Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[racrguy]

i didn't watch the video but legally as a driver in texas you can be stopped just to ask if you have a license. nothing further can come of the stop though so in the event you have one. you could have a dead body in the vehicle with you and the pc wouldn't be there for the stop once the magistrate has to sign off on the charge...

No, you can't. As has already been explained. I don't give two shits what the Texas code says, the SCotUS has already shot that down.

[jewozzy]

No, you can't. As has already been explained. I don't give two shits what the Texas code says, the SCotUS has already shot that down.

yes, you can... did you read where i said nothing can come of the stop though?

[Pro88LX]

yes, you can... did you read where i said nothing can come of the stop though?

And did you read the supreme court ruling? Federal law trumps state law.

[racrguy]

And did you read the supreme court ruling? Federal law trumps state law.

Expecting the police to be bothered by reading something as mundane as a Supreme Court ruling is far too much, I guess. I mean, they haven't had long to research this particular ruling, it's only been in place for 32 years.

No wonder so many people pull out the FTP card.

[Pro88LX]

Expecting the police to be bothered by reading something as mundane as a Supreme Court ruling is far too much, I guess. I mean, they haven't had long to research this particular ruling, it's only been in place for 32 years.

No wonder so many people pull out the FTP card.

No shit. The shitty part is that if you do this, even though you are in the right, some bonehead cop will take you to jail.

[racrguy]

No shit. The shitty part is that if you do this, even though you are in the right, some bonehead cop will take you to jail.

That's an easy lawsuit to win.

[Pro88LX]

That's an easy lawsuit to win.

Yea, but still a fucking pain in the ass.

[racrguy]

Yea, but still a fucking pain in the ass.

True, but once it's all over and done with it's time to make it RAIIINNNN!

[Pro88LX]

True, but once it's all over and done with it's time to make it RAIIINNNN!

shit maybe i can just start doing this for a living!

[03trubluGT]

And failing to realize that what the other courts say doesn't make a hill of beans difference. The Supreme Court says it's a violation of the 4th, and no other court has the authority to overturn that ruling.

This proves that you have no real grasp of how the legal system works. Just because the SCOTUS siad that Delaware can't do it, doesn't mean that it covers every other jurisdiction. There are several nuances that I don't even grasp, even though I have a pretty good working knowledge on this stuff. Even with that said, I never pretend to hold a juris doctor in law.

But, I have to believe that Texas has found some loophole or other way to work around this since Transportation Code 521.015 was last addressed:

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007

So, if the SCOTUS case was in 1979, Texas has had plenty of time to work a way around this ruling since it is obviously still on the books.

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

[03trubluGT]

Expecting the police to be bothered by reading something as mundane as a Supreme Court ruling is far too much, I guess. I mean, they haven't had long to research this particular ruling, it's only been in place for 32 years.

No wonder so many people pull out the FTP card.

What a smart ass post.

[03trubluGT]

No shit. The shitty part is that if you do this, even though you are in the right, some bonehead cop will take you to jail.

That's an easy lawsuit to win.

Are you guys done finishing each other off?

[racrguy]

This proves that you have no real grasp of how the legal system works. Just because the SCOTUS siad that Delaware can't do it, doesn't mean that it covers every other jurisdiction. There are several nuances that I don't even grasp, even though I have a pretty good working knowledge on this stuff. Even with that said, I never pretend to hold a juris doctor in law.

But, I have to believe that Texas has found some loophole or other way to work around this since Transportation Code 521.015 was last addressed:

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007

So, if the SCOTUS case was in 1979, Texas has had plenty of time to work a way around this ruling since it is obviously still on the books.

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

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.

What a smart ass post.

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

[03trubluGT]

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?

I figured you were the one that was all drove up.

Again, explain to me how this law is on Texas books. Until you do that, we're stuck.

[racrguy]

I figured you were the one that was all drove up.

Again, explain to me how this law is on Texas books. Until you do that, we're stuck.

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.