stevelv
FullTimers at Last!
Senior Member
Joined: 05/24/2006
View Profile
|
Let's be honest - the Constitution was written a long time ago, is a bit out of date and probably needs to be updated anyway to be relevant in today's times.
{ducks quickly.....}
|
agesilaus
North Florida
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2008
View Profile
 Offline
|
Take a look at this pair of videos on why you should never willingly cooperate in situations like this:
take the fifth
The second video is by a LEO. The point is that laws are now so complex that you can easily break a law and never know it. It is literally impossible for anyone to keep up with the flood of state and federal laws.
BK
04 Trail Manor 2619
08 Ford F150 5.4L TV
|
Deputy Chief P.O.
Linden, California
Senior Member
Joined: 07/31/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
agesilaus wrote:Take a look at this pair of videos on why you should never willingly cooperate in situations like this:
take the fifth
The second video is by a LEO. The point is that laws are now so complex that you can easily break a law and never know it. It is literally impossible for anyone to keep up with the flood of state and federal laws.
BK
This definitely outlines and supports why the majority of the LEOs that have posted would not allow a search (not to mention the time delay and invasion of privacy issues).
|
StanleyandIris
Louisiana
Senior Member
Joined: 06/17/2007
View Profile
Offline
|
Enough. You were SPEEDING on a known drug route in Illinois, pulling a TT with NO PLATES with a vehicle from CA. They had every reason to stop you. You were being dangerous in complete disregard for the safety of yourself and others. Complain about your rights all you want, how about my rights not to encounter you on the road?
YOU gave them permission to search and YOU gave them reason to stop you. Now you want to cry about the mean old cops. You didn't even get a ticket, which would have raised your insurance rates. So now DEAL with it.
"Gee, I got caught breaking the law and was let go. So, now I am mad."
"Gee, I told them they could search and they did! So, now I am violated."
Translated:
"I was so embarrased being held on the side of the road with everyone looking at us like common criminals, even though we had just broken the law. I didn't mind speeding, I just didn't like getting caught."
Stop your whining and stop speeding. Lives depend on you obeying the law.
|
sgt77
Tampa
Full Member
Joined: 02/17/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
The rules of search and seizure in this country are pretty clear and it does not matter which state you are in. I am also a retired LEO, traffic homicide investigator and at one time a member of the drug unit. I was always amazed at how quickly people would give me permission to enter and search their vehicles, even though they knew there were drugs in them.
The bottom line is this: If you don't want any law enforcement officer in your vehicle tell them, "No, unless you have a warrant." If they have enough probably cause to obtain a search warrant they can detain you until they get one. Enough PC would be if a certified narcotics dog alerted on your MH.
Otherwise be polite, be cooperative, and remember that the officers are operating with officer safety first, because they don't know you and are not going to take any chances. Many people take the way they position themselves or questions they ask as rude. Most officers know what questions to ask suspected drug traffickers and druggies, and always, always remain alert. This is safety not rudeness.
|
|
|
miccikoz
Hidden Hills, CA
New Member
Joined: 07/09/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
StanleyandIris wrote: >
Miccikoz reply: We were speeding. We were going maybe 63. The speed limit was 65, but 55 for trucks and motorhomes. We were getting passed left and right by truckers going 70, riding up our butts, not to mentions impatient cars, etc. We are not unsafe drivers. Besides, I am not complainting about getting a speeding ticket. I would have rather he gave us our ticket. We were polite, but did in fact miss the 55 mph sign. We do not drive dangerously or in total disregard for others. The other people on the road trying to pass us were, even though we were "speeding". I take personal offense to this assumption that we are a danger, as we are very safe drivers in our rv and our cars. Anyone who drives a motorhome knows that there are no "quick maneuvers" to pass and switch lanes and tailgate or anything else.
>
We don't really care what everyone thinks as they are driving past. We don't even mind getting caught speeding. Our registration and insurance information was provided, we just didn't receive our plates yet before out trip because in CA it can take a month to receive your plates. We didn't even mind much having the officer "look around" as we were not guilty of anything. Go ahead, take a peek, see we don't have drugs, or smuggling anything. Do your job. That was where we went wrong. We were completely caught off guard and never imagined we would be subjected to such a thorough search. There was definitely no PC to enter our vehicle and detain us so long. Not a thing was "out of line" other than carrying cash, which whould not be a crime. We are quite well off, so that much cash isn't as big a deal to us as others, and we liked to be prepared for anything that might happen being on the road for 1 month and a half. What if an atm doesn't work? (which, btw, happened to my husband's new atm card). Besides, with banks having such problems, keeping some cash on hand is not such a bad investment, and it certainly wasn't a briefcase full of hundreds, just an envelope.
There was never a time we were rude or showing annoyances. At first we thought it funny and amusing, until it dragged on and on and they started asking us more and more probing questions when our answers to the first ones were fair and honest.
Micci
|
wa8yxm
Wherever I happen to park
Senior Member
Joined: 07/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
stevelv wrote:Let's be honest - the Constitution was written a long time ago, is a bit out of date and probably needs to be updated anyway to be relevant in today's times.
{ducks quickly.....}
I recall a TV show where the central characters came into possession of a computer disc which was considered by the government to be the most dangerous item in existance.
What was on it.....
The constitution of the United States as Amended of course, INCLUDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS
Check out our current government, the laws we have today, epically the Patriot Act, and a few other things. and tell me if we are not fast approaching the place where that show was set?
When the Supreme court stated that the "Detainees" at GTMO were entiled to hear the charges against them and to a hearing before a federal court judge McCain jumped up and cried how this was a bad decision. How it would be deteremental to the United States.
I'm not going to say if he's right or wrong on that..
But I will say that if elected he is going to have to take an oath to uphold the constitution. And from those comments it appears to me he has no intention of even trying to uphold the constitution.
No more than our current president is doing.
Does it need re-writing.. Perhaps.
Can it be done.. Yes
How: Well.. There are several ways.
One starts with a chat with your congress critters (Senator or representative) and you convince them to introduce a bill to amend.
Another starts with you printing up petitions and getting people to sing them.. If enough people sign then the purposed amendment appears on the ballot in your state, and if enough states (2/3 IIRC) approve the amendment.. The constitution is amended once again.
So, get to it. Start writing amendments
Check out our current crop or presidential candidates
Nothin adds excitment like something that is none of your business
Kenwood TS-2000 housed in a 2005 Damon Intruder 377
|
69RoadRunner
VA
Senior Member
Joined: 01/18/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
The Constitution doesn't apply to unlawful FOREIGN combatants on FOREIGN soil, but it does apply to US citizens driving an RV in the US.
This is just another reminder to me that if a LEO asks for permission to search my vehicle, I will politely decline.
09 Newmar Ventana 3942
|
sparkydave
Macedonia, OH
Full Member
Joined: 01/22/2006
View Profile
|
This is all a very interesting discussion. I'm very much of the opinion that I'll cooperate with an officer to the best of my ability. If I got pulled over for speeding (however unlikely), I think I would have to draw the line if he (or she) just asks if he can search my vehicle. I know I've got nothing in my car of interest, but the post where someone said an officer tried to plant narcotics has me scared. I guess it's a fine line to walk. Near where I live, we just had an officer shot and killed because he pulled over someone for playing loud music. For whatever reason (still unknown), the suspect was legally carrying a concealed weapon and shot the officer multiple times. So, I don't envy the officers, because they never know if the folks are dangerous or not. I'm all for helping them do their job and not making them suspicious, but if they are going to search and start planting things, then that's a very scary prospect.
|
wa8yxm
Wherever I happen to park
Senior Member
Joined: 07/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
69RoadRunner wrote:The Constitution doesn't apply to unlawful FOREIGN combatants on FOREIGN soil, but it does apply to US citizens driving an RV in the US.
This is just another reminder to me that if a LEO asks for permission to search my vehicle, I will politely decline.
Well, two parts to your comment
With respect to Foreign combatants on foreign you will have to take up with the justices of the supreme court.. If they say it does.. It does. If they say it don't it don't. In this case although the military base is on foreign soil, it's a US base and thus the judges may have considered it part of the US and extended the protection of the constitution to the people detained there. Frankly I did not read the decision so I don't know how they reached the position they took.
As for the rest of your post, I agree with you completly.
I believe very strongly in said constitution.
Back to the first part: I can not vote for a president canidate who decries the decision of SCOTUS.. The president takes an oath to uphold the constitution.. SCOTUS tells us just exactly what that means (Since they decide all cases, in theory, based on said constitution, not laws, but the constitution) and if a candidate says he does not like their decision that puts him at odds with both the constitution and his oath of office. I can not vote for him. This leaves me two choices, The other guy, or a throw away vote.
|
|
|
|
