Just a question. Wonder what you guys think.

[Fast_Eddie]

So, in America, we're "free", right?

What do you think. If you're driving down the street and a cop sees you- can he pull you over without any reason for doing so? You're not speeding, no tail lights out. No stereo breaking any noise ordinance. You're not weaving or giving any other reason to think you're under the influence. Just driving along, minding your own business. Can he just pull you over to check if you might be breaking a law? Who knows, you might have a body in the trunk. Is it okay for him to pull you over to see if you have a body in the trunk?

Or how 'bout this- what if he has a feeling you might have killed someone- no evidence, you just have that look in your eye- can he pull you over and ask you to prove that you didn't kill anyone? Say you don't have that proof, should he be able to arrest you just in case? I mean, if it turns out that you didn't kill anyone they'll let you go. No harm, right?

What do you think?

[d-ray657]

Criminal law is not necessarily my bailiwick, but check-points are permissible. I can't tell you the permitted scope of a check-point stop, but it can escalate on the basis of evidence obtained through questioning or seen in plain view. The theory is that our expectation of privacy is different on a public road than it is in our own homes. Bottom line - yes, under appropriate circumstances, you may be stopped without cause.

IN the absence of an established checkpoint, the officer must have evidence of a violation before stopping a vehicle - but it could be erratic driving, expired tags, defective lights, etc. Once the stop has made, facts observed by the officer can create probable cause to extend the search - or to impound the vehicle, at which point it becomes subject to search anyway. No probable cause is necessary if the driver or owner of the car gives consent to a search (not sure about passengers). Similarly, the occupant of a residence may consent to a search.

You can not be required to prove your innocence. However, if observed facts create a reasonable inference that a crime has been committed, an officer may be permitted to act on the basis of that inference in the absence of a reasonable explanation - or at least detain a suspect until the officer or his associates may seek a warrant.

There is also what is called a "Terry stop." An officer may approach someone in public if the officer observes something that gives him "reasonable suspicion" that the subject of the search presents a safety risk. A Terry stop may involve brief questioning and/or a pat-down. (This is the product of the Burger Court.)

As a general rule, the scope of the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures depends on one's "reasonable expectation of privacy." The reasonable expectation of privacy is considerably less in public than in one's home. With technological advances and with the Court's continued descent to the right, the scope of the Fourth Amendment's protection continues to shrink, even within the sanctity of our homes.

Pop Quiz tomorrow. Bring a Blue Book.

Regards,

D-Ray

[Fast_Eddie]

That's a learned answer D-Ray. I guess I was looking for opinion as well, but thank you for the good information.

Anyone else?

[finnbow]

What do you think. If you're driving down the street and a cop sees you- can he pull you over without any reason for doing so? You're not speeding, no tail lights out. No stereo breaking any noise ordinance.

And then he should be able to waterboard you, coerce a confession and incarcerate you indefinitely. We'd all be safer that way. Just ask Cheney and his confused chimp sidekick.

[JJIII]

D-Ray said everything I was going to say.




"Yeah... that's the ticket!"

[JJIII]

Seriously,... "Probable Cause" comes into play and that means we have to have some faith in the people we have in the position of authority. In other words... be damn careful who you vote for and wheather you can trust them to appoint and/or hire people that will do their job with due diligence

[westgate]

'course there's always the occasional 'rogue' cop.

or should i say, 'maverick'.

[Fast_Eddie]

Yeah, I know there are cops who will act as they will. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean as a matter of policy or law, do you think they should be able to pull people over because they think they might be doing something illegal?

[d-ray657]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Yeah, I know there are cops who will act as they will. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean as a matter of policy or law, do you think they should be able to pull people over because they think they might be doing something illegal?

No! Thinking is not enough. Suspecting is not enough. I would rather be a little more insecure about danger from an unknown criminal than the danger from a state with no limits on its power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Unless there is an independent judicial officer empowered to determine whether there is actual evidence of a crime, I would fear the use of arrest for illegitimate ends.

Regards,

D-Ray

[djv8ga]

Originally Posted by westgate

'course there's always the occasional 'rogue' cop.

Occasional??? I don't know about your neighborhood, but mine is full of those. I'm sick and tired of the loser Republicans treating cops as if they're saints or something since were on this subject!
I'm sorry, please carry on...