A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #101  
Old January 26th 05, 11:34 PM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Alex Rodriguez wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>Ahh yes the other typical tatic of those in favor of a police state. Call
>>everyone who is concerned 'paranoid'. You might feel safer, because you
>>flash your badge and get to have a gun or whatever else you want to
>>carry. I don't. I can't even carry my leatherman micra into the
>>building. I wouldn't even have the simplest of tools to help me escape
>>from a locked stairwell or an elevator in an emergency.
>>
>>The fact remains, we are not free of searches just by choosing not to
>>drive. The loopholes of 'privledge' have become so common place that now
>>we even have to produce papers when on foot.

>
> Many folks are not smart enough to figure this out. That is what the
> police and polititicians are counting on when they push for these laws.


Military personal might actually refuse to follow orders if told to round
up civilians and other such things. After all, 'just following orders'
isn't an excuse in the military come time for trials. Police officers
are much less questioning and will do as told. For 'the law is the law'.
There is no risk to them in 'just following orders'.




Ads
  #102  
Old January 27th 05, 12:40 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> Trust me, most (and notice, I say most, not all) cops can distinguish
>> between normal human anxiety and when a person has really done
>> something wrong.

>
>
> So what exactly constitutes the difference. Even jaybird states that
> this is only one of a number of factors and in itself does not cause
> suspicion unless it is present with those other factors.


Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.
  #103  
Old January 27th 05, 12:47 AM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"jaybird" > wrote in message
...

> I thought you were talking about the equipment where you can actually

see
> people inside the residence. My mistake. You could place a dog

outside of
> a residence for that, but residences have a higher expectation of

privacy
> than a vehicle.... different circumstances.


For now.........

Give the establishment time, jaybird, give them time.....



  #104  
Old January 27th 05, 12:50 AM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> This is an arbitary construct that is easily breached later. The
> population is being conditioned. Every year police powers or really

the
> powers of government grow. It's not a question any more if there is a
> slipperly slope, just how fast we are sliding down it.


or whether it is a slippery slope of a vertical freefall.....



  #105  
Old January 27th 05, 12:54 AM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
...

> This is true of all big or important conventions of elected officals

or
> elites. (WTO, etc and so forth) There are various news stories of
> bicyclists who were arrested simply for being on a bicycle while they
> were traveling from a to b because critical mass or similiar was doing

a
> protest nearby.


Ah, yes: guilt by association. The facist's friend....


  #106  
Old January 27th 05, 12:55 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Baker wrote:
> In article >,
> Michael > wrote:
>
>
>>Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>>Michael > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Arif Khokar wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/01/24/sc....ap/index.html
>>>>>
>>>>>Seems that it's not ok to act nervous at a traffic stop anymore...
>>>>
>>>>But if you have nothing to hide, you should not be nervous.
>>>>On the other hand, if you act nervous on purpose, then don't complain
>>>>about being searched.
>>>
>>>
>>>****ing fascist moron.

>>
>>And how am I racist?

>
>
> I don't know. No one called you "racist".
>
> Someone apparently should call you ignorant.
>

Whoops. I misread. Let's see, fascism preaches irrationalism,
totalitarism, elitism, militarism and imprerealism. Sorry, I don't
support any of those so I definetely do not qualify as a fascist.
  #107  
Old January 27th 05, 12:56 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Jim Yanik wrote:
> Michael > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for
>>>>arrest. Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a K9
>>>>sniff a vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for the air
>>>>coming from our vehicle to the outside.
>>>
>>>
>>>Or anything else that dogs or technology can detect from the outside
>>>of our homes or vehicles by that logic. Such as the heat signature
>>>coming through the walls of our homes.
>>>
>>>It's all the same thing. The boundries of home and vehicle are merely
>>>arbitary and easily breached. (and often have in the war on the bill
>>>of rights er drugs)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and
>>the other is highly mobile.
>>I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by
>>Klotter comes to mind.
>>

>
>
> "The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,AND
> EFFECTS,against unreasonable searches and seizures,Shall not be
> violated,..."
>
> One's "effects" could be construed to include the vehicle they travel in.
>

Exactly. Could be "construed", nothing says that a vehicle is an effect.
  #108  
Old January 27th 05, 12:58 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>
>
>>>Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and
>>>the other is highly mobile.
>>>I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by
>>>Klotter comes to mind.

>
>
>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,AND
>>EFFECTS,against unreasonable searches and seizures,Shall not be
>>violated,..."
>>
>>One's "effects" could be construed to include the vehicle they travel in.

>
>
> I wonder if a citizen were to stop driving and start using a horse and
> buggy if he would be subject to these searches. After all, using a horse
> and buggy isn't a 'privledge', driving is. Horses and buggies were used
> in 1789, so they existed when the constitution was written, avoiding this
> silly construct of 'privledge' where you have to give up your rights.
> From my understanding, the framers wouldn't have allowed warrantless
> random or 'gut feel' searches of citizens traveling from a to b by horse
> drawn vehicles in 1789.
>
> I also wonder if IL's vehicle code of allowing officers to stop
> bicyclists without cause (called a safety inspection) would stand
> up to a constitutional challenge. Once again, the bicycle existed prior
> to this silly construct of 'privledge' that means giving up our rights
> to do something.
>
>
>

Re IL's code. I think it would stand up to the challege since regulatory
inspections are perfectly legal and always have been legal. Just like
the Coast Guard boarding someone. What starts out as a mere regulatory
inspection(i.e. no warrant needed) could very well turn into a criminal
stop.
  #109  
Old January 27th 05, 12:59 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Paul wrote:
> "jaybird" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Dave C." > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>"BE" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
>>>
>>>>But you are not in your home when driving on a public street. You

>
> have a
>
>>>>diminished expectation of privacy anytime you chose to leave your

>
> home,
>
>>>>and that was the ruling made here. What am I missing?
>>>
>>>Nothing. Stay home. Don't leave it. Ever. Not even for
>>>roceries. -Dave

>>
>>You can leave, just make sure you leave your pot at home.

>
>
> No, that still leaves you open to the demand for a search from any
> policeman who feels like demanding one.
>
>

Yeah, they can demand, just like you can tell them to go screw themselves.
  #110  
Old January 27th 05, 01:00 AM
Paul
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Brent P" > wrote in message
news
> The searching does nothing. What stops highjackings is that any

passenger
> that gets out of line is restrained or has the crap beat out of them

by
> other passengers. The archie bunker theory is what is keeping us safe.


As was evidenced on that American Airlines flight where that religious
fanatic who tried to light his shoe had the crap beaten out of him by
the other passengers.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 01:17 PM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.