Question for cops, lawyers, Aggiedave

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

You Vill Sho us your PAPERS... JAH?

The entire point of that line is to imply that officers can stop and roust anyone on the streeet with no justification. We are talking about someone who is annoyed that he was stopped when we have established there was reasonable suspicion*.

* - people really need to learn the difference between voluntary contact, reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and certainty beyond a reasonable doubt. You look silly when you complain about meeting a legal standard and you're not even using the correct standard.

Quote

BULLSHIT... I think we need a website... of video's of COPS breaking every fucking traffic law on a daily basis... They are special.. they get to be some of the worst drivers on the damn road.. DAILY... and doing it.. because they can.

Face it.. abuse of police powers in our police state is rampant. Too many of them are adrenaline junkies that get off on the power of the fights they in many cases.. as seen on youtube... instigate.. because they can. a BULLY is a BULLY is a BULLY.

They need to be reigned in.. the supposedly 90% of good cops... BULLSHIT.. I think its more like 50% that need to be fucking locked up for crimes against the peoople they were hired to SERVE and PROTECT.

There are plenty of those websites, and most are a joke. Most of those videos are editted or only parts are shown to make officers look bad, when the entire video actually shows the officer was justified.

Face it... you are so biased against LEOs that you will automatically assume guilt by officers and innocence of suspects.

If you really believe %50 of officers should be seving prison terms, you are beyond logical argument, and I'm only answering so that people who aren't sure see a rational response to an irrational statement.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[lawrocket 3]

Cops commonly break the rules. There are guys out there so dirty the air they breathe should be arrested. But they don't have anything that will stand up.

Abuses of Constitutional rights happen all the time. Sometimes we see a highly public example, such as the Duke lacrosse matter. That was more of a DA issue, but DA's are actually higher up my shit list than cops are.

The problem is that the public WANTS cops to act like that. Take a look at Amazon - she lambastes cops for their deliberate indifference to the Constitution here but zealously advocates for cops to violate the Constitutional rights of those she thinks are not mentally up to her standards (i.e., someone she disagrees with).

How many here advocate that there are people who should not have rights? Those that they perceive as threats to public safety? Send in the cops. The mentally ill? Get the cops to take them away, take their guns, and ensure that they can never possibly harm anyone else.

So many of the same people who advocate for harsh treatment of others object to harsh treatment. It boggles the mind.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Niki1 1]

Quote

He said he thought it was me but ran the plates anyway. He said he does that for EVERY car he meets that he can catch the plate #. Also says he catches a lot of suspended drivers, warrants, etc... that way.

The question is: Is that probable cause for pulling a car over?

My question would be how is he "running the plates"? If he's using the radio it seems like an awful lot of dispatcher time being taken up. If he's useing an on board computer in his car it seems like that would be worse than texting while driving. Very distracting from operating the motor vehicle.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[Elite_Marksman 0]

Some departments, especially the larger ones, have computer systems in the car that recognize license plates and run them without officer intervention.

In the ones that don't, except for the smallest of departments, they can enter the plate into their MDS and it will come back with any information the state DMV has on the vehicle and registered owner.

[Niki1 1]

Quote

Some departments, especially the larger ones, have computer systems in the car that recognize license plates and run them without officer intervention.

In the ones that don't, except for the smallest of departments, they can enter the plate into their MDS and it will come back with any information the state DMV has on the vehicle and registered owner.

That automatic recognition thing sounds good. I probably don't have a problem with that. I don't know if I'm really comfortable with it but it's better than the officer having his attention inside his patrol car.
But when the officer has to start entering stuff into the computer and reading the data that comes up, well, that's the defenition of distracted driving.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[AndyBoyd 0]

Of course I want police officers to investigate possible violations of the law. There is a difference between investigating a crime and seizing an individual. And that's what a vehicle stop is -- it's a seizure of a person. And I think, to explain this for the 4th time at least, that in the specific situation that the OP outlined, it isn't right to give the police the power to seize individuals without more of an indication that a crime has been committed. And also for the 4th time, I concede that the law says there is probable cause in that case. I just disagree. To take my position and twist it into the idea that I don't want cops to investigate crimes is completely unfair and intellctually dishonest on your part. I've read your posts, and frankly, you are smarter than that. That was a thoughtless post. You can do better.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Do you have any problem with the police checking license plates to see if the vehicle has been reported stolen, or has been reported to have been used in a crime, or if the registered owner has outstanding warrants etc?

It seems to me you are saying that even if a vehicle, or the registered owner of the vehicle is associated with a crime, the police do not actually know that the person driving the vehicle is the registered owner and so they should not be able to make a stop. What do you propose that the police should do to verify the identity of the driver without stopping the car and directly checking? Or do you mean that the police should not be able to make a stop, even if the registered owner is wanted for a serious crime? Do you believe that as long as the police do not observe some sort of a traffic violation, they should let the vehicle proceed without them making any attempt to ID the driver, even if the registered owner is wanted for murder?

Driving on a suspended license is a crime. People generally have to do something serious enough to convince the judicial system that they are a dangerous driver before their license is suspended. To judge from the number of deadly accidents reported on the Atlanta news where the accident was caused by someone who was driving with a suspended license, it is clear that many people who have their license suspended continue to drive. It seems to me that the circumstances described in the OP are most likely to be associated with the commission of a crime; although innocent explanations for the circumstances are possible, they are much less likely than the simple explanation that the owner is driving on a suspended license. So it seems to me that you are indeed saying the police should not be able to investigate when they reasonably suspect a crime is being committed.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

Because a cop has power and I'd prefer he not exercise it. Piss off a cop and a Constitutional violation may ensue. Who knows, a few months and a few grand later and it might all be settled.

Naw. I'd rather just suck it up and let the cop see I haven't done anything. IT's why they let me go. I don't bitch or complain.

So...you do "SHEW ME YUR PAPIERS, HERR DRIVER, AND STFU OR I'LL FUCK YOU WITH HAVING A BAD DAY."

Yep...that's why we all just love cops to hell and back. Such great guys.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Because a cop has power and I'd prefer he not exercise it. Piss off a cop and a Constitutional violation may ensue. Who knows, a few months and a few grand later and it might all be settled.

Naw. I'd rather just suck it up and let the cop see I haven't done anything. IT's why they let me go. I don't bitch or complain.

So...you do "SHEW ME YUR PAPIERS, HERR DRIVER, AND STFU OR I'LL FUCK YOU WITH HAVING A BAD DAY."

Yep...that's why we all just love cops to hell and back. Such great guys.

Face it.. some are just better at sucking it up and kissing that whole Land of the Free thing .........buh bye

YOU WILL COMPLY

[iowa 0]

He was using an onboard computer. That seems a lot like texting while driving to me. He said he does it all the time.

Thanks for all the replies. I didn't think this would be such a lively discussion.

Next question. How much info do they get by running plates? Do they see that I had a DUI 12 years ago? Does that make them want to follow me?

Keith

''Always do sober what you said you would do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.'' - Ernest Hemingway

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Next question. How much info do they get by running plates?

They get info on the car. It varies by state, but generally includes year make model, registration date, inspection, sometimes color. It also includes registered owner name and indentifying number.

Quote

Do they see that I had a DUI 12 years ago?

Not likely, but if they take the name or ID and run it through their driver check, they may get history. They can also run the name through a local database for arrest records and such.

Quote

Does that make them want to follow me?

Unless its 2am or you're driving poorly, I doubt it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AggieDave 6]

Elwood: I bet these cops got SCMODS.
Jake: SCMODS?
Elwood: State County Municipal Offender Data System.


People always think that there is this wonderful database that has all of this wonderful information in it, just pushing the information to officers. There isn't. There are individual databases that can be accessed, but it takes time and there has to be a reason.

An officer can run a license plate on his MDC. It will return differently in different states, but for instance in Texas it returns the registration information about the car, the registered owner's name and the address it is registered to. It also returns current insurance information on the vehicle. Also it shows any TCIC/NCIC hits for the vehicle (like if it is stolen).

The officer could then run the name of the registered owner to get a license return. Could you imagine how many John Smiths that would return? The officer would need a couple of minutes going through the list of names, with the birthdates and license numbers listed to see if the John Smith that owns the car has the same address listed on his license.

That DL return would give a return on the license status and any information the state deems important for the license. For instance, I wouldn't know that you got a warning for speeding in BFE west-Texas 2 years ago. I could see that you were cited for an accident last year, though.

If there is a reason, then the officer could run that name and birthday through TCIC/NCIC to see if there are any outstanding warrants for John Smith's arrest.

If the officer was investigating a crime, he could run a request for a criminal history and get the initial return showing arrests. If there is specific information needed for a criminal investigation found from that WRAP, then the officer could request a complete criminal history be run. Those CCH queries can't be run at random, there has to be reason or the officer and their department will get in trouble (and lose access).

Anyone keeping track of how many different requests and databases are being accessed yet?

Now lets say that we don't have John Smith, we only have his fingerprint. Well, if it is of a good enough quality we could run an AFIS query. That could take all night to return, if and only if John Smith has his fingerprints in the database in the first place. If not, then no return. If it returns then I have to do all the other queries in reverse order that was listed to get all that information.

Lets break down all of this in regards to PC for a traffic stop. In Texas, lets say I do the TLETs query on the license plate of a car, then run the registered owner's name to see if the license is in good standing. Lets say it isn't. That doesn't give me PC to stop that vehicle. If I recognize the driver and know that their license is not in good standing or they have warrants, then sure. Unless that specific vehicle was described by a witness or victim in a crime that happened recent enough that I could articulate that the suspect could still be in the vehicle; I'm going to need some other PC to stop the vehicle.

With that in mind, I'm an expert in the Texas Transportation Code (traffic law). PC for a stop is not hard to come by since literally 95% of the drivers out there are NOT good drivers, nor do they attempt to be. They also put illegal equipment on their vehicles.

How is someone supposed to know all of those laws? Well, they're published by the state and available for free on the internet. You can get them at your local library as well (and other sources). When I was 19 or 20 I sat down and read the Texas Penal Code, Texas Code of Criminal Procedure and the Texas Transportation Code because I realized that I did not know what the laws were. If I read it when I was a punk-college-kid, then I really have no sympathy for anyone else who refuses to research and read the same.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[Kennedy 0]

+1. What he said.

Now, do you want to explain that an officer doesn't even need PC to make a stop, that he can do it based on Reasonable Suspicion, or should we let them flounder? (I'm sure not going to bother)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[AndyBoyd 0]

Go back and reread my posts. I'm not going to repeat myself for the 5th time.

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

+1. What he said.

Now, do you want to explain that an officer doesn't even need PC to make a stop, that he can do it based on Reasonable Suspicion, or should we let them flounder? (I'm sure not going to bother)

Nope, I'll let folks make more wild accusations about laws and how police actually operate. Especially since those in this thread making those wild accusations are also those who typically refuse to discuss and learn. They just start making derogatory statements towards other posters or the groups of persons being discussed.

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

So... Oklahoma Troopers enforced a Gun Law on the books, and the Sheeple afterwards did not clamor for more nonsensical gun laws.

It's Nice when the system works.

[AndyBoyd 0]

I understand that there are differences of opinion on this website. Surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkjJTAHOxXE

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

I understand that there are differences of opinion on this website. Surprise.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkjJTAHOxXE

Haven't been in skydiving for over a decade and been on this website the same, I have gotten to know some of the "players" in this thread and that's what I was commenting towards.

Illinois Nazis. I hate Illinois Nazis...

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[iowa 0]

Thanks Dave. That explains a lot and makes me a little more comfortable that ''Big Brother'' isn't here yet.

But.... I think he's coming.

Keith

''Always do sober what you said you would do drunk. That will teach you to keep your mouth shut.'' - Ernest Hemingway

[AggieDave 6]

Quote

Thanks Dave. That explains a lot and makes me a little more comfortable that ''Big Brother'' isn't here yet.

But.... I think he's coming.

He's always coming and he's been getting stronger every day.

The only way to stop it is with your vote, with your letters, with your phone calls and your relentless dedication to your elected officials.

Police officers only enforce what are on the books. Judges determine what that means. Elected officials are the ones who write what are in those books to begin with!

--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

So... Oklahoma Troopers enforced a Gun Law on the books, and the Sheeple afterwards did not clamor for more nonsensical gun laws.

It's Nice when the system works.

Clamor? Maybe, maybe not. They got a more nonsensical law anyway. McVeigh would not be arrested today under the same circumstances.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

So... Oklahoma Troopers enforced a Gun Law on the books, and the Sheeple afterwards did not clamor for more nonsensical gun laws.

It's Nice when the system works.

Clamor? Maybe, maybe not. They got a more nonsensical law anyway. McVeigh would not be arrested today under the same circumstances.

Uh, yeah... Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back, as well as the right of self-defense, which pre-dates even the Constitution.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

So... Oklahoma Troopers enforced a Gun Law on the books, and the Sheeple afterwards did not clamor for more nonsensical gun laws.

It's Nice when the system works.

Clamor? Maybe, maybe not. They got a more nonsensical law anyway. McVeigh would not be arrested today under the same circumstances.

Uh, yeah... Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back, as well as the right of self-defense, which pre-dates even the Constitution.

They hadn't lost any 2nd Amendment rights, and McVeigh wasn't an Oklahoman. I thought you claimed to be a lawyer.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[DesertAttorney 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Many "real criminals" have been stopped on traffic offenses.

That's how they caught Timothy McVeigh--he had no license plate on his car.

And they took him into custody because he had a gun, not because of a traffic offense.

Which is immaterial if he hadn't been stopped in the first place.

And he wouldn't have been arrested if he hadn't had a gun.

And?

Who knows, maybe he would have continued to evade arrest and kill again.

What we DO know is that he was taken into custody and held on account of his gun, not on account of his plates.

So... Oklahoma Troopers enforced a Gun Law on the books, and the Sheeple afterwards did not clamor for more nonsensical gun laws.

It's Nice when the system works.

Clamor? Maybe, maybe not. They got a more nonsensical law anyway. McVeigh would not be arrested today under the same circumstances.

Uh, yeah... Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back, as well as the right of self-defense, which pre-dates even the Constitution.

They hadn't lost any 2nd Amendment rights, and McVeigh wasn't an Oklahoman. I thought you claimed to be a lawyer.

Nice personal attack.

It seemed you were referring to Oklahoma not allowing Concealed Wepons when McVeigh was arrested as being a good thing. At the time, Oklahoma did not allow CCW. That was an unconstitutionality later lifted by the OK Legislature... The arrest of McVeigh does not excuse or justify the rights denied millions for so long...

But of course, "Doctor," (and who really calls anyone other than a M.D. 'Doctor', what egos in academia) a Physics degree makes one an expert in law, civics, government, economics, underwater basket weaving, animal husbandry, and everything else...

So we should bow down to your arrogant tones and inapplicable "expertise" (i've researched your other pontifications on dz.com) and create a mini UK in the US, no guns, high taxes, and looney lefties running the show... Wait, we have that, it's called Illinois.