a story for you and then a question for the cop...

I'm about 10 miles north of the TX border heading south....almost no traffic at this point. Except a lady in a suburban about 1/4 mi ahead, there is most definitely no one in front of her. She's in the right lane, and so am I. I can see that I am gaining on her a bit, so about 1/8 mile to her, I ease on over to the left lane. About 1/10 of a mile to her, she signals and moves to the left. W in the F?



Cop - If studies show that texting and driving is every bit as dangerous as driving drunk, when will the punishment fit the crime(s)?

This thread rulez by the way

 

I was waiting for this!!! Search and seizure is my specialty! They are not aloud to search your trunk with out permission. But there is a thing called generalized permission, unless you say "NO, You can not search it" then the generalized permission says a regular person wouldn't deny access.

What happens if you refuse? Nothing. But on the same time the warning you would of been getting for that speed may of just bumped up to a ticket.

New federal law now allows police to search your car with less reason! In the new law states an officer may check anywhere in the vehicle that a person in the vehicle might but moving in. For example, you keep your registration and insurance in the glove box, when the cop pulls you over you reach over to grab that guess what, you just gave him reason to search the area from you all the way to the glove box in the glove box and anywhere in between! Someone in the back seat dropped their license and bent over to pic it up? guess what that whole area can be searched! So for your own well being don't do anything until the officer approaches the vehicle and then ask if you can get the stuff from the glove box.

You would think! But the biggest issue right now is proving texting while driving! Their is no way to prove you were texting, unless you are "special". If you get pulled over for it you can simply say you were dialing for a call. If he ask to see your phone. say no, they can't look at it with out a warrant do to a phone is private information. We have the law in a few areas around me and I've never heard one person get cited for it

 

why was my question not answered?

 

Sorry, I must of over looked it.


Our dept, only uses Radar, I personally have never came into contact with a jammer to say they work or don't. I think another person on here in another thread explained why "detectors" don't work well other than highway. I am certified on laser we just don't have the $$$ for it.

 

This is the greatest thread ever!! As a cop what do you think about red-light cameras. Public safety or revenue machine?

 

Both, but remember the more $$ made from tickets the less you pay in taxes!

 

Because it's a RIGHT, use it or lose it.

Second reason, people who intend to commit a crime think twice when your around.

Plenty of stories of CHP holders in VA who averted a crime from taking place without ever removing their gun from the holster.

There is a 7/11 around the corner from here that had been robbed regularly, guy started having his employees open carry, never been robbed since.

As much as people say they are dangerous, in the proper hands, they prevent more crimes.

REVENUE, at least here in Va Beach. VA passed a law allowing cities to install them for a test period of 8 yrs, Va Beach never installed a single one until the last month of the test period, then took them out, petitioned the state and has now installed them everywhere. They don't do much from my perspective in safety, as I still watch 4-5 cars blow through and get ticketed on daily basis. People know they are their and continue to blow through them.

What I really really hate however, are SPEED CAMERAS, those are 100% revenue.

These things are great for cities because they are justifiable as for the public good and safety. But if these things didn't bring in any money at the same time, they wouldn't spend money on the systems. That is fact.

I was under the impression that an officer had to state reasonable cause. I was asked once if I minded opening my trunk and I told the officer NO, what cause do you have to look in my trunk. He didn't give me any.

When I was a lil younger and wilder I had some dumb friends who let the cop search their car when he asked and he found their pot.

Fact is, you have the RIGHT to refuse it, if you're not displaying probable cause. Just obey the CHRIS ROCK VIDEO. However the cop can come up with a good reason to search your car if you give him cause.

 

Thanks a lot AskAcop I will definitely have future questions for you!

 

I can jump in on this one! I'm about to get technical but I think your a guy who can follow!

Not "probable cause" but "reasonable suspicion" as stated in Long vs. Mich. which is a add on to Terry vs. Ohio which is where stops get the name "Terry Stop"

Probable Cause:

The most widely held common definition would be "a reasonable belief that a crime has been committed" and that the person is linked to the crime with the same degree of certainty. An alternative definition has been proposed, "reason to believe that an injury had criminal cause", which is claimed to be more protective of individual rights as was intended by the authors of the Bill of Rights. See the critique below.

In the context of warrants, the Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)." "Probable cause" is a stronger standard of evidence than a reasonable suspicion, but weaker than what is required to secure a criminal conviction. Even hearsay can supply probable cause if it is from a reliable source or is supported by other evidence.

Reasonable Suspicion:

Reasonable suspicion is a legal standard in United States law, that a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. It is the basis for an investigatory or Terry stop by the police and requires less evidence than probable cause, the legal requirement for arrests and warrants. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably believe a person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity; such suspicion is not a mere hunch. Police may also, based solely on reasonable suspicion of a threat to safety, frisk a suspect for weapons, but not for contraband like drugs. A combination of particular facts, even if individually innocuous, can form the basis of reasonable suspicion.

 

what he said! ^^^

I'll be here!