Police Ticket Quota

Off Topic
102

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m a cop in a major metro city. There are no “quotas” in my department for tickets. There “might” with some supervisors for traffic stops, since we are HUGE on the actual stops, but not for tickets. That’s UNLESS you work traffic or motors, then TICKETS are actually considered work product and you are rated on “productivity” (since you don’t answer calls, etc.).

We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality. We basically are more concerned with cars with guns, dope, warrants, stolen shit etc. than we are writing you a ticket for your broken tail-light. First you would have to traffic violation. Then you may then develop reasonable suspicion based on you conversation with the driver/occupants and a variety of other factors (criminal history, high crime area, etc.) MAY lead you to go beyond the stop and further investigate the driver/occupants. But I ALWAYS based that on something I could articulate… never just something like race/age etc. Good way to get sued.

That’s my take. I’m in investigations now, but I think I have signed 3 tickets in the last 2 years and those were for DUIs I think…[/quote]

But where is your probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing a place (vehicle) or specific person or thing, based on a random traffic stop?

Here’s the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are you authorized to do anything other than pull them over, cite them for speeding/broken tail light, and let them go on their way based on that?

Now if someone came in and swore under oath that they saw Jimmy T. Hoodrat putting a gun under the seat of hie blue 97 Honda Civic, then by all means, get a warrent and search that fucker’s car. But absent that, how is any other pretense for a warrentless search in any way shape or form Constitutional?[/quote]

Huh? Where did I mention “Probable Cause”??

You do know the difference, maybe you meant reasonable suspicion?

Because… I have I am vehicle stopped, and I have PC, I am already writing you a citation (if it’s a misdemeanor) OR I am putting handcuffs on you and taking you to booking, because you are under “arrest”. There is a HUGE legal difference between R/S and P/C. Probable Cause is the legal threshold for us to arrest someone. But police action typically begins at the RS level, but in traffic stops, it’s even less. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY DEPARTMENT (LIKE MINE) LOVE THEM AS A INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.

Now the courts have allowed us to legally “detain” the vehicle for as long as needed to conduct the traffic stop. Now I worked narcotics for a little bit, so I know all the “tricks” if needed (I don’t like working dope BTW). The courts don’t put a time limit on it, but I tell you… if you stop a car and get dope out of it… but you had to “hold” the car for 20 minutes waiting on K9, the court will throw it out. Why? Because the stop was an “unreasonable” detention of the driver.

Now, the driver might have had a TON of indicators. Might have been on parole, had a story that did add up, a car that wasn’t his, coming from a known dope area, denied us to search his person or car… so tells me, this looks “good”. So, I’m going to do what my city/department/unit pay me to do: go beyond the stop and use our tool to get drugs and guns off the streets.

So I call for a dog. Or legally, a “free-air sniff”. BUT the guy is still stopped for a TRAFFIC INFRACTION ONLY. I have RS BUT NO PC! See, that’s how it works. If he does not give me consent, I have nothing at this point. He might be sitting on a zip of powder and have a Glock under the seat. Now if out dogs are all ties up bites bad guys, then I have to write me a ticket and let him go, or wait.

You have to develop PC through RS… you can’t just jump to get there. Now, I did stop and frisk stop when I worked in the projects… for weapons, but with cars, I never randomly searched them. Why? I wouldn’t want the complaints or the hassle. I would rather be selective.

Now I’m sure dirty cops do this. Just like dirty apples in EVERY profession exist. The bad thing is cops are in a highly unique position with public trust where that one bad apple gets so much media exposure, the damage .001 % can cause to the rest of us is tremendous.

But I do agree, they are out there. And I want them out just as much as you guys. Hell, more so.

103

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m a cop in a major metro city. There are no “quotas” in my department for tickets. There “might” with some supervisors for traffic stops, since we are HUGE on the actual stops, but not for tickets. That’s UNLESS you work traffic or motors, then TICKETS are actually considered work product and you are rated on “productivity” (since you don’t answer calls, etc.).

We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality. We basically are more concerned with cars with guns, dope, warrants, stolen shit etc. than we are writing you a ticket for your broken tail-light. First you would have to traffic violation. Then you may then develop reasonable suspicion based on you conversation with the driver/occupants and a variety of other factors (criminal history, high crime area, etc.) MAY lead you to go beyond the stop and further investigate the driver/occupants. But I ALWAYS based that on something I could articulate… never just something like race/age etc. Good way to get sued.

That’s my take. I’m in investigations now, but I think I have signed 3 tickets in the last 2 years and those were for DUIs I think…[/quote]

But where is your probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing a place (vehicle) or specific person or thing, based on a random traffic stop?

Here’s the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are you authorized to do anything other than pull them over, cite them for speeding/broken tail light, and let them go on their way based on that?

Now if someone came in and swore under oath that they saw Jimmy T. Hoodrat putting a gun under the seat of hie blue 97 Honda Civic, then by all means, get a warrent and search that fucker’s car. But absent that, how is any other pretense for a warrentless search in any way shape or form Constitutional?[/quote]

Huh? Where did I mention “Probable Cause”??

You do know the difference, maybe you meant reasonable suspicion?

Because… I have I am vehicle stopped, and I have PC, I am already writing you a citation (if it’s a misdemeanor) OR I am putting handcuffs on you and taking you to booking, because you are under “arrest”. There is a HUGE legal difference between R/S and P/C. Probable Cause is the legal threshold for us to arrest someone. But police action typically begins at the RS level, but in traffic stops, it’s even less. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY DEPARTMENT (LIKE MINE) LOVE THEM AS A INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.

Now the courts have allowed us to legally “detain” the vehicle for as long as needed to conduct the traffic stop. Now I worked narcotics for a little bit, so I know all the “tricks” if needed (I don’t like working dope BTW). The courts don’t put a time limit on it, but I tell you… if you stop a car and get dope out of it… but you had to “hold” the car for 20 minutes waiting on K9, the court will throw it out. Why? Because the stop was an “unreasonable” detention of the driver. Now, the driver might have had a TON of indicators. Might have been on parole, had a story that did add up, a car that wasn’t his, coming from a known dope area, denied us to search his person or car… so tells me, this looks “good”. So, I’m going to do what my city/department/unit pay me to do: go beyond the stop and use our tool to get drugs and guns off the streets. So I call for a dog. Or legally, a “free-air sniff”. BUT the guy is still stopped for a TRAFFIC INFRACTION ONLY. I have RS BUT NO PC! See, that’s how it works. If he does not give me consent, I have nothing at this point. He might be sitting on a zip of powder and have a Glock under the seat. Now if out dogs are all ties up bites bad guys, then I have to write me a ticket and let him go, or wait.

You have to develop PC through RS… you can’t just jump to get there. Now, I did stop and frisk stop when I worked in the projects… for weapons, but with cars, I never randomly searched them. Why? I wouldn’t want the complaints or the hassle. I would rather be selective.

Now I’m sure dirty cops do this. Just like dirty apples in EVERY profession exist. The bad thing is cops are in a highly unique position with public trust where that one bad apple gets so much media exposure, the damage .001 % can cause to the rest of us is tremendous.

But I do agree, they are out there. And I want them out just as much as you guys. Hell, more so.[/quote]

The messed up part is that you don’t see a problem with your method of obtaining RS. You take a citizen and detain them on a trumped up traffic violation until you can determine if there is a reason you can find to further search them.

Seems like a clear violation of the 4th to me regardless if that is what your department pays you to do. This right here is the disconnect between the police and the citizenry.

104

How do our T-Nation officers feel about the use of force in Boston after the bombing?

105

[quote]Chushin wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m a cop in a major metro city. There are no “quotas” in my department for tickets. There “might” with some supervisors for traffic stops, since we are HUGE on the actual stops, but not for tickets. That’s UNLESS you work traffic or motors, then TICKETS are actually considered work product and you are rated on “productivity” (since you don’t answer calls, etc.).

We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality. We basically are more concerned with cars with guns, dope, warrants, stolen shit etc. than we are writing you a ticket for your broken tail-light. First you would have to traffic violation. Then you may then develop reasonable suspicion based on you conversation with the driver/occupants and a variety of other factors (criminal history, high crime area, etc.) MAY lead you to go beyond the stop and further investigate the driver/occupants. But I ALWAYS based that on something I could articulate… never just something like race/age etc. Good way to get sued.

That’s my take. I’m in investigations now, but I think I have signed 3 tickets in the last 2 years and those were for DUIs I think…[/quote]

But where is your probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing a place (vehicle) or specific person or thing, based on a random traffic stop?

Here’s the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are you authorized to do anything other than pull them over, cite them for speeding/broken tail light, and let them go on their way based on that?

Now if someone came in and swore under oath that they saw Jimmy T. Hoodrat putting a gun under the seat of hie blue 97 Honda Civic, then by all means, get a warrent and search that fucker’s car. But absent that, how is any other pretense for a warrentless search in any way shape or form Constitutional?[/quote]

Something I’ve always wondered about as well.

And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

I hate working DUIs. I worked some overtime assignment when I was younger to make some extra money, but now I run from them. We not even supposed to call them a cab, lock 'em up. Too much liability. You will be in court for the next year too… folks will fight those tooth and nail. Good attorney, it will get continued twice, plead down to reckless… you might go to court 3-4 times. I will have them call a buddy as long as they aren’t a dick, trashed, total criminal, DUI prior, have insurance, employed, or didn’t wreck I’ll cut him/her a break.

Or if they can sell it real good. I let this thug go one time who was funny, and sold his story really well. I liked him, and then I told him to go apply for a sales job tomorrow morning. He was really good. Seriously.

What’s worse then the checkpoints? The checkpoints then the traffic stops on the vehicles that take the turn off road prior to the checkpoint. So be careful when taking shortcuts around the checkpoints. Don’t speed, if you know what I mean.

106

[quote]Testy1 wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
I’m a cop in a major metro city. There are no “quotas” in my department for tickets. There “might” with some supervisors for traffic stops, since we are HUGE on the actual stops, but not for tickets. That’s UNLESS you work traffic or motors, then TICKETS are actually considered work product and you are rated on “productivity” (since you don’t answer calls, etc.).

We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality. We basically are more concerned with cars with guns, dope, warrants, stolen shit etc. than we are writing you a ticket for your broken tail-light. First you would have to traffic violation. Then you may then develop reasonable suspicion based on you conversation with the driver/occupants and a variety of other factors (criminal history, high crime area, etc.) MAY lead you to go beyond the stop and further investigate the driver/occupants. But I ALWAYS based that on something I could articulate… never just something like race/age etc. Good way to get sued.

That’s my take. I’m in investigations now, but I think I have signed 3 tickets in the last 2 years and those were for DUIs I think…[/quote]

But where is your probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing a place (vehicle) or specific person or thing, based on a random traffic stop?

Here’s the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are you authorized to do anything other than pull them over, cite them for speeding/broken tail light, and let them go on their way based on that?

Now if someone came in and swore under oath that they saw Jimmy T. Hoodrat putting a gun under the seat of hie blue 97 Honda Civic, then by all means, get a warrent and search that fucker’s car. But absent that, how is any other pretense for a warrentless search in any way shape or form Constitutional?[/quote]

Huh? Where did I mention “Probable Cause”??

You do know the difference, maybe you meant reasonable suspicion?

Because… I have I am vehicle stopped, and I have PC, I am already writing you a citation (if it’s a misdemeanor) OR I am putting handcuffs on you and taking you to booking, because you are under “arrest”. There is a HUGE legal difference between R/S and P/C. Probable Cause is the legal threshold for us to arrest someone. But police action typically begins at the RS level, but in traffic stops, it’s even less. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY DEPARTMENT (LIKE MINE) LOVE THEM AS A INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.

Now the courts have allowed us to legally “detain” the vehicle for as long as needed to conduct the traffic stop. Now I worked narcotics for a little bit, so I know all the “tricks” if needed (I don’t like working dope BTW). The courts don’t put a time limit on it, but I tell you… if you stop a car and get dope out of it… but you had to “hold” the car for 20 minutes waiting on K9, the court will throw it out. Why? Because the stop was an “unreasonable” detention of the driver. Now, the driver might have had a TON of indicators. Might have been on parole, had a story that did add up, a car that wasn’t his, coming from a known dope area, denied us to search his person or car… so tells me, this looks “good”. So, I’m going to do what my city/department/unit pay me to do: go beyond the stop and use our tool to get drugs and guns off the streets. So I call for a dog. Or legally, a “free-air sniff”. BUT the guy is still stopped for a TRAFFIC INFRACTION ONLY. I have RS BUT NO PC! See, that’s how it works. If he does not give me consent, I have nothing at this point. He might be sitting on a zip of powder and have a Glock under the seat. Now if out dogs are all ties up bites bad guys, then I have to write me a ticket and let him go, or wait.

You have to develop PC through RS… you can’t just jump to get there. Now, I did stop and frisk stop when I worked in the projects… for weapons, but with cars, I never randomly searched them. Why? I wouldn’t want the complaints or the hassle. I would rather be selective.

Now I’m sure dirty cops do this. Just like dirty apples in EVERY profession exist. The bad thing is cops are in a highly unique position with public trust where that one bad apple gets so much media exposure, the damage .001 % can cause to the rest of us is tremendous.

But I do agree, they are out there. And I want them out just as much as you guys. Hell, more so.[/quote]

The messed up part is that you don’t see a problem with your method of obtaining RS. You take a citizen and detain them on a trumped up traffic violation until you can determine if there is a reason you can find to further search them.

Seems like a clear violation of the 4th to me regardless if that is what your department pays you to do. This right here is the disconnect between the police and the citizenry.[/quote]

“Trumpted up traffic stop”? were you citing my example I outlined?
*Guy on Parole/criminal history
*Gives false information/story doesn’t add up
*Car is not his
*Know drug area
*Denied consent search of his person and vehicle

^^^ That’s a trumpted up stop? Well, sorry… I have to disagree. That gives me reasonable suspicion. Then I call K9. Then we get to pull the occupants out, pat them down for weapons, and conduct and free-air sniff. If the dog indicates, we search. Then we get the dope, guns etc. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Sorry.

Do you have a better way of keeping our streets safe?

107

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality. We basically are more concerned with cars with guns, dope, warrants, stolen shit etc. than we are writing you a ticket for your broken tail-light. First you would have to traffic violation. Then you may then develop reasonable suspicion based on you conversation with the driver/occupants and a variety of other factors (criminal history, high crime area, etc.) MAY lead you to go beyond the stop and further investigate the driver/occupants. But I ALWAYS based that on something I could articulate… never just something like race/age etc. Good way to get sued.

That’s my take. I’m in investigations now, but I think I have signed 3 tickets in the last 2 years and those were for DUIs I think…

But where is your probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing a place (vehicle) or specific person or thing, based on a random traffic stop?

Here’s the 4th ammendment:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

How are you authorized to do anything other than pull them over, cite them for speeding/broken tail light, and let them go on their way based on that?

Now if someone came in and swore under oath that they saw Jimmy T. Hoodrat putting a gun under the seat of hie blue 97 Honda Civic, then by all means, get a warrent and search that fucker’s car. But absent that, how is any other pretense for a warrentless search in any way shape or form Constitutional?

Huh? Where did I mention “Probable Cause”??

You do know the difference, maybe you meant reasonable suspicion?

Because… I have I am vehicle stopped, and I have PC, I am already writing you a citation (if it’s a misdemeanor) OR I am putting handcuffs on you and taking you to booking, because you are under “arrest”. There is a HUGE legal difference between R/S and P/C. Probable Cause is the legal threshold for us to arrest someone. But police action typically begins at the RS level, but in traffic stops, it’s even less. THAT’S EXACTLY WHY DEPARTMENT (LIKE MINE) LOVE THEM AS A INVESTIGATIVE TOOL.

Now the courts have allowed us to legally “detain” the vehicle for as long as needed to conduct the traffic stop. Now I worked narcotics for a little bit, so I know all the “tricks” if needed (I don’t like working dope BTW). The courts don’t put a time limit on it, but I tell you… if you stop a car and get dope out of it… but you had to “hold” the car for 20 minutes waiting on K9, the court will throw it out. Why? Because the stop was an “unreasonable” detention of the driver. Now, the driver might have had a TON of indicators. Might have been on parole, had a story that did add up, a car that wasn’t his, coming from a known dope area, denied us to search his person or car… so tells me, this looks “good”. So, I’m going to do what my city/department/unit pay me to do: go beyond the stop and use our tool to get drugs and guns off the streets. So I call for a dog. Or legally, a “free-air sniff”. BUT the guy is still stopped for a TRAFFIC INFRACTION ONLY. I have RS BUT NO PC! See, that’s how it works. If he does not give me consent, I have nothing at this point. He might be sitting on a zip of powder and have a Glock under the seat. Now if out dogs are all ties up bites bad guys, then I have to write me a ticket and let him go, or wait.

You have to develop PC through RS… you can’t just jump to get there. Now, I did stop and frisk stop when I worked in the projects… for weapons, but with cars, I never randomly searched them. Why? I wouldn’t want the complaints or the hassle. I would rather be selective.

Now I’m sure dirty cops do this. Just like dirty apples in EVERY profession exist. The bad thing is cops are in a highly unique position with public trust where that one bad apple gets so much media exposure, the damage .001 % can cause to the rest of us is tremendous.

But I do agree, they are out there. And I want them out just as much as you guys. Hell, more so.

The messed up part is that you don’t see a problem with your method of obtaining RS. You take a citizen and detain them on a trumped up traffic violation until you can determine if there is a reason you can find to further search them.

Seems like a clear violation of the 4th to me regardless if that is what your department pays you to do. This right here is the disconnect between the police and the citizenry.

“Trumpted up traffic stop”? were you citing my example I outlined?
*Guy on Parole/criminal history
*Gives false information/story doesn’t add up
*Car is not his
*Know drug area
*Denied consent search of his person and vehicle

^^^ That’s a trumpted up stop? Well, sorry… I have to disagree. That gives me reasonable suspicion. Then I call K9. Then we get to pull the occupants out, pat them down for weapons, and conduct and free-air sniff. If the dog indicates, we search. Then we get the dope, guns etc. Don’t like it? Take it up with the Supreme Court.

Sorry.

Do you have a better way of keeping our streets safe? [/quote]

Yes I was. “We are big on stops, to stop the driver and to address the lawful traffic violation. We use it as a pre-text to look for further criminality” sounds like an excuse to stop and search to me. Funny how many times I have been stopped for a taillight out but when I checked it was just fine. Are these the kind of “lawful” stops you are referring to?

Since when is *Denied consent search of his person and vehicle a cause? I suppose this is where you are going to say if I am not guilty I have no worries. BULLSHIT! This is exactly what the 4th is about. No wonder people don’t trust cops.

As far as keeping our streets safe, most of what you wrote refers to drug laws and when has prohibition ever kept our streets safe?

108

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html

109

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html[/quote]

I keep reading this over and over and don’t see the funny in it. I think SS has had his account hacked.

110

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html[/quote]

I keep reading this over and over and don’t see the funny in it. I think SS has had his account hacked.
[/quote]

Sorry Doc, sometimes in life we don’t get what we expect.

111

I think the questions of “what is legal” and “what we agree with” have morphed into one thing.
1- Pretext stops are legal so long as there is a legitimate traffic violation.

2- If an officer detects the “pungent odor of burnt marijuana emanating from the vehicle” he has probable cause to search it. (Please note that I have seen that exact phrase word for word in I/O narratives perhaps 250 times in the last 12 years)

3- Replace “marijuana” in number 2 with “alcohol”.

4- If an officer stops you for any traffic violation and sees any contraband whatsoever in plain view in the vehicle he/she has probable cause to search it without a warrant.

5- The fact that you are in a vehicle is one of several “exigent circumstances” which negate the warrant requirement in most instances.

6- Drivers license/Insurance checkpoints are perfectly legal and are conducted in most states. They have to have a written policy which sets out the guidelines for conducting the checkpoint and must have documentation to show that they followed it. This falls under the same category as a pretext stop. Their real goal is to catch DUIs, but if you don’t have a DL or insurance they are going to write you a ticket.

There are others I could put in here but I will limit it to these due to time constraints. All of these things are legal. They are not legal because the officer wants them to be legal or because the city council made them legal. They are legal because a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment made them legal. Do we agree with them? Some people do and some don’t. But it is all perfectly legal.

112

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html[/quote]

If the police were limited to dealing with impaired drivers at these check points I might reconsider my opinion. It is my understanding that…registration, inspection, insurance, etc tickets are written at these stops in addition to sobriety checks…that’s just a money grab, plain and simple.

113

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]super saiyan wrote:

[quote]Chushin wrote:
And how are random (DUI?) traffic stops legal?[/quote]

They were upheld by the Supreme Court in, Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (1990). The Court used a 3-point test to uphold the reasonableness of the checkpoints. The test balances the State’s interest in preventing drunk driving, the effectiveness of the checkpoints, and the level of intrusion upon the driver.

However, some states have banned such checkpoints, finding them to be unconstitutional. This includes Michigan, where the Sitz case started. Currently, 38 states utilize checkpoints in some form. Here is a breakdown by state:

http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/checkpoint_laws.html[/quote]

If the police were limited to dealing with impaired drivers at these check points I might reconsider my opinion. It is my understanding that…registration, inspection, insurance, etc tickets are written at these stops in addition to sobriety checks…that’s just a money grab, plain and simple.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

114

[quote]OldOgre wrote:
They are legal because a Federal judge with a lifetime appointment made them legal. Do we agree with them? Some people do and some don’t. But it is all perfectly legal. [/quote]

A federal judge as also determined that if while under arrest the officer proceeds to rape the arrested; they have no legal right to resist; because they would be able to file a complaint after the fact. There are many terrible things that have taken place in the past that were totally legal at the time. I’m just doing what I’m told to do doesn’t cut it, everybody has choices to make in life.

115

Angry Chicken,

That works for me. I’ll say it with you.

Brett620,

You have bitten off a lot there, my friend. You seem to be explaining things well, though, so I’ll just let you carry on. My general response to those issues is this…the days of the friendly police officer walking the beat, while nice to remember, are pretty much gone.

From my point of view, too many criminals took advantage of the Officer Friendlies (or killed them), and so policing has had to change. I would personally LOVE to turn back the clock and work the way the old officers did, but it just isn’t practical anymore. We all wish we lived in Mayberry these days, but we don’t. I just try not to let that jade my day-to-day interactions with people too much.

USMCCDS423,

I’m not really familiar with what you are referring to. I’m assuming use of force complaints have gone up in Boston since the bombing?

116

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
LoRez,

Perhaps I mistook your post, but it seemed that you were advising all people to do it all the time. If I misunderstood your advice, then I’ll take the hit on that one.[/quote]

I didn’t write things as clear as I could have. It didn’t help that I was selectively quoted later in a way that implied differently than what I wrote. But no worries, I think we got things sorted out.

As far as what USMCCDS wrote, I’m pretty sure he was referring to the door-to-door searches after the Boston Marathon Bombing, where homeowners were detained while their house was raided. I.e., standard Iraq-style home searches.

117

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
USMCCDS423,

I’m not really familiar with what you are referring to. I’m assuming use of force complaints have gone up in Boston since the bombing?[/quote]

I’m referring to Boston SWAT teams entering homes after the bombing.

118

LoRez is right about my question.

119

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
Orion,

I agree with your statement AND with Angry Chicken’s…police should be held to a higher standard. In my opinion…or I should say, from this side of the mirror, I think that we are. Do some of them get light sentences? Yes. I personally believe a LOT of people get sentences that are far too light. Not just cops. By the same token, I have seen officers lose their jobs for very minor infractions. And they should have. To me, that is part of being held to a higher standard.

Push,

Believe it or not, I do see the criminal justice system as a machine…and a faulty one. Is it financially driven? I don’t know. We could argue endlessly on that and probably change neither mind. However, as naive as this may sound to others, I do still believe in law and order. I don’t believe that a society without law and order perpetuates for long. (My apologies to any anarchists reading this…I just don’t get your philosophies.) What I can tell you is that I, the “salesman” as you said, never see any of that money personally. I don’t get a commission for putting people in jail, writing tickets, etc. Maybe in some places they do, but not here. However, if I read your statments correctly, you are more angry at the system itself…and occasionally the agents of it. Fair enough. I don’t like everything “my” government does either.

Angry Chicken,

First I don’t need to Google Prince George’s County…I am already familiar with their brand of policing, and I am aware they have a reputation for corruption and brutality. The fact that they have not fallen under Federal control is beyond me. Also, if I got the facts of your particular case mixed up, then I apologize.

Secondly, and most importantly, you are correct…I don’t know you. And that was my entire point. It isn’t very fun being painted with a broad brush and being lumped in with everyone else, is it?

I have served both my country and my city honorably as a police officer for almost 25 years now. I don’t need or want thanks for it, because I like my work, and it has its own rewards. I don’t expect others to automatically respect me, or the things I have done. I make a decent living, and I like going to work, so I can’t ask for much more. If I wanted people to like me, I would have become a fireman. And you know what? The VAST majority of my co-workers are the same.

I made my comment about criminals and ex-cons for a reason…because many of them are exactly as I described. There obviously are exceptions to every rule. You say you are one, so I’ll take that at face value. But it sucks to be lumped in with the bad apples, doesn’t it? You probably experience more of that on a daily basis than I ever have, because of your past. And you would probably prefer to be identified for the good things you have done…not the bad.

We (police) are the same way. We have our share of fuck-ups and idiots. But the vast majority of us are not. And we would prefer not to be idntified or defined by the ones who do fuck up.

I lurk on these boards a lot. I have for many years. From time to time I’ll jump in, but it’s a rarity, especially these days. I have never commented or responded to you directly until now, and frankly I don’t know why I did this time. My impression of you has always been that you don’t like police, period. If you say otherwise, then I’ll take you at your word.

My overall point to you and the other “cop haters” is this…hate the system all you want. A lot of us hate it. Hate the bad police…we do too. But quit lumping us all into one category. You’d be surprised to know how many of us agree with you on many things…we just work on a different side of the issue.

Fin.
[/quote]

Good Post… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…

120

[quote]idaho wrote:
Good Post… I learned years ago we will always be hated, until “they” are injured, victim of a crime, attacked, etc…then “they” cry like babies for the police. What a double standard…
[/quote]

I think the police are lacking control.

You have a gun and social power over me. I want you under every eye and and under as much speculation as possible.

I want cops to live in glass houses…literally.

If you want that power, you should have to give up some personal privacy also we can all make sure you are doing what you are supposed to at all times.

I bet the employment line would be empty if that were the case.