Motorist gives homeless man spare change and is detained by police

[Rupert]

Honest police officers do not care one little iota about being recorded:  they already are being recorded.

As for saying no, that is 100% a citizens right.  However, do not be surprised if the officer looks anyway.

Courts have held for at least 10-15 years now that officer's "smell" of marijuana, smoke or scent, is PC for a search.  That is a case-law decision, mind you.

There are other reasons as well, see the previous post about knowing your rights. 

Honest cops, exactly.

[Rupert]

Race is a minor part of a profile, and carries only a small amount of weight wrt drug interdiction.

How many black guys make meth?  Sell pills in predominately white communities?  Etc?

Did I hit 50%, then?

[hounddog]

Doesn't this statement: "They also do not make traffic stops, so they rely on uniformed patrol officers for that and ask them to stop the car based on any violation they can find."

Basically agree with and back up this statement?: "Things like window tint, loud music or whatever is just a bullshit smokescreen to hide the real motive."

Not when the crux of the statement was:  "The sad truth is DWB (Driving While Black) is enough to get you pulled over in most places in America."

The two are neither mutually inclusive or mutually exclusive. 

I would argue that in modern America, save for the deep south perhaps or the rare moron who still believes in this racist non-sense, this just is not the approved norm by the law enforcement subculture any longer, and that it is even frowned upon by the peers within that group.  Despite what the left has to say on the topic.

Law enforcement, for all its shortfalls in the type of people they are currently attracting, is getting this one specific thing right.

[hounddog]

Honest cops, exactly.

The wide majority of police officers are honest. 

[hounddog]

Did I hit 50%, then?

Did you hit 50% of what?

I said I am not going to give up the components of the approved profile. 

[Soup DeVille]

The wide majority of police officers are honest. 

Even more so when they know they're being recorded.

[hounddog]

Funny how that works, Soup. 

[Rupert]

Funny how that works, Soup. 

Exactly.

[Rupert]

Did you hit 50% of what?

I said I am not going to give up the components of the approved profile. 

Yep, I hit it.

[hounddog]

Yep, I hit it.

Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.

Exactly.

So, there were no honest police before cameras?  Amazing.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Doesn't this statement: "They also do not make traffic stops, so they rely on uniformed patrol officers for that and ask them to stop the car based on any violation they can find."

Basically agree with and back up this statement?: "Things like window tint, loud music or whatever is just a bullshit smokescreen to hide the real motive."

Thats exactly what it sounds like to me!

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Honest police officers do not care one little iota about being recorded:  they already are being recorded.

As for saying no, that is 100% a citizens right.  However, do not be surprised if the officer looks anyway.

Courts have held for at least 10-15 years now that officer's "smell" of marijuana, smoke or scent, is PC for a search.  That is a case-law decision, mind you.

There are other reasons as well, see the previous post about knowing your rights. 

And I'd understand if weed smoke was present or an open beer bottle! I hate being asked to search for a "regular" traffic stop! I don't smoke (Weed or cigarettes) and I don't have open containers in my car. And you're 100% correct! Saying no only makes everything worse! Sooner or later my car is gonna get torn apart.......

[Soup DeVille]

And I'd understand if weed smoke was present or an open beer bottle! I hate being asked to search for a "regular" traffic stop! I don't smoke (Weed or cigarettes) and I don't have open containers in my car. And you're 100% correct! Saying no only makes everything worse! Sooner or later my car is gonna get torn apart.......

I still say to say no.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

The wide majority of police officers are honest. 

I have 4 friends that are officers and they all are real cool. My one friend who's on Clevelands Police force ALWAYS tells me to "Watch out for the police" when I leave his house........ SMH!

[mzziaz]

I think I would have been a pretty pissed off guy if I were young, black and driving a nice car in the US.

I've never responded well to authorities overstepping their bounds.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

I still say to say no.

Yeah I need to make their day as difficult as their making mine....

[Rupert]

Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc.
So, there were no honest police before cameras?  Amazing.

I believe you mean, argumentum e silentio.

Further, paleam, homo.

[Soup DeVille]

I think I would have been a pretty pissed off guy if I were young, black and driving a nice car in the US.

I've never responded well to authorities overstepping their bounds.

Well, Hounddog is correct: they're not overstepping their bounds: Its just that their bounds are too loose in the first place.

[Soup DeVille]

Yeah I need to make their day as difficult as their making mine....

Well, for starters, if you consent, and anything is found, you have fewer recourses than if you don't. "The owner let me" trumps reasonable suspiscion or probable cause, both of which could still be argued after the fact in court.

For another, our rights are there for a reason, its our duty to assert them from time to time, even if it is inconvenient to do so.

[mzziaz]

Well, Hounddog is correct: they're not overstepping their bounds: Its just that their bounds are too loose in the first place.

Well, I meant overstepping the bounds as I perceive them.

[Gotta-Qik-C7]

Well, Hounddog is correct: they're not overstepping their bounds: Its just that their bounds are too loose in the first place.

Very true!

[bing_oh]

Doesn't this statement: "They also do not make traffic stops, so they rely on uniformed patrol officers for that and ask them to stop the car based on any violation they can find."

Basically agree with and back up this statement?: "Things like window tint, loud music or whatever is just a bullshit smokescreen to hide the real motive."

What you call a "bullshit smokescreen" is referred to as a pretextual stop in legal circles. They are perfectly legal as long as the reason for the stop is legal. Pretextual stops are used every day for a wide variety of reasons, and they're good law enforcement. For example, the vast majority of most officer's DUI arrests come from pretextual stops.

[Soup DeVille]

What you call a "bullshit smokescreen" is referred to as a pretextual stop in legal circles. They are perfectly legal as long as the reason for the stop is legal. Pretextual stops are used every day for a wide variety of reasons, and they're good law enforcement. For example, the vast majority of most officer's DUI arrests come from pretextual stops.

1: that was Madman's quote, not my words

2: I've already stated that those are legal

3: being legal and being bullshit are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

[NomisR]

My philosophy is only break one law at a time.

That's ridiculously unrealistic.

Fair point, but you get the picture. If you have a taillight out, don't be carrying a sack, etc.

I guess the thrust of it is if you're doing something obvious from the outside, don't also do something that could be found in a search.

Doesn't this statement: "They also do not make traffic stops, so they rely on uniformed patrol officers for that and ask them to stop the car based on any violation they can find."

Basically agree with and back up this statement?: "Things like window tint, loud music or whatever is just a bullshit smokescreen to hide the real motive."

Seriously, going by this conversation, it's hard not to say that our current traffic law is completely ridiculous and a lot of it does nothing to enhance the safety of it's citizens. 

The law book should not be filled with obscure laws that it's citizen does not know exist or is simply breaking because it's stupid. 

This is the reason why the stalemate in congress is actually a good thing because that way, they won't be coming up with stupid laws for the sake of coming up with stupid laws. 

[Soup DeVille]

Seriously, going by this conversation, it's hard not to say that our current traffic law is completely ridiculous and a lot of it does nothing to enhance the safety of it's citizens. 

The law book should not be filled with obscure laws that it's citizen does not know exist or is simply breaking because it's stupid. 

This is the reason why the stalemate in congress is actually a good thing because that way, they won't be coming up with stupid laws for the sake of coming up with stupid laws. 

More accurately, traffic laws being used as a gateway to the enforcement of ridiculous drug laws make the traffic laws seem ridiculous as well.

[bing_oh]

More accurately, traffic laws being used as a gateway to the enforcement of ridiculous drug laws make the traffic laws seem ridiculous as well.

Yea, because using a traffic violation to stop a guy whom we have information on regarding being a meth dealer and carrying a firearm (actual stop that ended in a pursuit and arrest at my department recently) is ridiculous, right?

[Rupert]

Pursuits are pretty ridiculous, yes.

But even more ridiculous is DWB leading to a fruitless search.

[hounddog]

Pursuits are pretty ridiculous, yes.

But even more ridiculous is DWB leading to a fruitless search.

Way to not only not answer his question, but to ignore that he is completely right. 

You cannot allow people to actively run from the agents of government. 

If you did, there would be no motivation to stop, and, letting people run unopposed has been shown over and over again to increase liability risk.

[hounddog]

More accurately, traffic laws being used as a gateway to the enforcement of ridiculous drug laws make the traffic laws seem ridiculous as well.

So, you are saying you want the flow of heroin, crack, meth, krokodil, etc. to grow unfettered?

[bing_oh]

Pursuits are pretty ridiculous, yes.

But even more ridiculous is DWB leading to a fruitless search.

Yea, I can't imagine why we would want to stop a felony-level drug dealer carrying a firearm. No reason at all to chase him if he runs, right? I mean, it's not like he's any risk to the public or anything.