[kkennett]

So your license plate is obscured. You have a trunk full of cocaine. Officer asks to search your car? Even if you have no clue in the world about your constitutional rights, why not give "no" a shot? "Yes" isn't likely to work out. Sure, officer, I'd love you to search my car. Good grief. :?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,280212,00.html

 

[ptsmith24]

:shock:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Archibald is charged with possession with intent to deliver cocaine, engaging in prohibited acts and failure to affix a tax stamp, according to the report.

:lol:

Oh, the tax stamp . . . :roll:

 

[legacy38]

It's always amazed me that people so easily waive their rights.

 

[AV8R]

It's always amazed me that people so easily waive their rights.

That's because they truly don't know them.

 

[Rammstein]

It's always amazed me that people so easily waive their rights.

That's because they truly don't know them.

People are stupid. It boggles my mind that people just take them for granted.

Today in class the professor asks why we think that the American public keeps electing presidents who do not follow original intent and the actual Constitution.

me: Because Americans are stupid.
class: *laughing*
me: no...I'm serious. Most people are retards.
class: *laughing stops.....looks at me*
me: no one reads the USC or the Federalist Papers. Hell, no one even reads the newspaper anymore unless it there is an honorable mention about Paris Hilton being slutty.
class: *silence*
professor: That's true....no one does read the newspaper. And it goes to the larger picture of people just not knowing anything and yet still voting. *continues with lecture*

It was sorta funny because a little later he asked what I thought the original intent was of the Founding Fathers with respect to how the nation should be run. I almost got all four points on his PowerPoint presentation verbatim. He seemed a little surprised.

 

[foshizzle]

You get pulled over for running a red light. The officer believes you have something in the car. Say an odor of marijuana, a shady attitude or 50 anti-government decals across your back window. In reality, you don't have anything illegal yet you tell the officer that you will not allow a search. Officer takes the 2-3 hours to get a warrant, searches your car, finds nothing....

Then he takes you to jail for the red-light violation for wasting his time. It's an arrestable offense and it's perfectly OK. And while he's at it, he does a complete vehicle inspection and adds any findings to the reasons he hauls you to jail.

At least that's how it's been explained to me. But that only applies if you're truly not breaking the law and just don't consent to searches.

 

[Rammstein]

Officer takes the 2-3 hours to get a warrant, searches your car

um....I don't think so.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Today in class the professor asks why we think that the American public keeps electing presidents who do not follow original intent and the actual Constitution.

You have a professor who teaches original intent? :shock:

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Officer takes the 2-3 hours to get a warrant, searches your car

um....I don't think so.

foshizzle, what he means is that if the officer has the probable cause that would be necessary for a warrant, then he can search without a warrant right there on the spot.

If he asks your permission, this means he does not have probable cause. All the threats about holding you on the side of the road are just pressure to get you to agree to him searching.

Once you agree, there is no violation of any constitutional right.

See how it works?

 

[NetAdminWithGun]

You can be arrested for any traffic violation...found that out the hard way.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

Yep. And for MOST of them, you can spend one year in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. People who demand jury trials get nailed with the maximum just to frighten everybody else into pleading guilty and paying the fine. The Georgia appellate courts have upheld this practice.

 

[Rammstein]

Today in class the professor asks why we think that the American public keeps electing presidents who do not follow original intent and the actual Constitution.

You have a professor who teaches original intent? :shock:

Crazy, huh?

 

[Rammstein]

Officer takes the 2-3 hours to get a warrant, searches your car

um....I don't think so.

foshizzle, what he means is that if the officer has the probable cause that would be necessary for a warrant, then he can search without a warrant right there on the spot.

If he asks your permission, this means he does not have probable cause. All the threats about holding you on the side of the road are just pressure to get you to agree to him searching.

Once you agree, there is no violation of any constitutional right.

See how it works?

Yeah, what he said.

I just didn't feel like typing all that out.

 

[pyromaster]

Yep. And for MOST of them, you can spend one year in jail and pay a $1,000 fine. People who demand jury trials get nailed with the maximum just to frighten everybody else into pleading guilty and paying the fine. The Georgia appellate courts have upheld this practice.

That's really frightening. :shock: Anyone have a ball park % of people that go to jury trials actually winning?

Seems like they have a nice carrot and stick deal going on:
In DeKalb my fiance (bless her heart) has gotten 2 speeding tickets in the last year. I also rearended someone and got a following too closely ticket.
In all 3 cases, at court you had the option of just paying the fine in full and getting the points dropped. From what I saw, it was like that for every traffic offence that goes to magistrate court. This way, they get all the fine money and no time/money spent by the court and you get the 'deal' of no points.

So on one hand, you can pay the fine and get no points and on the other you get a 1k fine + a year in jail if you lose a jury trial.

 

[Malum Prohibitum]

I do not know the percentage, but it is rare.