Filming traffic stops

[bersaguy]

Here are just a few links of the many they have listed about Policing for Profit

 

http://www.newschannel5.com/.../nc5-investigates-policing-for-profit

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22082108/man-loses-160000-in-new-policing-for-profit-case ( This one just happened back in April this year)

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/22006825/policing-for-profit-reform-headed-to-governors-desk

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/policing-for-profit-i-absolutely-would-not-believe-that-this-could-happen-in-america_05182012

Edited September 1, 2013 by bersaguy

[bersaguy]

Sorry for the double post

Edited September 1, 2013 by bersaguy

[DaveTN]

 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.

Well… you are talking about two different things here. If they are taking bricks of money out of hidden compartments; its drug money, pure and simple. Are the drivers claiming ownership of the money and explaining why it is hidden? No, they are probably saying they have no idea how it got there. That’s quite a leap from taking vacation money from a woman or from someone buying a car.

[Guest Keal G Seo]

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

I've already agreed to those laws simply by living here. One of those laws is getting a licence to drive on the public roads here. As for trying to refuse to sign, try refusing to give any single piece of information they request. That signature doesn't MEAN anything except that is an accurate representation of your signature. As for writing checks, you need or at least are supposed to need some form of "State Issued ID". This can be a DL or just a Non-Driver ID. Both of which you have to sign. So tell me this, since I didn't sign anything for criminal law does that mean I have not given any implied consent to follow criminal laws? Same thing applies with DL, just by living here you imply that you consent to follow the law...that signature doesn't mean s***. The end unless you can show documentation otherwise.

[bersaguy]

Well… you are talking about two different things here. If they are taking bricks of money out of hidden compartments; its drug money, pure and simple. Are the drivers claiming ownership of the money and explaining why it is hidden? No, they are probably saying they have no idea how it got there. That’s quite a leap from taking vacation money from a woman or from someone buying a car.

If you read and watch some of the videos you will see that a lot of them have nothing to do with drugs.......... :up: :up:
 

[GoneBallistic]

If they are taking bricks of money out of hidden compartments; its drug money, pure and simple. .

Just because it's in a hidden compartment doesn't mean it's drug money. There are no laws specifying where you can and can not place money in your vehicle. The location of cash is not "evidence" by any stretch of the imagination. For all the cops know, it's someone who doesn't like having credit or bank cards. Again, not a crime.

[DaveS]

 The end unless you can show documentation otherwise.

If you know what documentation it is, and know where to find it, please share it here. My opinion will not go away because you call me out by wanting me to provide documentation. You sir apparently are aware of documentation....please share here. Plus, I have no idea what documentation you want to see?

 

DaveS

[DaveS]

I've already agreed to those laws simply by living here. One of those laws is getting a licence to drive on the public roads here. As for trying to refuse to sign, try refusing to give any single piece of information they request. That signature doesn't MEAN anything except that is an accurate representation of your signature. As for writing checks, you need or at least are supposed to need some form of "State Issued ID". This can be a DL or just a Non-Driver ID. Both of which you have to sign. So tell me this, since I didn't sign anything for criminal law does that mean I have not given any implied consent to follow criminal laws? Same thing applies with DL, just by living here you imply that you consent to follow the law...that signature doesn't mean s***. The end unless you can show documentation otherwise.

Didn't I just say that?

 

DaveS

[DaveS]

My Grand Dad taught me a long time ago to "never argue with a "know it all". They tend to prove you right more times than not."

 

The End...

 

DaveS

Edited September 1, 2013 by DaveS

[DaveTN]

I've already agreed to those laws simply by living here. One of those laws is getting a licence to drive on the public roads here. As for trying to refuse to sign, try refusing to give any single piece of information they request. That signature doesn't MEAN anything except that is an accurate representation of your signature. As for writing checks, you need or at least are supposed to need some form of "State Issued ID". This can be a DL or just a Non-Driver ID. Both of which you have to sign. So tell me this, since I didn't sign anything for criminal law does that mean I have not given any implied consent to follow criminal laws? Same thing applies with DL, just by living here you imply that you consent to follow the law...that signature doesn't mean s***. The end unless you can show documentation otherwise.

No one is saying it means anything…. Other than you must comply; it’s a violation of the law if you don’t.  I quoted you the law did you read it?

 

Implied consent means they can take your license if you refuse to submit to a DUI test; whether you are convicted of DUI or not. Refusal is a violation of the law separate from the DUI. Are they going to strap you down in a chair and take your blood? Not on your first DUI they won’t, unless it involves a fatality or serious injury. On the second they will.

 

They need PC to administer a field sobriety test. They get that PC when they walk up to the car and you look drunk or are acting like an idiot.

[DaveTN]

Just because it's in a hidden compartment doesn't mean it's drug money. There are no laws specifying where you can and can not place money in your vehicle. The location of cash is not "evidence" by any stretch of the imagination. For all the cops know, it's someone who doesn't like having credit or bank cards. Again, not a crime.

When the driver denies any knowledge of it; it’s drug money. (Common sense) Its reasonable suspicion.

 

Trying to protect drug dealers will never stop the seizure of money. If someone has a quarter million in small bills of cash in bricks inside hidden compartments; they are involved in illegal activities. The money can be seized and an investigation started. If in a reasonable period of time no case can be made the drug dealer gets his money back.

 

I’m talking about the guy that has $20K in his pocket because he’s going to buy a car or on a trip. No reason to take that without something to support it.

[GoneBallistic]

When the driver denies any knowledge of it; it’s drug money. (Common sense) Its reasonable suspicion.

 

Trying to protect drug dealers will never stop the seizure of money. If someone has a quarter million in small bills of cash in bricks inside hidden compartments; they are involved in illegal activities. The money can be seized and an investigation started. If in a reasonable period of time no case can be made the drug dealer gets his money back.

 

I’m talking about the guy that has $20K in his pocket because he’s going to buy a car or on a trip. No reason to take that without something to support it.

Suspicion isn't evidence. Just because they have it hidden doesn't mean they ARE involved in illegal activities. Even if they deny knowledge. Without evidence, and hidden money is not evidence, it's just suspicion.

 

A man should be able to carry $100k in his pocket with absolutely NOTHING to support it. It's money. Not drugs. It's perfectly legal to carry money.

 

Just because you have a sticker of a jackass on the back of your vehicle doesn't mean you voted for obama. More than likely, but not necessarily. Maybe it's not even your vehicle. However, at a glance, that's the "common sense" conclusion most people will come to. Doesn't mean that it's true and it certainly can't be proved immediately with merely the evidence of the sticker.

 

Also, I'm not sure who is trying to protect drug dealers. Are you saying the cops are?

Edited September 1, 2013 by GoneBallistic

[Guest Keal G Seo]

If you know what documentation it is, and know where to find it, please share it here. My opinion will not go away because you call me out by wanting me to provide documentation. You sir apparently are aware of documentation....please share here. Plus, I have no idea what documentation you want to see?

 

DaveS

No I don't that is why I am asking for it. You saying something means something doesn't make it so. Show me something that says that signature means anything beyond that it is an accurate representation of your signature.

 

Didn't I just say that?

 

DaveS

Say what? That the signature doesn't mean anything?

 

No one is saying it means anything…. Other than you must comply; it’s a violation of the law if you don’t.  I quoted you the law did you read it?

 

Implied consent means they can take your license if you refuse to submit to a DUI test; whether you are convicted of DUI or not. Refusal is a violation of the law separate from the DUI. Are they going to strap you down in a chair and take your blood? Not on your first DUI they won’t, unless it involves a fatality or serious injury. On the second they will.

 

They need PC to administer a field sobriety test. They get that PC when they walk up to the car and you look drunk or are acting like an idiot.

Yes they are, this argument started when I asked when I signed something that waives my rights. It was then chimed that I signed my licence. The signature on your licence means nothing beyond it being an accurate representation of your signature. What I am asking for is someone to prove to me that it means I waived any of my rights. It also doesn't mean I agree to follow traffic laws, I agreed to that just by living here. IE traffic law number 1 to follow, get a licence to drive on public roads. If I hadn't agreed to follow the laws I wouldn't get a licence to drive on said roads.

Just because I follow the law doesn't mean that I agree with them and it certainly doesn't mean that DUI/border checkpoints are truly constitutional. If you think just because it was ruled constitutional it means it is you have your head buried in the sand. I also don't think the 86 laws are constitutional but they have been ruled so. How about Louisiana v. Boyer ruling on the 6th A? 5 years and no legal counsel provided or trial is a speedy trial and providing legal counsel? Not everything the SCOTUS does or rules is correct.

[JayC]

I think in the NHTSA studies about 1/3 of the cases involve people blowing under the legal limit, many of which aren't the drivers...  Also the NHTSA does pure inflation on accidents where there is NO documentation that any person involved had any level of alcohol in their system.

 

The situation you describe where an innocent person gets hit and killed by a drunk driver is horrible, and I agree we as a society should throw the book at them, those people should be facing serious time in jail.

 

But, we have to be realistic, there are only about 1700 fatalities like you describe each year in this country...  When placed in context while sad, and the criminals who kill those 1700 innocent people should be in prison for a very long time, it does not justify the violation of 330 million people's rights.

 

Also, lets look at dui checkpoint stats for a minute, surprise surprise, DUI arrests don't even account for 10% of the charges from so called DUI checkpoints.  How can anybody with a straight face claim that these checkpoints aren't a fishing expedition?

 

If you see a driver acting like they're drunk, I have no issue with you pulling them over...  I just have a problem with police officers setting up a checkpoint, forcing me to stop and show my papers just to move freely around this country.  And the excuse that because 1700 people die each year is completely bogus.

 

Frankly, 1700 deaths a year is too low of a price for me to trade my freedom for some false 'security'.

 

It's a sad fact in a free society good people die from other people doing bad things....

 

How many people do think are tested for DUI that blow .01? You could maybe find a story of it somewhere, but the numbers are so low they wouldn’t cause a blip on a graph chart; except those cases where drugs are involved.

 

As you can see on this (mostly conservative) forum; we haven’t accepted drunk driving. It is a crime. Not only that it is a premeditated crime.

 

Get drunk, go out and fire your 308 down the street and kill a citizen several blocks away and everyone will be okay with sending you to prison for a very long time. Get drunk, point your car down the street and kill an innocent family and some people don’t think it’s the same. It’s the same; it’s a reckless criminal act.

 

Who cares what the NHTSA publishes? We are intelligent people with common sense (most of us anyway) we don’t need stats to tell us drunk drivers kill our family members and friends and that is not a risk we accept.

 

Constitutional rights? You have got to be kidding me. The innocent people that are slaughtered everyday on the roads by drunk drivers have the right to live and be safe. The drunk didn’t care about their rights when he climbed behind the wheel of the car.

 

[JayC]

How do I not have a right to drive a car?  Because a car wasn't invented when the constitution was written?  So if I go driving around in a horse and buggy I can't be accosted by the police, but because I operate a vehicle with an engine I'm not longer free to travel...  What about a bike?  Can I ride a bike without risk of being asked to show my papers?

 

This makes as much sense as the idiot who argues that the 2nd Amendment only protects black powder rifles because that was all that was invented at the time the constitution was written.

 

People have a right to freely travel, it's a natural right, granted to us by our creator, and existed before the the Constitution was written, period.

 

And Dave you keep focusing on the unreasonable part of the 4th Amendment, yet you keep glossing over the part where a warrant is required for ALL searches, which must be supported by probable cause, an oath to the truthfulness of the warrant, and to describe the people or items to be seized.

 

I see the difference. A gun is a gun and a car is a car; nether are illegal. We don’t support those that kill their family members or friends with reckless or negligent conduct with a gun. The SCOTUS has ruled that you have a right to own guns, but the state will control when and where you carry them; that is not an individual right.

 

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.

 

If a drunk gets waived into a DUI checkpoint; his luck just ran out. No rights have been violated, but an ongoing crime has been stopped and it may have saved lives.

 

[TMF]

How many kids a year die in swimming pools?  Why not open your home up to warrantless search so the government can make sure safety measures are met so that no one drowns in your pool?

[DaveTN]

I think in the NHTSA studies about 1/3 of the cases involve people blowing under the legal limit, many of which aren't the drivers...  Also the NHTSA does pure inflation on accidents where there is NO documentation that any person involved had any level of alcohol in their system.

 

The situation you describe where an innocent person gets hit and killed by a drunk driver is horrible, and I agree we as a society should throw the book at them, those people should be facing serious time in jail.

 

But, we have to be realistic, there are only about 1700 fatalities like you describe each year in this country...  When placed in context while sad, and the criminals who kill those 1700 innocent people should be in prison for a very long time, it does not justify the violation of 330 million people's rights.

 

Also, lets look at dui checkpoint stats for a minute, surprise surprise, DUI arrests don't even account for 10% of the charges from so called DUI checkpoints.  How can anybody with a straight face claim that these checkpoints aren't a fishing expedition?

 

If you see a driver acting like they're drunk, I have no issue with you pulling them over...  I just have a problem with police officers setting up a checkpoint, forcing me to stop and show my papers just to move freely around this country.  And the excuse that because 1700 people die each year is completely bogus.

 

Frankly, 1700 deaths a year is too low of a price for me to trade my freedom for some false 'security'.

 

It's a sad fact in a free society good people die from other people doing bad things....

Did I miss how did you get from 10K to 1700? Although it really doesn’t matter.

 

You aren’t trading any freedoms; has someone ask you to voluntarily drive through a roadblock? Probably not, and if you find yourself in one you will do whatever the law allows. Or, refuse to comply; then you haven’t traded anything.

 

What about the freedom to take your family on a trip without being killed by a drunk driver? Law enforcement doesn’t have a legal responsibility to keep you safe, but they have a responsibility to do all they can. That’s what they are doing and the public agrees with it.

[DaveTN]

How do I not have a right to drive a car?  Because a car wasn't invented when the constitution was written?

No, it’s because the state claims the right to control vehicle traffic and licensing. They do not recognize a right to drive. Same way they do not recognize the 2nd amendment and will arrest you for carrying a gun unless you buy the privilege.
 

So if I go driving around in a horse and buggy I can't be accosted by the police, but because I operate a vehicle with an engine I'm not longer free to travel... What about a bike? Can I ride a bike without risk of being asked to show my papers?

Not if you are drunk and someone thinks you are a danger; 39-17-310 covers that.
 

People have a right to freely travel, it's a natural right, granted to us by our creator, and existed before the the Constitution was written, period.

I made the same argument when I carried a gun in my car in Illinois and got arrested. I was wrong; they took me to jail anyway.
 

And Dave you keep focusing on the unreasonable part of the 4th Amendment, yet you keep glossing over the part where a warrant is required for ALL searches, which must be supported by probable cause, an oath to the truthfulness of the warrant, and to describe the people or items to be seized.

I’m focusing on the amendment as a whole and its intent. I can read and it doesn’t say warrants are required.

[tnguy]

Did I miss how did you get from 10K to 1700? Although it really doesn’t matter.

 

You aren’t trading any freedoms; has someone ask you to voluntarily drive through a roadblock? Probably not, and if you find yourself in one you will do whatever the law allows. Or, refuse to comply; then you haven’t traded anything.

 

What about the freedom to take your family on a trip without being killed by a drunk driver? Law enforcement doesn’t have a legal responsibility to keep you safe, but they have a responsibility to do all they can. That’s what they are doing and the public agrees with it.

 

What about freedom to eat in a restaurant without being shot to death by one of those disgusting gun owners? Better outlaw them for everyone.

Edited September 2, 2013 by tnguy

[Patton]

I think in the NHTSA studies about 1/3 of the cases involve people blowing under the legal limit, many of which aren't the drivers... Also the NHTSA does pure inflation on accidents where there is NO documentation that any person involved had any level of alcohol in their system.

The situation you describe where an innocent person gets hit and killed by a drunk driver is horrible, and I agree we as a society should throw the book at them, those people should be facing serious time in jail.

But, we have to be realistic, there are only about 1700 fatalities like you describe each year in this country... When placed in context while sad, and the criminals who kill those 1700 innocent people should be in prison for a very long time, it does not justify the violation of 330 million people's rights.

Also, lets look at dui checkpoint stats for a minute, surprise surprise, DUI arrests don't even account for 10% ...

I believe you are the one with fictional numbers and DUI checkpoints don't happen every weekend, most departments do not do but a single one a year. It is the possibility of DUI checkpoints that truly make people not drive impaired. That is why states with DUI checkpoints have a 20% less automobile fatality rate(CDC).

You guys lost all credibility with me when you talked about the intentions and powers of the SCOTUS, they are the final say so. I wasn't going to come back to this thread.

[DaveTN]

What about freedom to eat in a restaurant without being shot to death by one of those disgusting gun owners? Better outlaw them for everyone.

They are outlawed. Carrying a gun in this state is a crime. We (HCP holders) are part of a special group that the state has deemed safe to carry. Oh yea, and we gave them a bunch of money.

[JayC]

You get to 1700 because only 6-7% of the alcohol related fatalities involve a drunk killing an innocent third party.  But even if it were 100,000 a year I'm not willing to trade away my God given freedoms so you can feel safe.  Those freedoms belong to me, not you...  I haven't given my consent to take those freedoms away...

 

And we've seen time and time again - recently a couple of months ago, where citizens who don't break the law, but refuse to comply with unlawful demands are harassed, illegally searched, and nothing is done about it.  So yeah my rights are being violated.

 

Now the truth is I don't drink, so drinking and driving is a easy thing for me to avoid.  I also don't drive around late at night when most of these checkpoints are being held, I also don't travel along non-interstates a lot...  So the fact is the chance that I'll get stopped at one of these checkpoints is pretty low to almost zero.  But that doesn't change the fact that I'm outraged at unconstitutional actions the government is doing in my name.

 

I'm a lot more worried about my government growing out of control, than I am about drunk drivers, druggies, terrorists, or other any other boogieman the government can come up with to try and 'reason' away my rights given to me by my creator.  And unfortunately in my case, the numbers support my concern.

 

Did I miss how did you get from 10K to 1700? Although it really doesn’t matter.

 

You aren’t trading any freedoms; has someone ask you to voluntarily drive through a roadblock? Probably not, and if you find yourself in one you will do whatever the law allows. Or, refuse to comply; then you haven’t traded anything.

 

What about the freedom to take your family on a trip without being killed by a drunk driver? Law enforcement doesn’t have a legal responsibility to keep you safe, but they have a responsibility to do all they can. That’s what they are doing and the public agrees with it.

 

[DaveTN]

How many kids a year die in swimming pools?  Why not open your home up to warrantless search so the government can make sure safety measures are met so that no one drowns in your pool?

I don’t this for sure but I would guess that if your pool is open to the public you would require some type of permit that would allow some government inspection.
Even if it’s not open to the public I know a pool has a lot of potential civil liability.

[JayC]

I'm happy to provide cites to my research if you'd like me too...  I could have made a honest mistake in the math, but if you do read the small print on the NHTSA study you keep referencing you'll note they describe in detail the method they use to calculate the number of alcohol related fatalities, and they do count any alcohol involvement even by passengers under the legal limit, and in cases where BAC isn't determined, they use a formula that assumes 60% of those accidents involved alcohol.

 

As for my contention that SCOTUS doesn't have the final say on what my God given rights are or are not...  Let me ask you this...  Show me where the Constitution grants SCOTUS the power to rule laws constitutional or unconstitutional?  I'll give you a hint it's not there.

 

More importantly SCOTUS gets it wrong a lot, there are a lot of ruling that most if not all people can agree were bad rulings that did not limit governments violations of our rights...  You might notice in my post about SCOTUS I included a short list of some of those rulings...  any of them you'd like to support as constitutional now?

 

We're both free men, we were born with rights granted to us from our humanity and endowed to us by our creator.  Those rights exist above and before any form of government.  Governments can only infringe or violate those rights, they can not legislate them away.  So you think I'm crazy to refuse your contention that 9 men and women get to have the final say on what my creator did or didn't give me?  Or what some document that I never had any say in gave away in my name before I was even born?

 

I don't know about you, but I still remember our own government pointing out how communism was evil because they had checkpoints and required that people show their papers and answer questions, and weren't allowed to freely travel or leave their country.  Yet 25 years later we're doing the exact same thing in this country for the exact same reason!  Because the USSR used safety as the excuse to do that to their citizens, and we use the exact same excuse here.

 

And you find me offensive for pointing out the hypocrisy in that?

 

Here is the real fact a government is a lot more likely to kill you than a drunk driver.

 

I believe you are the one with fictional numbers and DUI checkpoints don't happen every weekend, most departments do not do but a single one a year. It is the possibility of DUI checkpoints that truly make people not drive impaired. That is why states with DUI checkpoints have a 20% less automobile fatality rate(CDC).

You guys lost all credibility with me when you talked about the intentions and powers of the SCOTUS, they are the final say so. I wasn't going to come back to this thread.

 

[DaveTN]

I'm happy to provide cites to my research if you'd like me too...  I could have made a honest mistake in the math, but if you do read the small print on the NHTSA study you keep referencing you'll note they describe in detail the method they use to calculate the number of alcohol related fatalities, and they do count any alcohol involvement even by passengers under the legal limit, and in cases where BAC isn't determined, they use a formula that assumes 60% of those accidents involved alcohol.

When I read the stats I thought the 30% figure was low. Of the fatal traffic accidents I handled or responded to I would say the number caused by drunk drivers was closer to 60%. However, I was in a city and figured the rates on the interstates would be much lower, so maybe that brought it down. But the numbers you are citing are ridiculous.

As I said though, not that it matters; I don’t think 1700 or 10K is okay when proactive Police work can bring them down.