thought I saw you litter... it goes on. If someone wants to be dishonest... they will be... this law doesn't "enable" anything. Wackos? Keep your personal attacks to yourself. I have stated that dirty cops, most of them have a degree of this, can just lie, as is their nature. So I have already covered this. Again, read the thread, this is the framework of a slippery slope.

No, no, no, I'm not saying a vehicle has rights to privacy, I'm saying a person occupying that vehicle does. An unoccupied vehicle probably does have rights to privacy, but very limited. An occupied vehicle has limited rights to privacy, and that is teh issue: What is PC to generate an intrusion into privacy, also, how far can they go? As for the basic language of papers, etc., don;t get too involved in that, as the word, "Privacy" is no where to be seen in the US Const anywhere, but all kinds of case law has centered around it. I'm not sure what you mean by appeals agaimnst those cases, as the appeal statute has passed by 40 years. Do you mean cases that cited Terry v Ohio or Chimel? BTW, Terry V Ohio isn't a vehicle search precedent, but an officer safety precedent, as you said, is for officer safety. An officer could stop you with just Reasonable Suspicion walking down the sidewalk, which is how they stopped Terry; he was walking back and forth casing a store. So this isn;t a vehicle-related case. Rightfully? Statute is nothing compared to case law, so that is to be determined. Again, Terry has nothing to do with this case, Terry is not a vehicle case and only requires RS versus PC with a vehicle stop. And Chimel doesn;t have to do with a vehicel stop either, just a search subsequesnt to stop. I threw in Chimel to to establish what can be done AFTER a stop, but not to determine the validity of the stop.

He's part of an A.Q. terrorist cell planning to speed thru the streets and aggrivate cops everywhere.

Look past anything you consider emotion, which was very limited, and debate the issues with me.

Where did he say that? You're the one that equated getting stopped for an obscured plate with "the nice cop pawing through your underwear drawer". Tone down the hyperbole a bit and say what you mean to say. __________________________________________ I think, it's trolling, at it's worst! Ya' think? Chuck That's ok, I forgive you for trolling.

Where did he say that? You're the one that equated getting stopped for an obscured plate with "the nice cop pawing through your underwear drawer". Tone down the hyperbole a bit and say what you mean to say. Say what? Several things were said. Right, I'll stick with black/white simplistic statements for ya. The points I made were: 1) Pulling over for obscured plate leads to the slippery slope of far worse things like no/limited 4th requirement. 2) Cops tend to get "professional courtesy," which is really corruption with a nice tag. Debate a point, not the debater.

__________________________________________ I have no problem with that! This type of thing, happens in my house, quite often! Oh, did I mention... my wife is a certified peace officer? Chuck You're a living 4th violation!!! Is she actually a working cop, or ???? Anyway, you get the point; freedom from unwarranted searches is SUPPOSED to be the cornerstone to our so-called freedoms. ______________________________________ Yes, she is a working cop! 3-yrs. Highway Patrol officer, Texas Department of Public Safety, 17-yrs. Sgt. Detective on our Sheriff's dept. Presently, Felonies Investigator District Attorney's Office! Is that 'working cop' enough for you? Besides, who are you? You have nothing in your profile to give anyone a clue. I don't care to respond to you any further and that's my last word on the matter. Chuck Chill out man. Does it matter who I am? I'm a skydiver. You brought up that your wife is a cop, so I asked asked if she was working or just certified, as you wrote. OK, she's a detective not a beat cop. Point here is that cops DO get, as they call it, professional courtesy. Cops kill people all the time or do other acts, and even if evidence is compelling they get off in virtually all cases. So your attitude that the 4th should be killed even further is typical of people in or near law enforcement, as they tend to get special tretament. Again, I'm not prying, you brought in the issue of your wife being a cop.

__________________________________________ I have no problem with that! This type of thing, happens in my house, quite often! Oh, did I mention... my wife is a certified peace officer? Chuck You're a living 4th violation!!! Is she actually a working cop, or ???? Anyway, you get the point; freedom from unwarranted searches is SUPPOSED to be the cornerstone to our so-called freedoms.

Nothing against you either, but that silence you hear is the apathy going on with you. Why not spell out what you menat and where I didn't supposedly get it?

With that said, you're right; cops will just lie and say the car swerved r didn't signal 100 feet before a turn. PC is a joke, but these laws are symbolic, which is why people fight them. Let this slide and then PC could be a broken antenna, or a missing hubcap. After all, you have nothing to hide, right? See above.... slippery slope. For one, this can be implemented while the vehicle is at rest, so the fine, fine officer doesn't even have to fabricate a lie, not the he has a problem with it. As an observation, it's quite clear that the conservatives enjoy these violative, intrusive laws, whereas the liberals despise these laws..... see a pattern?

I don't think it's dumb for a cop to be able to read what State a license plate is from, so they can trace it. However, if it's used as an excuse to abuse people for other reasons, then that will need to be slapped down in court. Simple solution: Remove the license plate frame, and remove the cop's excuse! ________________________________ Well said! Chuck Oh really? All things are fixed in court, huh? It takes decades sometimes to fix things and many things go unfixed. Appellate courts are wayyyyyy over spoken. Then the right complkans about liberal appellate courts, the one that fix these issues. This isn;t a case of license plate frame rights, it's a case of wrongful, unreasonable search. _________________________________________ What's wrong with it? The officer would be well within his rights to make the stop according to the law if, he cannot 'plainly read the license plate. Some frames I've seen partially hide letters and numbers. Also, who said anything about "all things are fixed in court"? Also, with everyone bitchin' and squawkin' about 'petty' stops, I don't think too many cops are going to flagrantly misuse the law. Is a license plate frame that damned important as to get a ticket for it? I don't know where you are from but, that's the way it is here in Texas! Chuck Don't bring legislation in as a defense. It was illegal in 16 states for people of different racs to marry up unil 1968. In many states open and notorious cohabitation is still against the law. W/o researchng it, you alluded to it. Hang on...... Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhaahahhahahahhaahha..... ok, I'm better now. Uh, the exclusionary rule was designed to DISUADE POLICE MISCONDUCT. Meaning, if the dirty cop gets planted or illegallly seized evidence in and it's discovered, no conviction. If the dirty piece of garbage succeeds, congratulations, another innocent guy framed. Point is: the exclusionary rule was designed to DISUADE POLICE MISCONDUCT. No, the facade is that we have rights to privacy, which means not being summarily stopped w/o cause. The illegal stop then leads to the discovery of evidence, which is what the issue is. If we gave cops carte blanche to kick in doors, we would have less crime, but we would have zero security and privacy. The issue is where we think is prudent to draw the line. Understand that there comes a point to where the cops, the ones supposedly stopping crime are the ones creating it, and I think we passed that in the 80's. ___________________________________________ I think, you're making a mountain out of a mole-hill. What the hell co-habitation has to do with it is beyond me. It's a license plate frame. I've got bigger things to concern myself with. Besides, I've got nothing to hide and you have no idea how little I care about it. Chuck You brought up: The officer would be well within his rights to make the stop according to the law if, he cannot 'plainly read the license plate. Then I wrote: Don't bring legislation in as a defense. It was illegal in 16 states for people of different racs to marry up unil 1968. In many states open and notorious cohabitation is still against the law. Now you wonder: What the hell co-habitation has to do with it is beyond me. You brought in the cop being within his rights, as being in compliance with legislation or rule. Legislation is arbitrarily enforced and to make a claim of the cop being within his rights minimizes tons of paper that discusses that issue. The words, “reasonable” or, “unreasonable” are more apropos in this this case. Is it reasonable for a cop to pull over a vehicle simply because the vehicle has part of the word, “Texas” concealed? I don’t think that would make a person suspicious that the plate has been altered or manufactured. Then you have no objection that the fine, fine officer wants to go thru your wife’s panty drawer, thru your garage, thru your personal papers….. After all, you have nothing to hide.

It's the same here, but we hide behind this guise of privacy and due process.

I don't think it's dumb for a cop to be able to read what State a license plate is from, so they can trace it. However, if it's used as an excuse to abuse people for other reasons, then that will need to be slapped down in court. Simple solution: Remove the license plate frame, and remove the cop's excuse! ________________________________ Well said! Chuck Oh really? All things are fixed in court, huh? It takes decades sometimes to fix things and many things go unfixed. Appellate courts are wayyyyyy over spoken. Then the right complkans about liberal appellate courts, the one that fix these issues. This isn;t a case of license plate frame rights, it's a case of wrongful, unreasonable search. _________________________________________ What's wrong with it? The officer would be well within his rights to make the stop according to the law if, he cannot 'plainly read the license plate. Some frames I've seen partially hide letters and numbers. Also, who said anything about "all things are fixed in court"? Also, with everyone bitchin' and squawkin' about 'petty' stops, I don't think too many cops are going to flagrantly misuse the law. Is a license plate frame that damned important as to get a ticket for it? I don't know where you are from but, that's the way it is here in Texas! Chuck Don't bring legislation in as a defense. It was illegal in 16 states for people of different racs to marry up unil 1968. In many states open and notorious cohabitation is still against the law. W/o researchng it, you alluded to it. Hang on...... Bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahhaahahhahahahhaahha..... ok, I'm better now. Uh, the exclusionary rule was designed to DISUADE POLICE MISCONDUCT. Meaning, if the dirty cop gets planted or illegallly seized evidence in and it's discovered, no conviction. If the dirty piece of garbage succeeds, congratulations, another innocent guy framed. Point is: the exclusionary rule was designed to DISUADE POLICE MISCONDUCT. No, the facade is that we have rights to privacy, which means not being summarily stopped w/o cause. The illegal stop then leads to the discovery of evidence, which is what the issue is. If we gave cops carte blanche to kick in doors, we would have less crime, but we would have zero security and privacy. The issue is where we think is prudent to draw the line. Understand that there comes a point to where the cops, the ones supposedly stopping crime are the ones creating it, and I think we passed that in the 80's.

You are about the 4th person to either stupidly or purposefully misrepresent warp's comment. Which is it, purposeful, or just stupid? If you don't know which, just ask. BillVon, please shut these persoanl attacks down before I reply. Thx.

I don't think it's dumb for a cop to be able to read what State a license plate is from, so they can trace it. However, if it's used as an excuse to abuse people for other reasons, then that will need to be slapped down in court. Simple solution: Remove the license plate frame, and remove the cop's excuse! ________________________________ Well said! Chuck Oh really? All things are fixed in court, huh? It takes decades sometimes to fix things and many things go unfixed. Appellate courts are wayyyyyy over spoken. Then the right complkans about liberal appellate courts, the one that fix these issues. This isn;t a case of license plate frame rights, it's a case of wrongful, unreasonable search.

Running lights today, robbing banks tommorrow; stepping-stone offense that license plate frame crime.... err, no. that's not what I said. No gateway bullshit. I can think of 2 reasons why one would choose to openly ignore the vehicle code on this. 1- they're afraid of camera enforcement, either because they don't trust it (valid) or they don't trust themselves (more likely, not valid) 2- they plan to use the vehicle to commit a more serious crime and want to make it more difficult to identify. As for abusing this to pick on minorities - well, here is a case where they can choose to be smart, or to give the police easy cause to do it. What are the legitimate positives in obscuring your plates? #1 = 99.999% of cases #2 = 00.001% of cases This issue isn't about covering the letters/numbers, it's about covering the word, "Texas" isn't it? Again, it was about a frame obscuring the word, "Texas" rather than the whole plate as I read it. The advantages are either incidental or to avoid a radar ticket - not worthy of PC.

Running lights today, robbing banks tommorrow; stepping-stone offense that license plate frame crime....

Then I guess you wouldn't object to cavity searches...... after all, nothing to worry about. Furthermore, the "Chimmel Bubble" allows cops to search a bubble area of the driver, so it's not just plain view. Then there's search subsequent to arrest or to impound. It all starts with some BS like a light or now a frame..... get it?

Yea I know, left and right are the same, the Libertarians have it nailed with their majic wand approach.

Not at all, the American elitists don't care if other countires do it to us. The Lori Berensen case in in Peru is an example of that. Our leaders are equal opportunity torturers.

Any issue. Hippie? LOL Zipp0 OK lets discuss how the Left is destroying this country. Yes, the left left a surplus, while the right left a 5T debt and climbing. You never answered my question. How did we end up with a surplus when every budget Clinton submitted up to 1997 would have increased the deficit? I've asked you 3 times now. Can't say I blame you for refusing to answer. - Perhaps the GNP / GDP was higher in that era, perhaps the 1993 tax increases on the rich were increased so the gov had higher tax receipts.... I've answered these all before, including reliable sites. You can keep your head in the sand and claim you don;t see the answers, but that doesn't make them go away.

Apparently you have very little knowledge of law if you think a SCOTUS means nothing unless it's taken to court and ruled on. The SCOTUS I cited is the ruling. Why do you think a part of the U.S. Code is invalid. Unless there is a reason to believe it's unconstitutional, there's no reason to have a judicial review. Please point me to your legal source where you got these ideas from. Who requested what information? WTF are you talking about? Like this one: Katz v US http://www.oyez.org/oyez/resource/case/198/ So that means Bush has once again broken the law?????

I can't even begin to get into this thread. I'll just say that I agree with your above statement. These folks are bad. They assume massive executive power, they won't allow any checks and balances, and if you question them then you get attacked. There is no transparency. Everything has been reduced to "I can't tell you, just trust us. It's for your own good". These are troublesome times. Ahhhh, reminds me of the US' first impeachment, Andrew Johnson, who was impeached for usurpation of power, amongst other things. The right has changed protocol through through the decades, but this has never changed.

Perhaps you can give me an example other than "lets cut and run in Iraq". - So it's OK for Bush's daddy to cut-n-run after stirring the pot and angering OBL, then blame Clinton for any acts against us? Basically, if you're picking a war somewhere, anywhere, you're ok with the right, but if you choose to avoid war you're a coward. Again, Bush sr cut-n-ran.....why ok for him to do it?