Posted on 08/18/2002 8:03:42 AM PDT by chance33_98
Angry Truck Stop Manager Turns Away Police, Safety Inspectors Email story to a friend
Date: August 16, 2002 Source: Janet Blair / KRQE News 13 Location: Albuquerque, N.M.
A community anti-auto theft team was ready to go to work Thursday morning. But an angry truck stop manager put the brakes on their plan, turning away the group of local and federal inspectors.
The team were going to check the truck paperwork and do a quick safety inspection. Inspectors say because I-40 is a pipeline across the country, they were hoping to find stolen vehicles, drugs and other property they know is moving across country right through the Duke City.
"We're checking for bad VIN numbers, VIN switches, cab switches, trailer switches, bad trailers, stolen trailers, anything with bad VIN numbers or vin numbers that have been removed," said Officer Danny Langoria of the APD Auto Theft Unit.
They had just gotten started when it was all over.
Langoria was interrupted by the manager of the Flying J Truck Stop at Avalon and 98th St. on Albuquerque's West Side.
"You need to leave the property, you have no permission to be on private property," yelled the truck stop manager, who refused to be identified.
Police say most business owners appreciate a police presence on the premises, but not the Flying J Truck Stop. Police say they had called the truck to and had received approval to do the inspections.
"Apparently there was some misunderstanding about what we were doing. but I know he has business he has to protect," said Officer Langoria
Some truckers at the Flying J were also angered by the surprise inspections which they said took valuable time out of their driving day.
"It's incredible. I have never even heard of them doing that, anywhere in the United States. and I drive in all 48 states, all the time," said owner-operator William Senn of Arizona.
Unhappy truckers told KRQE News 13 they planned to use their CB radios to tell other truckers on the road not to stop in Albuquerque.
Drive Safe and give me a call when you're in the neighborhood.
What you say is absolutely true, however, in my experience, if you politely get in their face and make your particular case far more trouble and paperwork than an easier mark would be, they frequently back off. Rights are like muscles, if you don't use'em, they become useless. The trick is knowing how far to push - and of course having a good lawyer in reserve if you push too far.
Maybe the officer was being unreasonable.What would you do if you were stopped by an officer for speeding,and asked to get out of your car,subject yourself and car to search?You'd probably fall right into line,as would I,as I do not relish the thought of spending time in jail for "refusing to cooperate"with an unconstitutional search.Cops should read and understand the constitution just like the rest of us,and respect it's provisions.I can't count the number of newspaper articles I've read where police found drugs or other contraband in cars,to be informed at the end of the article that it was all the product of a "routine traffic stop".If it was a routine traffic stop,what were the police doing in the trunk?
I prety sure that Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles. See the scene where Hedley LaMarr is hiring his gang to pillage Rock Ridge.
I prety sure that Mel Brooks used it in Blazing Saddles.
You're both right. Treasure of the Sierra Madre came first, of course.
I do not think I would be happy, but that is irrelevant, since all evidence is that this didn't happen here, the state highway patrol officer simply asked the perp to give him the driver's license, so he could take a close look at it, perhaps taking the license to the patrol car to check for outstanding warrants, which is SOP in every state I have been in. That is over a dozen states I have lived in, plus 20 more that I have driven though.
I've read where police found drugs or other contraband in cars,to be informed at the end of the article that it was all the product of a "routine traffic stop".If it was a routine traffic stop,what were the police doing in the trunk?
Well now you have gotten completely off topic, but it is universally accepted that, if the cops have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has been committed, or that they are in danger, they have a responsibility to investigate the crime, or secure their safety by searching the car. If the search is not reasonable, the courts throw out the evidence.
It is not standard procedure to wait for backup just to give a traffic ticket. By the time the shooting took place, there were a large number of patrol cars from at least two jurisdictions.
Then who was in charge....Janet Reno? Sounds like a big time FUP
If you refuse to let them search your car,or to get out of your car,you're being uncooperative.If you allow them to search your car,(hear this well),NO COURT WILL THROW OUT THAT EVIDENCE
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
I am not quite sure what you mean. If you have a good person in charge, you will have no casualties in a firefight? Guess that makes Patton and MacArthur lousy commanders?
"If you can't do the time, don't do the crime"
What does that have to do with admissable evidence?
A trial is meant to bring out the truth. Like most conservatives I am very skeptical about the exclusionary rule, which has the effect of excluding the jury from knowing the truth. If you have not committed a crime, real evidence will not lead to your conviction. The best way to avoid conviction for a crime is not to commit a crime.
.And that holds for police officers,too.Don't violate anyone's rights and you won't have to "do the time".I too am skeptical of the exclusionary rule,and believe one way to solve that problem would be to hold officers that obtain evidence illegally be held to answer personally for it,either criminally,civilly,or both.
I agree with this totally, and would hope that this is already the case, if not frequently enforced. This would also mean that the 'Blue Wall of Silence' would be held to be a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice, and all relevant evidence, in all criminal cases, would be admissible.
TRANSLATION " We are going to Violate the 4th Amendment and dissassemble anyone's truck on this site"
"Apparently there was some misunderstanding about what we were doing. but I know he has business he has to protect," said Officer Langoria
NO, I think the manager knew all to well what was going to happen and had the smarts to stop it before it could get started.
They are not perfect and can be jerks, like everyone else. I worked around a lot of them while I was a deputy and for the most part they seemed to be regular guys who have a very tough, stressful, job.
But if they were jerks to me like those guys were to you I think I would certainly have a problem with it.
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.