Not 1 but TWO!
- Thread starter TPD
- Start date
I heard a comment yesterday, "I never knew you drank until I saw you sober!"
this was not directed at me...
This_person
Well-Known Member
Driving is a right. There's no such thing as a privilege. You either have the right, or you don't.
Having a right does not mean it comes without reasonable restrictions. One must prove they can drive before obtaining a license - that's a reasonable restriction, especially considering how easy it is to pass the test. The roads are designed for the capabilities of the vehicles, and restricting speed based on the roads and the vehicles and the pedestrian availability, etc., is a reasonable restriction.
Conducting a warrantless search of your vehicle or person is not reasonable. That is a restriction on government that they may not do that. I am fully aware that the SCOTUS said, "yeah, but you can do that this time" in terms of this violation, but they have been wrong before and they are grossly wrong again on that decision.
I fully believe that announcing (and actually doing it) that you are going to increase police presence to look for indications of DUI would have the same (or darned close to it) impact on people who choose - when they're sober, they choose to have a drink taking them to not sober - to drive drunk, and it would not violate our rights.
Having a right does not mean it comes without reasonable restrictions. One must prove they can drive before obtaining a license - that's a reasonable restriction, especially considering how easy it is to pass the test. The roads are designed for the capabilities of the vehicles, and restricting speed based on the roads and the vehicles and the pedestrian availability, etc., is a reasonable restriction.
Conducting a warrantless search of your vehicle or person is not reasonable. That is a restriction on government that they may not do that. I am fully aware that the SCOTUS said, "yeah, but you can do that this time" in terms of this violation, but they have been wrong before and they are grossly wrong again on that decision.
I fully believe that announcing (and actually doing it) that you are going to increase police presence to look for indications of DUI would have the same (or darned close to it) impact on people who choose - when they're sober, they choose to have a drink taking them to not sober - to drive drunk, and it would not violate our rights.
Yes, I know, it's not out of the county budget. That's how they can afford to put the extra officers on duty. (they aren't taking officers off patrol)
I AM familiar with salaried positions, maybe you are not familiar with salaried positions in the public safety field. Any hours worked over the normal shift is overtime. Some departments give you the option on overtime, you can get paid at the overtime rate or you can take it in comp. time hours. Your annual salary is broken down into an hourly rate based on the number of hours you would normally work in the course of the year. When working over your normal shift (8 hours) the hourly rate comes into play for the extended time you work. MSP has a starting salary of 35K per year which bumps up to 48K upon completion of the academy PLUS shift differential, uniform allowance and OVERTIME.
I think the argument there is that the BIll of Rights (The Constitution) calls out specific items that the framers wanted to insure were not trampled on by government. There is no explicit right to use any form of transportation. While the constitution prohibits the government from blocking our freedom of movement, it does not guarantee the government can't restrict or control our access to any form of self operated transportation.
One could consider owning a horse and carriage the equivalent to owning a motor vehicle today. There was no driving test for horse and buggy, and originally there was no driving test for the horseless carriage. But as the popularity of the new technology spread, thank you Henry Ford, it became necessarily to establish some rules of the road so that operators could coexist on the roads. My mother said that when her father got his license it was required you knew how to perform certain mechanical tasks, including changing a tire.
The rationale that driving is a privilege granted by the state, which in return for said privilege you give up certain rights, is interesting. I was taught that it was unconstitutional for a citizen to give up their rights without due process, and that you couldn't simply sign them away.
I believe what you are referring to is the ruling that law enforcement officers are granted discretionary power to conduct a search.
If you read a police report of a drug arrest that came about from a traffic stop, it will start off with, "because of my training at...." I determined that there was reasonable cause to believe there was contraband in the vehicle, at which time I requested the operator allow me to search.
The vehicle was pulled over because in the officers opinion the behavior was such.....
I will say, the officers have been polite, they explain what they are doing handout pamphlets. They also tend to operate the checkpoints at or around dusk. Typically when the largest volume of vehicles is on the road. Which is probably why they don't get as many DUI's.
That usually comes later in the evening, much later.
But if they sat outside one of the bars that's open until the wee hours of the AM it would probably be considered entrapment.
This_person
Well-Known Member
IMO, the tenth amendment says EVERYTHING not given to the federal government is a right.
The roads are state property, which means they belong to the people but that control of the use belongs to the state.
The problem I have is not that they make us act a certain way to drive, it’s that they search us without a warrant (I am talking about DUI checkpoints).
Actually the main body of the Constitution says all rights not given to the federal government are those of the people and the states.
Every time they pull over a vehicle they are searching, with their eyes, with their nose.
When they request permission to physically search your vehicle you have the right to say no.
That puts the officer in a spot, if they have cause to issue you a ticket they will probably make sure to list every charge they can on the citation to maximize the penalty because you pissed them off. If they claim a reasonable suspicion of drugs in the vehicle they can threaten to detain you until a K-9 officer can get there. They then can use the dog to indicate if the vehicle has contraband. At which point they can search without your permission, but it means you are sitting there waiting for the dog and handler to show up.
I know someone, a young lady, who was stopped because she was "suspicious". She was basically mistaken for a teenager, maybe of color, because of what she was wearing (her attire was actually perfect for the activity she was headed to and the weather). But she was pulled over, and she reluctantly stopped in an area that was not well lit, but she didn't want to piss off the cop. He did not cite a reason for the stop, but did ask to search the vehicle. She worked with a lot of local law enforcement in her job, and knew her rights well. She refused. The officer wasn't happy but had to let her go. But she wasn't who he thought she was, she was older, the wrong gender and probably the wrong race. There were no equipment violations or driving. Just the time of day
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Oh good. Then you know that there is no overtime pay on true salaried jobs, hence, why they're salaried. No worry of clocking in and out. Or worrying if you'll get enough hours worked. No worry of going over an allotted hours per week. Since overtime is built into salaried positions. Look at the armed services. They are truly salaried at what ever time in service and rank they hold, save for a combat pay stipend and flight pay stipend. Funny how "law enforcement" wants to be, are, para-military, or as today, more like the military, (wearing combat fatigues type uniforms with a sidearm strapped to their thigh wearing over the shirt bulletproof armor), but yet, don't want to be paid like them. Fleece the citizens of their earned wages so, so, many of the gestapo class can be paid well in excess of $110,000 with overtime. No one in, "law enforcement", is worth being paid such an outrageously high amount. Removing the overtime pay incentive will be the beginning of the restoration of citizens rights, liberties and freedoms.
Which, the constitution?
Here's what I also learned, cops on the street aren't always aware of the law, particularly any recent changes.
Most recently the good Samaritan law signed by Hogan over two years ago. Over two years and addicts were getting arrested when they called 911 for a fellow addict who was overdosing.
That's not a criticism, you see the same thing in medicine. Doctors are not always up to date on the latest treatments for certain illnesses.
They know what they learned in medical school, their internship and residency. Once they are out on their own, staying current on all the changes isn't always happening.
I don't see most agencies sending their people back to the academy for say a two to four week refresher every year.
They certainly don't send people to class on constitutional law.
They learn the laws, the regulations of the state and jurisdiction they serve in.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
Learn the laws? Regulations? Ha. They are taught what they can get away with. They carry no fu-ks to give. They don't worry about the "law". They have complete immunity. Unchecked, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Their attitude is fu-k the people and let the courts decide if we misapplied an arrest, violated someone's rights, freedoms or liberty. The only laws and regulations they are taught are court decisions. Soon as some idiotic garbled anti-constitutional-on-its-face-decision comes down from whatever court, concerning any Constitutional Amendment, or language of the body of the Constitution, "law enforcement", are told, "Ok guys, here's the latest we can get away with". This is how it becomes an us versus them. Because they are always pushing the boundaries under the guise of public safety, the war on drugs, or whatever the dejure made up menace of the day, and to justify their bloated budgets and unrealistic pay. Makes no difference if there are "good guys' within the ranks. Just as good people who run for elected office and win, soon find themselves corrupted.
I wouldn't go that far, I know a number of very fine individuals who are in law enforcement, I can also spot a hard ass from a mile away.
No offense to the fine men and women, who I think are in the majority, but the pay isn't that good, and it's a physically demanding job, with high risk.
Therefore they are going to attract a certain element who have an ego to stroke. I swear I've seen one or two deputies who are Marine Corp wannabes.
The only reason they go "unchecked' is the political climate and the cooperation that has to exist between the prosecutor and the police.
Judges are a different story, they are politicians through and through. The worst thing they can be seen as is soft on crime. Therefore some of the judges are going to give officers and the state a lot more latitude. These judges don't give the defendant the benefit of the doubt, they go in with the idea that the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. Then there are the public defenders and private attorneys.
They are more than willing to go along to get along. They work plea deals that may not be in the best interest of their client, but they will sell it as such just to avoid a trial that might anger a sitting judge, the DA and maybe the chief of police (Sheriff).
GregV814
Well-Known Member
Ummm speculations on your part. Did you know there is the Maryland police training commission, a State agency, that MANDATES every officer to have updated training and pass tests to keep certification?? And each agency had to maintain certified records which are audited regularly so that agency can keep its national accreditation??
and how often do they have to go for training, and is the training up to date.
I can only relate to federal policy. Congress writes legislation that is signed into law by the president.
The department of defense applies it's thoughts to it and writes regulations and instructions.
In tern, each of the services takes the DoD Instructions and writes their version.
These are now passed down to the various commands where the commanders create their version.
By the time the instruction reaches the laboratory level it doesn't read like the law congress passed.
What happens is each level says, 'that sounds good, but..."
So they use the discretion they are given to fill in their butts because there might be something in the instruction they have to follow they don't feel they want to entrust to their command.
GregV814
Well-Known Member
Police departments are not federal. Their requirements are mandated by the aforementioned MPTC, on a yearly basis. In the past it was a whole week of in-service training by the T &E unit as well as qualification for pt/firearms qualification. Adaptations have been made as long as the MPTC allows. Every officer every year. Don’t qualify, get uncertified.
Oh, by the way the base salary has NOTHING to do with overtime assignments or special enforcement details.
Oh, by the way the base salary has NOTHING to do with overtime assignments or special enforcement details.
There is also remedial training for those that are not meeting the minimum requirements that have been set by MPTC. Have an at-fault accident, get sent back to the driving range and put through the course again. Do not qualify during firearms training, stay at the range until you qualify
MiddleGround
Well-Known Member
Was anyone out to see any of these checkpoints? I was making a late night run to Wally World on Saturday night and didn't see anything...