Has Highway Stop Procedure Changed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doc-
Yup, I was profiled after the stops.

Azone-
Nope. I don't think this thread has turned anti-cop or anti-America. I think it's stayed right on track as we try to balance the rights of LEO's to return home to their families at the end of the day and the rights of honest citizens to interact with LEO's without becoming an immediate suspect.

Unfortunately, we all break "policies" or laws from time to time...whether you choose to travel with enough cash to for an emergency emergency or you choose to be "tried by 12 rather than carried by 6" in the People's Republic of New Jersey. Or maybe you have a teenager who uses the car and may have left a "roach" in your ashtray.

Aren't these the issues the Congress is now wrangling with when it questions how far Law Enforcement should be allowed to go in "invading" a Citizen-President's privacy? Fact is, I don't stand to gain anything from a traffic stop...so, I'd like to see the rules of engagement limited as much as possible....after all, after the officers safety, aren't the Laws primarily designed to protect me?

In my case, as already stated, I offered both the officers the right to search the car. In retrospect, this was dumb as I was picking it up after 8 weeks from my lady in NC. I know her real well. But I don't know her friends very well. I have no idea what they may have dropped or hid in the car during a previous traffic stop.

Had the dogs been called, I would quite possibly have been out some considerable sum of money...since the dogs always "hit" on American currency...and I prefer not to depend on plastic when on the road.

These are difficult questions that have to be worked out before we see cameras on every street corner.
Regards,
Rich
 
Rich,

didn't you drive through Atlanta? Practically a camera on every corner there. And if I ever get pulled over there, I'll be sure to mention the time I had the misfortune of having to drive through "freak-nic" (The so called black daytona beach type spring break event). Only on TV reports have I seen a more blatant disregard for laws and civility.. and all that with state troopers and Atlanta PD at every exit of the interstate, just watching it all, by order of the mayor. I'm no prude, but it was medieval.

Anyway, our dog doesn't hit on cash (he barely hits at all). ;)

------------------
-Essayons
 
Rob-
Correct, the dogs don't hit on cash. But they *do* hit on cocaine. Go to your local bank; withdraw $2,000 of US Currency in large bills; Check to see if your dogs hit on the money.

When it's in government (FDIC) posession, we all know that US Currency is 99% "tainted". When you walk out of the bank, however, it's reasonable cause for confiscation and a protracted legal battle titled "US Govt v. $2,000.00 of US Govt Funds". They actually take the money to trial...you don't even have to show up. ;)
Rich
Rich
 
No, really. I've seen quite a few dogs fail that test. I wasn't just being sarcastic about our county dog.

I know what you mean though and it is pretty freakin' stupid.
Cash is today to the government what the barter economy of immagrant ghettos was to previous generations of state and city government. They see it as subversive to their monitoring of fiscal activity..ie- they might not be getting every penny they want in taxes.

------------------
-Essayons
 
Dont know if this is worth mentioning but here goes. About 1985 I was pulled over by the Police and informed that they had information that there was drugs in my car. There wasn't, but they did a half-hearted pi$$ant search.
In Brisbane Aus. you can NOT find out who makes such an allegation....so the Police can (make up) seach with NO probable cause if they don't like the way you or your car looks .
So after the "search" I immediately went to my closest friends house and pulled apart my car LOOKING for ANYTHING that may have been "planted" there.
Luckily there wasn't anything but I think you guys can think of what was going through my mind at the time ! ;)
So...how goes it in your neck o' the woods ?
If a LEO pulled YOU over, do you have the RIGHT to DEMAND PROOF of an allegation of being in possession of drugs etc. or are you in the same boat as I was?
 
This is my first post on TFL. I recognize some here from GlockTalk. I have had some bad experiences w/ cops in the past, mostly in the form of rudeness, and mostly from cops in Kansas City and surrounding areas. No, I am always respectful (and I wouldn't beg for my life, let alone traffic tickets), for I remember what officer friendly told us in school, which is that he could always find a reason to pull someone over and he could always find more violations.

I am a stong believer in individual liberties and don't wish to give them up for what Franklin called "temporary safety." So, I feel compelled to speak out on the profiling and confiscation issue. Many Arab/Muslim groups have spoken out against terrorist profiling as discriminatory, since it targets those from the Middle East, and I think some are suing right now to stop the practice, as well they should. To extrapolate this, Isn't it just as wrong to make a traffic stop for similar reasons. I know that the officer won't make the rationale for the stop that you fit a profile. I don't dispute that having prejudices is a good strategy in LE, since you often don't have that much time to think things through in a pressure situation and your gut can and will save your ass. But I think it goes too far.

I don't think the war on drugs is or ever will be won. Why? Its just too damn profitable. As long as it remains illegal and as long as there is demand for the product, then it will be scarce, and scarcity and demand affect price, which moves upward when demand is high and supply is low-- basic microecon. Legalization is the only way to go if you wish to curb smuggling, since the artificial restrictions placed on supply will be lifted and supply should then rise to meet demand (and price should go down since it was held artificially high; it doesn't take a lot of money to make drugs, especially in Columbia and other countries where they'd kill for a dollar). Is there a human cost to legalization? Yes and No. Yes, insofar as there will be addicts, but no if you wish to make a case for increases in the number of addicts. I say this because the price of drugs has been in a decline since the '70s (all according to govt. stats), so supply is starting to catch up with demand, despite increased crackdowns (and increases in the quantity seized) and these Gestapo tactics like asset forfeiture. The number of kids using has increased despite this glut, but I'd venture to say this is an anti-DARE, just say yes backlash and enhanced "coolness" from all the attention focused on stopping drug use (doing something that is wrong = cool). Hell, the prez toked (let's see if the number of BJs increases among teens, too).

To combine the drug and civil rights issues, I think that in our zeal to stop drugs, we are tightening the noose on everyone just to catch a few. The govt. wants to track your spending, so they monitor transactions in cash and impute pernicious motives to those carrying "large" amounts of cash. This ought not to be, but it is. LE agencies and govt. in general can deny you due process by actually treating your assets as defendant in forfeiture (civil) case, in which YOU must prove that you didn't get them by illicit means, never mind that there was no criminal charge made against you.

To forfend against these usurpations, I would recommend that you specifically keep records of your withdrawals, ATM transactions, etc. before making your trip. If you work from a cash business, I would still advise making a deposit, then withdrawing it to provide a paper trail. You can always "kite" the money from future receipts. These could, perhaps, get you your cash back w/o incident, and w/o the need for legal action, unless they're just crooks w/ a badge, intent on ripping you off, like seems to be the case in Louisiana (known for have officers slightly more honest than Mexico). This is a sad situation, when the crooks making off w/ your money are supposed to protect it.

For those of you in LE, I'm not that anti-LE, but some of the behavior I've witnessed or heard about, and these shady, shoddy tactics don't make me an over enthusiastic supporter. Whatever happened to higher standards for those who enforce the law? We all know that cops speed, then use the badge to get off the hook. I really think that the good cops out ther need to think about how they tolerate the a--holes, since everyone gets painted with the same brush when these guys do something that gets them on TV. I don't care for double standards for anything-- one high standard for everyone (welcome to the real world you say?). Well, I will say that I don't, fortunately, get to meet cops that often ;), and maybe its just the glorified meter maid traffic cops that have an attitude problem in this town. Still, we have a high enough crime rate that the city should take several dozen officers from traffic and place them on patrol, since twelve car laser speedtraps don't do anything for the homicide rate (at a time when the national avg is declining), but do help revenue. I guess that I'll say that I don't hold anything against "real" cops who need cuffs more than a ticketbook.

------------------
-B. Shipley

Sorry, no Latin affectations
 
THE CRIME RATE IS NOT DROPPING!
They are fudging the statistics.
The war on drugs is more profitable to law enforcement than you might imagine.
I am very much pro-law enforcement and anti abuse of power.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Ed,

its funny you mention that. We have no idea what the crime rate is. The FBI ucr says one thing. Interviews with convicts raise the numbers more, then victim surveys raise it even more. In short we have no idea what the true crime rates are, and there is no way to truely know.

Jason

sorry, for anyone who dosen't know UCR is the FBI's Uniform Crime Report.

[This message has been edited by Jason Kitta (edited 12-25-98).]
 
B. Shipley,

one word : AMEN! (welcome to this venue)

Ed Brunner: Ditto!

LEOs: Just think of the time you could spend on real crime, if we decriminalized dope. The profit would go out of the deal, the addict would not have to steal 10 to 100 times the value of his inflated price habit to fence to support it! Burglary would plummet, robbery too! The prison could discharge about 40% of their populations.

I find much merit in the assertion that the anti-marijuana laws were oringinally designed to give law enforcement another handle on minorities. Like the original intent of the Jim Crow gun laws.

Perhaps, after we resolve the President's situation, we might realize that we have gotten way too far into people's personal lives! (That is not about sex, itis about crimes called perjury and obstruction of justice, no matter what the Democrats allege).

I would like to have job where I could go back to my boss every year and ask for an expansion of my force, my equipement inventory, and my powers to search, arrest, sieze, wire-tap, "sting", surveil because "we are losing the battle". And every year get some increase. Man, had we followed that course in Viet Nam, we would have 5.8 million US dead by now.

We are hemorrhaging our constitutional rights in a sort of blood letting over the protection of society from its own propensity to abuse drugs.

Why? Look at the work of Edgar Allen Poe, did his drug use prevent his writing first class literature? Look at the number of artists and actors whose drug use has been well publicized. Surely, I can not be the only one who questions the deletorious effects alleged to these drugs when I see these people turn saleable product while using drugs.

Would the health care industry drown in sea of broken people due to a legalization? I think that SOME would certainly fall victim to excess. But the savings in LE, and incarceration would most likely more than pay the costs. The savings in insurance losses from auto theft, burglary, robbery, and arson to cover these crimes would be immense.

We created organized crimes franchise to liqour with the Volstead Act. It was a noble and failed experiment. We fell for more liberal drivel in the drug laws, and the experiment has failed miserably. Why can we not break out of this failing course?

I think that one reason is that it is a distractor, a useful diversion, that allows those who are by nature controlling, joyless, unhappy people to legislate against anything that they do not like. They can, in the name of drug control violate numerous rights.

And we, the sheeple, view this "protection" to be a good!

I have about 30 months to retirement from the military, having more than 27 years service now. I am disheartened that the consititution I swore 7 times to protect has been subverted by our worst enemy, ourselves.







------------------
Ni ellegimit carborundum esse!

Yours In Marksmanship

michael
 
All, The CATO Institute did an excellent paper on the drug war several years ago. I imagine it is still available. I do not know how to win the drug war without a total loss of freedom, and total isolation of our country. The cost of this war approachs or exceeds 50 billion a year.
It is the reason for whole legions of swat teams, entry teams, special weapons training, undercover operations. etc,etc exist.
It is the reason we are seeing daily a militarization of our police, and more and more federal police. I see no end. George
 
Legalize all drugs? Well, jeez, it does have some superficial attractions, some of which are mentioned above. It is a lot more complex than that, however. When Switzerland legalized all drug use a decade or so ago, and the kids were shooting up in 'needle park', it was thought to be a success. Then they discovered they had the highest AIDS rate in Europe. They have abandoned the all drugs are legal stance now.

Some drugs, like marijuana, why not? Public sentiment is swinging that way anyway. We've come a long way since 'Reefer Madness.'

Cocaine, well, I like the UK method; if you are a confirmed, irredemable addict, the pharmacist prepares cigarettes with cocaine injected into them, and dispenses them, with a physician's Rx. Sell cocaine over the counter, NOT!! Likewise morphine, heroin, barbiturates. I saw all too many people screwed up on these substances as an ER MD, and making them more easily available would exacerbate this condition. Not just among the addicts, but the people they run their vehicles into as well.

There is also a subconscious viewpoint that certain occupations have to be drug free. Do you want a stoned Air Traffic Controller? Or LEO? A priest? Your surgeon? If drugs are legal, the attempt to keep certain 'sensitive' occupations drug free would be more difficult.

About Rich's initial post; driving a sports car, leased to a FL corp? Three day growth of beard? Harley jacket? What were you doing, Rich, trolling for trouble?

I suspect that there may well be a change in the protocol for dealing with people fitting the profile you did. As I understand it, NC and FL LEA's are ordering a number of colonoscopes. That will give the words 'cavity search' a new meaning!! <g> WW
 
I have been lurking on the Firing Line for a while now, and finally feel the need to speak out on all the "I'm not against LEO's BUT..." postings I have seen lately.

Okay, here goes, I AM A COP! I refuse to be ashamed to say that. Here is another news flash folks: I do not have to kiss your a$$ simply because I have a need to speak with you for some reason. I need to be civil and I need to be businesslike. I try to be polite and courteous whenever I can.

But there are some situations that no matter what I do I am going to make someone mad. And these people are then going to go out and tell all their friends what a loser I am. Do I have the ability to tell "the rest of the story" to defend my reputation? No. And so the story goes.

There are two sides to every story folks, and those with a grudge can and do bend the truth on a regular basis.

As far as violating peoples rights go, I will not stand for it. If one of my officers gets out of line, we deal with it. Immediately.

The network news shows regularly highlight mistakes made by cops who had only a second or two to act, and generally these are the "big city" departments. This tends to make people believe that cops everywhere are out of control. This is far from the truth.

There are a few bad apples out there, as there are in any profession, and LE in general has been working hard to weed them out. We also have improved our hiring standards to keep them from getting in. How many others have to go through testing, multiple interviews, psychological screening, background investigations, etc, just to get a job?

Thanks for the opportunity to rant. I feel better now.

Okay, now on to the question of drugs. I would like to make an example out of alcohol. Alcohol is a perfectly legal and safe drug when used in moderation, yet I have still pulled too many dead bodies out of mangled cars. I have been to too many homes where the families have been beaten and abused, by both drunk men and drunk women. And the examples go on.

Marijuana and cocaine? Do you want to be crossing an intersection the same time as a person under the influence of drugs? Do you want your children to be?

Remember that it is against the law to drive drunk yet how many people have done that because, "I don't have to go that far, I'll be fine?" Most people have, at one time or another, tempted fate that way. You can bet that this will also happen with drugs.

As far as reducing the crime rate, I don't buy it. Today's alcoholics can't hold jobs, so they go on welfare and steal to support their lifestyle. Now we would be dealing with things much more addictive, and you don't believe that the problem will be worse?

One more example. Millions of kids drink. It is against the law, they are not old enough or matue enough to handle it, yet they do it anyway. When parents can go out and get some cheap acid, their kids will get into it. It is inevitable. More death, more destruction, more people praying on society either through crime, or welfare, etc.

Don't buy into the liberal agenda here folks, think it through as logically and carefully as you would when making your argument in support of the RKBA.

Get out to the range and exercise your rights!

Patrick

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-27-98).]
 
I agree with the last part of Patrick's post. Wholeheartedly. I've been debateing entering into this fray for a few days. I even typed it out once and didn't post it. I really enjoying discussing guns and tactics. Political discussion get rather tedious for me. But, here goes:

Am I a hypocrite if I think that Drugs should be illegal? That the government (and our parents, friends, kids, employers, employees..etc) should tell us not to use them? I think people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want, if it doesn't hurt someone else or deprive them of their property. I think there should be fewer laws and less government. but I don't think that "drugs" should be legal. at all. No-lee-way-here-I've-made-up-my-mind.
okay? The detrimental effects to our sciety of putting some kind of approval on the introduction of what are now illegal drugs to the body would be the last straw that would break the back of our moral camel.

HS- We can't "make-up" allegations. We may not have to answer to the suspect in question, but we would have to answer to a lot of other people, from Sergeants to the District Attorney if we didn't have documented facts. If an LEO pulls someone over or goes to someone's residence or place of business he needs to call the dispatcher and tells them what is up. That transmission is recorded and the dispatcher amkes a note in the computer, their is a paper and/or electronic trail for everything an officer does.

Everyone-
To answer the question in the topic:
The procedure has certainly changed in one town (I missed where exactly).. CNN ran a story this afternoon on a town where the officers are pulling people over for driving properly and giving them coupons to local restaraunts. The cynical part of me thinks something is up with that. Can an LEO in that jurisdiction now pull someone over without waiting for the dim headlight or broken tail light, then hand them a coupon while looking for beer cans hastily stuffed bewtween the seats? hmmmmmm.....

------------------
-Essayons

[This message has been edited by Rob (edited 12-27-98).]
 
The legalization of drugs was discussed around here not too long ago. I can't remember- It's all a haze.

First- I thought I could dress how I wanted to in this country. Piercings, long hair, jeans, tattoos you name it. You may not want me to go out with your daughter, but to let LE single me out because of it doesn't seem right. We stopped accusing rape victims of "wanting it" because of seductive dress long ago, but it is o.k. to accuse Rich of being singled out because of his sense of style?

Legalizalization of drugs? Why not. It is my body and if I want to stuff it with bacon grease, hamburgers, nicotine, caffeine, alcohol, cocaine, LSD, or heroin it should be my business as long as I don't hurt someone else while I'm doing it.

But what about the cost to society? Walt, perhaps you could illuminate what the cost of a sedentary lifestyle combined with poor diet has upon our society. Oh wait, sorry, that is socially acceptable.

I too have spent much time in ED's and treated OD's, skin popper abcesses, and trauma secondary to alcohol and drug(funny how etoh is not a "drug") abuse. It is a real problem.

I guess the question is how to deal with the problem. Since drug addiction is a
disease with a genetic dispostion I think the best way to diminish the impact is through treatment and education. To just outlaw an activity is notoriously ineffective and I don't like what this "war" is costing in terms of personal freedoms. Right now treatment is very difficult to get unless you have a good insurance plan, the one thing an addict does not usually have. This would be a good spot to talk about the RAND corp study but methinks I'm raving too much.

Take home point- you are responsible for your actions. Unless those actions are depriving someone else of their rights, then live and let die.

Patrick- LEO's are human beings with a tough job. I think that they are held with much respect on this forum. That of course does not mean that the individual or policy they are following should not be critiqued.

by the way- I didn't recieve an Xmas card from Clinton.

Olazul
 
The thing with the "drugs don't hurt anybody but the user line" is that it just isn't true. A few points were well made above.. think about it.. should someone who is hallucinating be allowed to raise children? should someone who's heart is on the brink of exploding be allowed to perate a passenger vehicle, or any vehicle on public roads? legalizingthe sale and use drugs would require as much, if not more, LE activity. Just as the legal use of Alcohol requires a great deal of LE Activity becuase of actions under the influence. Imagine what it woul db e like if crack were that readily available...

------------------
-Essayons
 
I think a significant portion of our parents hallucinated during the 60's and they raised some fine individuals.
Drugs hurt alot of innocents. The addicted parent devastates the children and spouse, The addicted child devastates the parents and siblings, but the act of drug use doesn't violate the innocents rights.

Legalization of drugs is different than legalizing driving under the influence. Of course that should be illegal. As should be discharging a firearm in a city without due cause. It's dangerous to others.

If you frequently abuse alcohol or drugs you are a loser and need help. Legalization of drugs is not paramount to condoning it. It simply says that the addicted individual is not breaking a crime by using the drug. Moral implications are left to the individual.

RAND corp's famous study supported legalization of drugs and paying for treatment as the most cost effective means of decreasing the flow of drugs into the U.S.. Therefore the best way to decrease the number of addicts AND the fallout from drug and alcohol abuse is to legalize it and give treatment.IMHO.
I have known quite a few people who have dabbled with drugs in their youth and are wonderfull and productive members of society. Real role models- no kidding. They are also lucky they didn't get popped for possesion.

Are we having fun yet?
Olazul
 
Good argument so far guys. As I noted in the earlier thread olazul mentioned, I'm totally pro-personal freedom. If you say I can't handle drugs, then how can you justify saying I can handle a gun? Remember that the Second Amendment is guaranteeing an already existing right, not creating that right.

It all boils down to how much freedom you'll let your neighbor have, and how much you'll give up for security. I think it was Franklin (correct me if I'm wrong, guys) who said that one who will give up freedom for security deserves neither.
 
I drove very carefully through Hardeeville this week! :)...

Patrick and Rob, I have somewhat to say to you: first, in regard to LEO: I would, without hesitation, put myself in harm's way to save the life of an officer. If I saw an officer on the side of the road under attack or taking fire, I would interpose my vehicle, or my body, if need be, in his defense. (Yeah, I know about the legal issues-but if this man's life is on the line, CYA be damned!) This should, hopefully, establish without doubt that I am not anti-LEO. What I am against, is the erosion or outright theft of our freedoms.

Drugs...my, oh, my. I believe the previous thread was titled something like "One rare steak...", and can probably be found by doing a search of the last 30 days.

Let's be very clear. I know of no object-drug, weapon, means of transportation, etc- that is going to kill anyone all by itself. The person who misuses anything is the killer, not the object or substance. This seems fairly obvious to me, and if this reasonable logic can be applied to the objects we seek to protect (firearms and means of defense), why not the less politically-correct ones like illicit drugs? Individual responsibility. Let's say it together. This is the chief reason for America's greatness. The lack of it is killing us now. We seek to demonize objects instead of actions. WAKE UP! Peanut butter can kill you. Crackers can kill you. Red meat can kill you. Tobacco can kill you. Lack of exercise can kill you. Doughnuts can kill you...We are to assume that deaths from poor diet and maintenance of our bodies is somehow less tragic than deaths from currently illegal substances? BS. All of us exert an effect upon those around us. I have known- indeed, had the misfortune to be close to someone who killed themself through lack of exercise and incredibly foolish dietary choices. I am certain there are drug addicts who would have affected my life considerably more favorably.

The issue is control. Do you control your actions, or does the government? You should. If you cannot live without endangering your fellow man, sanctions will be enacted. The "War on Drugs" is nothing but a profit-maker and blatant excuse for widespread proliferation of police powers. Do I favor the usage of most drugs? Hell, no. I don't smoke. I rarely drink. I consume NO illegal drugs. I do know people who do while maintaining healthy and productive lives. There is no qualitative difference between one recreational drug and another. To be "fair", if the current illegal drugs remain criminalized, we should also outlaw tobacco, alcohol, caffeine, sugar, AND ALL FOODS. Duh.
 
One thing is very clear, regardless of one's position on the drug issue:
The drug biz is thriving and the Constitution is being raped under the guise of "the greater good". Innocent people are being hurt by the very people who are in existence to allegedly protect them.

Profiling
Asset forfeiture and seizure

I am dead serious, this is wrong and evil. When governmental/agency profit gets involved in enforcing law, then the twilight of freedom has begun in this country. You can make your rationale, but it is mere rhetoric to justify tyranny.

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Spectre - you are correct, the issue is control. When one eats steaks or cheesburgers one remains in control of their actions.

When one is on drugs such as cocaine (crack or otherwise), LSD, heroin, pcp, etc, one is NOT in control of their actions. These substances are dangerous to the user, just like junk food, but they are also dangerous to anyone else that the user interacts with.

BTW - If the government ever bans cheesburgers, greasy fries, or live Blues music is seedy little bars, I'm outta here. :)


DC (and others)- the asset seizure and laws were designed primarily to deny criminals the profit from their criminal activities. True, these laws are often used to seize drug profits, but they are also used in other cases such as organized crime, etc. The media likes to highlight their use in drug cases because drugs are such a "hot buton" topic right now.

Contrary to what some people have claimed, the prosecutor has to establish, in a court or law, that the seized items were either directly used to conduct illegal activities, or were the profits of criminal activity.

Vehicles may be taken if they were used to facilitate the criminal act, such as transporting drugs for sale. Money may be taken if it may be shown to be the proceeds from the sale of drugs.

These are just a couple of common examples. If the prosecutor fails to establish these facts in court, then the property is returned to the owner. Just like if a prosecutor fails to establish the facts in a criminal case, the defendant goes free.

A person may introduce evidence to refute the prosecutor's claims, or remain silent and let the prosecutor screw it up all on his own. Due process is followed in these cases.

Patrick

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-28-98).]

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 12-28-98).]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top