2
-2

[–] s1ack3r 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

So your driving with meth in your trunk and you get pulled over for some infraction. You are breaking the law so regardless of your actions prior to being pulled over. Why are you crying? This is a simple solution don't break the law by transporting illegal drugs. Then if they pull you over for a bogus stop its just that and you are on your way.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

Fair enough, but at least if there's a specific list of things, and they have to specify one of them, then you can take measures to ensure you're within the law. If they can make up just anything and retroactively justify it, then it's just a pisstake.

0
0

[–] A_Fringe_Element ago 

Oh look, I found the libertarian version of Democracy Now.

0
0

[–] Broc_Lia ago 

Not sure what that's supposed to mean, but FTP is usually pretty on the ball.

0
1

[–] YallJusRaycis 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Well, freedom of speech goes both ways. They should be as free to spew bullshit as any American is. At the same time, they should be shit-canned for lying to civilians, just like any of us would be fired for calling a nigger a nigger in front of an HR director at the office. Just playing devil's advocate here, really. Cops ought to be held to a higher standard.

0
2

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

They should be as free to spew bullshit as any American is.

Not in the execution of public office, that's not your personal speech anymore.

At the same time, they should be shit-canned for lying to civilians,

Cops should be able to lie about some things, but they need to be required to tell the truth about some things. Like the reason for an arrest or a detention, or reading you your rights.

[–] [deleted] 2 points -1 points (+1|-2) ago  (edited ago)

[Deleted]

0
1

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

That's what police dogs have been about since their inception.

Agreed 100%. Their training is practically designed to force people to defend themselves, then get them up in court for "assaulting a police officer."

Your best bet is to be white and drive a car that says "I have enough money to fight your dumb ass in court". I wouldn't recommend any other approach. An air of white superiority, for which the copper WILL understand his second rate nature, is a second line of defense.

Bad tactic in some areas. In a rural town the cops could take one look at the car/attitude, conclude "rich fucker from notroundhere" and proceed to throw the book at you.

1
37

[–] BlizzahdBub 1 point 37 points (+38|-1) ago 

The vehicle was stopped based on information gained from wire taps. The officer made up the traffic violation in order to not alert potential drug traffickers that he was aware they were most likely transporting drugs. The court found the basis for the stop objectively reasonable based on the reasonable suspicion gained by the wire taps. The vehicle wasn't stopped and search for absolutely no reason at all like the article alleges. I see no issue here.

0
1

[–] Diogenes_The_Cynic 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

So they already established probable cause?

Its not an issue then.

0
0

[–] nakattack ago 

From the article, the only possible search/seizure could be the initial wiretap. He probably should have gotten a warrant for the stop too.

Pretty garbage write up on the whole ordal though.

1
0

[–] AlphaWookie 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago  (edited ago)

I had to jump in you got the summary correct. Here is the actual appeals court ruling for those that want to better understand the legal theory and ruling it is only 13 pages long and is pretty simplistic for a legal decision: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2016/03/31/14-30249.pdf

In short the ninth circuit get the ruling correct.

0
5

[–] Voluptuous_Panda 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago  (edited ago)

That was the jist I got. So the ruling was in fact the suspect is guilty. The motion to dismiss the evidence was not accepted due to the above reasoning; but it is not a law. Correct? I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around it all.

3
-1

[–] ScreaminMime 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

Awwww, but my anti-government panties are all jumbled and I have nothing to nerdrage/armchair protest about now...

0
4

[–] BRITTEACH 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Sounds like that ruling is headed for an appeal.

0
6

[–] RedLeader 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

I'm calling bullshit.

0
6

[–] macleod2486 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Not entirely bullshit. In my experience small town cops tend to be the biggest exercisers of making up bullshit to pull you over. Whereas big city cops tend to be way more professional and don't try to pull you over for made up reasons.

0
0

[–] 4907508? ago 

I think it has something to do with there being more real crimes to catch in big cities versus small towns. I grew up in a town that had maybe one murder every couple years and moved to the city (literally 10 miles away) where there's murders daily. Yea, the cops bullshit way less in the city. They've seen some shit.

0
1

[–] LagunaBeachCA 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

Can confirm on my end, local cops tended to pull me over over because I figure my car didn't match the wealth profile of the area, (it was an old beater and it's an upper middle class town).

They always gave a bullshit reason, "taillight was out" (when I know it wasn't) blah blah etc etc. But they let me go after asking a question or two, once they realized I was just a local they never even asked to actually see my license just whether or not I had one and then they told me to drive home safely. Questions they asked usually started with "where are you from" followed by something a local would definitely know like the name of our creek, high school, popular areas.

Happened over a dozen times in the one year I had the car, figure it only stopped because I ended up getting pulled over by everyone on the force in my town so they started to recognize my car.

Feel sorry for any guy with an old car like mine that just happened to be passing through our town. Probably quite a bit actually since we're right along a major thoroughfare for travelers and tourists.

0
1

[–] Mister_b 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

My personal experiences have been the same with the exception of Chicago (I hear Maryland is pretty bad for personal rights too). Barney Fife with his six shooter made me infinitely more nervous than the state trooper pulling me over for speeding. I knew I'd get a ticket from the trooper but I'd be going home when it was over.

0
9

[–] Broc_Lia 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

Sort of. They can pull you over for reasonable suspicion, but they don't have to tell you what it is. The problem with this is that they can easily make up the reasonable suspicion afterwards if they find anything. And even if they can't... they don't really suffer any consequences.

0
6

[–] RedLeader 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

That's fucked up.