You guys can point and snicker all you want, that's fine. You simply haven't seen what I've seen, that's all.
Don't count on it. I wore a badge back in the dark ages, so I have seen it from both sides. I may not have your personal experiences, but I am sure I have seen a lot that was similar. Just remember, there are two sides to almost every story.
A while back, I was driving home from work at 2am on a Saturday. I had been working since Friday morning on a big project, and I was ready for bed. If I had used my brain I would've taken the back roads, but I just wanted to sleep, so I took the highway.
One second I was alone on the open road, and the next a Sheriff's deputy rocketed up behind me with everything flashing and blaring. I pull over, and after making me wait a couple of minutes the deputy asks for me paperwork and explains that he saw me brush the yellow line. I then proceed to get interrogated about what I'm up to and where I'm going at that hour, and so on.
So you admit that you were impaired, just by fatigue instead of alcohol?
After a good 20 minutes after he first appeared in my rear view, the deputy admitted that the reason he pulled me over was that he was hunting for drunks, and since the bars just closed, he was checking me out.
20 minutes? I assume you mean you were stopped that long since you said he came out of nowhere.
Hmmm... A good officer will decide whether to sobrioty test you in less than one. The longer a traffic stop lasts, the more danger he puts himself into. While talking to you, he risks a drunk being attracted to the flashing lights on his car & killing either him, you, or both. (Flashing lights for some reason attract the attention of drunk drivers & they tend to run into them.)
I asked him if I had, in fact, done anything to precipitate being pulled over, and he confirmed that I had not -- but that if I was drunk, I'd have a hell of a time arguing that in court, right?
I thought you had brushed the yellow line? That
is a legitimate reason to suspect drunkenness that time of night.
You realize that if he had not checked you out, and you in fact had been drinking, resulting in an accident, he could have been subject not only to departmental discipline, but civil liability as well? (I have seen this happen.) It is his
responsibility to check you out.
I had a similar experience about 5 years after turning in my Deputy's badge. I was working 2nd shift & putting in about 70 hours a week with a 35 mile commute. The trooper, whom I did not know, (& did not inform that I had once been a cop), figured out I was just tired (after about a minute), followed me to the next services & bought me a cup of coffee. I am certain that if I had been belligerent instead of polite, my experience would have been less pleasant.
I don't hate police officers. I come from a cop family, so I know full well they've got a toolbox full of dirty tricks that they use on a nightly basis. They swear up and down that they don't have quotas, and I'm sure that in the explicit sense that's literally true, but there are many jurisdictions and departments in which the foot soldiers are expected to "generate revenue" in order to justify their continued employment. "Numbers squads," small groups of elite officers who focus their efforts on high volumes of low-level busts, are regularly employed to run up statistics and justify requests for funding, equipment and additional manpower.
I don't know about
regularly, but as in any profession there are bad apples, some of them in positions of authority. Any number of bad things happen then.
The fact of the matter is that the only way to safeguard your privacy is to limit the number of tools in the law enforcer's arsenal. It's not that the law enforcer is a bad person, it's that they're expected to use every single tool they've got -- not just to keep the community safe, but to secure influence and funding sufficient to protect the payroll.
Just how does checking legal status of aliens enhance funding? Uncle is not willing to put any funds out to people who are doing a job they would rather not have done.
With the much higher crime rate in the illegal community than in other communities of similar socio-economic circumstances, sending illegals home
does help make communities safer.
As to limiting his tools, most (if not all) of them are to enhance his ability to keep the community safe. By limiting them, you hamper his ability to do so.
Do I agree with all police practices? No.
Are there some bad eggs out there that need tethered or fired? Yes.
Should we hamper the good ones because of this,
for the most part I say no. As long as the Probable cause portion of the 4th amendment is not being violated, I do not have a problem with officers doing their job.
When that line is crossed, the officer or department responsible needs to be dealt with, case by case.
BTW, I still wonder, did your state require you to prove legal residency status when you got your license? If so, did it piss you off this bad?
