[Dayseed]

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Having had my body seriously fucked up by a drunk driver, I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday! I don't drive drunk and I don't drive around with self-incriminating shit in my car.
Hell, when I had my '71 Mach 1 and Chevelle SS, the cops were always pulling me over to take a peek under the hood. I knew why they wanted a peek under the hood and they knew I knew. I could'a got all self-righteous about it, protesting why they pulled me over but that just got your licence jotted down for further "harrassment"

Oh and one last thing. I've been pulled over by the police more than enough times. I was always clean and legal and they never decided to search my trunk or the rest of my car for that matter.

How about this question. You get stopped at a spot check. The cops shines his flashlight into the backseat area and finds something incriminating. Is that illegal search and siezure?

Ruez is right and there is very recent case law out of that. A flashlight merely illuminates what would be on plain view in better light. BCCA I believe. I just read the synopsis the other day.

True. But there's more. The cop has to be able to articulate that he's searching the back seat for evidence of whatever offence for which he's pulled the person over. Pulling somebody over for speeding/suspected drunk driving doesn't automatically afford a good ol' peek in the backseat unless the cop can convince the court he reasonably suspected he would find further evidence. I think one would be hard-pressed to make the case that further evidence could be found for running a red light.

The flashlight makes him able to search for his suspicions.

THAT said, a smart cop on the stand would obviously say that he needed to know who or what was in the backseat such that he could satisfy his life wasn't in danger and avoid any talk of searching pursuant to detention.

[EyeBrock]

Not quite true. It's accepted by the courts that the police have a right to ensure their own safety by being able to look into a vehicle as they approach it. As in they can check to see if there are other people in the vehicle, hopefully not holding a weapon.

Obviously, as you say, articulation is key.

[Yogi]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

stratos stratos:

Proculation Proculation:

If you drive erratically, they can stop you but they can't ask for a breathalizer test. They need more evidences.

If you've ever read my posts you know I was an MP in the army and worked corrections after that. With that said I found some interesting things in the criminal codes particularly for Eratic driving. Going the speed limit on a cloudy day can be eratic driving. Clouds in the sky limit the sight distance thus you should slow down. By driving the legal limit you are driving eratic. Not useing ones turn singnal is not just illegal but falls under eratic driving. Hesitating at a light when it turns green or taking off imediately, either way is eratic driving. There are tons of more examples basicly anything you do while driving can be considered eratic driving. Now this is for the state of texas only I dont know about any other states or Canada but down here that term scares the hell out of me when used to given reason for a new law.

So you all fine for being pulled over for eratic driving? Then being told you must take a breath test?

Let me repeat myself. I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

[EyeBrock]

Dayseed Dayseed:

EyeBrock EyeBrock:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Having had my body seriously fucked up by a drunk driver, I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday! I don't drive drunk and I don't drive around with self-incriminating shit in my car.
Hell, when I had my '71 Mach 1 and Chevelle SS, the cops were always pulling me over to take a peek under the hood. I knew why they wanted a peek under the hood and they knew I knew. I could'a got all self-righteous about it, protesting why they pulled me over but that just got your licence jotted down for further "harrassment"

Oh and one last thing. I've been pulled over by the police more than enough times. I was always clean and legal and they never decided to search my trunk or the rest of my car for that matter.

How about this question. You get stopped at a spot check. The cops shines his flashlight into the backseat area and finds something incriminating. Is that illegal search and siezure?

Ruez is right and there is very recent case law out of that. A flashlight merely illuminates what would be on plain view in better light. BCCA I believe. I just read the synopsis the other day.

True. But there's more. The cop has to be able to articulate that he's searching the back seat for evidence of whatever offence for which he's pulled the person over. Pulling somebody over for speeding/suspected drunk driving doesn't automatically afford a good ol' peek in the backseat unless the cop can convince the court he reasonably suspected he would find further evidence. I think one would be hard-pressed to make the case that further evidence could be found for running a red light.

The flashlight makes him able to search for his suspicions.

THAT said, a smart cop on the stand would obviously say that he needed to know who or what was in the backseat such that he could satisfy his life wasn't in danger and avoid any talk of searching pursuant to detention.

Here's the judgement Dayseed. It's an interesting read.

http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/CA/ ... CA0288.htm

[stratos]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

stratos stratos:

Proculation Proculation:

If you drive erratically, they can stop you but they can't ask for a breathalizer test. They need more evidences.

If you've ever read my posts you know I was an MP in the army and worked corrections after that. With that said I found some interesting things in the criminal codes particularly for Eratic driving. Going the speed limit on a cloudy day can be eratic driving. Clouds in the sky limit the sight distance thus you should slow down. By driving the legal limit you are driving eratic. Not useing ones turn singnal is not just illegal but falls under eratic driving. Hesitating at a light when it turns green or taking off imediately, either way is eratic driving. There are tons of more examples basicly anything you do while driving can be considered eratic driving. Now this is for the state of texas only I dont know about any other states or Canada but down here that term scares the hell out of me when used to given reason for a new law.

So you all fine for being pulled over for eratic driving? Then being told you must take a breath test?

Let me repeat myself. I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

You are correct driving is a privilege. So I would also assume you would not mind carrrying papers IDing exactly who you are and where you live with you constantly and produce it on demand to any police officer who asks for it? You know its not realy that big of a deal. Wasn't to any good German prior to and during WW11 either.

[ASLplease]

$1:

Let me repeat myself. I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday.

you getting pulled over isnt going to make the roads safer, the cops need to pull over the drunks. i dont see how our current system prevent them from pulling over drunks. and, i personally dont want my tax dollar paying an officer to pull over sober people all day just to lull people into feeling safer.

I want them to patrol with strategy not luck of the draw.

[Brenda]

I have no problem with carrying ID. In fact, I do. In The Netherlands, its mandatory for everyone over 14.

Plus, when something happens to you, they have no problem identifying you and call your family. Which is the reason why I carry ID in the first place.

BTW, your drivers license (which you have to carry on you when you drive) states your address.

[stratos]

Being allowed to pull over anyone at any time for any reason and admin the breath test is granting police state type powers to a select number of citizens with no safeguard for individuals rights.

[stratos]

Brenda Brenda:

I have no problem with carrying ID. In fact, I do. In The Netherlands, its mandatory for everyone over 14.

Plus, when something happens to you, they have no problem identifying you and call your family. Which is the reason why I carry ID in the first place.

BTW, your drivers license (which you have to carry on you when you drive) states your address.

But are you ok with having to show it upon demand no matter what. If you are out walking and a cop demands to see it you must produce it. He does not need a reason to ask you for it but you must produce it.

[ASLplease]

no thanks, i feel safe enough without my tax dollar paying our police to harass me.

[Yogi]

ASLplease ASLplease:

$1:

Let me repeat myself. I'll happily get pulled over every day and 3 times on Sunday.

you getting pulled over isnt going to make the roads safer, the cops need to pull over the drunks. i dont see how our current system prevent them from pulling over drunks. and, i personally dont want my tax dollar paying an officer to pull over sober people all day just to lull people into feeling safer.

I want them to patrol with strategy not luck of the draw.

Proof of insurance
Proof of registration
Drivers licence WITH PICTURE

All three documents MUST be produced upon request, regardless of the reason for being stopped,and contain all the information you are against providing!

[BartSimpson]

Gunnair Gunnair:

Go to Arizona and...

Yeah, Canada is the only one losing their liberties...

A mayor in Mexico was stoned to death by a drug gang yesterday. Some 40 police officers in Mexico and one Mexican Marine died in the line of duty fighting the drug gangs. That was just yesterday.

It's that same violence from the drug gangs that has been spilling over the border into the US for a long time and the Arizona authorities want it stopped. The Federal government won't do it because sh*theads like you think this is about the rights of legal immigrants when it isn't.

If Mexico wants to descend into anarchy that's up to them. We don't want it here and I expect after this election coming up the new Congress will put Obama on the spot by passing tougher new laws to secure the border.

[ASLplease]

im not against providing information if and when im stopped, im against the randomness of this whole idea. it stinks of harassment and itll prove to be a big waste in tax dollars. extra meter mades running around all day stopping people (and holding up traffic) will cause more harm than good

[DrCaleb]

stratos stratos:

You are correct driving is a privilege. So I would also assume you would not mind carrrying papers IDing exactly who you are and where you live with you constantly and produce it on demand to any police officer who asks for it? You know its not realy that big of a deal. Wasn't to any good German prior to and during WW11 either.

You mean like a drivers license?

[Brenda]

stratos stratos:

Brenda Brenda:

I have no problem with carrying ID. In fact, I do. In The Netherlands, its mandatory for everyone over 14.

Plus, when something happens to you, they have no problem identifying you and call your family. Which is the reason why I carry ID in the first place.

BTW, your drivers license (which you have to carry on you when you drive) states your address.

But are you ok with having to show it upon demand no matter what. If you are out walking and a cop demands to see it you must produce it. He does not need a reason to ask you for it but you must produce it.

I seriously do not give a flying f*ck.

I got asked for secondary ID in a store because they couldn't read my signature on my CC. I have to ID myself every time I want something from Service BC. I have to ID myself when I get to another round in a job application process.