Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[ThreeFingerPete]

Even that two minute inconvenience is worth it to me knowing that they are looking for things that could potentially jeapordize my own safety.

At what point would it be "too much" since they are "keeping you safe"? I call bullshit. The chances of something bad happening are far less than they want you to believe. The chances of medical problems due to excessive radiation exposure for travelers and TSA agents are much greater, and more so the chance of getting your rights violated by unjustly being searched, patted down, groped, etc is definitely not worth it.

[jewozzy]

UMADBRO? Just because they made the law after this particular case it doesn't mean that the law isn't unconstitutional. Remember, the supreme court doesn't rule on every law that's made, only the ones that are challenged. And this post proves you have no grasp of how the legal system works. Federal trumps state, every time. This is a federal ruling, so even you are bound by it, regardless of whether or not it happened in Delaware. If what you say was the case, then the Kitzmiller V Dover trial that originated out of PA wouldn't apply here in TX, but it does. Keep showing your ignorance of the system you're supposed to uphold.


Figure that out all by yourself, or did you need some unconstitutional statute to spell it out for you?

as a driver on a texas road you are required to have proof of a valid dl. with that being said you can be stopped just to check your dl (ever seen a dl check point? it is the same). if you are asked to produce a drivers license you are required to do so and the stop ends there. in the event you do not provide one nor have one then it can go further but if you have a valid dl then its over. it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the state...

what do you do for a living?

[Geor!]

Negative. The law states immediately pull to the right. Most officers prefer that you pull out of traffic but not if you have to travel a long distance to do so. When an individual travels for a while it starts throwing red flags up, like they are trying to hide things in the vehicle. Law is written immediately but it is up to officer discretion whether to write the citation.

I've had one let me go for doing 80 in a 60 for pulling off of the highway and onto a side road once and have also had a bitch reaching for her gun as she approached for doing the same thing. Then when we start talking, she starts putting me through the third degree. Why did you pull over here? Where are you coming from? Where are you going? If you're going home, why did you turn down this road? She also let me go with a warning, but she was one of the biggest assholes I've ever had the displeasure of running into. God forbid trying to do something safe.

[racrguy]

as a driver on a texas road you are required to have proof of a valid dl. with that being said you can be stopped just to check your dl (ever seen a dl check point? it is the same). if you are asked to produce a drivers license you are required to do so and the stop ends there. in the event you do not provide one nor have one then it can go further but if you have a valid dl then its over. it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the state...

what do you do for a living?

What I do for a living is irrelevant. Every law enforcement academy in the state is incorrect, according to this supreme court ruling. How thick are you LEO's skulls to not comprehend what that ruling is telling you. Jesus fuck it's like talking to a 2 year old. I don't give 2 shits what the Texas penal code says, because it was superseded by the supreme court ruling. Even in the ruling it says that checking licences at DL checkpoints are ok (and to the best of my knowledge, checkpoints are not legal in TX) because it's stopping everyone. Do I need to quote the entire ruling for you guys so you'll quit spouting what the Texas penal code says? Fuck it, don't even answer, I'll just quote it and highlight the important parts for those of you too lazy to read the entire thing.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

Page 440 U. S. 649

(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. 3. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

Read the bolded parts, know what you're talking about. The ruling here expressly forbids you from pulling over people with the sole purpose of checking their DL. Sorry, the days of your willy nilly pulling people over solely for checking DL's are over.

[Gear_Jammer]

If you want to argue futher, I suggest you find someone with a genuine law degree, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

I would love to go round and round with him, but I'm on my iPad and don't feel like typing that much and I'm worn out from Halloween. The one thing I will say is that I find it quite comical how he acts like he knows something that all of us in the legal world just don't understand. Geez!!!

[Broncojohnny]

We have had this discussion before.

The Supreme Court rulings only apply to the state in question and they may or may not apply to other states. The determining factor is how the state constitution is written. The Texas DL check is legal according to the state constitution and so is the DUI checkpoint but the DUI checkpoint does not happen because the legislature doesn't allow it.

For the record I think they are both bullshit practices that belong in police states.

[jewozzy]

What I do for a living is irrelevant. Every law enforcement academy in the state is incorrect, according to this supreme court ruling. How thick are you LEO's skulls to not comprehend what that ruling is telling you. Jesus fuck it's like talking to a 2 year old. I don't give 2 shits what the Texas penal code says, because it was superseded by the supreme court ruling. Even in the ruling it says that checking licences at DL checkpoints are ok (and to the best of my knowledge, checkpoints are not legal in TX) because it's stopping everyone. Do I need to quote the entire ruling for you guys so you'll quit spouting what the Texas penal code says? Fuck it, don't even answer, I'll just quote it and highlight the important parts for those of you too lazy to read the entire thing.



Read the bolded parts, know what you're talking about. The ruling here expressly forbids you from pulling over people with the sole purpose of checking their DL. Sorry, the days of your willy nilly pulling people over solely for checking DL's are over.

Sorry but you're still incorrect... I'll continue to follow Texas law. I've only pulled over one person for a dl check and I was right so it must be 100% accurate.

[jewozzy]

We have had this discussion before.

The Supreme Court rulings only apply to the state in question and they may or may not apply to other states. The determining factor is how the state constitution is written. The Texas DL check is legal according to the state constitution and so is the DUI checkpoint but the DUI checkpoint does not happen because the legislature doesn't allow it.

For the record I think they are both bullshit practices that belong in police states.

I've only worked 1 do checkpoint before and I will agree there are TONs of better things that could be done with my time than that. I will however say we towed 50+ vehicles for no dl/ins...

[racrguy]

Sorry but you're still incorrect... I'll continue to follow Texas law. I've only pulled over one person for a dl check and I was right so it must be 100% accurate.

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

[03trubluGT]

Me mad about it? Not mad, but perturbed.

The question you asked is what's wrong with the system, no one inside questions whether or not the laws are lawful and just, they just assume that it's legal, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

To answer your question directly, ignorant lawmakers, that's how this "law" came to be on the books. None of them that voted for the law did the research to find out if it's even constitutional. Why is it still on the books? No one has challenged it to the point that the law would be overturned. But I'd imagine if you were to pull someone over simply to check their DL, and they were aware of this SCOTUS ruling, either you won't be checking their DL, or they'll be getting a payday because you'll pull the "I'm a cop and I'll do what I want" line, even though you've been educated that the particular law in question is unconstitutional.

Oh sure, not one lawmaker is aware of the Federal rulings, and just passes laws for the Hell of it...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht...

And since 1979, there hasn't been a single person that this has been used against that thought about challenging it??

Wow, again, that's a mighty big coincidence......

How is it living in that bubble??

[03trubluGT]

At what point would it be "too much" since they are "keeping you safe"? I call bullshit. The chances of something bad happening are far less than they want you to believe. The chances of medical problems due to excessive radiation exposure for travelers and TSA agents are much greater, and more so the chance of getting your rights violated by unjustly being searched, patted down, groped, etc is definitely not worth it.

My bullshit meter just pegged.


We all know you like being groped. Especially by large breated women!

[03trubluGT]

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

Even after the FTP'ers say you are wrong, this is your answer...



By the way, don't let the door hit you in the ass.....




I'm not going to hold a grudge in other threads, but you need to leave this topic alone.

[jewozzy]

Prove it. Prove that the Texas law supersedes the ruling by the Supreme Court. And just because they didn't contest it, doesn't make you right.

No...

[FunFordCobra]

The PC is enforcing the statute:

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall 1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.(c) A person who violates this section commits an offense. An offense under this subsection is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $200

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!!

[racrguy]

Oh sure, not one lawmaker is aware of the Federal rulings, and just passes laws for the Hell of it...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggghhht...

And since 1979, there hasn't been a single person that this has been used against that thought about challenging it??

Wow, again, that's a mighty big coincidence......

How is it living in that bubble??

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.

Even after the FTP'ers say you are wrong, this is your answer...



By the way, don't let the door hit you in the ass.....


I'm not going to hold a grudge in other threads, but you need to leave this topic alone.

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.