DUI checkpoints: another example of how they can be abused - Page 4

patrickmn · July 11, 2013, 06:28 PM

I've been reading the laws...

Quote:

Originally Posted by TCA 39-17-1307

(a) (1) A person commits an offense who carries with the intent to go armed a firearm, a knife with a blade length exceeding four inches (4''), or a club.

(e) (1) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person authorized to carry a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber. However, the person does not violate this section by inserting ammunition into the chamber if the ammunition is inserted for purposes of justifiable self-defense pursuant to § 39-11-611 or § 39-11-612.

(2) It is an exception to the application of subsection (a) that a person who is not authorized to possess a handgun pursuant to § 39-17-1351 is transporting a rifle or shotgun in or on a privately-owned motor vehicle and the rifle or shotgun does not have ammunition in the chamber or cylinder, and no clip or magazine containing ammunition is inserted in the rifle or shotgun or is in close proximity to both the weapon and any person.

39-17-1308 gives a list of "defenses", including having an Handgun Carry Permit.

It's a crime to possess a loaded firearm in Tennessee. The reason so few people are arrested for that crime is because most people possessing a firearm can use one of the defenses from 39-17-1308. I've seen it debated that if a police officer sees a gun in a car, they have a reason to believe the driver is committing a crime because they are.

If you're pulled over for a traffic violation you should be polite because you were caught doing wrong. If you're being inconvenienced by a checkpoint, I see no reason to be happy about it.

csmsss · July 12, 2013, 07:33 AM

Quote:

If you're pulled over for a traffic violation you should be polite because you were caught doing wrong.

Huh? Did I miss something? We're skipping the trial phase these days and going directly from officer's accusation to conviction?

patrickmn · July 12, 2013, 10:48 AM

What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong.

deepcreek · July 12, 2013, 11:00 AM

Quote:

What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong.

A year large majority of traffic stops are traps. Come around the corner road block, drive past the sigh behind the tree speed trap, etc.
The interaction usually starts with “do you know what you did wrong” trick question. First it gets people to incriminate themselves and it also is designed make people feel like they are in the wrong so they are submissive and guilty before they even go to trail.

This thread is about illegal road blocks the the law enforcement doing these illegal activities are in the wrong.

Why should citizen just going about daily living all the sudden be wrong ? Because they are not "polite" during illegal stops ?

Texshooter · July 13, 2013, 12:07 AM

I do not like to make even a 1/2 way judgement based on videos such as these, but I believe this officer to have betrayed himself in several ways.

- When the young man, in a polite fashion, questioned him on rolling down the window. The officer immediately took on a very beligerent, if not aggressive, tone. That being said I would have probably had my window already rolled down without thinking about it.

- The officer made sarcastic remarks about the person asking about his Constitutional rights. Officer - you are the servant, not the master. If you were upset for missing some BBQ ribs on the 4th, well, you chose your line of work. You are a government employee.

- This officer needs help - and it does not involve a pay increase.

tulsamal · July 13, 2013, 04:20 PM

I've been stopped twice in Oklahoma while legally armed. We are required to notify. I did so. In both cases, I was then told to exit the vehicle and the gun was removed from my possession and then I was searched. My pocket clipped Spyderco knives were removed. Each little item in my pockets was examined. Then they gave me a warning and let me go. I've been told this is perfectly fine, it is "for officer safety."

All I can say is.... it is really, really grating on the nerves to be put into the front leaning on the car position and searched by the side of a road a couple miles from your house. With neighbors driving by and staring. You get to have everybody you know drive by and think you are a criminal.

But apparently... this is perfectly OK as long as it concludes well. They give you your stuff back, tell you to have a nice day, and send you on your way. At that point everything is supposed to be forgiven. Of course you can't get back the time lost by the side of the road. Or stop your neighbors from viewing you slightly differently now that they have seen you being searched by the police.

"Who watches the watchers?" indeed.

Gregg

csmsss · July 13, 2013, 07:42 PM

Quote:

I've been stopped twice in Oklahoma while legally armed. We are required to notify. I did so. In both cases, I was then told to exit the vehicle and the gun was removed from my possession and then I was searched. My pocket clipped Spyderco knives were removed. Each little item in my pockets was examined. Then they gave me a warning and let me go. I've been told this is perfectly fine, it is "for officer safety."

All I can say is.... it is really, really grating on the nerves to be put into the front leaning on the car position and searched by the side of a road a couple miles from your house. With neighbors driving by and staring. You get to have everybody you know drive by and think you are a criminal.

But apparently... this is perfectly OK as long as it concludes well. They give you your stuff back, tell you to have a nice day, and send you on your way. At that point everything is supposed to be forgiven. Of course you can't get back the time lost by the side of the road. Or stop your neighbors from viewing you slightly differently now that they have seen you being searched by the police.

"Who watches the watchers?" indeed.

From the circumstances you described, this is clearly an unconstitutional search. At a minimum, I'd have filed a complaint with the LEO's unit as well as the DA. In order to conduct a legal search, the LEO has to have reasonable suspicion that you committed a crime - and unless you were somehow carrying your firearm in such a way that it constituted a technical violation of the CHL law, it doesn't sound like the officer had any reason whatsoever to conduct the search.

buckfynn · July 13, 2013, 07:54 PM

The Sheriff, Robert Arnold, of Rutherford County stands behind Deputy A.J. Ross stating he has done nothing wrong concerning the stop.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ned-the-video/

iraiam · July 13, 2013, 11:03 PM

Quote:

What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong.

I am always polite, but refusing to answer a cops questions will immediately tell you what kind of officer he/she really is, I always politely refuse to answer any questions and have been confronted with elevated voices and blatant lies because of it,much like the video in the OP. I won't let it rattle, me I keep my cool and continue to act it a professional manner.

This is why I have an automotive DVR with numerous cameras, which by the way, is also a good way to improve your driving skills, when you watch video of your driving it is much easier to spot mistakes or bad habits.

grey sky · July 14, 2013, 08:00 PM

Read this:
Your Rights and the Police - EServer

My insurance agent sells pre paid legal, I haven't bought into this but with the service comes a wallet card that one is supposed to keep with your ID, that is a prepared statement along the lines of you have my ID, I do not consent to warrantless searches and I have no further statements to make without my attorney present.
The you tube "Don't Talk to the Police" is interesting and goes along with this topic
Bottom line is if one wants to participate in this kind of activism have a lawyer on call.

OuTcAsT · July 15, 2013, 12:44 PM

patrickmn wrote;

Quote:

It's a crime to possess a loaded firearm in Tennessee.

Not quite, This is a subsection that has been used many times as a "catch all" before carry permits became so popular. I was charged with this many years ago for having a hunting knife on me at a gas station, coming home from a hunting trip

. Long story short, case dismissed.

That does not change the fact that the mere presence of a firearm is not RAS for a Terry Stop.

patrickmn wrote;

Quote:

If you're pulled over for a traffic violation you should be polite because you were caught doing wrong.

Again, no. I might be suspected of doing wrong but, that does not mitigate my rights. I am innocent until proven guilty.

tulsamal · July 15, 2013, 01:42 PM

Quote:

From the circumstances you described, this is clearly an unconstitutional search. At a minimum, I'd have filed a complaint with the LEO's unit as well as the DA.

The last time, I was "caught" with a burned out headlight. When I borrowed my wife's car. Didn't even know there was a problem. The really frustrating part of the stop was.... it wasn't night! It was getting into dusk but nobody else even had their headlights on. But my wife's VW Golf is the type that has the headlights on whenever it is driven. So I drove by the cop, he stopped me and told me I had a headlight out. It was hard to see how that was an infraction when it wasn't dark!!

And that was the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A very professional organization. Not just some county's deputy. I told him I was armed, and told him I had removed the external carry and put it in the floorboard of the passenger side. (It was a Wilderness Safepacker, kind of like a fanny pack but made for guns.) He ordered me to exit the vehicle. I actually thought that was "OK" since it seemed like a way to separate me from the firearm.

I got out, he started to pat me down. Saw the knife clips on the side of my pockets, asked me to remove those and put them in my vehicle. I did that. He had me put my hands on the car while he patted me down some more. He got this strange look on his face when he felt a hard rectangle in my front pocket. Told me to remove it. I took it out... wow... big bust... it was the electronic key for the car. No drugs on this bust.

Then he told me to get in his car. In the front seat anyway! And he wrote me up a warning for the headlight. Then he let me go.

I asked around afterwards and told that sort of search was perfectly fine and it was at the officer's discretion. "For officer safety." He wasn't abusive and downright rude like the officer in the video but it still seemed way over the top. I expect to be treated _better_ than average when I produce my CCW. It shows I'm one of the good guys since I went through all that background stuff. You shouldn't get treated _more_ like a criminal when you tell them you have a CCW!

Gregg

Ike666 · July 16, 2013, 12:48 PM

First, I am no fan of the police over-reaching their authority.

That said, I have been doing some research on CCW holders in the Commonwealth of Virginia (data obtained via FOIA prior to the law changing). At the time there were approximately 285,000 CCW holders. We cross tabulated that with criminal records search and found 23,000 misdemeanor and felony convictions (excluding criminal traffic convictions). We then parsed it to felony-only convictions. This yielded 10,500+ CCW holders with felony convictions. We then redacted all revoked or expired CCWs. That reduced the total, with an active CCW, by about 600. The final tally was 4% and change of Virginia active CCWs with a prior felony conviction.

The article is in peer review now (unpublished as of yet).

I mention this merely to point out the de facto assumption that CCW holder is one of the good guys may not be valid (at least for 4%).

csmsss · July 16, 2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

That said, I have been doing some research on CCW holders in the Commonwealth of Virginia (data obtained via FOIA prior to the law changing). At the time there were approximately 285,000 CCW holders. We cross tabulated that with criminal records search and found 23,000 misdemeanor and felony convictions (excluding criminal traffic convictions). We then parsed it to felony-only convictions. This yielded 10,500+ CCW holders with felony convictions. We then redacted all revoked or expired CCWs. That reduced the total, with an active CCW, by about 600. The final tally was 4% and change of Virginia active CCWs with a prior felony conviction.

Interesting. Did you also check and redact those who had received full pardons/had their rights restored, etc.?

Ike666 · July 16, 2013, 02:49 PM

No, that needs to be done name by name. On the database of criminal convictions the identifying information was redacted before it was released (with good reason). However, Virginia is extremely conservative when it comes to reinstatement. Those with expungements were removed from the criminal records database and would not have been included in the data. Our assumption (and it is an assumption) is that those with reinstated rights would be very small in number.

csmsss · July 16, 2013, 02:51 PM

Quote:

No, that needs to be done name by name. On the database of criminal convictions the identifying information was redacted before it was released (with good reason). However, Virginia is extremely conservative when it comes to reinstatement. Those with expungements were removed from the criminal records database and would not have been included in the data. Our assumption (and it is an assumption) is that those with reinstated rights would be very small in number.

Understood. Presumably you've come up with one or more hypotheses regarding the nature of these 600 invalid CHL licensees. Can you discuss them?

Ike666 · July 16, 2013, 03:09 PM

Not at this time. Suffice it to say it was exploratory research.

Virginia's background check system is a bit different than many other states. We don't rely on NICS, but it is one of the databases searched. We also search our own VCIN data (statewide criminal information network) and the Dept of Behavioral Health records.

Checks for CCWs are carried out by the LE agency in the locality where the applicant lives. The comprehensiveness varies by agency. We also have provision that, barring any disqualifying information, the permit must issued within 45 days of the date the application was submitted to the Circuit Court. This applies whether or not the BI is complete.

In that case, the permit is provisional pending completion of the BI.

Conn. Trooper · July 16, 2013, 03:56 PM

The last time, I was "caught" with a burned out headlight. When I borrowed my wife's car. Didn't even know there was a problem. The really frustrating part of the stop was.... it wasn't night! It was getting into dusk but nobody else even had their headlights on. But my wife's VW Golf is the type that has the headlights on whenever it is driven. So I drove by the cop, he stopped me and told me I had a headlight out. It was hard to see how that was an infraction when it wasn't dark!!

And that was the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A very professional organization. Not just some county's deputy. I told him I was armed, and told him I had removed the external carry and put it in the floorboard of the passenger side. (It was a Wilderness Safepacker, kind of like a fanny pack but made for guns.) He ordered me to exit the vehicle. I actually thought that was "OK" since it seemed like a way to separate me from the firearm.

I got out, he started to pat me down. Saw the knife clips on the side of my pockets, asked me to remove those and put them in my vehicle. I did that. He had me put my hands on the car while he patted me down some more. He got this strange look on his face when he felt a hard rectangle in my front pocket. Told me to remove it. I took it out... wow... big bust... it was the electronic key for the car. No drugs on this bust.

Then he told me to get in his car. In the front seat anyway! And he wrote me up a warning for the headlight. Then he let me go.

I asked around afterwards and told that sort of search was perfectly fine and it was at the officer's discretion. "For officer safety." He wasn't abusive and downright rude like the officer in the video but it still seemed way over the top. I expect to be treated _better_ than average when I produce my CCW. It shows I'm one of the good guys since I went through all that background stuff. You shouldn't get treated _more_ like a criminal when you tell them you have a CCW!

Gregg

Sooo, the guy wasn't abusive or rude, and only gave you a warning when you admittedly had a headlight out. But he is in the wrong how? For patting you down? For pulling you over and giving you a warning to take care of a headlight out? I am confused what you had an issue with.

BumbleBug · July 16, 2013, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Conn. Trooper

Sooo, the guy wasn't abusive or rude, and only gave you a warning when you admittedly had a headlight out. But he is in the wrong how? For patting you down? For pulling you over and giving you a warning to take care of a headlight out? I am confused what you had an issue with.

What about saying "Sir, did you know your light is out? Be sure to get that fixed & don't drive after dark with the car in this condition. Have a nice day."

Instead he gave him the "lawful" run-around. I feel like tulsamal is justified to be a bit peeved, don't you think?

csmsss · July 16, 2013, 05:38 PM

Let me see if I have this straight. The combination of a busted taillight and possession of a CHL = adequate reason to pat a citizen down? Seriously?

Conn. Trooper · July 16, 2013, 05:47 PM

Perhaps the Oklahoma cops are told to write warnings, not verbal warnings. Or like here in CT they are required to collect demographic information of everyone they stop ( racial profiling and what not ). So they have people sit in the car with them ( I don't do this, must be a Oklahoma thing). I pat down everybody that goes in my car. People do dumb things when they are scared or nervous.

I have no idea the reason he was patted down or why he sat in the cruiser. Not things I normally do.

Bruno2 · July 16, 2013, 09:49 PM

Quote:

I feel like the police department itself should be doing these types of "set-up's". Watch what their officers are doing & correct bad police behavior & weed-out the officers that use the job to feed their egos.

I like this idea Bumblebug.When I was a kid I worked at Pizza Hut. They had "mystery shoppers" who would order a pizza, have it delivered and then evaluate the quality of everything all the way down to the employees service they dealt with. Why not send "mystery stoppers" through check points like this or have them drive in a safe enough fashion, but do things that would provoke a traffic stop? Then they could act like the "know my rights people" and CCW citizens to see how they were treated and evaluate the police officers performance. This would have the same effect as concealed weapons. You don't know it is going to be so you better treat everyone the same.

I am just saying if its good enough for a pizza place then its good enough for the police,

csmsss · July 17, 2013, 07:58 AM

Great idea - think of it as quality control - something I think most, perhaps all of us would agree that all law enforcement agencies could use a good bit more of. But...the usual objections will be raised (police union opposition, budget, public perception of law enforcement, etc.), and I just don't see any police agency seriously considering engaging in something which would potentially embarass them.

BumbleBug · July 17, 2013, 09:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by musher

The thing I find troubling is that we are arguing over how we should behave at police checkpoints in a free country.

We should be ashamed that we accept the presence of such checkpoints as compatible with our liberty.

As I have followed this thread, musher's comment has stood out in my mind the most. He is right, it is troubling that we are even discussing "checkpoints" in America.

...bug

Ike666 · July 17, 2013, 12:38 PM

Let's try and gain some perspective here. First, actual abuse of police powers is not okay, ever.

Agencies that practice procedural justice are more effective in reducing and managing crime. They also enjoy far more citizen cooperation and satisfaction.

Police power, being the coercive arm of the government, will always tend to generate a degree of tension in police-citizen encounters. In humans, push always generates push-back. This tends to get into a deviation amplifying cycle when there's too much testosterone in the air.

That aside, sobriety check points are one of the most successful LE operations going. In the 70s and 80s more than half of all traffic crashes were caused by impaired driving. The overall count (adjusted for population) is dramatically reduced and the proportion resulting from impaired drivers even more so. Check points work.

I understand that from a libertarian perspective they are symbolic of an over-reaching state. On the other hand, they are effective. I, for one, will accept the minor inconvenience in trade for safer highways.

July 12, 2013, 10:48 AM	#78
patrickmn Senior Member Join Date: December 29, 2005 Location: Tennessee Posts: 101	What I meant was that you can say "I do not submit to searches or answer questions" in a polite way or a rude way. I think if a driver knows they were committing a traffic violation they they should make those statements in a polite way. Being rude in that case isn't going to help anything, but being polite could get the driver off with a warning for something the driver knows they were doing wrong. __________________ Patrick

July 14, 2013, 08:00 PM	#85
grey sky Senior Member Join Date: July 2, 2007 Posts: 324	what are your rights Read this: Your Rights and the Police - EServer My insurance agent sells pre paid legal, I haven't bought into this but with the service comes a wallet card that one is supposed to keep with your ID, that is a prepared statement along the lines of you have my ID, I do not consent to warrantless searches and I have no further statements to make without my attorney present. The you tube "Don't Talk to the Police" is interesting and goes along with this topic Bottom line is if one wants to participate in this kind of activism have a lawyer on call.

July 16, 2013, 12:48 PM	#88
Ike666 Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2009 Location: SW VA Posts: 491	First, I am no fan of the police over-reaching their authority. That said, I have been doing some research on CCW holders in the Commonwealth of Virginia (data obtained via FOIA prior to the law changing). At the time there were approximately 285,000 CCW holders. We cross tabulated that with criminal records search and found 23,000 misdemeanor and felony convictions (excluding criminal traffic convictions). We then parsed it to felony-only convictions. This yielded 10,500+ CCW holders with felony convictions. We then redacted all revoked or expired CCWs. That reduced the total, with an active CCW, by about 600. The final tally was 4% and change of Virginia active CCWs with a prior felony conviction. The article is in peer review now (unpublished as of yet). I mention this merely to point out the de facto assumption that CCW holder is one of the good guys may not be valid (at least for 4%). __________________ ___________________ "I'm your huckleberry."

July 16, 2013, 02:49 PM	#90
Ike666 Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2009 Location: SW VA Posts: 491	No, that needs to be done name by name. On the database of criminal convictions the identifying information was redacted before it was released (with good reason). However, Virginia is extremely conservative when it comes to reinstatement. Those with expungements were removed from the criminal records database and would not have been included in the data. Our assumption (and it is an assumption) is that those with reinstated rights would be very small in number. __________________ ___________________ "I'm your huckleberry."

July 16, 2013, 03:09 PM	#92
Ike666 Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2009 Location: SW VA Posts: 491	Not at this time. Suffice it to say it was exploratory research. Virginia's background check system is a bit different than many other states. We don't rely on NICS, but it is one of the databases searched. We also search our own VCIN data (statewide criminal information network) and the Dept of Behavioral Health records. Checks for CCWs are carried out by the LE agency in the locality where the applicant lives. The comprehensiveness varies by agency. We also have provision that, barring any disqualifying information, the permit must issued within 45 days of the date the application was submitted to the Circuit Court. This applies whether or not the BI is complete. In that case, the permit is provisional pending completion of the BI. __________________ ___________________ "I'm your huckleberry."

July 13, 2013, 12:07 AM	#80
Texshooter Senior Member Join Date: July 17, 2006 Posts: 261	I do not like to make even a 1/2 way judgement based on videos such as these, but I believe this officer to have betrayed himself in several ways. - When the young man, in a polite fashion, questioned him on rolling down the window. The officer immediately took on a very beligerent, if not aggressive, tone. That being said I would have probably had my window already rolled down without thinking about it. - The officer made sarcastic remarks about the person asking about his Constitutional rights. Officer - you are the servant, not the master. If you were upset for missing some BBQ ribs on the 4th, well, you chose your line of work. You are a government employee. - This officer needs help - and it does not involve a pay increase.

July 13, 2013, 04:20 PM	#81
tulsamal Senior Member Join Date: October 25, 2004 Location: Vinita, OK Posts: 2,552	I've been stopped twice in Oklahoma while legally armed. We are required to notify. I did so. In both cases, I was then told to exit the vehicle and the gun was removed from my possession and then I was searched. My pocket clipped Spyderco knives were removed. Each little item in my pockets was examined. Then they gave me a warning and let me go. I've been told this is perfectly fine, it is "for officer safety." All I can say is.... it is really, really grating on the nerves to be put into the front leaning on the car position and searched by the side of a road a couple miles from your house. With neighbors driving by and staring. You get to have everybody you know drive by and think you are a criminal. But apparently... this is perfectly OK as long as it concludes well. They give you your stuff back, tell you to have a nice day, and send you on your way. At that point everything is supposed to be forgiven. Of course you can't get back the time lost by the side of the road. Or stop your neighbors from viewing you slightly differently now that they have seen you being searched by the police. "Who watches the watchers?" indeed. Gregg

July 13, 2013, 07:54 PM	#83
buckfynn Member Join Date: March 23, 2010 Location: Central Idaho Posts: 95	The Sheriff, Robert Arnold, of Rutherford County stands behind Deputy A.J. Ross stating he has done nothing wrong concerning the stop. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...ned-the-video/

July 16, 2013, 03:56 PM	#93
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	The last time, I was "caught" with a burned out headlight. When I borrowed my wife's car. Didn't even know there was a problem. The really frustrating part of the stop was.... it wasn't night! It was getting into dusk but nobody else even had their headlights on. But my wife's VW Golf is the type that has the headlights on whenever it is driven. So I drove by the cop, he stopped me and told me I had a headlight out. It was hard to see how that was an infraction when it wasn't dark!! And that was the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. A very professional organization. Not just some county's deputy. I told him I was armed, and told him I had removed the external carry and put it in the floorboard of the passenger side. (It was a Wilderness Safepacker, kind of like a fanny pack but made for guns.) He ordered me to exit the vehicle. I actually thought that was "OK" since it seemed like a way to separate me from the firearm. I got out, he started to pat me down. Saw the knife clips on the side of my pockets, asked me to remove those and put them in my vehicle. I did that. He had me put my hands on the car while he patted me down some more. He got this strange look on his face when he felt a hard rectangle in my front pocket. Told me to remove it. I took it out... wow... big bust... it was the electronic key for the car. No drugs on this bust. Then he told me to get in his car. In the front seat anyway! And he wrote me up a warning for the headlight. Then he let me go. I asked around afterwards and told that sort of search was perfectly fine and it was at the officer's discretion. "For officer safety." He wasn't abusive and downright rude like the officer in the video but it still seemed way over the top. I expect to be treated _better_ than average when I produce my CCW. It shows I'm one of the good guys since I went through all that background stuff. You shouldn't get treated _more_ like a criminal when you tell them you have a CCW! Gregg Sooo, the guy wasn't abusive or rude, and only gave you a warning when you admittedly had a headlight out. But he is in the wrong how? For patting you down? For pulling you over and giving you a warning to take care of a headlight out? I am confused what you had an issue with.

July 16, 2013, 05:38 PM	#95
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Let me see if I have this straight. The combination of a busted taillight and possession of a CHL = adequate reason to pat a citizen down? Seriously?

July 16, 2013, 05:47 PM	#96
Conn. Trooper Senior Member Join Date: December 12, 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 530	Perhaps the Oklahoma cops are told to write warnings, not verbal warnings. Or like here in CT they are required to collect demographic information of everyone they stop ( racial profiling and what not ). So they have people sit in the car with them ( I don't do this, must be a Oklahoma thing). I pat down everybody that goes in my car. People do dumb things when they are scared or nervous. I have no idea the reason he was patted down or why he sat in the cruiser. Not things I normally do.

July 17, 2013, 07:58 AM	#98
csmsss Senior Member Join Date: October 24, 2008 Location: Orange, TX Posts: 3,078	Great idea - think of it as quality control - something I think most, perhaps all of us would agree that all law enforcement agencies could use a good bit more of. But...the usual objections will be raised (police union opposition, budget, public perception of law enforcement, etc.), and I just don't see any police agency seriously considering engaging in something which would potentially embarass them.

July 17, 2013, 12:38 PM	#100
Ike666 Senior Member Join Date: October 10, 2009 Location: SW VA Posts: 491	Let's try and gain some perspective here. First, actual abuse of police powers is not okay, ever. Agencies that practice procedural justice are more effective in reducing and managing crime. They also enjoy far more citizen cooperation and satisfaction. Police power, being the coercive arm of the government, will always tend to generate a degree of tension in police-citizen encounters. In humans, push always generates push-back. This tends to get into a deviation amplifying cycle when there's too much testosterone in the air. That aside, sobriety check points are one of the most successful LE operations going. In the 70s and 80s more than half of all traffic crashes were caused by impaired driving. The overall count (adjusted for population) is dramatically reduced and the proportion resulting from impaired drivers even more so. Check points work. I understand that from a libertarian perspective they are symbolic of an over-reaching state. On the other hand, they are effective. I, for one, will accept the minor inconvenience in trade for safer highways. __________________ ___________________ "I'm your huckleberry."