Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[03trubluGT]

Not a single lawmaker? I'm sure there are some that didn't vote for that bill. But I will say that the ones that voted for it had no idea about the ruling..

That is the most retarded thing I've read today. So you're saying that the ones voted for it (we are talking about lawyers here) had no idea, and the ones voting against it never brought up the fact that it was "illegal"???

I need to leave this topic alone? Is that some kind of warning or something? I'm not taking my ball and leaving, I'm asking you to provide something that says you are right, and I am wrong. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is what the academies teach" isn't good enough. Post a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation.

Yea, its a warning, back off or I will e-thug you and brow beat you to death!

You have proven nothing, but require me to prove it? I don't think so. The burdon of proof does not lie upon me.

You're the one so drove up on this topic, how about you prove it?

You have several people on here telling you are wrong, but you still think you are right?

It looks as if you are the lowest common denominator in this discussion.

[03trubluGT]

So basically this means that if you are driving, you can be pulled over at any time and the officer DOES have PC to pull you over because you haveing a drivers licence was in question. If that is the case why don't officers pull EVERYONE over? How do you determine on sight that the questioned person may not have a DL?

I understand the typical mexican (no offence) you have a 50/50 chance of them not having a DL, suspended DL, or no insurance..But white people?! Obviously you can run the plates and if the name comes back "hernandez" ect, you may have a chance.

I was pulled over by DPS and ran for having a licence plate cover obstruct the first centimeter on the "TEXAS" on my licence plate. You can obviously tell that it was a TX plate, or you are retarded..So knowing this, I can be pulled over at anytime and checked just because the officer chooses to say that he thought I didn't have a DL. Sounds unconstitutional and very gestapo!!

That's what it says.

This isn't a racial profiling thing, it's been on the books for years. It was on the books prior to 1995, I'm not sure why it doesn't show it. I know when I went through Driver's Education in 1985 it was taught to us to always have our DL on us.

This in no way says that an officer "thinks you don't have a DL", as per the statute, an officer can stop to check if you have it.

[JC316]

On the drivers license subject, I have a question. Say that I have a current, legal drivers license in Texas, but I go for a quick drive without it and get pulled over. I know my DL number, so will I get a ticket for not the actual card on me, or can I give the officer my DL number and have him check it?

[jewozzy]

On the drivers license subject, I have a question. Say that I have a current, legal drivers license in Texas, but I go for a quick drive without it and get pulled over. I know my DL number, so will I get a ticket for not the actual card on me, or can I give the officer my DL number and have him check it?

Failure to present dl is a ticket that's different from no dl. I never give that if the person has their info but could...

[jewozzy]

Not a single lawmaker? I'm sure there are some that didn't vote for that bill. But I will say that the ones that voted for it had no idea about the ruling.


I need to leave this topic alone? Is that some kind of warning or something? I'm not taking my ball and leaving, I'm asking you to provide something that says you are right, and I am wrong. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is what the academies teach" isn't good enough. Post a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation.

You haven't proven anything either. as with most laws they are interpreted differently. We have explained to you why you are wrong but you don't want to listen to us. You show us proof where you are correct...

[jewozzy]

So basically this means that if you are driving, you can be pulled over at any time and the officer DOES have PC to pull you over because you haveing a drivers licence was in question. If that is the case why don't officers pull EVERYONE over? How do you determine on sight that the questioned person may not have a DL?

I understand the typical mexican (no offence) you have a 50/50 chance of them not having a DL, suspended DL, or no insurance..But white people?! Obviously you can run the plates and if the name comes back "hernandez" ect, you may have a chance.

I was pulled over by DPS and ran for having a licence plate cover obstruct the first centimeter on the "TEXAS" on my licence plate. You can obviously tell that it was a TX plate, or you are retarded..So knowing this, I can be pulled over at anytime and checked just because the officer chooses to say that he thought I didn't have a DL. Sounds unconstitutional and very gestapo!!

You can be stopped for the dl check but if you have one then nothing further can happen even if you have a dead body in the back seat...

[03trubluGT]

On the drivers license subject, I have a question. Say that I have a current, legal drivers license in Texas, but I go for a quick drive without it and get pulled over. I know my DL number, so will I get a ticket for not the actual card on me, or can I give the officer my DL number and have him check it?

Your DL can be pulled up by number or your name and DOB (date of birth).

I don't write many of these, but when I do it is usually in lieu of a moving violation.

The "No DL" ticket won't cost you points on your DL or make your insurance go up like a moving violation will.

[Up0n0ne]

So the US Constitution which is the Law of the Land, (USA) isn't?

Article VI, Section 2, of the Constitution says:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The cops that continue to ask for proof from members have been shown proof. Please show me where local laws over ride the Law of the Land?
racrguy has shown overwhelming proof. And I would like to see a ruling that overturns the one that is the topic of conversation as well.

It's no wonder more and more people lose respect for Leo's, the I'm above the law and how dare you question me garbage.

And yes, I know it's hard for some to believe that what the TSA does is unconstitutional, all in the name of 'safety" but it is.

Safety IS freedom.

I see more and more why America has become a police state. People have a hard time thinking for themselves and it's just to much to do some research.

Here's a quick search and headlines from across the nation.

TSA Grope Woman Concerned About Cancer From Body Scanners

TSA to grope travelers on all forms of transportation

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has always intended to expand beyond the confines of airport terminals. Its agents have been conducting more and more surprise groping sessions for women, children and the elderly in locations that have nothing to do with aviation. It’s all part of TSA’s Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response (VIPR) program, which drew additional scrutiny following an Oct. 18 blitz in Tennessee.

TN Mom Arrested when TSA tried to grope daughter

TSA agents grope high school students at prom security checkpoint

[jewozzy]

look up federal rulings in regard to intrastate travel. im on my phone so i can't copy paste but a google search shows that intrastate travel is governed by the state not the federal govt. maybe that is why the law has never been challenged in tx.

[racrguy]

look up federal rulings in regard to intrastate travel. im on my phone so i can't copy paste but a google search shows that intrastate travel is governed by the state not the federal govt. maybe that is why the law has never been challenged in tx.

Just because it is governed by the states, it does not exempt them from having to adhere to the Constitution. In fact, GITLOW V. PEOPLE, 268 U. S. 652 (1925) back this up.

Or are you going to try to argue that this particular case means nothing as well?

[racrguy]

I figured I'd make this it's own post. Here is an article from Police Chief Magazine talking about the same thing we're talking about.

Chief's Counsel

New U.S. Supreme Court Decision Approves "Informational" Checkpoint

By Julie A. Risher, Public Safety Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina

A January decision of the U.S. Supreme Court sheds new light on the constitutionality of vehicle checkpoints, specifically "informational" checkpoints. This column reviews that case, Illinois v. Lidster, and vehicle checkpoints in general.

Checkpoint Challenged
On August 30, 1997, Detective Vasil spent a few hours standing in the middle of the eastbound lanes of busy North Avenue wearing an orange reflective vest. He stopped each vehicle that passed for only 10-15 seconds to hand the driver a flyer that read: "Fatal hit and run accident. Assistance needed in identifying the vehicle and driver involved in this accident, which killed a 70-year-old bicyclist." Vasil asked drivers only what they had seen there the previous week. The officer hoped that one of the drivers was regularly on the road at this time and might have information about the fatal accident.

Suddenly, a vehicle in line swerved and almost struck Vasil, who jumped out of the way. When he approached the driver, Vasil smelled alcohol on the driver's breath and noticed that his speech was slurred. Another officer performed sobriety tests. After the tests, officers arrested the driver, Robert S. Lidster, for driving while impaired.

At trial, Lidster challenged his arrest and evidence from the stop, arguing that the information-seeking checkpoint violated his Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizure. The trial court denied the motion, and the defendant appealed. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed the trial court, relying on Indiana v. Edmond.1 (In Edmond, the U.S. Supreme Court had disapproved a drug checkpoint, finding that it constituted an unreasonable seizure.2) The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, however, and upheld the information-seeking stop as constitutionally reasonable.

To understand why the Lidster checkpoint is constitutional when the drug checkpoint is not requires review of the Court's decisions involving stops not based on individualized suspicion. The Court has recognized limited circumstances in which the Fourth Amendment's usual requirement of individualized suspicion does not apply, but all stops must be reasonable. To determine reasonableness, courts balance the public interest the stop serves and the individual's right to be free from governmental interference.

The Court has allowed certain vehicle checkpoints without individualized suspicion. Whether a vehicle checkpoint is reasonable depends on (1) the gravity of the public concern, (2) the degree to which the seizure addresses or advances the public concern, and (3) the severity of interference with individual liberty.3 Using these factors, the Court has approved vehicle stops at border checkpoints and driver's license and registration checkpoints under specific circumstances. The Court has limited law enforcement, however, by holding that checkpoints created for general crime control (including drug enforcement) are not constitutional. Illinois v. Lidster provides the latest guidance on where the constitutional line lies when officers have no particularized suspicion.

Border Patrol Checkpoints
The Court analyzed a permanent immigration checkpoint 66 miles north of the Mexican border.4 A uniformed agent visually screened all northbound vehicles, directing some to a secondary checkpoint to answer questions about citizenship and immigration status for three to five minutes. The Court considered that the extremely important national policy limiting immigration could only be served by interior checkpoints, because the vast border cannot be controlled effectively. Further, this interest outweighs the checkpoint's minimal intrusion on driver privacy. The agent's plain-view visual inspection was not a search. Even if a driver were stopped, he only answered a question or two and produced a citizenship document. Consequently, the checkpoint was constitutionally valid.

Driver's License Checkpoints
The Fourth Amendment's reasonableness standard prohibits officers from randomly stopping vehicles to check driver's licenses and registration.5 In Delaware v. Prouse, a patrolman stopped a vehicle without reasonable suspicion to check the driver's license and registration. He seized marijuana in plain view. Addressing the stop's constitutionality, the Court noted that the public interest in ensuing that motorists are licensed and cars are registered justified the checkpoint's slight intrusion on motorists. In Prouse, however, the officer had unbridled discretion regarding which cars to stop, making the checkpoint unconstitutional. By contrast, license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional.

Sobriety Checkpoints
Sobriety checkpoint stops without individualized suspicion are constitutional.6 Considering a checkpoint program to detect drunk drivers, the Court noted that each stop lasted approximately 25 seconds. Officers directed any driver who showed signs of insobriety to the side and administered field tests; intoxicated drivers were arrested. The Court held that the magnitude of the government's interest in eradicating the increasing problem of drunken driving outweighed the slight intrusion the stop imposed on all motorists.

General Crime Control Checkpoints
Vehicle checkpoints for general crime control are constitutionally unreasonable.7 At an Indianapolis checkpoint to detect unlawful drugs, each driver was briefly stopped and asked to produce a driver's license and registration. The officer looked for any signs of impairment and conducted a plain view examination of the car. A narcotics detection dog walked around the outside of each vehicle. Each stop was conducted in the same manner and lasted five minutes or less. The Court concluded that a roadblock to check for narcotics was an investigation for general criminal activity. The Court noted:

We decline to suspend the usual requirement of individualized suspicion where the police seek to employ a checkpoint primarily for the ordinary enterprise of investigating crimes. We cannot sanction stops justified only by the generalized ever present possibility that interrogation and inspection may reveal that any given motorist has committed some crime.

Informational Checkpoints
Illinois v. Lidster asks, Are information-seeking checkpoints constitutional?8 The Court answered Yes, concluding that the substantial interest in solving a serious crime outweighed the minor intrusion the stop imposed on motorists. Applying the balancing test, the Court noted that the government's interest in solving a deadly hit-and-run accident is a grave public concern, and the checkpoint's purpose was not general crime control but investigation of a specific, particular crime. The checkpoint was narrowly tailored to advance the government interest (same location as the crime, about one week after the crime, and at approximately the same time of day). Finally, stops were extremely brief, systematic, and limited in scope to a request for information. There is no Fourth Amendment prohibition on officers simply asking citizens in a public place for voluntary cooperation in providing information. Rejecting the argument that allowing information stops would result in a proliferation of checkpoints, the Court pointed to the limitations of police resources and community intolerance of traffic interferences as inherently limiting forces.

Although the Fourth Amendment permits information-seeking checkpoints, the protection against unreasonable search and seizure still applies to the procedures used:

* The crime about which information is sought must be serious.

* Checkpoints must be narrowly tailored (location, time of day, and duration) to the investigative purpose.

* All checkpoint stops must be brief and systematic; arbitrary stops are unconstitutional.

* Officers may not stop vehicles to conduct generalized interrogation.

Information-seeking checkpoints are an important tool for law enforcement. Witnesses may not realize that they have useful information.9 Ours is a mobile society; notifying drivers about crimes may be the only way to reach potential witnesses in some cases. However, agencies should diligently follow the Court's guidance during checkpoints (stops without individualized suspicion) to avoid converting a useful law enforcement tool into an unreasonable (and therefore unconstitutional) stop.

The author gratefully acknowledges the assistance of research intern Christina E. Foglio, Wake Forest University School of Law.

1 Illinois v. Lidster, 779, N.E.2d 855 (Ill. 2002), overturned by Illinois v. Lidster, -U.S.-(2004).
2 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 41 (2000).
3 Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47, 99 (1979).
4 United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 566, 546 (1976).
5 Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979).
6 Michigan v. Sitz, 496 U.S. 444, 455 (1990).
7 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32 (2000).
8 Illinois v. Lidster, -U.S.-(2004).
9 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225 (1973).



From The Police Chief, vol. 71, no. 3, March 2004. Copyright held by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 515 North Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314 USA.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=234&issue_id=32004

Please read the underlined portion, and notice the copyright date at the bottom. I'm still looking through Supreme Court cases, but I haven't found any that disagree with the original case as of yet.

[racrguy]

Damn post length nazi board!


BROWN V. TEXAS, 443 U. S. 47 (1979) Is a case that prohibits officers from requiring ID from someone they have no reasonable suspicion that they were doing something against the law.

[03trubluGT]

Just because it is governed by the states, it does not exempt them from having to adhere to the Constitution. In fact, GITLOW V. PEOPLE, 268 U. S. 652 (1925) back this up.

Or are you going to try to argue that this particular case means nothing as well?

I'm sure the state legislatures ignored this case from 1925 as well.

[03trubluGT]

Damn post length nazi board!


BROWN V. TEXAS, 443 U. S. 47 (1979) Is a case that prohibits officers from requiring ID from someone they have no reasonable suspicion that they were doing something against the law.

Haysus Christo!

This has NOTHING to do with vehicular travel. These guys were pedestrians. You don't need a license to walk.

You're grasping for straws here.

[racrguy]

Legal Guide for Police

A good book for a few of our LEO's on the board to read. Yes, it was written by a lawyer who holds a Doctorate in CJ Craig Hemmens, and a guy with a Doctorate in CJ, Jeffrey Walker.