Good news drunk drivers - your first swerve is free!

[Lucky... 0]

http://webmail.aol.com/28789/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

[NWFlyer 2]

Quote

http://webmail.aol.com/28789/aol-1/en-us/Suite.aspx

Um... do I have to sign up for an AOL email account to find out the story?

"There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences." -P.J. O'Rourke

[Darius11 12]

will post the text for you in one sec.



I think it was a good idea. Cops should not be able to pull any one over without reason.



edit: sorry i read the artical this morning on AOL but can not find it now. I'll keep looking and will post the text when i find it. I hate AOL

I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

[Andy9o8 2]

Try this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_drunk_driving

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Try this.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091020/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_drunk_driving

Thank you. That works better.

[Andy9o8 2]

Yeah but now you need to go back & fix the new thread title, or it will simply say "post deleted by Lucky". It's an interesting story that I was going to post, but you beat me to it.

[1969912 0]

Quote

I think it was a good idea. Cops should not be able to pull any one over without reason.

I agree, and a tip called by someone should not be used as probable cause to stop a car.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yeah but now you need to go back & fix the new thread title, or it will simply say "post deleted by Lucky". It's an interesting story that I was going to post, but you beat me to it.

Hey, the new title will draw more interest as tho it's something savy

I can't change it, if ya wanna start one, go ahead.

[rhaig 0]

states have their own guidelines on what is required in order for an officer to pull over someone. I know officers who have told me that they will ignore those rules if they still believe that the person in the car is a danger to others, but can't show it on the video. Most of the time those people are drunk, get hauled in, and don't fight the charge because they know they were in the wrong. Sometimes those people are fine, and don't get hauled in. Sometimes they fight it and get off for lack of PC for the stop.

Does that make those officers bad cops? Depends... but I think mostly no.

If someone calls in a drunk driver, that car should be found and observed. if they're drunk, it won't take more than a block or 2 to see PC.

--
Rob

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

states have their own guidelines on what is required in order for an officer to pull over someone. I know officers who have told me that they will ignore those rules if they still believe that the person in the car is a danger to others, but can't show it on the video. Most of the time those people are drunk, get hauled in, and don't fight the charge because they know they were in the wrong. Sometimes those people are fine, and don't get hauled in. Sometimes they fight it and get off for lack of PC for the stop.

Does that make those officers bad cops? Depends... but I think mostly no.

If someone calls in a drunk driver, that car should be found and observed. if they're drunk, it won't take more than a block or 2 to see PC.

It all sounds innocent enough, but the slippery slope leads to a traffic stop w/o PC, lies about it if asked, to a rough interrogation, to shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass to get a confession as with Abner Louima. There is no, "this time" in LE, you must follow protocol and not lie or you are a bad cop. There are exceptions for exigency, so you don't have to wait for a warrant when it is obvious someone is in danger, but an illegal PC stop when you could follow them and wait for them to get out of their car is all you have to do and is prudent.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

Quote

states have their own guidelines on what is required in order for an officer to pull over someone. I know officers who have told me that they will ignore those rules if they still believe that the person in the car is a danger to others, but can't show it on the video. Most of the time those people are drunk, get hauled in, and don't fight the charge because they know they were in the wrong. Sometimes those people are fine, and don't get hauled in. Sometimes they fight it and get off for lack of PC for the stop.

Does that make those officers bad cops? Depends... but I think mostly no.

If someone calls in a drunk driver, that car should be found and observed. if they're drunk, it won't take more than a block or 2 to see PC.

It all sounds innocent enough, but the slippery slope leads to a traffic stop w/o PC, lies about it if asked, to a rough interrogation, to shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass to get a confession as with Abner Louima. There is no, "this time" in LE, you must follow protocol and not lie or you are a bad cop. There are exceptions for exigency, so you don't have to wait for a warrant when it is obvious someone is in danger, but an illegal PC stop when you could follow them and wait for them to get out of their car is all you have to do and is prudent.

You're forgetting that driving on our highways is a privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes responsibilities and certain concessions one of which is allowing the police to ascertain, to the best of their abilities, the safety of all vehicles and drivers on the road.
As one who has lost somebody very close to a drunk driver, I side with Roberts on this. An officer can tell within a few seconds of starting a conversation with somebody whether they have been drinking and if further sobriety tests are needed.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

states have their own guidelines on what is required in order for an officer to pull over someone. I know officers who have told me that they will ignore those rules if they still believe that the person in the car is a danger to others, but can't show it on the video. Most of the time those people are drunk, get hauled in, and don't fight the charge because they know they were in the wrong. Sometimes those people are fine, and don't get hauled in. Sometimes they fight it and get off for lack of PC for the stop.

Does that make those officers bad cops? Depends... but I think mostly no.

If someone calls in a drunk driver, that car should be found and observed. if they're drunk, it won't take more than a block or 2 to see PC.

It all sounds innocent enough, but the slippery slope leads to a traffic stop w/o PC, lies about it if asked, to a rough interrogation, to shoving a toilet plunger up someone's ass to get a confession as with Abner Louima. There is no, "this time" in LE, you must follow protocol and not lie or you are a bad cop. There are exceptions for exigency, so you don't have to wait for a warrant when it is obvious someone is in danger, but an illegal PC stop when you could follow them and wait for them to get out of their car is all you have to do and is prudent.

You're forgetting that driving on our highways is a privilege, not a right. With that privilege comes responsibilities and certain concessions one of which is allowing the police to ascertain, to the best of their abilities, the safety of all vehicles and drivers on the road.
As one who has lost somebody very close to a drunk driver, I side with Roberts on this. An officer can tell within a few seconds of starting a conversation with somebody whether they have been drinking and if further sobriety tests are needed.

I just have the idea that you know as much about the justice system and history as the average layperson. Do you know Map v Ohio for warrant requirements of a house? Katz v Ohio for privacy? The Chimmel Bubble for auto searchs? Terry v Ohio for pat and frisk? Dickerson v US tested Miranda in around 2000 for voluntarilness issues. These are just off the top of my head, but I have studied case law extensively and understand the need for a balance between an officer's ability to enforce vs a person's right to not be harassed. Having lost someone is sypathy-deserving, but it doesn't make you an expert on 4th type requirements. The Exclusionary Rule was established why? To threaten officers with the exclusion of evidence to dissuade police misconduct; that's the written explanation. Officers are prone to misconduct in order to get the alleged criminal so they sometimes will push the limits and the gov/SCOTUS has dealt with it. You don't want to live in a society where the cops have no limits under the guise of implied consent.

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Excuse me, but just where did I say or insinuate I was an expert in the law? As for yourself, are you a licensed attorney? Hell, my dog could study case law for years and that doesn't mean she knows her tail from a gavel.
You are still confusing rights with privilege. A warrantless search on private property is an entirely different matter than a tip of a drunk driver on the highway.
And yes, the law must find a balance. A balance between safety on the roads and a persons right to privacy in their vehicle on those roads. Spot checks for violations are the norm. Safety checks, weight checks, log book checks, etc. can all be done on a whim. I would call a stop on a tip of a drunk driver falling under the classification of a safety check. Where would you classify it?

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.