posted on November 28, 2000 11:36:45 PM
Yep! I went to the corner store to get a Pepsi...on the way home the lights go on behind me!AAARRRGGGHHHH....
Quickly I say a little prayer...'help me get out of this Lord!'....
The cop comes to my window and I had him my DL and insurance...sniff sniff....He says he clocked me going 43 in a 25 zone!
Our eyes meet...and I simply shake my head 'yes'...he looks shocked! I tell him that since I wasn't paying attention, I'll have to take his word for how fast I was going!
This cop and MYSELF are stunned! Yikes...I just volunteered for a ticket. And to top it off I had a stuffy head cold...sigh..
He goes back to his car and checks me out. I figure the ticket will cost me at least $50..and how am I gonna tell my hubby...sigh..Merry Christmas..bah humbug.
The cop comes back and only give me a WARNING!!!!!!!!yes!
Now I'm back home...with my cold and soda...scheduling auctions...noticing pretty much EVERYTHING is selling...lots of NEWBIES...and nice thoughts about a cop
I think a cop DOES need probable cause to search your trunk. Im not an attorney, but mine tells me that if stopped for a 'traffic' offense, then I do not have to give permission for a trunk search. I do have to cooperate vis-a vis the traffic stop but when that matter is concluded, the key phrase to use is " Am I free to go ?" including in response to "you don't mind if I look in your trunk, do you?". There was a case decided yesterday in the Supreme Court that may be relevant to this.
posted on November 29, 2000 09:41:41 PM
Laws regarding searches of vehicles are always changing. They also vary somewhat from state to state. In the absence of exigent circumstances, it is always considered preferable to obtain a warrant prior to a search. The uncanny ability of most law enforcement types to create new and unique exigencies results in the constant change noted above.
There are certain types of searches,e.g. visual inspection and "area of control" searches that have withstood many challenges and continue to be upheld.
"Reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" are the keywords in search justification and subject to many interpretations.
Chances are that if a cop wants to search your vehicle, it will be searched. The explanation/justfication will be after the fact. Illegal searches can be challenged, of course, if you have the time and money to take the case to your state Supreme Court or higher.
Knowing the law is a good thing, common sense is a necessity. If there is something in your car that you don't want to be found, remove it from the car.
If your car is towed or involved in a serious accident, the contents may be legally inventoried "for your protection". Anything discovered in the nature of contraband will be considered to be in your possession.
As IMLDS2 found out, honesty is often the most effective way to deal with a traffic stop. Regardless of your conviction of innocence, the cop is equally certain you've committed an infraction. An argument will almost always result in a citation. An admission of guilt followed by a mitigating circumstance is most effective.
posted on November 29, 2000 10:03:20 PM
Sure Hardoutfit, every jurisdiction with a road larger than one lane and a servicable Caprice has tried, or is going to try, some version of it. The police can be predictable.
posted on November 30, 2000 07:40:53 PMThe first thing a cop does when he thinks he has some dope is rub a little on his gum to see if it makes it numb.
You're watching too many movies, mac.
posted on November 30, 2000 09:45:37 PM
Yeah, mac. that tasting/sniffing stuff is a dated notion. Nowadays they'd declare your car a hazmat site, evacuate everyone within a half-mile radius, send in the spacesuit guys, and decon your car to pieces....and then send you a bill for the service.
I do agree with you regarding the prohibition analogy. I believe drug law enforcement is ultimately ineffective. Some sort of Darwinian solution does have its appeal but I doubt it would gain much support. The drug war is big business, extremely well entrenched, and politically suicidal to oppose.
posted on December 1, 2000 07:52:21 AM
Any person who endorses decriminalization (legalizing) of addictive controlled substances 1) knows very little about the subject, 2) is guided by liberal attitudes and emotions, or 3) decriminalization would serve personal purposes.
Addiction is a common consequence of narcotic use and always has an insidious impact upon the addict's family and society as a whole. I have seen families torn apart and suffer emotionally for years as the addicted member of the family lived on. Families having an addict do not enjoy life, they live from hour to hour awaiting the next emotional crisis caused by the addict they love.
Although there is grief and lasting guilt, when the addicted family member shows no signs of ever being able to stop, long-term incarceration or death of the addicted member is the best thing that can happen to restore and preserve some worth of life to the rest of the family.
"There are over 50 million nicotine addicts, 18 million alcoholics or problem drinkers, and fewer than 2 million cocaine addicts in the United States. Cocaine is a much more addictive drug than alcohol. If cocaine were legally available, as alcohol and nicotine are now, the number of cocaine abusers would probably rise to a point somewhere between the number of users of the other two agents, perhaps 20 to 25 million...the number of compulsive users might be nine times higher...than the current number. When drugs have been widely available--as... cocaine was at the turn of the century--both use and addiction have risen."
Ask someone from England how England's attitudes towards heroin turned into a national debacle and created more addicts each year.
posted on December 1, 2000 08:48:53 AMSheriff's controversial policy goes into action
Drug dog inspections of public parking lots have begun in Canyon County. Sheriff George Nourse launched his controversial drug dog program about two weeks ago in a low-key manner, he said. The trained dogs sniffed around cars in three small parking lots, and results have been good, he said... So far the department is targeting users rather than dealers with the dogs...
Executive Director Jack Van Valkenburgh of the American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho attacked the proposal on grounds it violated people's civil rights... The sheriff is breaking new ground by directing dogs to search cars that officers have no reason to believe contain drugs, he said... Nourse contends that the dogs do not search cars instead, they sniff around the outside of the vehicle and indicate if they detect drugs. Officers then wait for the vehicle to leave the parking lot and pull the vehicle over...
Thank you for the Official Police Party Line. The only problem is I saw noone suggest decriminalization of drugs in this thread.
After the first post the topic turned to vehicular searches, especially as an adjunct to "traffic" stops (no matter how specious the stop may have been, if you actually READ the pipeline report) and THAT lead to a discussion of drugs.
I don't use or advocate the use of illegal drugs, but I do object to a racist abuse of The Peoples' 4th Amendment rights so law enforcement can roll up a bigger "Score" in the "War" on drugs, a war that Law Enforcement obviously hasn't got a clue on how to win but supports wholeheartedly it being the basis of so much of their funding.
posted on December 1, 2000 10:47:56 AM
It is indicative that someone has involved themselves in matters they know very little about when he or she introduces comments that are nonsensical regarding the subject. In other words, if one does not have the knowledge to be able to intelligently discuss a topic but feel ignored, they usually play semantics with the words of another rather than introducing rationale.
As for my comments regarding "decriminalization" of narcotics being off topic, some should learn to read specifics rather than superficially.
Also, anyone who believes that cops rub unknown substances on their gums to determine what the substance may be cannot be considered to be a reliable source of knowledge.
donrob2
Being you do not condone the use or legalizing the use of drugs, and you apparently know a better way of suppressing the situation from becoming an epidemic, tell us.
posted on December 1, 2000 11:17:18 AMIt is indicative that someone has involved themselves in matters they know very little about when he or she introduces comments that are nonsensical regarding the subject.
I am very sure I could also make generalizations about drug use, and cut and paste some quoted bolded text alongside a "go ask someone" type of statement.
1.You infer that I have a reading comprehension problem. May I request that you point out to me where the topic of decriminalization came up in this thread prior to your post, SPECIFICALLY please, not superficially.
2. You state "Also, anyone who believes that cops rub unknown substances on their gums to determine what the substance may be cannot be considered to be a reliable source of knowledge." Is this only in reference to this particular piece of knowledge or is anyone who has EVER said ANYTHING incorrect deemed to be "Unreliable"? Does this hold true when the source of information admits that he/she may be mistaken? Is this a standard applicable to private citizens only or does it also hold true of Law Enforcement officers as well?
3.Sarge, You need to work on YOUR reading comprehension. You have changed "I don't use or advocate the use of illegal drugs " into
"you do not condone the use or legalizing the use of drugs" two items entirely different from what I said.
4.Re my comment on the ineffectiveness of the so called "War on Drugs". I was not aware that to point out that something isn't effective, one must have an effective alternative to suggest. I don't know what will cure skin cancer, but I know that wearing a garlic around your neck won't do it.
I'll take a crack at it though- how about detox/rehab? Thousands of people have straightened up their lives thru these programs, yet all across the country these programs have waiting lists a mile long, mostly for lack of funds. Most smaller towns dont HAVE a program, even though drugs are there as much as in the big cities. Meanwhile, every police department from New York to East Armpit has Federal funds to put together some sort of "FIELD INTERDICTION" program that will net 2 Mexican field workers with a bag of pot and a pimply faced teenager with a Qualuude probably violating their civil rights in the process, and all for the LOW LOW Price of Two Hundfred Million Zillion Trillion dollars!! Of course, it's Federal Money so it doesn't really COST anything, does it?
Take all of the Federal Prisoners currently jailed for POSSESSION of drugs, cut them loose,and spread those funds around to rehab clinics around the country and watch demand drop. Rehab isnt always successful, but how successful has what we're doing now been?
The reality is the Government has NEVER successfully stopped the flow of ANYTHING that people wanted, not drugs, not booze, not prostitution, pornography or Cuban cigars. All they have done is driven up the price, making it MORE profitable for those willing to risk the consequences.
The Mafia as we know it today didn't exist at the turn of the century. The huge organization it has become was bankrolled by the money they made bootlegging during prohibition. Who are we bankrolling today?
posted on December 1, 2000 02:52:49 PMAddiction is a common consequence of narcotic use and always has an insidious impact upon the addict's family and society as a whole.
And yet, with the right set of circumstances, you can still wind up as the President of the United States.
posted on December 1, 2000 09:36:00 PM
Sarge...
Since you brought it up (yes you did)...let's apply the prohibition laws to Alcohol and Nicotine, as you mentioned...
Has making these items "illegal", or "prohibited" stemmed their use?...NO.
Ther are still as many Nicotine, and Alcohol, and let's throw CAFFEINE addicts out there as always...a certain % of the population has an "addictive" personality, and NO laws are gonna make this stop...the "War on Drugs" is a joke...ALMOST as big a joke as "Just Say No"!
Keith
I assume full responsibility for my actions, except
the ones that are someone else's fault.
The War on Drugs is a failure. However, with the mindset being, "Gotta win at everything," nothing is going to change very soon.
I am an adult; I pay taxes, keep to myself, never operate a moving vehicle (or even a food processor for that matter) when impaired, and absofreakinlutely resent any other human, thinking they know better than I what I should drink, smoke, or inhale.
Laws that punish acts that result from impairment are fair and in the best interests of the community. Eg. drunk driving laws.
Laws that punish me for wanting to get high on something other than what the rocket scientists in Washington think I should are invasive and insulting.
I notice that in sgtmike's post there is no mention of marijuana addicts. How many are there? Do they commit violent crimes or do they merely break some chocolate consumption rule?
The simple math is that if you make something illegal, the price of it for those who use it goes up. An addict will then steal to get the money for the illegal substance. Isn't it more compassionate and more fiscally responsible to let addicts register and treat them at hospitals?
I've been an advocate of legalizing all drugs since 1972. Drug use has never interfered with my ability to finish college, hold a job, have a succesful marriage, etc. I will never support laws that legislate what I can do to my own body.
posted on December 2, 2000 05:22:20 PM
My husband was pulled over a couple of years ago for running a red light. Second time in two weeks. Just knew that he was going to get another ticket to the tune of about $40. When the officer asked him if knew he ran the red light and then why he ran the red light. He told I sure did run it and I ran it because I was busy running my mouth to my wife and not paying any attention. He went back to the car and came back and told us since you were honest with me and didn't try to convince me that it was yellow and not red I am going to go ahead and let you go. Needless, to say he got many a thank you officer, thank you from us.
posted on December 2, 2000 05:55:18 PM
I get pulled over on the average about once every 3 years. Have had 2 tickets in ten years, one of which was an expired tag, the other was speeding. (no ticket for the speeding, he said did you know you were going ten over? I said yes. he gave me a warning)
My ex husband is 1/2 Cherokee and 1/2 Korean. In Texas he looks Mexican, in OK he looks Indian, either way, in either state he got pulled over about twice every month, sometimes more depending on the neighborhood. He drove I35 alot and still does. whether in my car or in his truck or van it mattered not.
He is not a perfect driver by any means and has made mistakes, but for the most part the stops end with no tickets. The Police just wanted to check him out. We once lived in Southlake TX, its quite an upscale town, a home cannot be built on anything less that 1/4 acre. Well we owned a tiny little old house there (one of the oldest, smallest, and poorest type homes there. Until they recognized him he was pulled over every other night coming home from his job late at night. (Yet I was never pulled over in that town)
I felt so bad for him when we were married and tho there is no love lost between us now I still feel bad for him. He takes it in stride as a normal occurance and has become quite familiar with how to act when pulled over.
I tell him that since I wasn't paying attention, I'll have to take his word for how fast I was going!
