police activity...

sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2590380
this statement completely negates anything constructive you could say. for some reason, there is no longer an option on threads to notify a mod of this.
oh so i take it your a cowboy that wears tin on his chest?
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2590380
this statement completely negates anything constructive you could say. for some reason, there is no longer an option on threads to notify a mod of this.
How? since I have brothers that are cops AND THEY SAY IT and I deal with BIG BAD cops all the time how does this negate anything I could say? Explain that to me? Cause my opinion is based off real life experiences and have brothers who vocalize they hate working with rookies and cowboys who think they look good in uniforms?
You can’t handle this discussion so you want to silence my opinion? You want to call a mod cause I go against what you want, think or feel?
Ironic that your avatar is a storm trooper too
Fear not I’ll self edit that quote so no one gets offended by the truth of chickens.
 
salty blues

salty blues

Active Member
Originally Posted by scorpiojkd
http:///forum/post/2590114
Gimme a break! Why is it that every drug bust you hear about on the highways start with being pulled over for a "traffic violation"? Is a traffic violation automatically probable cause for suspicion of drug activity?
And, the traffic violations are almost always mundane things like "failure to signal lane change" or "tailight not shining" or some such.
//////////////
The reason every highway drug bust starts with a "mundane" traffic stop is that law enforcement has to have a legal reason to stop the vehicle i.e. tail lights out, speeding, etc.
A stop can't be made on a tip alone.
after that its the officers observations and the actions of the person(s) in the vehicle that lead to a search
Laws differ from state to state. My point is that with the way (drug)laws and attitudes concerning drug use have changed over the years, there has been some erosion of personal freedoms and rights. I believe this has resulted in an attitude by some in law enforcement of doing what they please, civil rights be damned.
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2590799
Laws differ from state to state. My point is that with the way (drug)laws and attitudes concerning drug use have changed over the years, there has been some erosion of personal freedoms and rights. I believe this has resulted in an attitude by some in law enforcement of doing what they please, civil rights be damned.
you can thank the rush to push the patriot act for your lose of civil rights
 
S

scorpiojkd

Guest
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2590582
My hose is no bigger then yours? All in this together? how?
you said you were a firefighter... I am a cop. 16 years. I'm not sure why you harbor so much hostility towards us. As far as being "in this together" we all work pretty well together down here.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by scorpiojkd
http:///forum/post/2590389
Hate to disagree with you, since you seem pro-law enforcement, but a stop does not allow you to search. Outside of a warrant, consent or PC you cannot search unless it is incident to an arrest and that search cannot include the trunk, only the passenger compartment. A mere stop does not give you PC. A refusal absolutely does not give you PC. Also, consent cannot be given until the traffic stop is over (the ticket has been issued and the license given back).
I agree with this. of course, I was being a little liberal in saying that was all that was needed to search a car. BUT, my point is that PC to search a car is nowhere close to the PC needed to get a search warrant for a house. if you're on a traffic stop, it's not hard to come up with probable cause to search if you really think there's something to be found. and a search warrant is not required for a car search. I think we are agreeing here for the most part.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2590799
Laws differ from state to state. My point is that with the way (drug)laws and attitudes concerning drug use have changed over the years, there has been some erosion of personal freedoms and rights. I believe this has resulted in an attitude by some in law enforcement of doing what they please, civil rights be damned.
yes, laws may differ from state to state. but the law concerning search and seizure is the 4th amendment. and there is no state law that overrides a federal Constitutional amendment. and I'm saying that if the police are sued in the case discussed in the original post, I think they will lose because there seems to me to be no grounds for getting a warrant issued.
 
S

scorpiojkd

Guest
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2591196
I agree with this. of course, I was being a little liberal in saying that was all that was needed to search a car. BUT, my point is that PC to search a car is nowhere close to the PC needed to get a search warrant for a house. if you're on a traffic stop, it's not hard to come up with probable cause to search if you really think there's something to be found. and a search warrant is not required for a car search. I think we are agreeing here for the most part.
I'm with you now. Yes, it is pretty easy to develop PC to get into a car once it is stoped. I also agree that PC is PC it hasn't changed or been eroded over time. In fact, since I've been doing this the courts have made a lot of decisions that have narrowed the definition.
 
acrylics

acrylics

Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2589742
it doesn't even have to be that. it can be something as simple as.....
Officer: can I search your car?
driver: no.
Officer: that gives me probable cause to search your car.

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2590379
You get pulled over because you've broken the law. breaking the law is probable cause to search the car. period. I don't care what state we're talking about, it's that way in all of them. now, your local police department may have a POLICY that does not allow them to search the car without a search warrant. but that policy is NOT law.

Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2591196
I agree with this. of course, I was being a little liberal in saying that was all that was needed to search a car. BUT, my point is that PC to search a car is nowhere close to the PC needed to get a search warrant for a house. if you're on a traffic stop, it's not hard to come up with probable cause to search if you really think there's something to be found. and a search warrant is not required for a car search. I think we are agreeing here for the most part.
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but it's a bit of a flip-flop to me. The mere utterance that you will defend your 4th Amendment rights does not give any law enforcement officer PC to search you as you stated originally. You cannot be "liberal" with the law IMO, sorry :)
Originally Posted by scorpiojkd
http:///forum/post/2591638
I'm with you now. Yes, it is pretty easy to develop PC to get into a car once it is stoped. I also agree that PC is PC it hasn't changed or been eroded over time. In fact, since I've been doing this the courts have made a lot of decisions that have narrowed the definition.
Yep, and this can be a good thing for privacy of individuals which has been eroded for many years. I'm very pro law enforcement, but I'm even more "pro Constitution". Enforce laws according to the Constitution and it's all good but step out of that and my hackles go up.
Hell, in my state a LEO cannot ask for the ID of passengers of the vehicle unless there is specific PC to do so; A) it is not germane to the original stop and B) it is considered detaining the driver for an unreasonable amount of time. This has been decided in our state's Supreme Court.
Granted, PC for vehicles is easier to develop (far easier actually as you can see, hear, and smell the inside of the vehicle) but you still have to have specific PC and it has to meet the same criteria as a warrant, at least in my state. There are "motorist exceptions" and investigatory stops in many states as well, which IMO does erode the definition of PC.
Anyway, in the case in the OP, I don't know all the facts but if a warrant was granted based only on the smell of vinegar - I think there is sufficient grounds for a suit. I don't like the "litigiousness" of our society but this is grounds for one IMO.
I'm not in favor of handcuffing LEAs at all but granting a warrant on vinegar is insane and stupid. Not making this right by the homeowner creates mistrust and apathy towards law enforcement which doesn't help anybody.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by acrylics
http:///forum/post/2591675
Not trying to beat a dead horse, but it's a bit of a flip-flop to me. The mere utterance that you will defend your 4th Amendment rights does not give any law enforcement officer PC to search you as you stated originally. You cannot be "liberal" with the law IMO, sorry :)
Yep, and this can be a good thing for privacy of individuals which has been eroded for many years. I'm very pro law enforcement, but I'm even more "pro Constitution". Enforce laws according to the Constitution and it's all good but step out of that and my hackles go up.
Hell, in my state a LEO cannot ask for the ID of passengers of the vehicle unless there is specific PC to do so; A) it is not germane to the original stop and B) it is considered detaining the driver for an unreasonable amount of time. This has been decided in our state's Supreme Court.
Granted, PC for vehicles is easier to develop (far easier actually as you can see, hear, and smell the inside of the vehicle) but you still have to have specific PC and it has to meet the same criteria as a warrant, at least in my state. There are "motorist exceptions" and investigatory stops in many states as well, which IMO does erode the definition of PC.
Anyway, in the case in the OP, I don't know all the facts but if a warrant was granted based only on the smell of vinegar - I think there is sufficient grounds for a suit. I don't like the "litigiousness" of our society but this is grounds for one IMO.
I'm not in favor of handcuffing LEAs at all but granting a warrant on vinegar is insane and stupid. Not making this right by the homeowner creates mistrust and apathy towards law enforcement which doesn't help anybody.
it's not a flip flop. my point has been that it is very easy to determine PC for searching a car. easier than PC for a warrant to search a house. I was "liberal" in my description of what most cops would use for PC to search a car. but I don't not back off my statement that a cop can come up with PC to search a car on close to 100% of traffic stops if they choose.
you are referring to your state law. but again, a state may impose stricter limitations on itself, but these are not the same limitations that have stood up in the US Supreme Court.
but again, we agree that the PC for the issuance of the search warrant on this house sounds flimsy at best.
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by Pontius
http:///forum/post/2591208
I take it you're someone that doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're".
Ok, is that the best you have? Your and you're, Pontius. Come one 31 yrs old and you can not come back with something better then to pick at the wrong word used in a sentence?
Second off (here is were I can be an a**) why are you singling me out. I never said you, your, you're did I. Not until you wrote a comment about me. All I ask was if you were a cowboy that wore tin on his chest.
Personally I could care less if you call me out, that's the name of the game and don‘t need a mod to rescue me from a being singled out. (I don’t car but someone would)
But seriously, why the hostility? are you a public servant? Do you wear tin on your chest? someone in your family a public servant who you idolized only to be let down by their vulnerability and mortal status?
If not, why would you take my distain for overbearing cops to heart? I’m not calling you out and saying YOU’RE an overbearing thug that wears tin, did I?
You came off as your answer was the word of god almighty. When the 4 fourth amendment protects the people from overbearing thugs.
Now, again like I said an overbearing thug will use and say anything they can to perform a search. These thug go thru the academy and take the pep talk of you are the best and no one disrespect a officer of the law and bla bla bla.
Those tin wearing thugs should be removed from the public servant job simply because they give officers that do their job and are good at and are truly helping the public a bad name.
Pontius, you need to come up with snapper come backs. Think big, think insulting, think of hurting someone’s feelings or don’t use comebacks at all, cause they stink on ice.
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
you do have to admit, it is pretty funny for them to think they are druggies. And does anyone have a good idea as to what they were putting in their fishtank that smelled like vineagar and lye
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by scorpiojkd
http:///forum/post/2590973
you said you were a firefighter... I am a cop. 16 years. I'm not sure why you harbor so much hostility towards us. As far as being "in this together" we all work pretty well together down here.
My hostility is not against all cops, not at all that was not my intention to come across that way and If I did, I apologize.
My distain for cops are the ones that think they are higher then the man himself. That’s all.
Your 16 yrs on the force, I would like to think after 16 yrs your done chasing down the 15 yr old with “a pinner” on him (sorry I don’t know the lingo now for j*ints) or sitting in the parking lot tagging cars that go 5 mph over, or the cop who tries to control an emergency scene and cries cause they got thrown off, or tries to tell the driver to move the pumper cause cars can’t pass instead of closing the road down, or thinks he can fly thru residential side streets to respond to a call and yells and screams cause cars can’t move out of the cowboys way in time or think they are owed the courtesy cup from a convent store instead of paying the 1.50 for cup of coffee.
That’s who I’m talking about. Real officers don’t get all excited about sitting in a cruiser and run radar all day and write parking tickets and ONP tickets.
Yeah, I/we get along great with officers who are on the squad, they trust me with their life and I trust them with mine.
I find it funny being in the public service field, that while yes certain liberties are given to fireman, first aiders, cops. Certain cops think they are doing me a favor.
 
pontius

pontius

Active Member
Originally Posted by sharkbait9
http:///forum/post/2591883
Pontius, you need to come up with snapper come backs. Think big, think insulting, think of hurting someone’s feelings or don’t use comebacks at all, cause they stink on ice.
listen kid, there's no "comeback" needed in this thread for you. it doesn't take anyone else to prove you're an idiot, because you've done that well enough yourself. now go back to cooking and lifting weights and the other things that firefighters do for 11 hours a day.
 
aw2x3

aw2x3

Active Member
Both of you...why even start all of this? What's gonna be the outcome, besides a locked thread and you two bickering at each other?
Be grown ups, contain your hostilities and let's get the thread back on course. I'm sure we can all have a decent conversation, about law enforcement, without it turning into a pissing contest.
 
fats71

fats71

Active Member
Watchedd the video and man that is too funny. I have been wondering when my neighbors behind me might report me when i get my new lights this weekend lol.
 
sharkbait9

sharkbait9

Active Member
Originally Posted by AW2x3
http:///forum/post/2592101
Both of you...why even start all of this? What's gonna be the outcome, besides a locked thread and you two bickering at each other?
Be grown ups, contain your hostilities and let's get the thread back on course. I'm sure we can all have a decent conversation, about law enforcement, without it turning into a pissing contest.

You're right. I was not trying to have a contest. I voiced my discontent for law enforcement and how overbearing they are and got attacked for my opinion. It's ok that pontius wants to attack me and my opinion, I have no problems with that. Were people on a message board we can have our difference.
I would hope that the thread doesn’t get locked for one persons aggression toward people who don’ t put cops on a pedestal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top