Court Shuts Down Trooper's Attempt To Portray New-ish Minivans With Imperfect Drivers As Justification For A Traffic Stop
from the all's-fair-in-love-and-pretext dept
Anything you do can be suspicious. Just ask our guardians of public safety. People interacting with law enforcement can't be too nervous. Or too calm. Or stare straight ahead. Or directly at officers. When traveling, travelers need to ensure they're not the first person off the plane. Or the last. Or in the middle. When driving, people can't drive too carefully. Or too carelessly. Traveling on interstate highways is right out, considering those are used by drug traffickers. Traveling along back roads probably just looks like avoiding more heavily-patrolled interstates, thus suspicious.
Having too much trash in your car might get you labelled a drug trafficker -- someone making a long haul between supply and destination cities. Conversely, a car that's too clean looks like a "trap" car -- a vehicle carefully kept in top condition to avoid raising law enforcement's suspicion. Too clean is just as suspicious as too dirty. Air fresheners, a common fixture in vehicles, are also suspicious. Having too many of them is taken as an attempt to cover the odor of drugs. There's no specific number that triggers suspicion. It's all left up to the officer on the scene.
So, avoiding rousing suspicion is impossible. Fortunately, courts can push back against law enforcement assertions about suspicious behavior. Some have pushed back more forcibly than others. Thanks to another court pushback, we have two new items to add to the list of suspicious indicators. From the Texas Appeals Court decision [PDF]:
At the motion to suppress hearing, the Trooper who pulled Cortez over testified that he began following Cortez’s minivan down Interstate 40 because it had “a newer registration” on it, and because it was “[a] minivan, clean, with the two occupants in it:”
Q. So you’re telling the Court that because you see a van, it’s clean and it’s got two people in it, that was [sic] indicators of potential criminal activity for you?
A. Yes, sir, they are. . . .
Beware, soccer moms and shuttle drivers: newer minivans with more than one person in them are indicative of drug trafficking. In this case, the stop resulted in the discovery of drugs in a spare tire. But the court won't allow the government to keep its illegally-obtained evidence. According to the court, no traffic violation occurred to justify the stop and the mere existence of a newer minivan with two people in it does not even come close to "reasonable" suspicion.
There's a long discussion about the supposed moving violation that instigated the stop. It's worth reading as well. The government's assertions about state laws and driving on the shoulder would make it impossible for any driver to avoid being stopped by law enforcement. The officer testified he saw the vehicle's tire hit the fog line twice, supposedly in violation of state law. But the court points out two things: first, the law allows vehicles to drive on improved shoulders under certain circumstances, including the circumstances surrounding this stop. It repeats the trial court's findings.
As [the Trooper’s] vehicle approached and pulled into the left hand lane, defendant’s vehicle moved toward the improved shoulder.
A short time later, Defendant’s vehicle moved toward the improved shoulder a second time as the Defendant’s vehicle exited the Interstate to the right at a marked exit ramp.
The State produced no evidence that [the Trooper] observed, or believed he had observed, any portion of the Defendant’s vehicle pass outside the outermost edge of the fog line.
The improved shoulder of a state roadway begins at the point of the fog line which is furthest from the center of the roadway.
The defendant’s vehicle did not cross outside the outermost edge of the fog line onto the improved shoulder of the roadway. Crossing over the portion of the fog line nearest the center of the roadway or upon the fog line is not a violation of Texas traffic law; therefore the vehicle was not operated on the improved shoulder of the roadway on either occasion made the basis for [the Trooper’s] traffic stop.
The state's evidence included the officer's dashcam, which didn't show what he claimed it did. The officer expended a lot of words trying to make a mere momentary touch of the white fog line into "driving on an improved shoulder," but the court doesn't buy it. And there's no way it could, thanks to the officer's testimony, which included this apparent physical impossibility.
Q. So, Trooper, tell the Court exactly where my client was at the time you say you witnessed the first violation?
A. The first violation was just – just as I’m paralleling him, I’m off his left quarter. Actually, I usually run the license plate at that point. I’m sitting there and you see him fade to the right-hand side, crossing the white line.
But, we conclude that, from the vantage point of driving in the left lane, next to a vehicle in the right lane, it cannot be seen, and there is no way to know, that the vehicle in the right lane is touching the fog line on that vehicle’s right. Thus, the dashcam video dispels the Trooper’s testimony that Cortez crossed the fog line.
Even if the trooper's testimony hadn't veered detailing his super-heroic ability to see through opaque body panels, the court still would have found a couple of momentary tire rubs on the fog line would not have constituted a violation of the law. As the court points out, there are times when it's legal to drive on the shoulder and the vehicle stopped by the trooper satisfied two of those exceptions to the "don't drive on the shoulder" law.
Regarding the first “offense” observed by the Trooper, as the trial court found, because section 545.058(a)(5) allows a driver to drive on an improved shoulder to “allow another vehicle traveling faster to pass,” and since it appeared that the Trooper was intending to pass Cortez’s vehicle on the left, Cortez was statutorily permitted to drive on the improved shoulder during that very brief period of time.
Regarding the second “offense” observed by the Trooper, the dash cam video shows Cortez driving steadily in the right hand lane on the highway, turning on his right turn signal to exit the highway. By the time that there was any type of contact between Cortez’s right tires and the white fog line, Cortez was at the end of the exit ramp, almost to the access road, and he was still signaling a right turn. Because section 545.058(a)(3) allows a driver to drive on an improved shoulder “to decelerate before making a right turn,” and since it was clear that Cortez was intending to exit the highway and turn right, Cortez was statutorily permitted to drive on the improved shoulder for that brief period of time.
Even if this wasn't the case, the court does not expect drivers to maintain perfect driving lines on roads -- no more than it expects officers to know every nuance of every law they're tasked with enforcing. Never touching a fog line is an impossibility. To do so is human, not a violation of the law.
As the court of appeals pointed out, “[d]riving is an exercise in controlled weaving. It is difficult enough to keep a straight path on the many dips, rises, and other undulations built into our roadways.” Even a driver who is sober, alert, and careful may occasionally drift within their lane only because the roadway surface is not perfectly smooth. Moreover, drivers are not able to see if their tires are touching the fog line. They are likely to veer over at some point and touch the fog line alongside the roadway without being aware they have done so.
So ends this trooper's unconstitutional attempt to turn a non-violation into a drug bust. And the court prevents minivan+1 from entering the "suspicious behavior" lexicon. Imperfect driving is nothing more than that, not a tacit admission of drug trafficking.
>
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: drug ctrafficking, law enforcement, new car, probable cause, texas
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
At least even the most liberal courts still stop short of handing the drugs back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
In other would you happy if the cops stopped and searched you on a hunch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
No.
BUT, this is another instance where some "hunch", which may be soundly based in practice though inarticulable, was proved accurate.
Now, don't go off from reasonable to claim that I'm for a whites-only police state, because THAT is exactly what you appear to oppose here: taking a HUNCH and running ALL the way with it.
As for instance, I might, were so inclined, to say: SO, you're okay if this dealer sold fentanyl-laced pot to your kids, huh?
Surely the present is an okay balance. I'm NOT upset over this, by the way, just want the LEANING to let criminals off to be recognized as bad trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
This is not about “letting criminals off”. This is about how the tactics used by police, or “the means”, cannot be justified by “the ends”, i.e. the results of those tactics. An on-duty officer who illegally breaks into a house and finds a stash of cocaine cannot use said stash to justify both the illegal entry and the illegal search.
We want the police to act with higher standards of behavior because we need the police to act with higher standards. We need assurances that the rights of the innocent will not be trampled upon to make easier the pursuit, capture, and conviction of the guilty. Law-abiding citizens who drive clean vans should not have to worry about whether the cleanliness of a van is enough to get them pulled over and searched.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Yes, but "Stephen", YOU apparently advocate that all "drivers" be licensed, and if that's your position, then while DRIVING, you then advocate a lower standard of rights.
I'm not going further (because it'd tip you kids to The Law), but YOU are the one who advocates a LICENSING DRIVERS and all it entails. Not me. YOU. As usual, you're projecting.
By the way, how would you know if I answered that correctly unless you've been schooled, say by the FBI at Informers School?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Yes, I do. The average car is a two-ton death machine on wheels and you should be both licensed and insured when you drive it.
Nope. Someone who travels by driving a car should have the exact same rights as someone who travels by bike or foot or public transportation.
I thought SovCits refused to recognize the validity of the federal government, its laws, and its law enforcement officers.
…I…uh…wait, is licensing drivers supposed to be A Bad Thing? Christ, you take one step into the Mirror Universe and suddenly everything’s fucked up no matter where you are. Look it was just the one step that one time and I made sure to close the wormhole after I pulled my foot back out, I swear I couldn’t have done that much damage to the timeline. Maybe we need to consult the Time Cube for answers…
Oh please. If I were an FBI informant, I would have better targets to spy/inform on than some fuckwit SovCit who rants in the comments of a tech blog he hates with the same level of passion that DC fans hate the Marvel Cinematic Universe.
I would also not have the free time necessary to lob a bunch of shitty jokes at you. Paperwork does not do itself, after all. (At least not yet. Fucking nerds should’ve already had that shit figured out by now…)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
So what is the right answer to whether "natural" persons must be licensed?
Don't wander off through your vocabulary again, just answer that one question, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
The correct answer is one I cannot actually post because it would get flagged and where’s the fun in that.
The right answer, then, is that anyone who wants to drive a vehicle for which the law requires a license should have to get that license. The license is proof that a person has proven themselves responsible enough with a vehicle to drive it on the open road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Oooh! NEATLY AXIOMATIC!
But it's not the question I asked.
You dodged both "natural" person and "must" terms.
Try again to answer MY question, not the one you want asked.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I didn’t address the “natural” “person” shit because SovCits and their lingo should only ever be mocked.
As for “must”: Technically, no, one does not need a license to drive a car. Then again, if you get caught driving without a license, your ass is in trouble no matter how much you stress that you are an individual who is traveling under the auspices of common law as determined by the Founding Fathers under a gold-fringed American flag.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OH, so you DO know DETAILS The Law, but use that only to harass people who fully believe in The Constitution.
You then go on to exult in and threaten consequences of living in a police state, and mock Constitutionalists some more.
Your nagging revealed YOU as supporter of a police state.
So my opinion that you may be schooled and trained to be an Undercover Agent of the FBI is still tenable, because that exact knowledge, with further details that I didn't supply, isn't readily found.
In any case, you were harassing me with what you knew to be false. You KNEW that "natural" persons aren't "technically" required to have a Driver's License, that's just an imposition of the Corporate Police State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mr. SovCit, I have a question for you: Do you believe in the entirety of the Constitution, or just a specific amount of amendments—perhaps ten, or maybe just two?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There you go again, with your label.
I fully support the AMENDED Constitution. No major problems with as written, yet I'm totally against the way it's been twisted to serve Corporatism.
Now, STOP your nasty little innuendo, since YOU'VE ADMITTED EXACTLY MY BELIEFS, besides knowing that "natural" persons are NOT "technically" required to have a "Driver's License".
You are harassing me with SLY BUT FALSE INNUENDO. STOP IT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But I thought you liked my nasty innuendo! Guess I’ll have to pull out, then. (Ha Ha! Multiple entendres.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And those numbers would be a lot worse if it weren't fro drivers licences.
A car is a 2 ton death machine filmed with flammable liquid capable of traveling at very high speeds, on roads filled with countless others like it.
It's just common sense to make sure that drivers have a minimum level of skill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The whole "natural person" isn't really a meaningful idea here.
And they made no admission of the sort.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Since you seem to think there was nothing wrong with a cop stopping someone with no valid reason to do so, we can assume you actually do not believe in the constitution as written because the 4th amendment says you can't do that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Infatuation
Justification
Appropriation
Obsession
Resale
Maybe we should get cops to stop watching SciFi?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Let me guess, the person pulled over is not white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
May be! AND YET WAS ACCURATE. Explain that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yer a racist, Harry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
That kind of fishing and/or profiling is hostile to the concept and realities of freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Letting criminals off when cops commit criminal acts is not a bad trend. It's a necessary defense against violation of our basic constitutionally defined rights. We accept that in order to enjoy freedom some criminals will be allowed to go free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Okay, NOW comments are getting to just plain denying facts which were not disputed in court.
Well, I guess, to be lawyerly accurate, I don't know that the cop had a "hunch", so I substitute just the sheer facts that stopped the car and found drugs.
Drugs were found, basis of the case. Or do you dispute that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Do you mean the skin color of the drivers (racial profiling), the cleanliness of the vehicle (not a consistent indicator of suspicious activity), or the traffic violation that the court ruled was not actually a violation (outright on-the-record lying)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
No, the facts which were evidenced in court.
"racial profiling" does not appear here until first comment is quick to suggest it, without evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Those facts that got the case dismissed because the whole thing shouldn't have happened in the first place because despite the fact that he found drugs after the stop, the initial stop was a complete violation of the fourth amendment?
Those facts? That fourth amendment of the constitution you purport to support so much? Are those the facts you're talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
"Lawyerly", indeed.
Lying Logic™. The point of the court ruling and part of the point of the article is that finding the drugs was irrelevant. The cop should not have stopped the vehicle or searched it. The power of police is provided by the law and is thus limited by the law (or, at least, it should be).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Not disputed. The case, which was about the drugs, NOT the traffic, IS thrown out.
You should be HAPPY to live in a country where that is what happened because in America we can bring in ALL aspects of the case, rather than the SHEER FACTS of drugs found being the whole basis.
You are just looking at my text and assuming that I must be a rabid supporter of the police state.
My further point is that your (and others) such "hunch" leads to accusation of me being for a police state.
Stop taking your "hunches" to extremes, is MY Point, see?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Law enforcement by lottery is a shit way to go about doing it, because unlike what you'd prefer to think, it's completely random in its approach to catching the "possibly guilty". But then again, blue boy, you're the kind of jackass that would have been completely fine if no drugs were found in the tire in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Spoken like a good serf!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
More likely ... a newer and clean vehicle being driven by some one who is not white == suspicious (to a bigot).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
This guy, had none, thus the entire stop was illegal. The fact that they found drugs is irrelevant because they could have just as easily NOT found drugs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Okay, as I've been challenged -- and answered "don't know", HOW MANY TIMES?
Without that fact in evidence, you're just playing a hunch.
Do you grasp how YOU are accusing without evidence here?
And you may well be right in your hunch, but it's STILL THE SAME principle. At least recognize when your bias is active.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Ah, but we do have evidence: the cop’s own lies as told in a court of law and the dashcam footage that exposes said lies. A cop does not just do shit like this out of the blue. We can reasonably assume, unless and until proven otherwise, that this cop has at least some history of questionable search-and-seizure stops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Not disputed.
The first question was HOW MANY FALSE OUT OF HOW MANY STOPS?
State numbers or you're just going with a hunch.
That's my entire point. You are not answering my objection, just making another rabbit track which leads to your win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
We do not have hard statistics on how many stops this particular LEO has made during his career. Even if we did, we cannot know with the certainty of God just how many of his stops were this kind of “results justify methods” stop. (He only got caught in a lie here because of his dashcam, after all.) Since we cannot know his history for sure, the best we can do is reasonably assume this is just one in a pattern, however small, of bad stops.
And here I thought you didn’t have a problem with someone working on a hunch so long as they get results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Again just your thoughts, not facts, by which you argue and accuse.
You clearly have a "hunch" about me that won't let go of, nor go only by the facts which are in evidence, so you are doing EXACTLY like the police officer.
You've pulled me over and demand to search me, then raise every trifle to a federal case, and if don't come up with any actual evidence, you just label me "SovCits" and make up some more stuff that you have no evidence for.
CLEAR ENOUGH? OR GOING TO MAKE UP YET MORE SO THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO IMPLY THAT I'M NOT A STRICT CONSTITUTIONALIST IN PRACTICE?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, seems like some individual was confused for a person this morning…
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Apparently you're now going to drop topic, let alone admit that you've been wrong and making up stuff to harass me with.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey, you keep coming back here for punishment like it gets you off; don’t blame me for being the one who delivers it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
harass
Second time you've used that word, snowflake.
You came here looking for an argument and got it. Stop whining.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who's whining? I'm stating a FACT that "Stephen T. Stone" has been repeating the "SovCits" label for months now, implying I'm a kook who doesn't know The Law, and today I reversed it on him, forced him to admit that "technically", a "natural" person doesn't require a "Driver's License" when "traveling"!
So turns out Stone KNEW all along that he was making FALSE INNUENDO.
You came here trolling and got refuted soundly. Now whine about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...implying I'm a kook who doesn't know The Law
He's not wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Watewut
I’m not implying anything about you.
I’m outright fucking saying it.
Technicalities and SovCit lingo will not save you from being arrested if you get caught driving without a license.
Damn, that much projection should have a movie attached.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
While police can set up checkpoints, they still have to have a specific reason to do so. They can't set one up just because and decide to pull over anyone and everyone. Why? Fourth Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
And as you say, they still need a reason to search a car so you're still wrong. To set up a checkpoint, they need a reason, once a car is stopped, they need an additional reason to search the car. Once the initial reason for the checkpoint is no longer valid, they have to discontinue the checkpoint. Applying it to this situation, the cop would still have had no reason to search the car, even if the checkpoint allowed him to stop it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Except some of the illegal drugs aren't actually anywhere near as dangerous (if at all) then what they say. For example, there's literally zero evidence that Marijuana is in any way more harmful then Alcohol, yet alcohol is legal and marijuana is 'Schedule #1', the 'most dangerous' kind of drug there is.
I can also accuse random people of having illegal products on them and look good when I find a few people who actually do have illegal stuff to point to when I show up in court.
The best part is I don't have to go to court with my failures, so I can sweep them under the rug to make myself look really accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Yeah... See, you come across as advocating drug use, instead of being for Constitutional Rights.
> I can also accuse random people of having illegal products on them
AND that's what JURIES are for. Juries are the only real protection we have against rogue cops or officials.
I wrote here WAY back: "It takes a whole nation to stand up to a police officer." [I think original with author Rex Stout.] So long as some (apparently you) advocate drug use, then there'll be pressure to legalize. If the drug trade depended on ME, then like Hollywood, the beasts would starve overnight.
[ *Americans only. No other country has that as a written "inalienable" Right.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Advocacy for the decriminalization of drugs—cannabis in particular—is not “advocating drug use”. Asking for the right to legally buy drugs such as cannabis is not the same thing as telling people they need to do drugs. Besides, if you wanted to end a good chunk of the illegal drug trade in the US, there are far worse ideas than legalizing drugs and killing the black market for them in the process.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Umm, sure.
But advocacy for stopping ILLEGAL immigration is advocating police state and death camps, right?
How come hair-splitting never applies to me? You have many times taken my point and re-written it to suit your assertion that I'm basically a Nazi. -- I hope you continue making up stuff, because it's True Techdirt.
You and I are stopped until you respond to "what's the right answer to whether persons must be licensed to drive"?
And don't put in any other words or skip the "must": what I write is MY question, not your self-serving re-phrase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Yeah, cause you never do that or use misdirection or whataboutism to avoid the topic or try to twist it to your own ends.
/facepalm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
The cheap attempt to deflect or escape accusations of hypocrisy or double standard and is tantamount to directly claiming that since no one is perfect I am allowed to intentionally be imperfect and you are not allowed to call me out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
This is immaterial to the discussion at hand, but no, it is not. Advocating for ICE to be able to round up people suspected of having entered the country illegally and detain them in detention centers that make the average US prison look like a five-star spa in comparison, however…
Hey, you said it, I didn’t.
(Okay that one was unfair but I don’t give a damn.)
Funny thing: The phrasing of that question assumes there is a right answer that only you know. Last time I checked, the law says driving without a license is illegal. There are plenty of SovCits who think they are exempt from such laws; they are sorely mistaken.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Judge Hurley would like to agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Is this "ignorance based 'reasoning'" or just trolling?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hunches
The need to preserve the rights of the people, and the eagerness with which our law enforcement agencies have demonstrated willingness to violate those in pursuit of a collar has ruled out hunches as a means by which criminal cases get solved.
..or would in a fair court of law. It turns out in the US court that all sorts of rights violations are fair game to seize cash, contraband and any other property Law Enforcement wants to repurpose. And the judges who block such acquisitions in preservation of Constitutional law are the exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Violating the fourth amendment under color of law while in possession of a firearm is a felony. So here we have an officer who committed at least one felony to prevent another crime, that might not have been a felony, that even if the pfficer's suspicion were valid, he had no way to knpw if he had witnessed a felony being committed or not.
You don't make our streets safer by committing a more serious crime in pursuit of the perpetrators of a less serious crime, Even if you do convict the lesser perpetrator, the greater criminal remains on the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And yet drugs WERE found.
Was evidence produced in court about all the other times where the cop's "hunch" didn't find any drugs? I don't think so
One swallow does not make a summer - Aristotle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now if they'd only ban the "good faith" exception in all circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's that? It's too difficult? Obviously the answer is to punish all drivers. Or car dealers, clearly they have the most to gain. Only a criminal would dare disagree!
You start to see why MyNameHere gobbled the meat poles of the police and RIAA so readily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sadly, many do not even realize their bias and will get violent about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry if my joke wasn't punny enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unlawful drug busts...
...can find even planted truffles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unlawful drug busts...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I would like to see the officers history of traffic stops involving minivans & see how many nice soccer moms he thought were just cover....
And then I'd like the courts to consider perhaps the consistent reliance on pat bullshit cop answers to explain away serious issues has lead to the idea that to clean, to dirty, to fast, to slow, exact speed limit, aren't evidence of anything but a thin tissue to cover up the obvious...
2 brown men seen in minivan, brown men deal drugs, I can't stop them for driving while brown... ooooh there is a bumper sticker and I've seen that same sticker in a movie on a drug runners car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "2 brown men seen in minivan, brown men deal drugs,"
Instead, why aren't you CELEBRATING a system in which technical matters set aside the evidence and conviction?
You come off as a mere drug user, happy to see dealer escape, rather than strong Constitutionalist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now, when you say “this story does much to dispell THAT stereotype”, are you referring to the hypothetical cop’s stereotype of brown-skinned people as “drug dealers by default”, or the stereotype of the racist cop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "2 brown men seen in minivan, brown men deal drugs,"
Anyone who does not agree with the police tactics used in the war on drugs is obviously a druggie and needs to be locked up
Meanwhile, back in reality ... discrimination in the policing of society is a huge problem and needs some attention but don't let that stop your ridiculous excuse machine from generating more bullshit in support of the police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "2 brown men seen in minivan, brown men deal drugs,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "2 brown men seen in minivan, brown men deal drugs,"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That does sound like a sweet movie in the making...
White 40-year-old woman in minivan successfully conveys drugs while two brown men in a new, clean (and clean) minivan run chase and draw DEA attention.
And this gambit works until police in frustration plant drugs in the brown-men's minivan before the dogs show up.
Kinda Alfred Hitchcocky.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Dang. By coincidence, it causes poor spelling, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
I wrote my opinion that "Techdirt" is happy he escaped justice.
Look. The crime isn't in question, only the EXACT details of the cop making the stop. Let's say, worst for my view and best for yours: that the cop had faked up the cause a bit better, then this story wouldn't be out at all, be mere routine.
My position is that the cop had SOME hunch that turned out true, and it's supported by all available evidence.
Now, don't go off from reasonable to claim that I'm for a whites-only police state, because THAT is exactly what you appear to oppose here: taking a HUNCH and running ALL the way with it.
I just want the reasonable balance as at present to continue, NOT be continually dragged down by drug users. It's enough and fitting that this person was dragged through process, didn't entirely escape. Though we might ask how and why he got unusual degree of support from lawyers...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
I don't have NUMBERS, but the present rate is probably about right.
"Drivers" run the risk of being stopped and "interrogated" to use the worst word. That's a fact, and dog my cats if'n I can come up with a better system since motor vehicles, which inherently allow easy transport and quick physical escape, are apparently here to stay. We're stuck with some drawbacks as with any "technology".
I think you see the horror here as a drug dealer being caught, where I'm only mildly disappointed that is let loose -- to deal drugs again, perhaps to try and hook your kid on fentanyl-laced pot, only the first time kills him...
[ After the dash is deliberately to confirm your opinion of me. No matter how mild-written I am, I get accused of being rabid police state racist. That's just your HUNCH, isn't it? State evidence otherwise that will hold up to full scrutiny in court. ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
You only see the horror of a drug dealer being let free. (Which is, of course, A Bad Thing.) You refuse to see the horror of a cop trampling across the rights of all people just so they can capture that drug dealer.
Was the cop right, in that those people were drug dealers? Absolutely. His being right, however, doesn’t excuse the methods he used to prove he was right. We should not pat him on the back for being right when he had to lie and obfuscate for his search-and-seizure to have any chance of holding up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
What people are this?
And who says it does?
Read what I wrote above about YOU advocating lower standards for searches while serfs are "driving". If you truly understood the horrors of corporatism and licensing, you'd side with me!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Anyone within the borders of the United States and its outlying territories.
I sure as shit don’t see you saying otherwise.
Someone driving a car should not be pulled over based only on some arbitrary reason that a cop wants to use to justify a hunch. They should be pulled over if they match the description of a suspect, their vehicle matches the description of a vehicle mentioned in a BOLO alert, or they have committed a traffic violation of some sort. The same goes for anyone driving any other vehicle and—without the vehicular aspect, natch—pedestrians.
I would rather swallow pesticide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
So what I have NOT said is your evidence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
So his horrors of corporatism and licensing are such that he'd support them no matter how ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Read what I wrote above about YOU advocating lower standards for searches while serfs are "driving".
Why are you so focused on the search? The search needs to be predicated by a reason to pull the person over in the first place.
Or is that just unimportant?
Fucking Nazis. You're everywhere now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Actually, it doesn't. Presumptive law. You don't know what that means.
I don't SUPPORT the search as such, BUT the stop is perfectly "legal" under the current tangle.
Ignorant people. You've always been everywhere. It's amazing we achieved any civilization at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It does if the cops want whatever evidence they find in a search to remain admissible.
That’s no way to talk about your parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, doesn't for the stop. You are flatly wrong again.
And whatever my parents were, that dooms ME to being the? You are indeed a Royalist. American believe that every person has inalienable Rights and can rise above the circumstances of their birth. Indeed, we welcome a number of persons to come here legally, fleeing from the foreign caste or class systems that you just stated is a heritable doom.
Your smartassery isn't working. But I doubt you're smart enough to just stop. You seem compelled to do one-liners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Indeed, we welcome a number of persons to come here legally, fleeing from the foreign caste or class systems that you just stated is a heritable doom, as long as it's not from some shithole.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, you added some innuendo to smear me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He has a point, you know. He doesn’t need our help to smear him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oi.
The whole reason for the legal barrier of “probable cause” is to prevent LEOs from pulling anyone over for literally no good reason and gutting an entire vehicle from engine to trunk to search for evidence of a crime. A legal stop should be predicated on either probable cause of a criminal act, seeing a criminal act, or seeing a vehicle/driver that matches the description of a vehicle/driver wanted for arrest or questioning.
Now now, not everyone can rise above the circumstances of their birth. Donald Trump is still an imbecile, after all.
Well, shit. Maybe I should switch to smartdickery. I mean, it's a bit harder, and it takes more work to properly achieve, but the satisfaction at the end is exquisitely explosive.
…these veiled masturbation jokes doin’ anything for ya?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oi.
"probable cause" when "driving" a motor vehicle is SO VERY LOW that the surprising part of the case is that the cop didn't bother to fake it up.
Really? What about running a red light? Don't you want police officers stopping those who run red light?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oi.
"probable cause" when "driving" a motor vehicle is SO VERY LOW that the surprising part of the case is that the cop didn't bother to fake it up.
He did - the court found the whole reason for the stop in the first place was bullshit. You can stop being surprised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oi.
That would fall under “seeing a criminal act”—assuming they saw it happen, anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oi.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oi.
Anyone CAN rise above the circumstances of their birth, just not everyone does. And being born an imbecile is NOT a circumstance of birth. It is a circumstance of being stupid... like you! So you and Trump have that in common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oi.
Wow is that wrong! A powerful and destructive myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oi.
More myths:
upward mobility is achievable by anyone.
racism is no more
we care about veterans
trickle down works
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oi.
The American Dream is alive and well, tarnished perhaps, and in need of some repair but still kicking.
Upward mobility is achievable by anyone, not always easy, in some cases extremely difficult but never impossible. Yeah we can improve on this too.
Racism is definitely still around so that is a myth, but it is not nearly as widespread as it used to be and we are working on it.
A lot of people care about veterans, if you don't know this you are sadly misinformed.
Yeah, trickle down doesn't work too well.
So 2 myths and the rest are fact but with room for improvement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oi.
Upward mobility is a joke to most people as they struggle to afford shelter and sustenance.
Race equality has taken severe hits lately and apparently our government is fine with that.
If we cared about vets then why are so many of them being treated like shit? If we can not afford to care for them upon their return then maybe we should not be sending them out there in the first place. And why is the VA not part of the defense budget? Is that because they do not feel responsible for the injuries they cause or is it because they simply don't give a shit?
There are many more, perhaps they are more of a double standard than a myth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Oi.
Racism is still a problem but compare it to 60 - 70 years ago, it's in a FAR better place than it was. And I would argue that it's not getting worse, we're just seeing what was happening all along being exposed to the light of day. Change doesn't happen overnight and some of these things take time.
Some vets being treated badly doesn't equate to nobody caring about them. I personally know several vets who have nothing but great things to say about the care they receive. Exceptions are everywhere, that doesn't mean it's the rule. Do we need to work on those exceptions? Absolutely! There's no excuse for treating anyone that way, but we're a far cry from nobody "giving a shit".
Perhaps you just live in a bubble and only care to see what you want to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
BUT the stop is perfectly "legal" under the current tangle.
The court disagrees with you, so there's that. You should let them know they got it wrong. I'm sure they'll appreciate your input.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Huh. You're rather more right than me. Thanks for making me re-consider hasty writing.
What I MEAN is that A TRAFFIC STOP is basically for any cause, but apparently NO sufficient cause was shown here. I'm kind of surprised the cop didn't FAKE up more, then, but I have noticed they can sometimes be honest (a bit more so if there's video).
Case dismissed, as should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Was the law enforcement officer right?
Given the propensity for law enforcement officers to plant evidence, I think we cannot say with certainty that he was right.
Was the quantity of drugs substantial? Was it, say five kilograms of narcotics, more than would be convenient for a trooper to walk around with?
If not, we can't rule out the trooper planted the evidence to justify the arrest. There are so many incidents of bad faith in law enforcement that we cannot merely accept good faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Hahahahaha - ya dont know shit but we are all supposed to listen and nod our heads.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
OKAY, STATE SOME NUMBERS... Oh, you can't?
Sheesh. With your comment, I think Techdirt has bottomed, so I'm OUT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Have fun storming the castle! See you tomorrow!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Now consider the major backing that police officers has that allows them to get away with pretty much anything and then consider what would happen if they were actually able to successfully bust these guys after an illegal stop.
It would be full on "unofficial - but still well-known" support from everyone above them, with a promise of protection as long as they boost the numbers.
Maybe if there were another incentive to actually follow the law for police, like consequences for not doing so, or something that would't count as a Win.
Instead we are stuck with protesting that they wasted our resources.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
You said previously that if you were stopped on a hunch, and had your car searched you would be unhappy, but you keep on claiming that if drugs are found the same action is OK. That make you a hypocrite of the first order.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lying again I see
While it's commendable that you actually tried to make your point by linking to the comment in question, you are aware that other people are capable of reading it, right? That anyone who cares to can easily read their comment, see that it's not even remotely what you claim it is, and dismiss your claim as a lie and your accusation of hypocrisy as a baseless insult and personal attack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
No surprise that Techdirt is happy that he escapes justice, though.
Agreed! That lying piece of shit cop should go right to fucking jail for perjury. There's no room in law enforcement for asshole prick cops who are fucking liars to boot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WHAT A COINDENCE! To be suspicious of and stop the ONE minivan with drugs concealed in spare tire! What are the odds? -- Or do all you kids nowadays run around with drugs in the spare tire so that's no surprise?
Based on the writing style of this retard advocating that the cop was right, and someone is escaping justice, I suspect you're the same troll complaining about the Steele dossier being used in any way to get a surveillance warrant against Carter Page.
Law enforcement "good faith" and "hunches" are fine when it targets anyone other than that crooked fuck pretending to be president - amirite?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"Evidence Laundering"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not Fooling Anyone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Innocent until PROVEN Guilty
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how about those little armadillo things between the lanes? it annoys me to hit one of them but sometimes, you know. i might should include a few thousand of them for good measure.
maybe i should also admit i sometimes drive around the speed bumps. i think we can go ahead and assume that's illegal, too.
did they say anything about driveways? i might be dinging that penal pinball bell at home, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My local paper has too many 3am pulled over for no reason stops that just happen to have drugs in them to be a coincidence unless they are pulling over way more catch and release stops that never make the paper .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
One, if you are stopped, and nothing is found do you go to the press, or do you keep quiet less the cops target you even more often? Also, what is the story that will get the press to publish it,if nothing was found, and the person stopped cannot show malice on the part of the cop?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AH, now the "flagging" for NO cause under common law has begun! Looks rather random so far...
And I expect that my EVERY comment will eventually be disappeared.
And I'm still not informed whether an administrator approves the "hiding".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AH, now the "flagging" for NO cause under common law has begun! Looks rather random so far...
You want some cheese to go with all that whine?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AH, now the "flagging" for NO cause under common law has begun! Looks rather random so far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Common law!', still not a magic 'I win' phrase
And I'm still not informed whether an administrator approves the "hiding".
Why must you lie? Do you think people won't call you out on it? Provide links showing that you're lying? Or do you honestly believe that if you simply repeat the same same laughable assertion over and over again people will start to believe you, rather than just tune you out as a ranting, dishonest spammer?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AH, now the "flagging" for NO cause under common law has begun! Looks rather random so far...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: AH, now the "flagging" for NO cause under common law has begun! Looks rather random so far...
He doesn't. Happy now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A failed attempt to construct an alternative reality
I've been pulled over, even ticketed, a few times in my life. Not once has a cop every checked my spare tire.
It is very obvious to me what happened. The cop got a tip, probably from rival, about this car and its cargo. He just did a really bad job trying to construct an alternative reality for justify his probable cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yep. This looks like evidence laundering.
The trooper couldn't find a strong justification for probable cause, and, I dare say, expected the judge to ignore the flimsiness of the one he used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can defeat their ERAD devices, by using a feature on their website which can allow you to de-acticvate and re-activate your card, at your him
This way if a trooper tries to use his ERAD device to take your money, from your bank account, it will not work, because the card will be inactive, meaning he cannot do anything, and the said trooper will never be the wiser that you temporarily de-activated your card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then you can just turn it back on when you want to use it again.
I would not be surprised if other banks started offering this service.
There is no law against doing this for the purpose of preveting an ERAD device from accessing your accounts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We're developing immunity systems for law enforcement racketeering.
Difficult-to-photograph license plates, seize-resistant bank cards, all to stop police from abusing their power.
We used implement countering devices just to deter the criminals themselves. When a ruffian caught someone unawares and took his stuff, he had to hire a thief-taker to hunt down the miscreant and errant valuables. Ironic since the thief-takers were often in on the take with the thieves.
Then the Runners and the Peelers were both organized so we didn't have to run around with swordcanes and decorate our manor-houses with mantraps. (For real!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We're developing immunity systems for law enforcement racketeering.
But the on/off feature can also be used to foil law enforcement ERAD devices, and using that service, for that purpose does not break any law.
And it would not matter it it did, as the cop would not just get anything when he used his ERAD device. It would look like an inactive card, and any LEO would never have a clue you temporarily turned off your bank card.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Plain travelling
When my wife and I travel on planes, we are the first on board and the last off as per the rules of the airline companies. This, at least here, is the usual practice with those who have a disability.
More and more people with disabilities (including age related problems) are taking up SUV's as the vehicle of choice, since it quite often is easier to get into and out of such a vehicle. Vans appear to be a secondary choice for similar reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Best carpet steam cleaner
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Do the ends justify the means? I support what Snowden did, releasing information. I think he is a hero. The law doesn't. Does his ends justify the means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Snowden considered his future action in blowing the whistle, and the consequences; exile or decade or longer in jail.
The officer is casually ignoring the rule of law law to search stop and search people he takes a dislike to for a petty reasons. How many other people has he held at the side of the road while he carried out a fruitless search.
Therefore Snowden can be respected, while this officer is to be despised.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So in Snowden's case, the ends justify the means. Got it. Truth be told, I agree with you, at least in Snowden's case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Another notable difference between the two is that in Snowden's case he knew that bad stuff was being done, and was willing to break the law to expose it.
The same can not be said in this case, where the excuse was bunk, based upon a lie and acts which aren't illegal in the first place, such that the discovery of drugs wasn't a case of 'the ends justify the means' but a lucky break.
(Possibly anyway, it could have been simple statistics, where if you pull over enough people eventually you will get a hit, or it could have been an instance of evidence laundering where they got a 'tip' from another agency and were flailing about trying to come up with a legal pretext for a search.)
This wasn't breaking the law to expose a problem, it was breaking the law and by pure dumb luck it resulting in the discovery of a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]