Zoder
join:2002-04-16
Miami, FL | reply to mikefxu
Re: Unbelievable: Police Setup Drug Honeypot on Highway Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause |
|
 XiodenPremium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1 | said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause This^ Normal police stop procedure should for the most part apply. »www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDJrQBwJpqk
Probably most importantly, you should NEVER consent to a search at a checkpoint. If they have probable cause to search they can AND will make the search. Consenting to a search just opens up the possibility for you to get in trouble for something you weren't even aware was present. |
|
| reply to Zoder
said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause I didnt agree to anything when I got my license. Thank goodness checkpoints are illegal in Texas, just another reason people keep moving here. |
|
|
|
| reply to Xioden
said by Xioden: most importantly, you should NEVER consent to a search at a checkpoint. If they have probable cause to search they can AND will make the search. Consenting to a search just opens up the possibility for you to get in trouble for something you weren't even aware was present. If you are really not aware of something in your car that may be illegal, you should probably not let people you don't trust in your car that may drop things in there, or you should probably just not go out driving if you don't know what you keep in your own car.
If you're worried about the police planting something, that's a different story. |
|
 Camelot OnePremium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Greenwood, IN
kudos:1 | reply to AricBrown
said by AricBrown:I didnt agree to anything when I got my license. Thank goodness checkpoints are illegal in Texas, just another reason people keep moving here. Let me know how it goes the next time you get "randomly" pulled over on a "no refusal weekend". They are becoming quite popular in Austin. |
|
 sivranOpera convertPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | "No refusal weekend" appears to refer to breathalyzer tests, not searches. |
|
 AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | reply to Zoder
said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause Taking the exit because of the sign should not constitute probable cause.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
| reply to Xioden
"Probably most importantly, you should NEVER consent to a search at a checkpoint. If they have probable cause to search they can AND will make the search. Consenting to a search just opens up the possibility for you to get in trouble for something you weren't even aware was present."
Very wise words
I once spent 2.5 hours on the side of I 40 outside of Amarillo waiting for the dope dog crew to show up
I had done absolutely nothing wrong except I had Az plates, I guess
I refused to submit to a search and a background check revealed I had been charged 15 years earlier for pot possession (and never convicted btw)
The cop had to endure 2.5 hrs of my political opinions during our wait and he made numerous calls to headquarters wanting updates of when to expect K9 arrival
After the dogs gave me a pass, the cop was all upset that I had wasted all this time and resources
I reminded him that protecting our civil rights are not free... |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | You are lucky the dog didn't FP.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
| said by AVD:You are lucky the dog didn't FP. What is FP? |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | false positive |
|
a1_AndyPremium
join:2005-12-29
Oshawa, ON Reviews:
 ·WIND Mobile
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Zoder
said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause The thing about 'Probable Cause' is that when the officer asks you "can I search your vehicle" and you say "NO" you have just given the officer 'Probable Cause'. The logic behind it is If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't have answered NO, yes this logic stands up in court for some reason, whether or not they found something criminal. The police use this same logic here in Canada and get away with it.
--
A piece of crap in a box with a guaranteed sticker on it is nothing but a guaranteed piece of crap.
You Can build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night, You can set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by a1_Andy:said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause The thing about 'Probable Cause' is that when the officer asks you "can I search your vehicle" and you say "NO" you have just given the officer 'Probable Cause'. The logic behind it is If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't have answered NO, yes this logic stands up in court for some reason, whether or not they found something criminal. The police use this same logic here in Canada and get away with it. sorry, it doesn't work like that.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
 JamesonPremium
join:2004-05-28
Fallbrook, CA
kudos:1 | reply to a1_Andy
said by a1_Andy:said by Zoder:Checkpoints are fine. You agree to them when you applied for your license. The problem would be them stopping you and then searching inside your car without probable cause The thing about 'Probable Cause' is that when the officer asks you "can I search your vehicle" and you say "NO" you have just given the officer 'Probable Cause'. The logic behind it is If you had nothing to hide you wouldn't have answered NO, yes this logic stands up in court for some reason, whether or not they found something criminal. The police use this same logic here in Canada and get away with it. This statement is 100% incorrect. The only thing you may have generated is a bit of suspicion. |
|
 camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA
·Comcast
| reply to AVD
Errr you tell the officers in my town that and you won't like the response you get,it all depends on location and how big there ego's are,remember it doesn't matter what u think or think you know in that courtroom the judge will believe that officer 100% of the time unless you come in with video proof proving a illegal search and seizure you will loose every time,sorry that's just how it works. |
|
 exocet_cmI am the law - Judge DreddPremium
join:2003-03-23
New Orleans, LA
kudos:2 | said by camaro92:Errr you tell the officers in my town that and you won't like the response you get,it all depends on location and how big there ego's are,remember it doesn't matter what u think or think you know in that courtroom the judge will believe that officer 100% of the time unless you come in with video proof proving a illegal search and seizure you will loose every time,sorry that's just how it works. Maybe in your town but that is NOT how it is supposed to work and that is NOT true that the judge will believe the officer 100% of the time.
Go to the ACLU next time your rights are violated (I mean actually violated).
--
"I have measured out my life with coffee spoons..." - T.S Eliot
"I have often regretted my speech, never my silence." - Publilius Syrus
Ma blog: »www.johndball.com |
|
camaro92Question everythingPremium
join:2008-04-05
Westfield, MA | Thanks for the advice but i have learned to mind my own business. |
|
 morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | reply to Liberty
said by Liberty:I had been charged 15 years earlier for pot possession (and never convicted btw) Noted that you didn't say wrongly charged for pot possession. |
|
AVDRespice, Adspice, ProspicePremium
join:2003-02-06
Onion, NJ
kudos:1 | said by morbo:said by Liberty:I had been charged 15 years earlier for pot possession (and never convicted btw) Noted that you didn't say wrongly charged for pot possession. he doesn't have to, he is entitled to the presumption of innocence by nature of the lack of conviction.
--
standard disclaimers apply. |
|
morboComplete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000 | No one said he had to, but he basically admitted (bragged?) that he was charged but not convicted. When people are wrongly charged, they state it loud and forever. |
|
