LOL cops

[jsence2]

I don't know where you get half the stuff you make up.

It's just not worth my time, simply not.

Lol nothing I said was made up. But it's ok, if that's the excuse you want to use then I'll pretend it's valid; anything to avoid having to admit you're wrong, right?

smh

[WJ5811]

The cop isnt saying we stop people for stickers and search them. He says we stop people for it and sometimes that leads to bigger things. He doesnt word it as well as he could so it doesnt come across the best. Basicaly what I get is he is saying hey guys we use that expired registration as a reason to make a stop all the time and we have gotten alot of good arrests from it so dont handicap us any further.

Oklahoma City bomber was caught afterwards by expired registration sticker as he drove away after murdering all those people. I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal. Now the rest is up to me to figure out. Example: had crimestoppers tip about a guy in a blue Lincoln selling drugs on a certain street everyday. So if I roll up and he sees me and drives away. I notice he has expired stickers so I pull him over. Due to the tips recieved I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail. Its not me fucking this guy over its me using the available tools to catch him breaking the law. His traffic violation just helped get it done.

Believe me when I tell you Ive been doing this for 10 years and the system is set up for the bad guys to get away 99% of the time. The goal is to get bad guys off the street and away from everyone else not to fuck people over on expired stickers.

[DRiccio21]

The cop isnt saying we stop people for stickers and search them. He says we stop people for it and sometimes that leads to bigger things. He doesnt word it as well as he could so it doesnt come across the best. Basicaly what I get is he is saying hey guys we use that expired registration as a reason to make a stop all the time and we have gotten alot of good arrests from it so dont handicap us any further.

Oklahoma City bomber was caught afterwards by expired registration sticker as he drove away after murdering all those people. I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal. Now the rest is up to me to figure out. Example: had crimestoppers tip about a guy in a blue Lincoln selling drugs on a certain street everyday. So if I roll up and he sees me and drives away. I notice he has expired stickers so I pull him over. Due to the tips recieved I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail. Its not me fucking this guy over its me using the available tools to catch him breaking the law. His traffic violation just helped get it done.

Believe me when I tell you Ive been doing this for 10 years and the system is set up for the bad guys to get away 99% of the time. The goal is to get bad guys off the street and away from everyone else not to fuck people over on expired stickers.

i don't doubt this and i'm not anti-cop like trendon is. i think most of you do a hell of a job.

but i am certainly wary when i hear shit like this. as with anyone with power/authority, its crucial to know that they are being 100% legit. there is nothing more petrifying to me than the idea of being falsely accused or targeted for something and having no way out of it. it'll probably never happen to me, but if a cop really wanted to, they can certainly make your life miserable.

again, not trying to bash officers, think you all do a noble job... just think some of you are cocksuckers, just like i think some doctors, financial advisors, athletes, etc are cocksucker... you just happen to have a lot of control over day to day lives of people.

[autiger730]

I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail.

I was with you up until this point. How is it not a violation of the 4th Amendment for the K9 to search the vehicle with his nose?

[WJ5811]

I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail.

I was with you up until this point. How is it not a violation of the 4th Amendment for the K9 to search the vehicle with his nose?

Because dogs breath and sniff air. You cant tell people thats my air you cant smell or breath it. 4th ammendment doesnt cover(nor should it) free air that we breath or that is moving in or around us. The dog sniffs the air on the outside of your vehicle which has escaped from the seams. You have no privacy to this and therfore no violation of your rights. This has also been to the Supreme Court.

As long as your vehicle is in public and in or on public or state owned property the dog can freely walk around it for no reason at all. Private property is a diffrent matter and is actually going to the Supreme Court as we speak.

[shel311]

I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal

Well that is certainly interesting.

[DRiccio21]

I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal

Well that is certainly interesting.

The fact you still aren't getting this is borderline astonishing. We know it's legal. We've said a million times it's legal.

[shel311]

I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal

Well that is certainly interesting.

The fact you still aren't getting this is borderline astonishing. We know it's legal. We've said a million times it's legal.

I'm just as astonished by you actually LOL.

You've actually said otherwise about the legality of it based on the intent, which WJ said is false, so...

I said a lot of the same stuff WJ did, just not as eloquently and most certainly not in a matter of fact way like he did, because like I've said before, I wasn't certain.

But you go off on me about semantics blah blah blah, then you basically say you don't disagree with WJ despite your previous posts saying the opposite of what WJ said.

So, ya, that's kind of astonishing as well.

[shel311]

technically its legal, but the intent is not.

Is not the same as...

We know it's legal. We've said a million times it's legal

Then WJ said:

I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal.

If WJ is correct here, then it's not about semantics at all as you've been saying all along and seem to be confused as to why I don't "understand" that, and Trendon is flatly wrong, no?

[cdub21]

lol good thing you dont live by me. free air lol

[trendon]

Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal.

Prove it. And make sure you are proving the right thing. Am I going to have to subscribe to LexisNexis years before law school because of you guys?!

Believe me when I tell you Ive been doing this for 10 years and the system is set up for the bad guys to get away 99% of the time.

LOLWUT

"Estimates of the current size of the body of federal criminal law vary. It has been reported that the Congressional Research Service cannot even count the current number of federal crimes. And these laws are scattered in over 50 titles of the United States Code, encompassing roughly 27,000 pages. Worse yet, the statutory code sections often incorporate, by reference, the provisions and sanctions of administrative regulations promulgated by various regulatory agencies. Estimates of how many such regulations exist are even less well settled, but the ABA thinks there are nearly 10,000."
- Paul Rosenzweig. The Over-Criminalization ... Economic Conduct. The Champion 28, 29

Here is one of those ten thousand federal criminal statutes on the book, that you probably never heard about. It's called the Lacy Act. Sixteen U.S.C. section 3370 says "It's a federal offense for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase any fish or wildlife or plant taken, possessed, transported, or sold in the violation of any law, treaty, or regulation of the United States or any Indian tribal law, or any state law or any foreign law."

"People have been convicted in federal court for violating this statute because they brought back a Bony Fish from Honduras, not knowing that Honduran law, not American but Honduran law, forbade the possession of the Bony Fish. People have been convicted under this law because they were found in possession of what's called a short lobster, a lobster that is under a certain size. Some states forbid you from possessing a lobster if he's under a certain length. It doesn't matter if he's dead or alive. It doesn't matter if you killed it, or if it died of natural causes. It doesn't even matter if you acted in self defense."

"The government gets pretty upset when people like me instruct the client, people like me and Justice Jackson, don't talk to the police, don't answer any questions. But you know they can't have it both ways. You people, you've got ten thousand different ways of convicting us, good for you, but you know with the bitter come with the sweet, with the good comes with the bad, that's ten thousand different ways my client might unknowingly implicate himself in some sort of a criminal transaction."

Those are the words of Justice Robert Houghwout Jackson and Dr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney. Not mine.

So spare me the song.

[trendon]

I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal.

If WJ is correct here, then it's not about semantics at all as you've been saying all along and seem to be confused as to why I don't "understand" that, and Trendon is flatly wrong, no?

Unless I am severely deluded, the Supreme Court has not ruled on - let alone deliberated - on anything this nut is saying. In fact, he (and AU and Beercop) are still talking about the wrong thing. Go figure.

"Anything you say can and will be used against you." Where's the "for you?" Oh, that would be exculpatory for the defendant ... objection! Hearsay! Sustained. Protect and serve, my ass.

Oh yeah, the Supreme Court DID deliberate and rule on whether or not "Protect and Serve" is a duty of the police. The answer? It is not. Cops have no duty to their fellow civilians. Nice. But keep advertising it and using it as leverage during union standoffs!

[brett11253]

"Anything you say can and will be used against you." Where's the "for you?" Oh, that would be exculpatory for the defendant ... objection! Hearsay! Sustained. Protect and serve, my ass.

Oh yeah, the Supreme Court DID deliberate and rule on whether or not "Protect and Serve" is a duty of the police. The answer? It is not. Cops have no duty to their fellow civilians. Nice. But keep advertising it and using it as leverage during union standoffs!

This. Yes.

[WJ5811]

Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal.

Prove it. And make sure you are proving the right thing. Am I going to have to subscribe to LexisNexis years before law school because of you guys?!

Ok easy here you go. I guess you are severely deluded.


On June 10, the Supreme Court unanimously held that evidence seized during a traffic stop can be used in court, even if the traffic stop was only a pretext to look for drugs or evidence of other illegal activities (Whren v. U.S., No. 95-5841, 59CrL2121, (June 10,1996); Aaron Epstein, "Court backs use of evidence gained by pretext," Philadelphia Inquirer, June 11, 1996, p. A2; "Cops' use of traffic stop as pretext for drug search upheld by justices," Star Ledger, June 11, 1996, p. A1).

The case involves Michael A. Whren and James L. Brown who were stopped in the District of Columbia by two plainclothes policemen on June 10, 1993 for failing to signal a right turn. The DC Metropolitan Police Department General Order provides that plainclothes police officers are not to make traffic stops except when "a violation is so grave as to pose an immediate threat to the safety of others." During the traffic stop, the police, who were patrolling a "high drug area," saw two large bags of crack cocaine in Whren's hands. Whren and Brown were convicted of possession with intent to deliver within 1,000 feet of a school (21 USC 860(a)) and each sentenced to 14 years in prison. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the convictions (53 F.3d 371 (CADC)).

The defendants argued that the police did not have probable cause to make a stop for a drug arrest and that the search violated their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. They contended that a search during a "pretextual" traffic stop should be allowed only if a reasonable officer "would have" made the traffic stop without an ulterior motive. In his opinion for the unanimous court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the important point is whether an officer "could have" made the same traffic stop. He said probable cause regarding a drug offense was irrelevant because the traffic violation was a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The fact that the traffic stop was a pretext to look for drugs did not deprive officers of their legal justification to search the vehicle. "Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause, Fourth Amendment analysis," wrote Scalia.

Defense lawyers and the ACLU warn that ignoring the motives of officers who make minor traffic stops to search vehicles could open the door for racial discrimination in drug arrests.

Attorneys general from 48 states filed briefs with the high court, asking that the decision be upheld. The ruling merely ratified the legal test for traffic stops that already exists in most states, said Christina Kuo, a state deputy attorney general in San Francisco. "I think it's an affirmation of the manner in which good and innovative police officers are already conducting themselves," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police. He noted "Officers are still bound by the same rules that they were bound by yesterday."

[trendon]

"During the traffic stop, the police, who were patrolling a "high drug area," saw two large bags of crack cocaine in Whren's hands."

LOL. Stopped reading. I gave you the chance to double-check the facts of our little thread, but you failed. I have never - nor am I - arguing against what this ruling says.

You can't even ascertain the facts of a forum discussion that transpired over the course of a few days - written, nonetheless - and yet you are semi-in-charge of a fellow civilian's life and future based on your observations. I'll allow that you probably take your career a bit more seriously than discussions like these, but I certainly have reasonable doubt.

[trendon]

June 2015 cannot come quick enough.

[trendon]

Hey, while we are here. Officers, would you agree or disagree with what this says about your profession?

The daily work of a police officer involves certain paradoxes and conflicts which may be difficult to deal with, such as:

- Any interaction with a member of the public, whether socially or officially, such as in a traffic stop, involves a non-trivial risk of verbal abuse or physical harm. Treating a person with common respect or normal social graces requires the officer to be off guard and unprepared for an attack. Being on guard for an attack and treating every interpersonal situation with safety procedures and affirmative commands makes the police officer appear cynical, brutal, and detached, and limits his actual effectiveness with the public. Considering someone a friend or an enemy produces opposite mental states, an unnatural no-win situation engendering chronic stress.

- A police department is both a professional and military organization, and these two aspects oppose each other. As a professional, he is considered to be an expert in his field and is expected to use his expertise for the good of his public. He has much discretion in how he serves the people who call upon him. However, the dangers and complexities of the work require a military structure of the organization and a military leaning in the training. Although some are actually educated, all police officers are well trained. Policies, regulations, and procedures cover every facet of police work. Everything is expected to be done by the book with substantial repercussions, including civil and criminal liability, for varying from the expectations of operating procedures. Often the facts of a situation require a course of action that does not follow procedures. If he follows procedures exactly, he knows he won't fully help the public, and the public will think he is shirking his responsibility. If the officer follows his own judgment, he is taking a risk. The community and department expect officers to use judgment, but when they do, there is a danger they will be disciplined; another unnatural no-win situation engendering chronic stress.

- Police officers tend to become socially isolated. The reasons given for this isolation are varied and mostly anecdotal. One theory is that police work is not balanced. Most occupations involve a combination of good and bad results. In police work, almost everything is bad, and everybody you deal with is perceived either inherently bad or at least foolish. Another is that police officers develop a 'street wisdom' and by fiat possess a degree of authority that tends to make them perceive themselves as being morally superior to the rest of society. Whatever the reason, the public that the police deal with clearly perceive it and tend to reinforce the divide. Classically when a group of people are isolated, they become disoriented and confused. Their behavior changes drastically. Ironically an isolated class are usually the ones who are losing real world wisdom and tend to judge the world incorrectly from a very limited perspective, leading to interpersonal mistakes and more chronic stress.

[WJ5811]

Hey, while we are here. Officers, would you agree or disagree with what this says about your profession?

The daily work of a police officer involves certain paradoxes and conflicts which may be difficult to deal with, such as:

- Any interaction with a member of the public, whether socially or officially, such as in a traffic stop, involves a non-trivial risk of verbal abuse or physical harm. Treating a person with common respect or normal social graces requires the officer to be off guard and unprepared for an attack. Being on guard for an attack and treating every interpersonal situation with safety procedures and affirmative commands makes the police officer appear cynical, brutal, and detached, and limits his actual effectiveness with the public. Considering someone a friend or an enemy produces opposite mental states, an unnatural no-win situation engendering chronic stress.

- A police department is both a professional and military organization, and these two aspects oppose each other. As a professional, he is considered to be an expert in his field and is expected to use his expertise for the good of his public. He has much discretion in how he serves the people who call upon him. However, the dangers and complexities of the work require a military structure of the organization and a military leaning in the training. Although some are actually educated, all police officers are well trained. Policies, regulations, and procedures cover every facet of police work. Everything is expected to be done by the book with substantial repercussions, including civil and criminal liability, for varying from the expectations of operating procedures. Often the facts of a situation require a course of action that does not follow procedures. If he follows procedures exactly, he knows he won't fully help the public, and the public will think he is shirking his responsibility. If the officer follows his own judgment, he is taking a risk. The community and department expect officers to use judgment, but when they do, there is a danger they will be disciplined; another unnatural no-win situation engendering chronic stress.

- Police officers tend to become socially isolated. The reasons given for this isolation are varied and mostly anecdotal. One theory is that police work is not balanced. Most occupations involve a combination of good and bad results. In police work, almost everything is bad, and everybody you deal with is perceived either inherently bad or at least foolish. Another is that police officers develop a 'street wisdom' and by fiat possess a degree of authority that tends to make them perceive themselves as being morally superior to the rest of society. Whatever the reason, the public that the police deal with clearly perceive it and tend to reinforce the divide. Classically when a group of people are isolated, they become disoriented and confused. Their behavior changes drastically. Ironically an isolated class are usually the ones who are losing real world wisdom and tend to judge the world incorrectly from a very limited perspective, leading to interpersonal mistakes and more chronic stress.

I agree with the bulk of this. Few things in there that I dont agree with but the majority of it has truth.

[WJ5811]

"During the traffic stop, the police, who were patrolling a "high drug area," saw two large bags of crack cocaine in Whren's hands."

LOL. Stopped reading. I gave you the chance to double-check the facts of our little thread, but you failed. I have never - nor am I - arguing against what this ruling says.

You can't even ascertain the facts of a forum discussion that transpired over the course of a few days - written, nonetheless - and yet you are semi-in-charge of a fellow civilian's life and future based on your observations. I'll allow that you probably take your career a bit more seriously than discussions like these, but I certainly have reasonable doubt.

Maybe I missed something then. I skipped over the posts where guys were just talking shit to each other and in doing so maybe something was missed. I answered your post above where you quoted me and said the Supreme Court never even deliberated the issue.

You will never hear me say we should take away our liberties or our freedoms. I belive in the constitution and what it stands for. I have always believed in this country and proudly served in the military. I dont want to see the Gov't come in and take anything away from us either. But I refuse to believe that our founding forefathers meant that life , liberty, and pursuit of happiness means guys can rob, steal, rape, sell drugs and bleed our society dry. The laws and regulations on the books or about 12" thick and some of them are just silly like the one you posted above. I could care less about the majority of them.

We come from different backrounds and our points of view will never be the same. I see things from a totally different perspective than you. I have no problem with you having your own thoughts or beliefs. I just think you incinuate quite a bit that cops are out to get the common joe and stick it up thier ass. I know Im personnaly not and I believe that the majority of cops out there arent either.

One of my favorite quotes and I take it to heart.

"In order for evil to flourish, all that is required is for good men to do nothing."

From Edward Burke

[buckeye76]

The cop isnt saying we stop people for stickers and search them. He says we stop people for it and sometimes that leads to bigger things. He doesnt word it as well as he could so it doesnt come across the best. Basicaly what I get is he is saying hey guys we use that expired registration as a reason to make a stop all the time and we have gotten alot of good arrests from it so dont handicap us any further.

Oklahoma City bomber was caught afterwards by expired registration sticker as he drove away after murdering all those people. I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal. Now the rest is up to me to figure out. Example: had crimestoppers tip about a guy in a blue Lincoln selling drugs on a certain street everyday. So if I roll up and he sees me and drives away. I notice he has expired stickers so I pull him over. Due to the tips recieved I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail. Its not me fucking this guy over its me using the available tools to catch him breaking the law. His traffic violation just helped get it done.

Believe me when I tell you Ive been doing this for 10 years and the system is set up for the bad guys to get away 99% of the time. The goal is to get bad guys off the street and away from everyone else not to fuck people over on expired stickers.

Amen.