Because Bush's Invasions Of Privacy Weren't Enough

[Sal Paradise 57]

I am still not understanding your logic here. If you are caught doing something illegal in your vehicle, you are saying the police don't have a right to look in your vehicle for other illegal items, that may coincide with the illegal activity that you are already taking place in? How is that?

What the hell are you two talking about? I said DWI, which is a Felony. Speeding is a traffic related mis-demeanor.

actually you said caught doing something illegal, hence our mentioning of speeding, which is illegal. the point is: where are you going to draw the line? if you're pulled over and arrested for DUI, which is for drinking, then are they searching your car for MORE alcohol? which is what would be fitting for the crime you're accused of, and is not illegal. if they're arresting you for DWI, i.e. drugs, then what are they searching for? more drugs that they have just assumed you've taken? you can't prove a DWI roadside unless there are drugs in plain view, in which case they wouldn't need to search. and really, like others have alluded to, if they've arrested (not convicted as h has pointed out) you for a felony charge, shouldn't they be able to search your home to make sure there aren't other felonies going on too? I mean you've already done something illegal in your vehicle, what's to say there isn't something illegal going on in your home that would coincide with it?the problem is is that you're giving cops an open ended ticket to invade your personal privacy in any way they see fit, in any situation they may be in, and by any cop on the street, no matter how experienced or honest, or more succinctly:

Our civil rights are too important to be left to the whim of some low-level grunt with a badge and an attitude.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Well, I think for that search to be reasonable you would have to also be flying the skull and washboard flag.

can't you just imagine the chatter the next day at the donut shop?"So pulled over this one-legged guy yesterday, and saw some pants in the backseat, so immediately I think 'AHA! Laundry Pirate', so I start to search the car. Then all of a sudden this parrot in the car starts squawking at me, saying 'That's not sufficient grounds for a cracker! Awk! Polly wants a strip search!' I'm about to stop, when I notice the car's antenna flying the skull and washboard, so I point to it and then I said 'Who's the idiot now?' hehehe. Dumb bird.

[Sal Paradise 57]

it was a TWO LANE ROAD. he could have fucking gone around me at any point. he was very clearly trying to rustle up a ticket.

how long was he following you? I'd say it was more likely that he was trying to see if you'd swerve or anything to see if you were drunk. more than like five minutes then probably not though.

[strategy 4]

how long was he following you? I'd say it was more likely that he was trying to see if you'd swerve or anything to see if you were drunk. more than like five minutes then probably not though.

he accelerated and rode me for at least two minutes. it looked like I was going to get rear ended and actually scared the shit out of me before I realized it was a cop. thankfully I didn't speed up as most guys would...as I just ranted to guapo in IM, that shit can cause wrecks.

[El Guapo 8]

actually you said caught doing something illegal, hence our mentioning of speeding, which is illegal. the point is: where are you going to draw the line? if you're pulled over and arrested for DUI, which is for drinking, then are they searching your car for MORE alcohol? which is what would be fitting for the crime you're accused of, and is not illegal. if they're arresting you for DWI, i.e. drugs, then what are they searching for? more drugs that they have just assumed you've taken? you can't prove a DWI roadside unless there are drugs in plain view, in which case they wouldn't need to search. and really, like others have alluded to, if they've arrested (not convicted as h has pointed out) you for a felony charge, shouldn't they be able to search your home to make sure there aren't other felonies going on too? I mean you've already done something illegal in your vehicle, what's to say there isn't something illegal going on in your home that would coincide with it?the problem is is that you're giving cops an open ended ticket to invade your personal privacy in any way they see fit, in any situation they may be in, and by any cop on the street, no matter how experienced or honest, or more succinctly:

I disagree. It's called reasonable suspicion and has thousands of cases to back it up. If it doesn't fly with the courts, it's thrown out. It's not like cops are just given and opening to search anyone, they are actually educated and trained on what reasonable suspicion is and how to apply it. Some times they over step their bounds and if it is way over the line, they can be suspended and/or fired.

[Sal Paradise 57]

he accelerated and rode me for at least two minutes. it looked like I was going to get rear ended and actually scared the shit out of me before I realized it was a cop. thankfully I didn't speed up as most guys would...as I just ranted to guapo in IM, that shit can cause wrecks.

oh, well it's possible that he was trying to get you to speed, but I've always assumed when they were doing that that they were seeing if you'd swerve or something indicating you were drunk.of course I always think that since I'm such a SCUMBAG sometimes.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I disagree. It's called reasonable suspicion and has thousands of cases to back it up. If it doesn't fly with the courts, it's thrown out. It's not like cops are just given and opening to search anyone, they are actually educated and trained on what reasonable suspicion is and how to apply it. Some times they over step their bounds and if it is way over the line, they can be suspended and/or fired.

first, in what way are you talking about having thousands of cases to back it up? not trying to say you're wrong or anything, I just don't know what you mean exactly. like they suspected something and then they found it?and second, you keep talking about things getting thrown out in court, but you're talking about a MAJOR inconvenience (including possibly arrest, holding, permanent arrest record) and direct intrusions into privacy on the whim of a standard police officer. of course they are trained, but your average road cop has what, a high school diploma? maybe an associates? and you're giving them the same authority, on the spot, as a judge? if they actually had a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, then there'd be no problem getting a warrant from a judge, would there?I know your dad was a cop and I'm sure he was a good cop, and because of that I'm sure all the people he knew were good cops, and that probably causes you to have a more positive view of police than somebody who didn't have that experience. and I'm certainly not saying that all cops are bad or stupid or anything like that, but that they are just not at the level of a judge and therefore shouldn't have the same power as one. hell, I know a lot of cops too, probably 7 or 8 that I've hung out with on a regular basis, and only one of them doesn't use the word "nigger" on a regular basis. don't know that I'd trust them to make a proper civil rights decision every single time. in summation: of course cops need to have the ability to make decisions in the field on how to handle situations to do there job, that's not what we're arguing. but giving them the power that is otherwise only reserved for a judge is an absolute invasion of privacy.

[El Guapo 8]

first, in what way are you talking about having thousands of cases to back it up? not trying to say you're wrong or anything, I just don't know what you mean exactly. like they suspected something and then they found it?and second, you keep talking about things getting thrown out in court, but you're talking about a MAJOR inconvenience (including possibly arrest, holding, permanent arrest record) and direct intrusions into privacy on the whim of a standard police officer. of course they are trained, but your average road cop has what, a high school diploma? maybe an associates? and you're giving them the same authority, on the spot, as a judge? if they actually had a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing, then there'd be no problem getting a warrant from a judge, would there?I know your dad was a cop and I'm sure he was a good cop, and because of that I'm sure all the people he knew were good cops, and that probably causes you to have a more positive view of police than somebody who didn't have that experience. and I'm certainly not saying that all cops are bad or stupid or anything like that, but that they are just not at the level of a judge and therefore shouldn't have the same power as one. hell, I know a lot of cops too, probably 7 or 8 that I've hung out with on a regular basis, and only one of them doesn't use the word "nigger" on a regular basis. don't know that I'd trust them to make a proper civil rights decision every single time. in summation: of course cops need to have the ability to make decisions in the field on how to handle situations to do there job, that's not what we're arguing. but giving them the power that is otherwise only reserved for a judge is an absolute invasion of privacy.

I think we are splitting hairs here. First most cops are dicks. They have to be. My dad included. I have met the whole spectrum of good cops and bad cops. Since my parents company did law enforcement training for years, I have literally met and hung out with thousands of police officers and detectives, DEA, FBI, CIA etc. Not necessarily because I wanted to, just happened. I can tell you the over whelming majority of them just want to put bad people in prison. No hidden agenda. Do they have ego's and control issues, yes of course, it comes with the territory.As for education, the higher educated the police office, usually the worse they are at their job. I know this is a generalization, but most PD's are requiring 4 year degrees and some Master's to move up into the ranks. At least in CA that is the case.Every cop I have ever met uses the word "nigger". Black, white, Hispanic, doesn't matter.I am not saying that all of these searches should be so gray area that they need to go in front of a judge. Without getting specific, some times a warrant is necessary, sometimes it's not. But I can tell you that most reas susp searches pass the bar, because they don't want it getting thrown out of court, so they know what they can and cannot do as decided by the supreme court. This ruling Henry posted may change that, I don't know.

[Sal Paradise 57]

I think we are splitting hairs here. First most cops are dicks. They have to be. My dad included.

haha, and here I was trying to be all polite and shit.

[hblask 1]

Sorry El but it's far more common than you think. Especially if you happen to be a teenager driving what looks like a muscle car or a sports car. Happened to my nephew when they lived in California. He was coming home from work when this car full of guys tried to run him off the road and chased him. He drove to a police station and promptly got arrested for being out past curfew even though he had a legitimate reason to be (working). Police didn't believe him and he had to go to court to get it tossed out. Do you think his vehicle should have been searched in such an instance? It happened. Of course him being a nice Mormon boy there was nothing to find. But he got detained until my brother could come down to the police station.

Also, DWB (driving while black) is still a crime in this country. In two different states, black computer guys with essentially the same job, living in the same neighborhood as me, got pulled over regularly -- a couple times a month -- because the cops didn't like blacks there. They mostly never got charged with anything because they were good guys, obviously middle-class nerds. But their friends, who were not middle class, weren't so lucky. Anyone who trusts the police to be honest has led a pretty sheltered life. This is why this SC decision is so important -- not for me and my lily white suburban friends, but for those people that cops harass endlessly just because the cops are on a power trip.

[hblask 1]

Well I understand that, but this is the current interpretation of the Law for search and seizure under reasonable suspicion. That is why we have a court system, that would throw out evidence confiscated in an ill-gotten manner.

You are assuming court-appointed public defenders care any more than the cops do. In many cases they don't.The idea of justice in this country is that it's better for some guilty people to go free than to punish a single innocent person. What you are suggesting is giving corrupt cops the right to punish people who are basically harmless but are too poor or too dumb to know their rights. Yes, it happens all the time, and no, it is not excusable. Get a f-ing search warrant or stop harassing people. It's a very easy choice.

[hblask 1]

I disagree. It's called reasonable suspicion and has thousands of cases to back it up. If it doesn't fly with the courts, it's thrown out. It's not like cops are just given and opening to search anyone rich people, they are actually educated and trained on what reasonable suspicion is and how to apply it to rich people. Some times they over step their bounds and if it is way over the line, they can be suspended and/or fired if the poor person can find a competent lawyer who gives a damn.

FYP

[hblask 1]

and second, you keep talking about things getting thrown out in court, but you're talking about a MAJOR inconvenience (including possibly arrest, holding, permanent arrest record) and direct intrusions into privacy on the whim of a standard police officer.

Not to mention the retarded RICO laws which basically gives the police a right to take away all your money and possessions without a conviction, and then daring you to find a means to challenge them to get it back.

[brvheart 1,752]

c'mon, is this really your justification for not trying to improve the situation? weak.

I didn't say anything about not trying to improve the situation.... I was just commenting that I think there are plenty of other things (like hundreds) that are more important. I agree with you in principle on almost everything.

[antistuff 0]

see, this is why I never trust anyone who says they have the cure-all for getting stopped in a situation where you are probably going to fail the breathalyzer. maybe it's legit in the next state over, but who knows...one of my lawyer friends basically told me that cops attempt to cast themselves as the helpful guy that can get you out of trouble. if you'll just incriminate yourself beyond rescue, the good cop will help you out. and they will blatantly lie about the law in the process. I can't comprehend how this is considered acceptable.I mean, I'll never be in a situation where I need to know how to squirm out of a DUI, but it's at least an interesting thought.I've said it elsewhere on FCP, but I have been tailgated in the dark by a cop attempting to get me to speed. I retaliated by taking my foot off the accelerator and drifting down to 20MPH in a 40, which made the fuck quit it. we need police reform BADLY in this country...

in my experiences with cops this is exactly how they operate. this is also why keeping your mouth shut is so important with them at all times. they are not your friends, they are not there to protect you, they are there to try to arrest somebody.

[myenemy 0]

And so on. States' rights is a big pain in the ass.

Spoken like a true commie.Handcuffing police is probably not the right approach. I suppose its a matter of locale but Im certain that my safety would be greatly endangered if criminals, road bullies and/or drunks, had more rights than they currently do. It has been rightly said, I believe by Guapo, that most police are very keen to knowing what will and wont fly in court, and that knowlege is what should usually prevent them from improper search and seizure. (Thats how the system works.) Because cops are just like most of us, lazy, and they do not want to work on an arrest for hours just to get it thrown out on a technicality. And speaking to the point of search after arrest: No, police do not have the same rights as a judge, HOWEVER, in most cases it is the cop who has observed the illegal act, and at that point is instructed to treat the perp as a drunk or dangerous or whatever, following with what they observed. I love these hypotheticals, where the cops can search your aunts cat cause you got arrested for riding a bike at night. That doesnt happen. So should it be illegal for them to use handcuffs since youre really only accused of a crime and not convicted? Thats against someones civil rights! IMO, if youre dring drunk, for example, you have forfeited your right to privacy and your car should be searched. Just like if you beat the crap out of someone, after they cuff you, they search you. If you have an ounce of coke, it doesnt make sense that since it had nothing to do with the crime it should be inadmissible.Im sorry for the rambling, Im actually very busy at work and didnt feel like straightening this out.

[hblask 1]

I love these hypotheticals, where the cops can search your aunts cat cause you got arrested for riding a bike at night. That doesnt happen. So should it be illegal for them to use handcuffs since youre really only accused of a crime and not convicted? Thats against someones civil rights! IMO, if youre dring drunk, for example, you have forfeited your right to privacy and your car should be searched. Just like if you beat the crap out of someone, after they cuff you, they search you. If you have an ounce of coke, it doesnt make sense that since it had nothing to do with the crime it should be inadmissible.

Spoken like someone who has lived in white suburbs forever.Talk to some minority kids in poor areas, and ask them how fairly the cops in the street treat them. The reality is that it doesn't matter to us middle- and upper-class folk what the rules are, because we'll be fine no matter what.But a system of justice that is fair to everyone -- especially those without the resources or connections to fight authority -- is a central tenet of the justice system in the US. I lived in LA during the Rodney King riots, and the chant then was No Justice, No Peace. Do you really think that was about some useless punk with a history of crimes getting roughed up by the cops? No, it was a primal scream from the entire community -- stop harassing us. Rodney King was the symbol of every single injustice that the police have perpetrated on the poor and downtrodden. When cops are given leeway, they abuse it. If they do that to someone with a basic understanding of law, or someone who can afford a lawyer, the case gets thrown out, no harm, no foul. If they do that to some poor kid who flunked out of school, the kid goes to jail for 10 years. So yeah, cops should be limited by the constitution. If they aren't, it's just a matter of time until the next primal scream. I actually would go further than the SC decision, and say that if a cop goes beyond what is constitutional, that the cop is personally liable for damages in a civil suit. In this era of cell-phone video, that would straighten them up pretty quickly.

[LincolnK 1]

It depends: Look at following scenario.With reasonable suspicion, they have the right to search what would be reasonable. If it is deemed not reasonable then it would be thrown out of court. So yes, if you are pulled over and arrested for a DWI and smell marijuana, they then search your vehicle and open up the glove box, where they find an unregistered loaded 9MM and they add that charge. This is 100% ok with me and how things work now.What is not OK is if they pull someone over for speeding and then handcuff him and search his car.See the difference?FWIW that is against the law and is impeding traffic and you are lucky you did not get pulled over and ticketed for that.

this is wrong to do and is the whole point of the ruling. the basis for this accepted practice is a misinterpretation of the 1981 decision. this ruling corrects that.

[CaneBrain 95]

Spoken like a true commie.Handcuffing police is probably not the right approach. I suppose its a matter of locale but Im certain that my safety would be greatly endangered if criminals, road bullies and/or drunks, had more rights than they currently do. It has been rightly said, I believe by Guapo, that most police are very keen to knowing what will and wont fly in court, and that knowlege is what should usually prevent them from improper search and seizure. (Thats how the system works.) Because cops are just like most of us, lazy, and they do not want to work on an arrest for hours just to get it thrown out on a technicality. And speaking to the point of search after arrest: No, police do not have the same rights as a judge, HOWEVER, in most cases it is the cop who has observed the illegal act, and at that point is instructed to treat the perp as a drunk or dangerous or whatever, following with what they observed. I love these hypotheticals, where the cops can search your aunts cat cause you got arrested for riding a bike at night. That doesnt happen. So should it be illegal for them to use handcuffs since youre really only accused of a crime and not convicted? Thats against someones civil rights! IMO, if youre dring drunk, for example, you have forfeited your right to privacy and your car should be searched. Just like if you beat the crap out of someone, after they cuff you, they search you. If you have an ounce of coke, it doesnt make sense that since it had nothing to do with the crime it should be inadmissible.Im sorry for the rambling, Im actually very busy at work and didnt feel like straightening this out.

what henry said. and commenting that 50 different sets of laws can make things difficult for the average citizen......makes me a commie?right.always nice of the conservatives to make sure that I know that they dont know what socialism, communism (or capitalism for that matter) mean.

[Mercury69 3]

I heard this thing: They are coming out with a colon tracker that tracks the quality of shit you are producing. if it's good shit, like organic, you will be taxed more. If you eat shit like McDonald's, you're in the clear, because you'll die soon and you won't be a drain on the system.

[navybuttons 15]

Robin Chase's Ted Speechin it she explains how progress is going to trend to this sort of thinking.

[dapokerbum 0]

Robin Chase's Ted Speechin it she explains how progress is going to trend to this sort of thinking.

Yeah it's bascially the old Frog in the boiling water analogy. If they tried to do it now ... people would go crazy. But as it is they introduce something seemingly small every few years or so. by the time our kids get around to it the norm will be this sort of thing. The only thing that we can do is to try and fight it for as long as we can. I know for damn sure that NO GOVERNMENT will be installing a gps device to my car.

[Nimue1995 1]

what if they pull you over and see a bunch of clothes in the back seat - should they assume you're a member of a gang of laundry pirates and search the vehicle? it's a perfect presentation of circumstancial evidence of the crime

Not likely. More likely they'll think you're a serial killer collecting trophies from your victims and dumb enough to stash them in your car. Or some kid coming home from college to get his mother to wash his clothes that he's been accumulating for a semister.

I heard this thing: They are coming out with a colon tracker that tracks the quality of shit you are producing. if it's good shit, like organic, you will be taxed more. If you eat shit like McDonald's, you're in the clear, because you'll die soon and you won't be a drain on the system.

Well they won't be able to track much from me tonight. I'm going in for a colonoscopy tomorrow and I think I've shit everything out that I can already.

[JubilantLankyLad 1,957]

Not likely. More likely they'll think you're a serial killer collecting trophies from your victims and dumb enough to stash them in your car. Or some kid coming home from college to get his mother to wash his clothes that he's been accumulating for a semister.

the serial killer thing seems unlikely. but i remember when i had broken headphones in college and couldn't afford to pay for laundry (NEEDED new headphones, you know, so i had to use all my quarters on them), and had to go home to do laundry. i don't think that my silly financial prioritizing should be grounds to search my car.

[hblask 1]

Cops would never abuse their authority under cover of the law, would they? Why shouldn't they be just allowed to harass and intimidate and threaten anyone they want?Oh yeah, here's why:http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas....ures/index.html TENAHA, Texas (CNN) -- Roderick Daniels was traveling through East Texas in October 2007 when, he says, he was the victim of a highway robbery. Police in the small East Texas town of Tenaha are accused of unjustly taking valuables from motorists. var CNN_ArticleChanger = new CNN_imageChanger('cnnImgChngr','/2009/CRIME/05/05/texas.police.seizures/imgChng/p1-0.init.exclude.html',1,1); //CNN.imageChanger.load('cnnImgChngr','imgChng/p1-0.exclude.html'); The Tennessee man says he was ordered to pull his car over and surrender his jewelry and $8,500 in cash that he had with him to buy a new car. But Daniels couldn't go to the police to report the incident. The men who stopped him were the police. Daniels was stopped on U.S. Highway 59 outside Tenaha, near the Louisiana state line. Police said he was driving 37 mph in a 35 mph zone. They hauled him off to jail and threatened him with money-laundering charges -- but offered to release him if he signed papers forfeiting his property. "I actually thought this was a joke," Daniels told CNN. But he signed. "To be honest, I was five, six hundred miles from home," he said. "I was petrified." Now Daniels and other motorists who have been stopped by Tenaha police are part of a lawsuit seeking to end what plaintiff's lawyer David Guillory calls a systematic fleecing of drivers passing through the town of about 1,000. Highway Robbery? "I believe it is a shakedown. I believe it's a piracy operation," Guillory said. George Bowers, Tenaha's longtime mayor, says his police follow the law. And through her lawyers, Shelby County District Attorney Lynda Russell denied any impropriety. Texas law allows police to confiscate drug money and other personal property they believe are used in the commission of a crime. If no charges are filed or the person is acquitted, the property has to be returned. But Guillory's lawsuit states that Tenaha and surrounding Shelby County don't bother to return much of what they confiscate. Jennifer Boatright and Ron Henderson said they agreed to forfeit their property after Russell threatened to have their children taken away. Like Daniels, the couple says they were carrying a large amount of cash --- about $6,000 -- to buy a car. When they were stopped in Tenaha in 2007, Boatright said, Russell came to the Tenaha police station to berate her and threaten to separate the family. "I said, 'If it's the money you want, you can take it, if that's what it takes to keep my children with me and not separate them from us. Take the money,' " she said. The document Henderson signed, which bears Russell's signature, states that in exchange for forfeiting the cash, "no criminal charges shall be filed ... and our children shall not be turned over" to the state's child protective services agency. Maryland resident Amanee Busbee said she also was threatened with losing custody of her child after being stopped in Tenaha with her fiancé and his business partner. They were headed to Houston with $50,000 to complete the purchase of a restaurant, she said. "The police officer would say things to me like, 'Your son is going to child protective services because you are not saying what we need to hear,' " Busbee said. Guillory, who practices in nearby Nacogdoches, Texas, estimates authorities in Tenaha seized $3 million between 2006 and 2008, and in about 150 cases -- virtually all of which involved African-American or Latino motorists -- the seizures were improper. "They are disproportionately going after racial minorities," he said. "My take on the matter is that the police in Tenaha, Texas, were picking on and preying on people that were least likely to fight back." Daniels told CNN that one of the officers who stopped him tried on some of his jewelry in front of him. "They asked me, 'What you are doing with this ring on?' I said I had bought that ring. I paid good money for that ring," Daniels said. "He took the ring off my finger and put it on his finger and told me how did it look. He put on my jewelry." Texas law states that the proceeds of any seizures can be used only for "official purposes" of district attorney offices and "for law-enforcement purposes" by police departments. According to public records obtained by CNN using open-records laws, an account funded by property forfeitures in Russell's office included $524 for a popcorn machine, $195 for candy for a poultry festival, and $400 for catering. In addition, Russell donated money to the local chamber of commerce and a youth baseball league. A local Baptist church received two checks totaling $6,000. And one check for $10,000 went to Barry Washington, a Tenaha police officer whose name has come up in several complaints by stopped motorists. The money was paid for "investigative costs," the records state. Washington would not comment for this report but has denied all allegations in his answer to Guillory's lawsuit. "This is under litigation. This is a lawsuit," he told CNN. Russell refused requests for interviews at her office and at a fundraiser for a volunteer fire department in a nearby town, where she also sang. But in a written statement, her lawyers said she "has denied and continues to deny all substantive allegations set forth." Russell "has used and continues to use prosecutorial discretion ... and is in compliance with Texas law, the Texas constitution, and the United States Constitution," the statement said. Bowers, who has been Tenaha's mayor for 54 years, is also named in the lawsuit. But he said his employees "will follow the law." "We try to hire the very best, best-trained, and we keep them up to date on the training," he said. The attention paid to Tenaha has led to an effort by Texas lawmakers to tighten the state's forfeiture laws. A bill sponsored by state Sen. John Whitmire, D-Houston, would bar authorities from using the kind of waivers Daniels, Henderson and Busbee were told to sign. "To have law enforcement and the district attorney essentially be crooks, in my judgment, should infuriate and does infuriate everyone," Whitmire said. His bill has passed the Senate, where he is the longest-serving member, and is currently before the Busbee, Boatright and Henderson were able to reclaim their property after hiring lawyers. But Daniels is still out his $8,500. "To this day, I don't understand why they took my belongings off me," he said.