A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Drug-sniffing dogs can be used at traffic stops, high court rules



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old January 27th 05, 01:11 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael wrote:

> Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
> deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.


Ok. What would those factors be then?
Ads
  #112  
Old January 27th 05, 01:40 AM
Michael
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Arif Khokar wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
>> Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
>> deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.

>
>
> Ok. What would those factors be then?


You see a checkpoitn, you make a u right before the checkpoint.
You may match someone's description.
Cop signals you to pull over and you don't for a while.
  #113  
Old January 27th 05, 01:51 AM
Arif Khokar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael wrote:

> Arif Khokar wrote:


>>> Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
>>> deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.


>> Ok. What would those factors be then?


> You see a checkpoitn, you make a u right before the checkpoint.


Not applicable in the case that led to this thread.

> You may match someone's description.


Not mentioned in the case that led to this thread.

> Cop signals you to pull over and you don't for a while.


I don't know for certain, but I don't think that was the case for the
person pulled over for driving 6 mph over the posted limit.
  #114  
Old January 27th 05, 01:54 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Michael wrote:

> Perhaps I should've been more clear. If you're just nervous - no big
> deal. Nervous combined with some other factors - big deal.


Like driving slower than everybody else, closer to the speed limit than
anyone nearby, like 6mph over in IL.


  #115  
Old January 27th 05, 01:56 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Michael wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article >, Jim Yanik wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and
>>>>the other is highly mobile.
>>>>I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by
>>>>Klotter comes to mind.

>>
>>
>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons,houses,papers,AND
>>>EFFECTS,against unreasonable searches and seizures,Shall not be
>>>violated,..."
>>>
>>>One's "effects" could be construed to include the vehicle they travel in.

>>
>>
>> I wonder if a citizen were to stop driving and start using a horse and
>> buggy if he would be subject to these searches. After all, using a horse
>> and buggy isn't a 'privledge', driving is. Horses and buggies were used
>> in 1789, so they existed when the constitution was written, avoiding this
>> silly construct of 'privledge' where you have to give up your rights.
>> From my understanding, the framers wouldn't have allowed warrantless
>> random or 'gut feel' searches of citizens traveling from a to b by horse
>> drawn vehicles in 1789.
>>
>> I also wonder if IL's vehicle code of allowing officers to stop
>> bicyclists without cause (called a safety inspection) would stand
>> up to a constitutional challenge. Once again, the bicycle existed prior
>> to this silly construct of 'privledge' that means giving up our rights
>> to do something.
>>
>>
>>

> Re IL's code. I think it would stand up to the challege since regulatory
> inspections are perfectly legal and always have been legal. Just like
> the Coast Guard boarding someone. What starts out as a mere regulatory
> inspection(i.e. no warrant needed) could very well turn into a criminal
> stop.


Always an end run around the bill of rights. Might as well just burn it
in that case. Our rights mean nothing if the state can use mere semantics
and achieve the goal of being able to detain, question, and search anyone
at any time.


  #116  
Old January 27th 05, 01:58 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, Michael wrote:

>> No, that still leaves you open to the demand for a search from any
>> policeman who feels like demanding one.


> Yeah, they can demand, just like you can tell them to go screw themselves.


You mean like the guy who was -on foot- and the officer demanded ID
without so much as saying why? The case went to the supreme court, the
citizen lost. The mechanisms for tyranny are almost entirely in place.
All it will take is someone to use them in mass.


  #117  
Old January 27th 05, 03:38 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, Michael wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, Jim Yanik
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and
>>>>>the other is highly mobile.
>>>>>I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by
>>>>>Klotter comes to mind.
>>>
>>>
>>>>"The right of the people to be secure in their
>>>>persons,houses,papers,AND EFFECTS,against unreasonable searches and
>>>>seizures,Shall not be violated,..."
>>>>
>>>>One's "effects" could be construed to include the vehicle they
>>>>travel in.
>>>
>>>
>>> I wonder if a citizen were to stop driving and start using a horse
>>> and buggy if he would be subject to these searches. After all, using
>>> a horse and buggy isn't a 'privledge', driving is. Horses and
>>> buggies were used in 1789, so they existed when the constitution was
>>> written, avoiding this silly construct of 'privledge' where you have
>>> to give up your rights. From my understanding, the framers wouldn't
>>> have allowed warrantless random or 'gut feel' searches of citizens
>>> traveling from a to b by horse drawn vehicles in 1789.
>>>
>>> I also wonder if IL's vehicle code of allowing officers to stop
>>> bicyclists without cause (called a safety inspection) would stand
>>> up to a constitutional challenge. Once again, the bicycle existed
>>> prior to this silly construct of 'privledge' that means giving up
>>> our rights to do something.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>> Re IL's code. I think it would stand up to the challege since
>> regulatory inspections are perfectly legal and always have been
>> legal. Just like the Coast Guard boarding someone. What starts out as
>> a mere regulatory inspection(i.e. no warrant needed) could very well
>> turn into a criminal stop.

>
> Always an end run around the bill of rights. Might as well just burn
> it in that case. Our rights mean nothing if the state can use mere
> semantics and achieve the goal of being able to detain, question, and
> search anyone at any time.
>
>
>


Coast Guard stops would be border security,something that is within the
Constituion.Routine travel inside the US borders is another thing.

Regulatory inspections should not be used to circumvent 4th Amendment
rights.
Besides such inspections should be simple walkarounds,no DOG
required(intended for a drug SEARCH,not any regulatory reason),no search of
the insides of the vehicle beyond what's visible to the unaided eye.

Once again,the USSC blows it.(activist court)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #118  
Old January 27th 05, 03:41 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Michael > wrote in
:

> Jim Yanik wrote:
>> Michael > wrote in
>> :
>>
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, jaybird wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Probable cause has greater requirements and is the standard for
>>>>>arrest. Neither it, nor reasonable suspicion is required to have a
>>>>>K9 sniff a vehicle because we have no expectation of privacy for
>>>>>the air coming from our vehicle to the outside.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Or anything else that dogs or technology can detect from the outside
>>>>of our homes or vehicles by that logic. Such as the heat signature
>>>>coming through the walls of our homes.
>>>>
>>>>It's all the same thing. The boundries of home and vehicle are
>>>>merely arbitary and easily breached. (and often have in the war on
>>>>the bill of rights er drugs)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Difference between a home and a vehicle is that one is immobile and
>>>the other is highly mobile.
>>>I suggest reading a good textbook on constitutional law, one by
>>>Klotter comes to mind.
>>>

>>
>>
>> "The right of the people to be secure in their
>> persons,houses,papers,AND EFFECTS,against unreasonable searches and
>> seizures,Shall not be violated,..."
>>
>> One's "effects" could be construed to include the vehicle they travel
>> in.
>>

> Exactly. Could be "construed", nothing says that a vehicle is an
> effect.
>


Sure it is.
"effects" are one's possessions.Just as they cannot search your backpack
without PC or a warrant,your car is the same.

The intent of the Founders is very clear on the 4th.
This USSC ruling does not comply with the 4th.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
  #119  
Old January 27th 05, 03:44 AM
Jim Yanik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jim Yanik .> wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in news:bK-
:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> Sam O'Nella > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The equipment doesn't penetrate anything. It doesn't read the air
>>>>> in the home, doesn't read anything that is in the home. It reads
>>>>> the heat coming off the residence. By reading said heat signature
>>>>> it gives a very clear idea of what is in the residence. Just like
>>>>> the dog does with the car.
>>>>
>>>>Hehe - heat "signature"? That's great.
>>>>
>>>>What pray tell does it give a "very clear idea" of?
>>>
>>> One of the Supreme Court cases concerned infrared IMAGING sensors.
>>> Which means it gives a (not-so-clear) picture of what's inside the
>>> home, in infrared.
>>>

>>
>>IIRC,the USSC case involved ordinary thermal scans,not any detailed
>>imaging,just finding roofs with abnormal heat levels,or unusual hot
>>spots like in the garage or some room.

>
> There has been more than one case on the subject.
>
>>Imaging sensors have different levels of resolution and sensitivity.

>
> Yep. But the case I mentioned closed the door (temporarily... all
> retention of freedom is temporary, nearly all loss is permanent) on
> all of them, at least without a warrant.
>


Yes,it IS extremely difficult to get the gov't to reverse itself when it's
wrong.Their resources can be considered infinite compared to the citizen's.
Thus the need for the Second Amendment.All else fails,we shoot
them,straighten them out.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Where to get Official Speed Limit Info [email protected] Driving 40 January 3rd 05 08:10 AM
Traffic ticket for rushing pregnant mom to hospital [email protected] Driving 1 December 6th 04 01:17 PM
Subject: Traffic School - online traffic school experience response [email protected] Corvette 0 October 9th 04 05:56 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:56 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.