or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 59

post #871 of 6095

Listen to the cops bullshit.

"A lawful order to roll down your window."

"I can smell alcohol coming from the car."

There was no booze. He just jacked around with them and we can see the results.
post #872 of 6095
What an asshole.

DUI checkpoints are undoubtedly legal. As to whether you can frustrate them by refusing to roll down your window, I tend to think you can't. I remember Harvey had a different opinion but I don't know that there's any authority one way or the other. Certainly resisting lawful and reasonable instructions is evidence that you're trying to conceal intoxication. As to the cop saying he smelled booze, for all we know he did. Or maybe he lied to get the guy out of the car since they had the right to do it at that point. Cops don't have to be honest with you to get you to submit, otherwise every hostage-taker would be suing to get his helicopter ride to Cuba.
post #873 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What an asshole.

DUI checkpoints are undoubtedly legal. As to whether you can frustrate them by refusing to roll down your window, I tend to think you can't. I remember Harvey had a different opinion but I don't know that there's any authority one way or the other. Certainly resisting lawful and reasonable instructions is evidence that you're trying to conceal intoxication. As to the cop saying he smelled booze, for all we know he did. Or maybe he lied to get the guy out of the car since they had the right to do it at that point. Cops don't have to be honest with you to get you to submit, otherwise every hostage-taker would be suing to get his helicopter ride to Cuba.

Here's the problem in talking to many lawyers: what's legal and what's good for a free society are often different things. I was not attempting to postulate DUI checkpoints are illegal. As you said, they obviously are. However, to my layman's knowledge, I do not have to answer a cop if I've been drinking (5th Amendment) and by asking me step out of the car for a field sobriety test they have already decided I'm impaired. I also do not have to take a field sobriety test. Now, I do have to take a chemical test.

Now, by invoking my 5th right what do we think is going to happen? It does not matter if I have not had a drink for months I'm going to get arrested. Is all this legal? Yes. Is this the way I want the society I live in ordered? No.
post #874 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

What an asshole.

DUI checkpoints are undoubtedly legal. As to whether you can frustrate them by refusing to roll down your window, I tend to think you can't. I remember Harvey had a different opinion but I don't know that there's any authority one way or the other. Certainly resisting lawful and reasonable instructions is evidence that you're trying to conceal intoxication. As to the cop saying he smelled booze, for all we know he did. Or maybe he lied to get the guy out of the car since they had the right to do it at that point. Cops don't have to be honest with you to get you to submit, otherwise every hostage-taker would be suing to get his helicopter ride to Cuba.

So why do many States not allow them?
post #875 of 6095
Is this guy an asshole too?
post #876 of 6095
I can't sit around watching videos all day.

You have a right not to incriminate yourself by answering questions that would incriminate you. You don't have a right not to answer based on the fact that the way you deliver your answer might incriminate you. Does that make sense?
post #877 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I can't sit around watching videos all day.

You have a right not to incriminate yourself by answering questions that would incriminate you. You don't have a right not to answer based on the fact that the way you deliver your answer might incriminate you. Does that make sense?

My point is that by invoking my right it should not be an automatic trip to jail. It quite clearly is the vast majority of times in a DUI checkpoint regardless of having consumed any alcohol or enough to be over the legal limit. That really makes my right quite useless and somehow when those old dead white guys came up with it I don't think that's what they had in mind.
post #878 of 6095
As far as I know you've got a right to make a bunch of silk marijuana plants and set them up in your backyard. If that's your thing and you wish to be able to do it without being inconvenienced by police attention, well, sucks to be you I guess. What do you want me to say?
post #879 of 6095
You guys are both arguing right by each other. lurker[1].gif

Turk is right that as a civilian I can't know, at the time, whether or not the police had probably cause to arrest/search/detain me. However, after the fact, the answer can become clear. By adding harsher penalties and punishing police who violate citizens rights, we can eliminate a lot of this behavior because police will fear repercussions just as citizens do.

So if it turns out this guy wasn't doing anything illegal at the time he is searched and arrested, the officer should get an unpaid suspension or something similar.
post #880 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You guys are both arguing right by each other. lurker[1].gif

Turk is right that as a civilian I can't know, at the time, whether or not the police had probably cause to arrest/search/detain me. However, after the fact, the answer can become clear. By adding harsher penalties and punishing police who violate citizens rights, we can eliminate a lot of this behavior because police will fear repercussions just as citizens do.

So if it turns out this guy wasn't doing anything illegal at the time he is searched and arrested, the officer should get an unpaid suspension or something similar.

The problem with this is that it creates a hesitance that makes it very difficult for an officer to do their job effectively. LEO brutality, etc. is a problem that exists deep in institutional bones. It's a cultural thing, a recruitment selection thing, a psych maintenance thing, etc. It can't be solved by playing with penalties or laws or code of conduct on their own.
post #881 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

You guys are both arguing right by each other. lurker[1].gif

Turk is right that as a civilian I can't know, at the time, whether or not the police had probably cause to arrest/search/detain me. However, after the fact, the answer can become clear. By adding harsher penalties and punishing police who violate citizens rights, we can eliminate a lot of this behavior because police will fear repercussions just as citizens do.

So if it turns out this guy wasn't doing anything illegal at the time he is searched and arrested, the officer should get an unpaid suspension or something similar.

Not submitting to governmental authority creates probable cause. You may get off, but you'll also have an arrest record. Once your in the computer system, you're screwed.

The cell phone seems to work in a number of cases. Is there some form of live feed into the cloud, so you'll preserve what happened when your phone is accidentally crushed?
post #882 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Not submitting to governmental authority creates probable cause.

And that's the problem right there.
post #883 of 6095
While the principle of DUI (or "safety checkpoints") are legal, the vast majority of them are conducted illegally. Certainly every one I've ever been subject to. Ata seems to be of the opinion that cops should be given the benefit of the doubt in these kinds of situations. But that's not what our system of justice is set up for. Even with reasonable suspicion to pat a person down the prosecution has to prove that. A civilian doesn't have to prove he wasn't reasonably suspicious.
post #884 of 6095
Cops are trained to find a reason to pull you over, irregardless of actual criminal action. I don't know how it is in all states but in PA we have registration stickers you get once a year for your car. It used to be you could place them in any corner of your license plate. Then about ten years ago a law squeezed through that the sticker must be placed in the upper left corner only. Did PennDot inform everyone of this? No, of course not. A new reason for cops to pull you over.

Go check your license plate lights. They're probably dead. Another reason to pull you over.

A cop once said to me in court "I can pull anyone over for any non-market alteration to the vehicle." Like that aftermarket stereo system? Pulled over. Like those wiper blades you got for cheap at Wal-Mart? Pulled over.

Of course, minorities and out-of-staters are the most likely to get pulled over. I had a client from NY pulled over for driving in the left lane and $16k seized from him because he had a single key in the ignition. Was he a drug dealer? Of course, they just got him going the wrong way. Never charged with a crime, tried to take the $16k anyway. I won on appeal but after client spent probably $15k.

You give assholes authority to mess with you and big surprise, they will.
post #885 of 6095
One time I got pulled over for speeding. I didn't have my license on me. I got off with a verbal warning. That was a good day.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?