NDL Forum

I understand what he thinks.

All along, I've been asking for what is so.

shel311 wrote:All along, I've been asking for what is so.

What the 4th amendment is? Quit being so damn lazy and Google it, takes all of 2 minutes to get a basic definition ..

Crowes wrote:

shel311 wrote:All along, I've been asking for what is so.

What the 4th amendment is? Quit being so damn lazy and Google it, takes all of 2 minutes to get a basic definition ..

Yea, cause it's that simple.


So, if a cop stops someone for speeding, is it against the law to see if he has any warrants out? 4TH AMENDMENT!!!!!

Again, no one, you or Trendon, has explained what laws are being broken.

shel311 wrote:

Crowes wrote:

shel311 wrote:All along, I've been asking for what is so.

What the 4th amendment is? Quit being so damn lazy and Google it, takes all of 2 minutes to get a basic definition ..

Yea, cause it's that simple.


So, if a cop stops someone for speeding, is it against the law to see if he has any warrants out? 4TH AMENDMENT!!!!!

Again, no one, you or Trendon, has explained what laws are being broken.

No shel. You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

shel311 wrote:

Crowes wrote:

shel311 wrote:All along, I've been asking for what is so.

What the 4th amendment is? Quit being so damn lazy and Google it, takes all of 2 minutes to get a basic definition ..

Yea, cause it's that simple.


So, if a cop stops someone for speeding, is it against the law to see if he has any warrants out? 4TH AMENDMENT!!!!!

Again, no one, you or Trendon, has explained what laws are being broken.

Umm, I dont know what your missing... The 4th admendment gives you and I rights. So there is no need for a law per say to quote as being broken other than he is of the opinion that his rights are being infringed upon. So i guess you can think of the 4th amendment as law if it helps you get your head around a law being broken.

BFiVL wrote:You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

You get an early start on throwing back a few beers on this lovely holiday? You're sentence construction is all over the place today.

That being said, the 2 bolded quotes by Trendon do not say anything about pulling people out of their cars and doing searches. I read the link when Trendon first posted it, so if it says that specifically in there, I'll concede that.

And again, you said "IMO", and that's fine, but I'm still wanting to know what is so, not what we think it should be or just saying it's illegal without really knowing if it is, in fact, illegal.

To put it as simple as I possibly can:

said the stickers provide police with a reason to check for everything from lapsed insurance to stolen plates

Is this illegal or not? That simple. Linking the wiki article to the 4th amendment does not answer that question, it's not as simple as Crowes is trying to make it out to be.

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

You get an early start on throwing back a few beers on this lovely holiday? You're sentence construction is all over the place today.

That being said, the 2 bolded quotes by Trendon do not say anything about pulling people out of their cars and doing searches. I read the link when Trendon first posted it, so if it says that specifically in there, I'll concede that.

And again, you said "IMO", and that's fine, but I'm still wanting to know what is so, not what we think it should be or just saying it's illegal without really knowing if it is, in fact, illegal.

To put it as simple as I possibly can:

said the stickers provide police with a reason to check for everything from lapsed insurance to stolen plates

Is this illegal or not? That simple. Linking the wiki article to the 4th amendment does not answer that question, it's not as simple as Crowes is trying to make it out to be.

Didn't jsence call you out on this shit earlier this week and you whined? I apologize for not being grammatically correct on the the phone from time to time.

It's illegal to search w/o probable cause to do so. A traffic stop is not probable cause to search a car which again IMO what trendon prolly felt this is what they really intend for it to be used for.

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

Is this illegal or not? That simple. Linking the wiki article to the 4th amendment does not answer that question, it's not as simple as Crowes is trying to make it out to be.

You have to make your own judgment on wether you think it is legal or not. The whole thing with rights is they are open to interpretation. Depending on the judge it could be illegal or legal. There isnt gonna be a law to quote to make it as simple as black and white.

BFiVL wrote:Didn't jsence call you out on this shit earlier this week and you whined?

Somebody's salty.

And in case you didn't notice, i addressed everything in your post, so no it's absolutely nothing like Jsence's dumb claim. Nice try though, oh salty one.

BFiVL wrote:A traffic stop is not probable cause to search a car which again IMO what trendon prolly felt this is what they really intend for it to be used for.

Fine, but if that assertion is correct then Trendon is wrong by matter of factly saying they are admitting to breaking the law. It may be semantics, but what he said was not correct if this is true. Obviously breaking the law but not admitting it isn't any good, but I STILL don't see where they are admittedly breaking the law.

That is all, continue with your holiday Mr. Salty.

BFiVL wrote:

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

You get an early start on throwing back a few beers on this lovely holiday? You're sentence construction is all over the place today.

That being said, the 2 bolded quotes by Trendon do not say anything about pulling people out of their cars and doing searches. I read the link when Trendon first posted it, so if it says that specifically in there, I'll concede that.

And again, you said "IMO", and that's fine, but I'm still wanting to know what is so, not what we think it should be or just saying it's illegal without really knowing if it is, in fact, illegal.

To put it as simple as I possibly can:

said the stickers provide police with a reason to check for everything from lapsed insurance to stolen plates

Is this illegal or not? That simple. Linking the wiki article to the 4th amendment does not answer that question, it's not as simple as Crowes is trying to make it out to be.

Didn't jsence call you out on this shit earlier this week and you whined? I apologize for not being grammatically correct on the the phone from time to time.

It's illegal to search w/o probable cause to do so. A traffic stop is not probable cause to search a car which again IMO what trendon prolly felt this is what they really intend for it to be used for.

Won't the probable cause come in when they find warrants? Or expired or suspended license? Or something like that?

cougnix wrote:

BFiVL wrote:

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:You can do that what is being said by them IMO is if you pull me over for expired tag that is not enough probable cause to pull me out of my car and search.

You get an early start on throwing back a few beers on this lovely holiday? You're sentence construction is all over the place today.

That being said, the 2 bolded quotes by Trendon do not say anything about pulling people out of their cars and doing searches. I read the link when Trendon first posted it, so if it says that specifically in there, I'll concede that.

And again, you said "IMO", and that's fine, but I'm still wanting to know what is so, not what we think it should be or just saying it's illegal without really knowing if it is, in fact, illegal.

To put it as simple as I possibly can:

said the stickers provide police with a reason to check for everything from lapsed insurance to stolen plates

Is this illegal or not? That simple. Linking the wiki article to the 4th amendment does not answer that question, it's not as simple as Crowes is trying to make it out to be.

Didn't jsence call you out on this shit earlier this week and you whined? I apologize for not being grammatically correct on the the phone from time to time.

It's illegal to search w/o probable cause to do so. A traffic stop is not probable cause to search a car which again IMO what trendon prolly felt this is what they really intend for it to be used for.

Won't the probable cause come in when they find warrants? Or expired or suspended license? Or something like that?

Sure but I wouldn't take that argument. If you are pulled over for a driving infraction and are driving illegally sure that makes sense to me. I had a former classmate get pulled over for window tint and they searched his car and found drugs. He beat the case cause they didn't have probable cause to search car. I understand what's being said here by both sides feel a few people are failing to read between the trendon lines on where he thinks they are going with this law.

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:Didn't jsence call you out on this shit earlier this week and you whined?

Somebody's salty.

And in case you didn't notice, i addressed everything in your post, so no it's absolutely nothing like Jsence's dumb claim. Nice try though, oh salty one.

BFiVL wrote:A traffic stop is not probable cause to search a car which again IMO what trendon prolly felt this is what they really intend for it to be used for.

Fine, but if that assertion is correct then Trendon is wrong by matter of factly saying they are admitting to breaking the law. It may be semantics, but what he said was not correct if this is true. Obviously breaking the law but not admitting it isn't any good, but I STILL don't see where they are admittedly breaking the law.

That is all, continue with your holiday Mr. Salty.

Shell cant admit when he is wrong and called out for something. Shocker folks. It's all good Shelly didn't take a few days to prove jsence right. You may have done the impossible there

BFiVL wrote:a few people are failing to read between the trendon lines on where he thinks they are going with this law.

I honestly don't think the thread was about where they are going with this law.

The thread, judging from Trendon's first post, was about Trendon saying the cops admitted to breaking the law.


I still don't know if that is true or not. I don't know the laws, but I know it hasn't been shown that the statements admitted to breaking any laws.

BFiVL wrote:Shell cant admit when he is wrong and called out for something. Shocker folks. It's all good Shelly didn't take a few days to prove jsence right. You may have done the impossible there

This is like you claiming I lost a bet that i never accepted LOL.


Read my posts, I've said I don't know the answer, I'm asking for the answer.

How can I be proved wrong when I am admitting to NOT knowing the answer.

You're beyond reaching, it's funny, so sad but funny from Mr Salty.

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:Shell cant admit when he is wrong and called out for something. Shocker folks. It's all good Shelly didn't take a few days to prove jsence right. You may have done the impossible there

This is like you claiming I lost a bet that i never accepted LOL.


Read my posts, I've said I don't know the answer, I'm asking for the answer.

How can I be proved wrong when I am admitting to NOT knowing the answer.

You're beyond reaching, it's funny, so sad but funny from Mr Salty.

Damn you are like an elephant. Remembering shit cause you are so butt hurt by it.

Drunk AND salty.

It's gonna be a long night.

There is nothing better on these boards than Biffy getting his jimmies rustled.

shel311 wrote:

BFiVL wrote:a few people are failing to read between the trendon lines on where he thinks they are going with this law.

I honestly don't think the thread was about where they are going with this law.

The thread, judging from Trendon's first post, was about Trendon saying the cops admitted to breaking the law.


I still don't know if that is true or not. I don't know the laws, but I know it hasn't been shown that the statements admitted to breaking any laws.

If you get pulled over for your tags being expired then why shouldn't you just be given a ticket and be on your way? Trendon quotes lead you to believe that the cops are using the tags being expired as probable cause for more than the 4th amendment allows. It could be your opinion that they aren't infringing on your rights but to trendon they are. It's that simple. No one is gonna be able to name off a law as you are wanting thats breaks it down to as simple as legal or illegal

shel311 wrote:Drunk AND salty.

It's gonna be a long night.

There is nothing better on these boards than Biffy getting his jimmies rustled.

Shel,you realize some of us don't give a shit with what you say on these boards and like healthy debates? You give youself too much credit but again that's not too shocking either.

You still lost that bet.

shel you love to argue semantics

he's saying its unconsitutional. whether its 'against the law' is dependant on your definition of the law. if you believe that the consitution is the law, than you can debate it. but by the laws written, its not illegal for them to look for other stuff after pulling you over for tags if they have 'probable cause'

its a gray area that cops generally take advantage of but rarely ever admit... this guy admitted it

at least thats how i understand it... but i'm not a constitution expert nor a lawyer

Well this thread took off.