- Joined
- Sep 13, 2012
- Messages
- 18,233
- Reaction score
- 15,861
- Location
- veni, vidi, volo - now back in NC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
She had crossed the border and was already in the US right? I don't understand why they couldn't detain her if they thought she might be hiding something illegal in the bins.
I could be wrong but thought I heard her say she just came from Nogales. The bins did look kind of suspicious and at one point the border patrol guy said he wanted to check for criminal activity. ?I heard about this and went looking for it. She was about 20 miles from the border at a random check point. And no, she wasn't coming from the border.
She had crossed the border and was already in the US right? I don't understand why they couldn't detain her if they thought she might be hiding something illegal in the bins.
Do you know the fourth amendment?
She was already in the country. They needed to stop her at the border. Not miles inside, without probable cause.
What is their probable cause?
Do you know the fourth amendment?
She was already in the country. They needed to stop her at the border. Not miles inside, without probable cause.
What is their probable cause?
Since when do the police need probable cause? There's no probable cause at a DUI check point either and we have those all over the place. The police need not follow any rules.
Since when do the police need probable cause?
There's no probable cause at a DUI check point either and we have those all over the place.
The police need not follow any rules.
Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional. The SC ruled on it a couple of decades ago.
For as long as there have been police in America...
Strictly speaking, they are not legal, pay attention to the language at your next checkstop and the way they talk is to gather your consent for a search.
Some would argue they have a stronger set of rules... Just they get ignored many times unless you demand that your rights be respected; other times (without discounting the good officers) cops are criminals with a fancy uniform.
Stops by police require reasonable suspicion not probable cause. That is a significantly lower standard.
Assuming it's a border checkpoint or one of the border patrol fixed checkpoints (the ones they have miles from the border) they don't even need reasonable suspicion to detain a person.
The woman is right that they cannot search her car without probable cause or her consent.
I only watched the first few minutes and cannot for the life of me understand why she wouldn't just pull out of traffic. The BP was completely within it's rights to have her get out of they way of traffic while it conducted the stop. She could have been arrested for that.
They don't include asking a person to wait while their plates are run. What I didn't understand is 11 minutes into the video, they claimed not to have the information running the car yet. That's a total lie. Motorolla is fast... Any law enforcement has immediate access to the car owners license plate data, almost instantaneously. MDT's (mobile data terminals) have been used in police cars for more than 20 years. You can be certain they had a terminal with fast information there.Sobriety checkpoints are Constitutional. The SC ruled on it a couple of decades ago.
I would love it if the police were actually constrained to any of the "rules", but in reality they act with pretty much reckless abandon. There's a large number of good cops, but so long as they keep sticking up for the bad ones then we cannot take any as honest and good.
Are you sure you're a libertarian?
I would love it if the police were actually constrained to any of the "rules", but in reality they act with pretty much reckless abandon. There's a large number of good cops, but so long as they keep sticking up for the bad ones then we cannot take any as honest and good.
Really, you can't take any cop as honest and good? Way to hate a group.
It's not "way to hate a group", it's just statistics. There are bad cops and bad cops are generally bad for your well being should you run across one. You cannot tell which ones are bad and which ones are good because even the good cops stick up for the bad cops. Ergo, it's just intelligent forethought to consider any cop as bad unless proven otherwise. Duh.
Bad cops are prosecuted. You're judging (demonizing) an entire group based on your own paranoia.
Bad cops are not prosecuted. Rarely are cops punished less what they did becomes public, like a video getting out.
I'm not saying all cops are bad, I know quite a few are good. I'm saying that since I cannot tell good cop from bad cop, it is best to assume the cop is bad until proven otherwise.
I think perhaps you should let go of your hysteria here.
To how many groups to you attach this 'guilty until proven innocent' standard.
I'm not the one bashing cops at a bizarre level. Let's not pretend that anything I've said is unusual or uncommon. I've provided referenced data. You however, have some posts that are, let's say, 'off the wall' paranoid and anti-cop.
I don't think you can produce a video for each of the convictions, above, so how about you turn down the cop-hate just a little.
It's not on a weird level. Cops protect cops all the time, it ain't nothing new. Good cops protect the bad cops and we as citizens have no idea which individual cop is good or bad. As such it is best to take them as bad cops until proven otherwise. It's not cop hate, it's just rational logic.
There are more good cops than bad. Pretending otherwise is irrational.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?