Posted on 11/29/2007 6:38:28 AM PST by Sopater
I actually oppose that too, because if he can force you to wait for longer than it takes to complete a simple conversation, you're being detained, which again he can't do without PC. I know this isn't current law, but I think current law is incorrect.
I think there are also practical problems with canine searches as well. We've all heard stories that a canine can be made to "alert", either by an evidence plant, a plant of a chemical extract of the thing they're trained to alert to, the handler may know how to make them do it, or bottom line, it's the police who make the call whether the dog has "alerted" or not anyway. There needs to be some accountability/traceability to this to prevent it from being used to steal peoples civil rights.
If the cop believed your explanation, why did it even become a court matter? What a moron. (The cop, not you)
Since they have control of the video, it should be made mandatory for them to produce it in all actions that spring from a traffic stop. If they can't produce it, you're dismissed with prejudice. That way, it would eliminate the incentive for the tape to disappear or the machine to have technical problems, but only if it helps you, and when it helps them, they have no trouble finding it at all.
I think it's hysterical that you think it's hysterical. Or perhaps you're right and "conservatives" isn't the right word for Freepers. "Free" and "Republic" both sound to me like a society in which the citizen has supremacy over the government except in the most stringently defined areas, and one in which the FREE citizen is EXPECTED to be constantly vigilant for government agents overstepping the bounds WE have laid out for them. Go back and read the founding documents again to try to understand the feelings the founders held about government as an institution.
You have to be careful what you write. Those two sentences together come off like the Second Amendment! It would still not be probable cause, even if the courts had ruled otherwise. ;-)
If the cop asks for permission to search he intends to search.
Ahem. I think he was talking about REAL Consitutional rights. Are you aware of the difference?
SCOTUS justices aren't omniscient, nor do they have the power of actually inserting in COTUS something which is not there, even though people are obliged to act as if they could. The Constitution says what it says.
I can’t believe you actually think that if SCOTUS can manage to legalize something on imaginary Constitutional grounds, the rest of us should immediately forget Amendments 1-10. You must be having a bad day.
illegal to carry or transport openly. you can buy them, own them, etc. but if you want to move it, hide it in your trunk.
i’m not sure. i guess it was an “ignorance is not an excuse” type of thing.
“There’s a clear hatred for cops in general. It couldn’t ~be~ more obvious”
You need to return to the post office and have them re-boot the chip in your head. Don’t stand so close to the microwave when you are zapping that lunchtime burrito next time.
Some would think so.
I freely grant you that most cops are fine upstanding people. But they do work for the government and government is an institution our Founders regarded with suspicion at best. So cops, like any other government employee, must have their feet held to the fire at all times. If they can accept the job on those terms, I salute their selflessness and their calling.
You don't see a lot of postings like that because they are not news.
But those of us who believe all our rights are inalienable are here and ready to point out when people's rights are violated and rightfully bash those doing the violating. Call us what you want, we're not going anywhere.
Dang... I guess I really touched a nerve there.
So now there is a legal duty to maintain your vehicle free of all hazards to dogs just in case someday the cops get a whim to violate your civil rights during a stop?
Respectfully, I must disagree. The parents did try to retain control of the situation. Your post seems to be based on a lack of familiarity with ‘mens rea’. Given the parental efort, they demonstrated an intent to comply with the law.
That some kids managed to smuggle in drugs and booze is meaningless, given the well known fact that even prisons have a problem with contraband.
Have you considered that perhaps government should not be given such broad powers that parents trying to exercise control can be billed $100,000 in legal fees because they were no more successful in spotting contraband than prison officials?
Could you perhaps be an attorney? Otherwise I must ask why you so readliy accept the $100,000 ‘fee’ as being acceptable?
Just wondering.
One alternative is to force agencies, and their “swarms of officers”, complete with the multitude of laws and regulations which empower them, back into the carefully crafted confines of the Constitution.
PS How about de-mythologizing the cops? Theirs isn’t not a job that even made the 10 Most Dangerous Occupations list.
If the Media doesn’t make a big deal of a logger or fisherman or construction worker killed on the job, why hte hue and cry whem a cop is killed?
Could it be that a media known for socialist tendencies wants a police state?
Just wondering.
As government employees and their salaries being drawn from teh productive portion of the economy they should actually have a little LESS rights than we do.
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.