Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teens to be pulled over for good driving
WTSP-TV Tampa ^ | June 9, 2005 | DeAnna Sheffield

Posted on 06/09/2005 9:44:22 AM PDT by Millee

Beginning this fall Pinellas County Sheriff's Deputies will be pulling over teen drivers who haven't broken any traffic laws.

As part of a new program, deputies will be pulling over teens for safe driving and rewarding them with free movie theater and movie rental certificates.

Uniformed deputies driving unmarked cars will follow the drivers and give out the certificates.

"Deputies will follow them for a short distance, down a thoroughfare and we will watch their driving," said Sgt. Glenn Luben, Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. "Once we identify a good safe driver, we attempt to follow them to their house or open shopping area."

Some parents think it's a great idea to reward teens for safe, responsible driving. However, while most agree the reward is nice, some parents are concerned about this method of identifying safe drivers.

"I'd be concerned whether they'd think it's a real police officer pulling them over," says Jennifer Zeitler, parent of a teen driver. "It's scary for parents too. There's so many kidnappings and other things going on; I'd be concerned for my child."

The program was started by an Oldsmar, Fla. man whose son was killed in an accident involving a teen driver. After the program begins this fall, there is a possibility it will spread to other communities.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; US: Florida
KEYWORDS: 4thamendment; donutwatch; govwatch
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181 next last
To: biblewonk

inre: 115, why make it easy for them? we should be amking it harder.


121 posted on 06/09/2005 10:52:25 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

mark for later read


122 posted on 06/09/2005 10:52:40 AM PDT by Hegemony Cricket (No rolling stone ever says, "I want to be a Bryologist when I grow up!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: camle

Please see #113, 118, and 120.


123 posted on 06/09/2005 10:53:19 AM PDT by biblewonk (Yes I think I am a bible worshipper.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

I really should apologize for my earlier nastiness, btw, but I think what just rubbed me the wrong way wasn't anything much you said, it's this sense of acquiescence to government intrusion into our lives. I don't live in a cave, so I know government authority is pervasive, and is even necessary for an orderly society. However, our government has not been granted the authority to stalk and detain citizens for the purpose of giving them good conduct brownie points. And, yeah, traffic stops are necessary, but they are in all cases a government seizure of one's person, even when legitimate. I'd say most people don't think of it that way, but they should, because that's precisely what they are.

A government is only as benign as the citizenry forces it to be. Period.


124 posted on 06/09/2005 10:56:20 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

i fail to see any reason for the government to be in the business of rewarding "good" drivers. For a teenager, that is the paren't responsibility, for everybody that is the insurance industry's;-)

can you see them next budget: "We need to hire 10 more cops to hand out rewards"? I have parents, and I don't appreciate the governmet horning in on their roles.

cops should stick to doing what they do best, and leave the innocent alone.

what's next, having the fire department drop by and thank you for NOT having a fire?


125 posted on 06/09/2005 10:56:31 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

I've been unusually testy and impatient on FR lately, and I'm not sure why. I think it might be time for another extended break. LOL


126 posted on 06/09/2005 10:57:46 AM PDT by AntiGuv (™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Millee
This is dumb on so many levels.

How is it that they can identify the age of the driver before pulling them over for a treat. I've always had to show my ID after I am stopped.

Huh, seems like they can just stop anyone then?

127 posted on 06/09/2005 10:58:16 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AntiGuv
Please try not to be so ignorant. ...

He is not trying ...

128 posted on 06/09/2005 10:59:35 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
I learned this when I was in the Army...

We aren't discussing protocol within the armed forces. We are discussing reasonable police powers within the law abiding civilian population accused of no crime and without probable cause. It is unfortunate you can't make that distinction.

On another note, our elected officials, lawmakers, judges etc. have failed this country miserably by fostering policies and neglecting others that have in effect placed so many individuals with criminal intent within the ordinary population at large that many who have not considered the far reaching ramifications are glad to see the authorities "clean up the streets" without regard to legality. A pretty sad state of affairs.
129 posted on 06/09/2005 11:00:56 AM PDT by SpaceBar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Millee

Stupid, stupid, stupid. And unconstitutional.


130 posted on 06/09/2005 11:01:18 AM PDT by Sloth (Discarding your own liberty is foolish, but discarding the liberty of others is evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: camle
How does a cop in a car know how old the driver of some other car is anyway? Don't they ask for ID to identify you after you are pulled over.
131 posted on 06/09/2005 11:03:00 AM PDT by TheOtherOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt; biblewonk
> Please try not to be so ignorant. ...

He is not trying ...

Meaning what, it comes naturally? At any rate, I noticed you forgot to ping him. So, I'll be glad to help.

132 posted on 06/09/2005 11:04:55 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: TheOtherOne

exactly my opint. all you got to do to be vulnerable to this abuse (and it IS abuse) is LOOK young. or be short.


133 posted on 06/09/2005 11:05:10 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: Frank_Discussion

"This is a horrible idea."

It certainly is. What if some 'copy cat' decides to pose as one of these unmarked officers, pulls some girl over and attacks her?


134 posted on 06/09/2005 11:05:25 AM PDT by jocon307 (Can we close the border NOW?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Ping all the brownshirts, its okay with me. I know you know 'em.


135 posted on 06/09/2005 11:08:15 AM PDT by 68 grunt (3/1 India, 3rd, 68-69, 0311)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: jocon307

a few years back we had one such wannabe floating around. would take out his red light and pull over cars being driven by young women. then he'd rape them. dunno if he ever got caught, but there are a lkot of nuts like that out there,. let's condition our children to pull over for anyone with a red light, shall we?


136 posted on 06/09/2005 11:08:28 AM PDT by camle (keep your mind open and somebody will fill it full of something for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Sloth
And unconstitutional.

Of course it is but, does that even matter these days, given that a "Christian conservative" President can't be trusted to uphold his oath to defend the Constitution from foreign and domestic enemies?

137 posted on 06/09/2005 11:08:32 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Millee

Gee thanks big brother.
Sounds like this area has to large of a budget for law enforcement.


138 posted on 06/09/2005 11:11:18 AM PDT by HereInTheHeartland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 68 grunt
Ping all the brownshirts, its okay with me.

Brownshirts my *ss. I just thought you might be the kind who doesn't go around shooting people in the back.

If I was wrong, at least I gave you the benefit of the doubt.

139 posted on 06/09/2005 11:11:55 AM PDT by newgeezer (Just my opinion, of course. Your mileage may vary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk

There is no question that stopping a car is a 4th Amendment seizure.

"Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of [the 4th Amendment]. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)." WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).

Cops have no Constitutional authority to stop a vehicle to hand out a "good driver" certificate. That doesn't mean they can't do it, or that a sheriff cannot adopt a policy to do it - they have the practical authority but not the legal authority to do so. The distinction is that, IF the stop leads to an arrest (say the cop sees drugs in the car after the stop), all evidence (the drugs) will be suppressed at trial and the state will not be able to convict. Ergo, the prosecutor will never indict on such a case.

In any event, we're discussing "facts not in evidence" (as those lawyer slime like to say :^). The reporter in the article repeatedly used the term, "pull over" a car, but the sheriff said they would follow the driver home or to a store. If a cop approaches an individual leaving a parked car and offers her a citation for good driving, no seizure has occured. I strongly suspect the reporter -- not the sheriff -- is the source of the "pulling over" language (hey, it makes for a catchy headline, no?). I find it hard to believe any competent sheriff wouldn't run this by the county attorney, and even harder to believe any competent attorney would approve such a plan.

Most likely, this story is much ado about nothing. If there is anything to it, it should be addressed (somebody call the ACLU!), but it does NOT pose any significant threat of prosecution resulting from a fishing expedition.
.


140 posted on 06/09/2005 11:12:18 AM PDT by Edsquire (yeah, I are one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 181 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson