LOL cops

[Seeitsaveit13]

The cop isnt saying we stop people for stickers and search them. He says we stop people for it and sometimes that leads to bigger things. He doesnt word it as well as he could so it doesnt come across the best. Basicaly what I get is he is saying hey guys we use that expired registration as a reason to make a stop all the time and we have gotten alot of good arrests from it so dont handicap us any further.

Oklahoma City bomber was caught afterwards by expired registration sticker as he drove away after murdering all those people. I know some of you are worried about intent of the stop. Its been argued already and has been all the way to the Supreme Court and deemed legal. It doesnt matter if I want to stop you because I think you have drugs or a gun or whatever. If there is a legit traffic violation thats makes it legal. Now the rest is up to me to figure out. Example: had crimestoppers tip about a guy in a blue Lincoln selling drugs on a certain street everyday. So if I roll up and he sees me and drives away. I notice he has expired stickers so I pull him over. Due to the tips recieved I run my K9 around the vehicle during the stop. K9 alerts and we search and get drugs and he goes to jail. Its not me fucking this guy over its me using the available tools to catch him breaking the law. His traffic violation just helped get it done.

Believe me when I tell you Ive been doing this for 10 years and the system is set up for the bad guys to get away 99% of the time. The goal is to get bad guys off the street and away from everyone else not to fuck people over on expired stickers.

Amen.

[shel311]

Bad: Stopping driver because he has an expired sticker solely (or even combined with the goal) of looking for other crimes.

For the 100000th time lol, the other crimes he mentioned, illegal tags and stolen plates, is it illegal to check for during a routine stop?

I know you don't put much weight into what cops say obviously, but the cop in this thread is saying that is not against the law.

A cop can pull over a vehicle he thinks is suspicious if a registration sticker is expired, but then take all legal measures in the course of that traffic stop, no?

holy fuck shel... this isn't all that difficult.

yes, they can do all that shit. its perfectly legal. but when the intent to pull them over is simply to look for other shit thats where it becomes a gray area. he is admitting, in my eyes, that they use these stickers to look for other shit.

Like I said, I think I understood you all along. I just didn't simply agree. But I am willing to concede that I simply don't understand at all what you're saying giving WJ's post about the Supreme court ruling. After that, I think I'm farther away from understanding your points than I ever was before lol. If it is going back to some crazy logic leaps as I've said before regarding actual illegal search/seizure type stuff, if that is your point, I think it's wayyyyy off base and what you're talking about is something 100% completely different than the issue brought up in the very 1st post of this thread.


Mainly:

The defendants argued that the police did not have probable cause to make a stop for a drug arrest and that the search violated their Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable search and seizure. They contended that a search during a "pretextual" traffic stop should be allowed only if a reasonable officer "would have" made the traffic stop without an ulterior motive. In his opinion for the unanimous court, Justice Antonin Scalia said the important point is whether an officer "could have" made the same traffic stop. He said probable cause regarding a drug offense was irrelevant because the traffic violation was a valid reason to stop the vehicle. The fact that the traffic stop was a pretext to look for drugs did not deprive officers of their legal justification to search the vehicle. "Subjective intentions play no role in ordinary, probable-cause, Fourth Amendment analysis," wrote Scalia.

It appears that Trendon is choosing to deliberately ignore this, but I know you're more open minded than he is, especially on a topic like this.

[DRiccio21]

i don't think there is any way of knowing if the cop is pulling someone over for that reasonable expectation that he suspects this person is breaking another law.

therefore, the cop can pull over anyone for an expired tag and continue to search them for anything they want and its perfectly legal. i've never debated it was legal. what i am debating is whether Joe officer can find a guy he has a grudge with, pull him over for an expired tag, then proceed to search thru all his shit to find something else on him simply because he holds a grudge. which is not legal (although it is legal and he'd be protected by that )

[shel311]

i don't think there is any way of knowing if the cop is pulling someone over for that reasonable expectation that he suspects this person is breaking another law.

therefore, the cop can pull over anyone for an expired tag and continue to search them for anything they want and its perfectly legal.

I don't think the Supreme Court ruling says anything about that at all, but that's just one man's opinion.

i am debating is whether Joe officer can find a guy he has a grudge with, pull him over for an expired tag, then proceed to search thru all his shit to find something else on him simply because he holds a grudge. which is not legal (although it is legal and he'd be protected by that )

Now the tables have turned and you're frustrating me LOL.

THAT is not even close to what Trendon directly quoted in his 1st post. I don't know how else to say it, but it's just not. It is something completely different.

What Trendon went on a rampage about on page 1, there was nothing illegal about what Trendon was claiming was illegal.

And for the record, this is not about semantics any more.

[DRiccio21]

now knowing they actually ruled on it at supreme court level, according to what WJ wrote, i'm more okay with the guys comments that he made. i mean shit, if you're a police department i'd be standing on top of a mountain screaming what that guy did if its already been defended by the supreme court. its making their jobs 100% easier by having that luxury.

still, in my opinion, doesn't make it 100% right. and it is semantics. its semantics because its legal, but its not legal. its not legal to pull over Shel today who did absolutely nothing wrong except forget to put his blinker on and then proceed to rip apart his car in order to find/(plant)/look for something else cause the cop has an issue with people from Cutoff. except it ITS 100% legal. that to me is semantics and the point i've been trying to frustratingly make. whether its what trendon is saying or not, i have no idea.

[autiger730]

What exactly is the argument here? Because anytime anyone says something contrary to whatever we think the argument is all we get is "you're arguing against the wrong thing"

[shel311]

till, in my opinion, doesn't make it 100% right. and it is semantics. its semantics because its legal, but its not legal. its not legal to pull over Shel today who did absolutely nothing wrong except forget to put his blinker on and then proceed to rip apart his car in order to find/(plant)/look for something else cause the cop has an issue with people from Cutoff. except it ITS 100% legal. that to me is semantics and the point i've been trying to frustratingly make.

They better not touch my Charger!!!!

But I don't think it's semantics. What's better than arguing semantics? Arguing whether something is semantics

They can do all of that stuff you just said if they have probable cause. If they don't and lie about probable cause, that's not semantics, that is illegal. Now obviously, proving it is the part you're referring to and I completely agree, but again, I don't think that has anything to do with the original topic.

whether its what trendon is saying or not, i have no idea

I have no clue what Trendon is talking about LOL. But what I am 100% certain of now after reading the Supreme Court ruling, is that the stuff Trendon quoted in his 1st post is NOT against the law, and Trendon claimed it was against the law. Trendon was wrong. Bear was wrong. Jsence was wrong, that much I am certain about. And I'm not pounding my chest saying I was right because all along, I was uncertain. But they had definitive sides which turned out to be the wrong side of the argument.

[DRiccio21]

They can do all of that stuff you just said if they have probable cause. If they don't and lie about probable cause, that's not semantics, that is illegal. Now obviously, proving it is the part you're referring to and I completely agree, but again, I don't think that has anything to do with the original topic.

okay, well at least we are on the same page as to what i'm trying to say.

[shel311]

They can do all of that stuff you just said if they have probable cause. If they don't and lie about probable cause, that's not semantics, that is illegal. Now obviously, proving it is the part you're referring to and I completely agree, but again, I don't think that has anything to do with the original topic.

okay, well at least we are on the same page as to what i'm trying to say.

Only took 7 pages for us to get on track here with a mutual understanding.

Team logic is back? YEA, we're back!!!!

[brwnbear]

I have no clue what Trendon is talking about LOL. But what I am 100% certain of now after reading the Supreme Court ruling.

Interesting.

Can you please provide us the name of the case that you read.

Thanks,

Edit: nevermind. I found it on the thread.

[shel311]

I have no clue what Trendon is talking about LOL. But what I am 100% certain of now after reading the Supreme Court ruling.

Interesting.

Can you please provide us the name of the case that you read.

Thanks,

Edit: nevermind. I found it on the thread.

I didn't mean to call you out specifically in my previous post as I think you only had one post in this thread lol. Well, obvious I did mean to, But the content of your post was one of the main things I was specifically questioning and wondering about. Then I read WJ's post with the Supreme Court's quotes, and it answered that specific issue.

[autiger730]

Jsence went from right, to wrong, to looking like a total jackass, all in one thread.

[brwnbear]

I have no problem being wrong as its the only way I will learn.

What a devastating ruling. Basically opens up the ability for any cop to plant evidence whenever they want to whomever they want.

[WJ5811]

The ruling doesnt mean police can pull you over a search your car for nothing. Police cant pull you over for expired tags and walk up say get out and rip through your car for no other reason than expired tags. Yes that is illegal. Something else must be found to further the stop beyond the traffic violation beyond expired stickers. All the Supreme court ruling says is its not a violation to make the stop based on pretext reasons so long as there is an actual traffic violation that occurs and you could have been stopped for that reason anyway reguardless of anything else.

The searching of people and the vehicle must be developed by something else. Arrest is the easiest. Get stopped for expired stickers and have a suspended license or a warrant and you get searched incident to the arrest. Other ways could be the smell of or visual observance of drugs or something along the lines that leads to belive a crime is occuring. Or the police can just plain ask you for consent and if you give it they search with your permission.

If you guys want to start talking about crooked cops and planting evidence and all that then you win because of course that is illegal and wrong.

[DRiccio21]

this is where the disconnect is, in my opinion.

i'm not saying all cops are crooked. i'm not saying most are crooked. i'm saying a ruling like that allows for the .0001% who is crooked to have an out.. to be able to live in that gray area. and thats more dangerous to me than the good that comes with catching real criminals using the proper techniques.

which is what i thought trendon was trying to get at originally.

[WJ5811]

this is where the disconnect is, in my opinion.

i'm not saying all cops are crooked. i'm not saying most are crooked. i'm saying a ruling like that allows for the .0001% who is crooked to have an out.. to be able to live in that gray area. and thats more dangerous to me than the good that comes with catching real criminals using the proper techniques.

which is what i thought trendon was trying to get at originally.

I understand what you are saying. But those crooked cops are criminals as well. As criminals they will always do the same as other criminals and act outside the law or find a way to use it to thier advantage. Just like the rest of the criminals we have to hope eventually they get caught.

[shel311]

this is where the disconnect is, in my opinion.

i'm not saying all cops are crooked. i'm not saying most are crooked. i'm saying a ruling like that allows for the .0001% who is crooked to have an out.. to be able to live in that gray area. and thats more dangerous to me than the good that comes with catching real criminals using the proper techniques.

which is what i thought trendon was trying to get at originally.

Had trendon said that, this thread wouldn't have gone off like it did.

But in true Trendon fashion, he went the extreme route and the stuff he was saying on page 1 was not correct, not at all.

Not saying you would agree or disagree with this, but I also don't think it would be fair to say it should have been easily assumed that Trendon was talking about the .0001%, since he was very specific in what he was saying.

[trendon]

this is where the disconnect is, in my opinion.

i'm not saying all cops are crooked. i'm not saying most are crooked. i'm saying a ruling like that allows for the .0001% who is crooked to have an out.. to be able to live in that gray area. and thats more dangerous to me than the good that comes with catching real criminals using the proper techniques.

which is what i thought trendon was trying to get at originally.

Had trendon said that, this thread wouldn't have gone off like it did.

But in true Trendon fashion, he went the extreme route and the stuff he was saying on page 1 was not correct, not at all.

Not saying you would agree or disagree with this, but I also don't think it would be fair to say it should have been easily assumed that Trendon was talking about the .0001%, since he was very specific in what he was saying.

You are worse than the police. Seriously.

[DRiccio21]

trendon is a complete idiot and paints everything with a broad stroke... but typically around the fluff, nonsense and hyperbole he makes valid arguments.

you just have to swim around his inner craziness to find it. which gets annoying.

[shel311]

trendon is a complete idiot and paints everything with a broad stroke... but typically around the fluff, nonsense and hyperbole he makes valid arguments.

you just have to swim around his inner craziness to find it. which gets annoying.

Greatness!

So true.