Filming traffic stops

[Guest Keal G Seo]

A DUI checkpoint is not a violation of any rights. You do not have a right to drive in any state. Our founding fathers put the word “Unreasonable” in the 4th amendment and they put a system in place to determine what that would be because they never pretended to know everything.

I don't have the right to "drive" I have the right to "travel unmolested". I also, as stated, have the right to be secure in my person and papers.

 

The system that our founding fathers put in place to deal with situations in the future ruled that the DUI checkpoints were justified because they were effective and necessary and that there is a "substantial government interest" to advance in stopping drunk driving.

I have to ask again as TMF did, how is this any different in stopping random cars traveling down the road without PC? It would be just as effective as DUI checkpoints, if not more. I personally will take side streets to avoid these now...less effective. They aren't necessary or they would be much more commonplace on many streets every night. Finally there is only government interest because they know it is way to skirt PC and stop everyone that travels that street that night.

[DaveTN]

 

I have to ask again as TMF did, how is this any different in stopping random cars traveling down the road without PC?

You quoted the answer.

 

Do you have the right to carry a gun without the cops stopping you and asking for your HCP? Nope, because you bought that privilege from the state. Driving is a privilege also.

 

 Our founding Fathers didn’t have cars or automatic weapons or nuclear devices. They put in place a group of men that would answer those questions when they arose. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is a minor infringement on the 4th amendment, but is effective and necessary. I don’t agree with all their rulings; but I’m okay with that one.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

You quoted the answer.

 

Do you have the right to carry a gun without the cops stopping you and asking for your HCP? Nope, because you bought that privilege from the state. Driving is a privilege also.

 

 Our founding Fathers didn’t have cars or automatic weapons or nuclear devices. They put in place a group of men that would answer those questions when they arose. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that it is a minor infringement on the 4th amendment, but is effective and necessary. I don’t agree with all their rulings; but I’m okay with that one.

So you are saying that for me to travel unmolested I need to buy a 4x4 and stay off the roads? I think that too might break a few laws. So how do I travel unmolested? I guess I am for 100% privately owned roads? So lets say I drive a horse and carriage, I don't need a drivers licence for that and also don't have to register it. Does that mean I can just blow through a DUI check point? I didn't sign anything that waived any of my rights when I got that licence. When I sign for my licence there is no agreement other than that is my signature. Bottom line is that unless you fight for them NOTHING is a right, it can all be taken away at the governments whim. Even life itself is not a guarantee, look at the death penalty...they lost their privilege of life. As for guns, felons and domestic violence offenders lose that "right" as well. I still fail to see why I, the law abiding citizen, have to put up with (no probable cause mind you) questioning and sometimes a search of my person, papers and effects under the guise of DUI checkpoints.
As we have already established here DUI fatalities are not high (about 10k a year, some argue less) and DUI arrests FROM DUI checkpoints are minute at best. I would wager that most arrests during DUI checkpoints aren't DUI related. They are ineffective since they publish the locations. When I go out with friends we always check where they are, even though we aren't driving drunk we don't want to put up with the cops possible attitudes because a car load of drunks is passing through and they cant do anything except kill our buzz.

[DaveTN]

As we have already established here DUI fatalities are not high

 

[Dustbuster]

It's amazing at how terrible some think it is to answer maybe 3 questions while going through a sobriety check point.
I wonder how many think its wonderful to look in the eyes of a dead victims family member when they ask why didn't anyone stop this tyre that killed my baby. When you sign that license app and swear that you understand the laws involving driving and you passed a road test and a written test to see if you had basic quals to drive you have your consent and agreed to abide by the law at the risk of being prosecuted and losing your privilege to drive by not obeying the laws you were tested on...

Yeah a checkpoint can be a pain but it won't hurt as bad as dealing with the repercussion of harming someone while driving under the influence.....geeZe.....really wanna see something madd follows every dui case from arrest to sentencing try arguing w MADD
Rotsa Ruck

[DaveTN]

I wonder how many think its wonderful to look in the eyes of a dead victims family member when they ask why didn't anyone stop this tyre that killed my baby.

I agree. I’ve had to do it too many times. It’s not an accident and it’s not a good citizen that who had a few to drinks. It’s a criminal that committed a criminal act that led to the death of an innocent person (or people). The person who did it will likely go to prison and their life as they knew it is over; but at least they are still alive, we can’t say the same for their victims.
 

Yeah a checkpoint can be a pain but it won't hurt as bad as dealing with the repercussion of harming someone while driving under the influence.....geeZe.....really wanna see something madd follows every dui case from arrest to sentencing try arguing w MADD
Rotsa Ruck

MADD changed the face of DUI enforcement. Is it emotion based legislation? You bet it is. And the majority of the public is okay with it. Some here may think 10K murders is okay, but the public does not.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

DUI fatalities aren't high. Look at the number of things leading the way in modes of death. DUI is well down that list. 10k a year, that is about the same as gun homicides. Do you think every gun owner should be subject to random check that commonly result in searches? If so, we vary on that subject. If not, why is it any different for drivers?

Dustbuster, you obviously never read my first encounter at DUI checkpoints. I was harassed because I had out of state plates and licence. No choice in the matter, illegal search and all. This when I was 16 and still polite to police to try to avoid tickets. The DUI checkpoint is guise for stopping every person they can in hopes of finding something. Nay anything. Also, where is that agreement exactly? I have never seen it...in any state. All I have ever seen is a small grey screen with a signature line.

Just because you guys go through them 4-5 in your life with good/easy experiences does not mean all the millions of law abiding citizens that go through them have good/easy experiences.

On top of all of this, if the numbers were there to back up the effectiveness of these checkpoints I would support them. The fact is that less than 1% of people passing through them are drunk. This is of course a guess but think about how many cars pass through one in an entire night. Now think when was the last time you heard about 100 DUI arrests in a night, much less from a single check point.

 

All they are is a guise for violating everyone's rights.

[DaveTN]

Do you think every gun owner should be subject to random check that commonly result in searches? If so, we vary on that subject. If not, why is it any different for drivers?

Firearm carry is a State Right. In this state it is a crime. If a cop sees you carrying he can stop and ask to see your permit.
 

Also, where is that agreement exactly? I have never seen it...in any state. All I have ever seen is a small grey screen with a signature line.

Then you weren’t paying attention to what you were signing. Ever hear of “Implied Consent”?
 

DUI fatalities aren't high.
On top of all of this, if the numbers were there to back up the effectiveness of these checkpoints I would support them. The fact is that less than 1% of people passing through them are drunk. This is of course a guess but think about how many cars pass through one in an entire night. Now think when was the last time you heard about 100 DUI arrests in a night, much less from a single check point.

Your stats are flawed and ridiculous. This isn’t a game of numbers. I’m sure there are many here that have lost a family member that are holding back from responding to this nonsense. It’s terrible that you call the deaths of their family members insignificant.
 

All they are is a guise for violating everyone's rights.

Again… that is ridiculous.

[Dustbuster]

Sorry you got harassed. It happens it sucks but its no worse than poison ivy cept poison ivy takes longer to clear up.poison ivy doesn't look for anyone. Implied consent, DUI, Dwi etc are all part of law every driver is supposed to know. That's why it's in the written exam. Part of qualifying for the privilege to drive means you know what you can do and definitely shouldn't do. A checkpoint is about recognizing that a driver may be under the influence of alcohol. No one is asked how many rapes they've commited or what their political party is. I'm glad to see patrol guys and troopers working cp's it means my kids have a better chance of getting home safely. I couldn't care about voldemorts fighting to not get out of a car. I care about my kids and others who don't need to be exposed to unnecessary risk. I could go in all day about crap we do that may be right infringing but when it comes to safety we always err on the side of caution. No hard feelings at all. Edited September 1, 2013 by Dustbuster

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Firearm carry is a State Right. In this state it is a crime. If a cop sees you carrying he can stop and ask to see your permit.
 
Then you weren’t paying attention to what you were signing. Ever hear of “Implied Consent”?
 
Your stats are flawed and ridiculous. This isn’t a game of numbers. I’m sure there are many here that have lost a family member that are holding back from responding to this nonsense. It’s terrible that you call the deaths of their family members insignificant.
 
Again… that is ridiculous.

He cant come to my home and ask to see them to make sure I'm not doing anything illegal. That is what a DUI check point is, they are stopping you to see IF you are doing anything illegal. IE No probable cause.
 

Yes, I have heard of implied consent. Can you show me the contract or even something like an agreement? I've even attempted searching now and can't find anything more than for signature verification. Checks etc. There is always implied consent you will follow the law. That doesn't mean you implied you would wave your rights or police wouldn't need a warrant to search your vehicle or pull you over at any time just to be sure you aren't breaking the law. DUI checkpoints are a way around the latter since they are stopping everyone without PC.

My stats aren't flawed, I call on you to show me one reputable source that states any differently than what I have said. Yes, Dave said it well up there, this is emotional legislation. I take it to unconstitutional legislation. As for peoples families, I don't think I ever said their loss was insignificant to them. I did say that the total number was minute in comparison to other modes of death. 2012 deaths, 2.4 million, DUI related fatalities about 10k...less than 0.5%.

There is no denying that DUI checkpoints are ineffective and I argue unconstitutional.

 

Sorry you got harassed. It happens it sucks but its no worse than poison ivy cept poison ivy takes longer to clear up.poison ivy doesn't look for anyone. Implied consent, DUI, Dwi etc are all part of law every driver is supposed to know. That's why it's in the written exam. Part of qualifying for the privilege to drive means you know what you can do and definitely shouldn't do. A checkpoint is about recognizing that a driver may be under the influence of alcohol. No one is asked how many rapes they've commited or what their political party is. I'm glad to see patrol guys and troopers working cp's it means my kids have a better chance of getting home safely. I couldn't care about voldemorts fighting to not get out of a car. I care about my kids and others who don't need to be exposed to unnecessary risk. I could go in all day about crap we do that may be right infringing but when it comes to safety we always err on the side of caution. No hard feelings at all.

No worse than poison ivy? You have obviously never been humiliated with a public search when you have done nothing wrong. I don't deny that DUI and checkpoints are law and I don't deny that I know them. I just don't agree with them and why anyone would is beyond me. As for what you are asked, no they don't directly ask about specific crimes but one of the questions they usually ask is where you are coming from and where you are going. Let's say you just came from a "known drug area", you think they aren't going to harass you further? I get the whole wanting family being safer thing but I personally don't think the cost of a violation of my rights is worth the 0.00001% safer they will be.

"Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

[Dustbuster]

Well if ya don't like em avoid em or keep a go pro mounted to document all of your stops. Go retain an ACLU lawyer and start the suits.

Ya gotta remember a few things fwiw. Everyone's human and different. Some guys don't care where you're going they might even respect you more for answering with none of your business. Sometimes officers want to chat while determining if one expells the odor of alcohol. Probable cause on the horizon and then some. The other thing is Voldemort filtering will always start trouble..
Hang in there and lay low...

[TMF]

It's amazing at how terrible some think it is to answer maybe 3 questions while going through a sobriety check point.
I wonder how many think its wonderful to look in the eyes of a dead victims family member when they ask why didn't anyone stop this tyre that killed my baby. When you sign that license app and swear that you understand the laws involving driving and you passed a road test and a written test to see if you had basic quals to drive you have your consent and agreed to abide by the law at the risk of being prosecuted and losing your privilege to drive by not obeying the laws you were tested on...

Yeah a checkpoint can be a pain but it won't hurt as bad as dealing with the repercussion of harming someone while driving under the influence.....geeZe.....really wanna see something madd follows every dui case from arrest to sentencing try arguing w MADD
Rotsa Ruck

Just because a person doesn't support checkpoints means they automatically support drunk driving. Every argument you use to support checkpoints can be used to support anti gun legislation.

I hate drunk drivers just as much as I hate a person who recklessly shoots a firearm or kills someone with a firearm, but the libs will say that I support dead kids because I believe in the 2nd Amendment. That argument is invalid and dismissive, just like the argument that those who don't agree that checkpoints are constitutional somehow support drunk driving.

I have no problem answering a few questions. I also have no problem with someone choosing not to answer any. It is, supposedly, a free country. Before you are obligated to hand over your "papers", be detained, required to be questioned a crime must have been committed or suspected of being committed. Saying that I can be stopped randomly any time I'm in public and subjected to search, detainment and questioning when no crime has been committed or suspected of being committed is the exact thing that are fore fathers DIDN'T want. When you say it is okay because there might be drunk drivers out there is to invite a slippery slope. It never ends there. If it did, cops wouldn't readily admit that checkpoints have nothing to do with DUIs... they have to do with catching folks on other charges unrelated to DUI.

[Dustbuster]

I get it let me re phrase part of my thought. The questions are asked so the officer working the point can determine if the probability of someone being under the influence is present.
When a traffic stop occurs the likelihood of your vehicle and license being run is pretty high. If there's outstanding stuff out then u get hammered. Just like Timothy mc veigh did along with other felons that got nailed because of traffic stops conducted by good eyes The stop happens cause something unusual or unlawful happened. If you're not flying proper you eventually get grounded. In this case a citation or something else.

I'll cliff note this by suggesting dont drink and drive.well all be safer. Don't drive through checkpoints turn around and get a hotel. Last but not least if an officer asks a question and ya feel the need to Voldemort. Break out a crayon and paper,this way u won't have to talk and no one will wanna stick around to read hieroglyphics in crayola red.....

Pull some kids out of twisted metal by body parts one day and you'll know why simple enforcement beats Voldemorting any day. Questions are part of it
Not trying to be a dic$ but that's just the way it works.not by my choice

[DaveTN]

Just because a person doesn't support checkpoints means they automatically support drunk driving. Every argument you use to support checkpoints can be used to support anti gun legislation.

I don’t think you support drunk driving; I think you are making a constitutional argument. Even Chief Justice Rehnquist when he spoke for the majority said it was a minor infringement; but said it was justified. That’s why my response was what it was to you; it’s been decided. The SCOTUS is the ultimate authority on those issues.

I have never participated in a road block. Our department didn’t have to; we had dedicated traffic units specifically task with that every shift. When the insurance companies tried to give our department free fully equipped squads with the stipulation that we would raise our DUI enforcement rates; our Chief refused, saying that would imply we weren’t doing what we should be doing then. But if you don’t have roadblocks the same arguments are used for DUI enforcement… Oh you are profiling and that’s not right. Of course we were profiling. Not only were we profiling but we announced it openly in the media and they still do today. The DUI signs on the highway that show the handcuffs, “100 days of summer heat”, etc.

Will it cause it to become a situation where cops can pull over anyone without PC? No, the SCOTUS would not allow it. Ask you Father if he ever had a car he wanted to stop but said, “I can’t find any PC to pull him over.” Doubtful, usually whatever caused his attention to be focused on that vehicle was PC.

I have long said that BAC limits will be reduced to where drinking and driving is illegal. I also think we will see it gain felony status. I was a Police Officer when it was removed from the things we had discretion on. I had called parents to get their kids and vehicle, sent people home in cabs, allowed other people to drive. That ended in one day. I’m not saying that’s a bad thing, but it was an example of how much power a group like MADD has.

I’m surprised at how much money and resources are spent on DUI but not much is done with multiple offenders. I believe people (especially young people) can make a mistake because they don’t understand the difference in “drunk Driving” and “.08 BAC”. But only once, not multiple times.

[daddyo]

Never mind.

Edited September 1, 2013 by daddyo

[DaveTN]

A breathalyzer test would require probable cause.

[DaveS]

 

 Can you show me the contract or even something like an agreement?



 

 

Sir; reach into your hip pocket and take your wallet out. Now open it up. There Sir, you will find (hopefully) a tan colored card with the word "Tennessee" printed across the top. Look down toward the bottom center of the card. See your SIGNATURE there? BINGO! You have a signed contract/agreement/implied consent. I bet you forgot about that right?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[tnguy]

Sir, pop up to the National Archives and take a look at the document which is the SUPREME law of the land, which enumerates and restricts the powers of the government and which citizens cannot be coerced to sign away. That contract supersedes any possible "contract" the government can make with its citizens, egregious mistakes by the supreme court notwithstanding.

[DaveS]

Sir, pop up to the National Archives and take a look at the document which is the SUPREME law of the land, which enumerates and restricts the powers of the government and which citizens cannot be coerced to sign away. That contract supersedes any possible "contract" the government can make with its citizens, egregious mistakes by the supreme court notwithstanding.

Please pull it up for me. I'm kinda slow. PLEASE?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[Guest Keal G Seo]

Sir; reach into your hip pocket and take your wallet out. Now open it up. There Sir, you will find (hopefully) a tan colored card with the word "Tennessee" printed across the top. Look down toward the bottom center of the card. See your SIGNATURE there? BINGO! You have a signed contract/agreement/implied consent. I bet you forgot about that right?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

No I hadn't forgotten about that, in fact I mentioned it in an earlier post. The little grey box with no contract, to print your signature on your licence. Where is anything like a contract/agreement? Implied consent is implied with every law, not just traffic laws. By living in any country/state/town you imply that you will follow the laws of the land.
My question again is: When signing a drivers licence, where is a contract or agreement? All I can find on what the signature on a DL or ID is for is for signature verification for things like writing checks etc. Show me something different.

[DaveTN]

No I hadn't forgotten about that, in fact I mentioned it in an earlier post. The little grey box with no contract, to print your signature on your licence. Where is anything like a contract/agreement? Implied consent is implied with every law, not just traffic laws. By living in any country/state/town you imply that you will follow the laws of the land.
My question again is: When signing a drivers licence, where is a contract or agreement? All I can find on what the signature on a DL or ID is for is for signature verification for things like writing checks etc. Show me something different.

So in your mind you signed so the state could give you a device to allow you to cash a check at Kroger… interesting.

Read 55-10-406 of the Tennessee code and you will have your answer.

Edited September 1, 2013 by DaveTN

[bersaguy]

Well, I have sat here for the last hour reading all the pro's and con's in this thread. I think most all that posted here have made their points clear to a point. My issue is not whether DUI checkpoints are legal or illegal. If a check point is sat up at a certain location and during the time it is up they check 500+ cars and trucks and they remove 1 or 10 drunk drivers from our highways I am glad that those many drunks didn't have the opportunity to possibly kill a family coming home from a movie or from visiting Grandmother. I have probably passed through 50 of these checkpoints in my life and in most cases I have been asked the questions of where I have been or where I am going. I have several friends on THP and other law enforcement agencies and for those of you that think the LEO is being to nosy let me inform folks here that they are not asking the question to be nosy. They are asking the question to strike up a conversation with you to check out your alertness and to see if they can sense any slurring or problem with your phrasing of sentences. It is not because they are trying to invade your privacy. If you don't want to get a DUI it is easy enough to avoid. Don't drink and drive of have a designated driver or better yet take a cab home.........JMHO on that. Now a major issue I have about highway stops has been in the news a lot recently and those are the traps that the TBI and Local Sheriff Offices have been doing between Memphis and Nashville called Stops For Profit!!! They are stopping certain vehicles from cars to 18 wheelers supposedly checking for Drugs coming Mexico. It was discovered that the LEO's were not stopping the vehicles coming east from Memphis to get the Drugs. They were stopping them going west. They were letting the drugs reach their destinations untouched and stopping the vehicles going back to Memphis carrying the cash. All is was was sting for the cash and they were making tons of it and it was for the most part the money was going right into slush funds for the TBI and Sheriffs offices and some even into the LEO's pockets. Once the cash was collected 99% of the vehicles and drivers where released and told to go on. Now that was upsetting to me. They let the drugs flow like water into Nashville just to get the money. I was thrilled when that game was exposed about 2 years ago by an investigative news network that spent almost 2 years watching how the game played out before exposing it. That is the things that rattle my confidence in our police departments, not DUI checkpoints. It was proven that many times vehicles that were stopped that had large sums of money in them were actually legal folks with large sums of cash in them that were going to purchase an automobile in Memphis or make some other legal purchase. One woman was stopped that was taking her first vacation in 15 years and going down to visit her family she had not seen in many years. They took their money also. Once the News broke the game those people did get their money back. I have not heard anything more about it recently but I did hear that the LEO"S working that game were ordered to move to and begin working the east bound lanes and stop the drugs from getting to Nashville and East. I think once the money was removed from the equation the LEO's kinda lost interest in it as much. Don't know for sure.........It is things like that, that give Police a bad name in MHO.    

[DaveTN]

Well, I have sat here for the last hour reading all the pro's and con's in this thread. I think most all that posted here have made their points clear to a point. My issue is not whether DUI checkpoints are legal or illegal. If a check point is sat up at a certain location and during the time it is up they check 500+ cars and trucks and they remove 1 or 10 drunk drivers from our highways I am glad that those many drunks didn't have the opportunity to possibly kill a family coming home from a movie or from visiting Grandmother. I have probably passed through 50 of these checkpoints in my life and in most cases I have been asked the questions of where I have been or where I am going. I have several friends on THP and other law enforcement agencies and for those of you that think the LEO is being to nosy let me inform folks here that they are not asking the question to be nosy. They are asking the question to strike up a conversation with you to check out your alertness and to see if they can sense any slurring or problem with your phrasing of sentences. It is not because they are trying to invade your privacy. If you don't want to get a DUI it is easy enough to avoid. Don't drink and drive of have a designated driver or better yet take a cab home.........JMHO on that. Now a major issue I have about highway stops has been in the news a lot recently and those are the traps that the TBI and Local Sheriff Offices have been doing between Memphis and Nashville called Stops For Profit!!! They are stopping certain vehicles from cars to 18 wheelers supposedly checking for Drugs coming Mexico. It was discovered that the LEO's were not stopping the vehicles coming east from Memphis to get the Drugs. They were stopping them going west. They were letting the drugs reach their destinations untouched and stopping the vehicles going back to Memphis carrying the cash. All is was was sting for the cash and they were making tons of it and it was for the most part the money was going right into slush funds for the TBI and Sheriffs offices and some even into the LEO's pockets. Once the cash was collected 99% of the vehicles and drivers where released and told to go on. Now that was upsetting to me. They let the drugs flow like water into Nashville just to get the money. I was thrilled when that game was exposed about 2 years ago by an investigative news network that spent almost 2 years watching how the game played out before exposing it. That is the things that rattle my confidence in our police departments, not DUI checkpoints. It was proven that many times vehicles that were stopped that had large sums of money in them were actually legal folks with large sums of cash in them that were going to purchase an automobile in Memphis or make some other legal purchase. One woman was stopped that was taking her first vacation in 15 years and going down to visit her family she had not seen in many years. They took their money also. Once the News broke the game those people did get their money back. I have not heard anything more about it recently but I did hear that the LEO"S working that game were ordered to move to and begin working the east bound lanes and stop the drugs from getting to Nashville and East. I think once the money was removed from the equation the LEO's kinda lost interest in it as much. Don't know for sure.........It is things like that, that give Police a bad name in MHO.    

Armed robbery by a Police Officer will always give cops a bad name.

 

As a former cop I’m simply amazed that this is allowed to happen in Tennessee (if it is) as it’s pretty easy to bust bad cops. If it’s going into the cops pocket it’s a very simple investigation that will put the cop in prison. If it’s a Chief, Sherriff, or DA that is allowing it; they need to answer for it. If its procedural and the public doesn’t agree with it; change the procedure or vote them out of office if they are elected. If it’s criminal; call in another agency to do the investigation and charge them.

 

Unless a cop is initiating a criminal investigation there should be not authorization for them to take money from people.

 

Yes, those things give cops a bad name. But those things go much higher up the chain than a patrol Officer. Hold those people responsible. The media should be talking to the head of the agency’s (PD’s, DA’s, and Courts) that is putting their stamp of approval on theft and find out why.

 

As I say those investigations are pretty simple and I understand it would take a LEO or AG with great big balls to go after some of these guys, but does Tennessee have no one like that?

[DaveS]

My question again is: When signing a drivers licence, where is a contract or agreement? All I can find on what the signature on a DL or ID is for is for signature verification for things like writing checks etc.

Sir; when you placed your signature upon your license, you, with your signature, have agreed to the laws as set forth by the State of Tennessee. That signed license is your AGREEMENT. Let's do this experiment; next time you renew your drivers license, REFUSE to Sign it, then come back and let us know how that worked out for you. And by the way, you don't need a "Drivers License" to write checks in TN. Any photo ID will work. Give up your drivers license and get a state issued ID card. With one of those you don't need a DUI check. See how simple that is?

 

DaveS

Crack'a American

[bersaguy]

Armed robbery by a Police Officer will always give cops a bad name.

 

As a former cop I’m simply amazed that this is allowed to happen in Tennessee (if it is) as it’s pretty easy to bust bad cops. If it’s going into the cops pocket it’s a very simple investigation that will put the cop in prison. If it’s a Chief, Sherriff, or DA that is allowing it; they need to answer for it. If its procedural and the public doesn’t agree with it; change the procedure or vote them out of office if they are elected. If it’s criminal; call in another agency to do the investigation and charge them.

 

Unless a cop is initiating a criminal investigation there should be not authorization for them to take money from people.

 

Yes, those things give cops a bad name. But those things go much higher up the chain than a patrol Officer. Hold those people responsible. The media should be talking to the head of the agency’s (PD’s, DA’s, and Courts) that is putting their stamp of approval on theft and find out why.

 

As I say those investigations are pretty simple and I understand it would take a LEO or AG with great big balls to go after some of these guys, but does Tennessee have no one like that?

 

I totally agree with you Dave and it went a lot higher up then the officers making the stops. The Dickson County Sheriff was involved on the local level and a couple high ranking officials in TBI were involved in it. Channel 5 New Investigates was the ones that broke the story after and almost two year under cover investigation and it took them 5 nights of broadcasting it to get the full story out. My son drives through that section of highway every day to work and he said that the Plain Black Suburbans, Black SUV's and plain white Sheriff sedans are still pulled into the mediums just sitting waiting for the cars they are looking for to come threw. He said many times they will have one pulled over and removing all kinds of stuff out of the vehicles searching them. The Governor even got involved it it when he was made aware of the fact that TBI was involved and he pulled the and the Feds sent in Drug Enforcement to replace them. Those are the black vehicles out there now. I saw them my self a couple times on my trips down to visit him and my grandchildren. I think a few sheriffs deputies got some unpaid time off for their part in it but I think that was the sheriff covering his butt was all. He tried to explain to the News people where all the money was going but was stumbling all over his answers so you could tell he was lying or looking for answers that would satisfy the reporters. Have not heard much about it in a couple years now but it is still going on and the state,counties and the feds are making some big bucks. Many of the takes on these stops were for 1/4 million bucks in cash of drug money being taken back west. The films the news had in hidden cameras showed them unloading bricks of money out of the sleeping areas of big trucks and out of false refrigeration units on truck trailers. Thats not counting all the cash they found in hidden compartments of cars they stopped. I will see if I can find it on the New channel 5 Network and post a link about it here.