Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[Gear_Jammer]

If you want to argue futher, I suggest you find someone with a genuine law degree, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

I would love to go round and round with him, but I'm on my iPad and don't feel like typing that much and I'm worn out from Halloween. The one thing I will say is that I find it quite comical how he acts like he knows something that all of us in the legal world just don't understand. Geez!!!

[racrguy]

as a driver on a texas road you are required to have proof of a valid dl. with that being said you can be stopped just to check your dl (ever seen a dl check point? it is the same). if you are asked to produce a drivers license you are required to do so and the stop ends there. in the event you do not provide one nor have one then it can go further but if you have a valid dl then its over. it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the state...

what do you do for a living?

What I do for a living is irrelevant. Every law enforcement academy in the state is incorrect, according to this supreme court ruling. How thick are you LEO's skulls to not comprehend what that ruling is telling you. Jesus fuck it's like talking to a 2 year old. I don't give 2 shits what the Texas penal code says, because it was superseded by the supreme court ruling. Even in the ruling it says that checking licences at DL checkpoints are ok (and to the best of my knowledge, checkpoints are not legal in TX) because it's stopping everyone. Do I need to quote the entire ruling for you guys so you'll quit spouting what the Texas penal code says? Fuck it, don't even answer, I'll just quote it and highlight the important parts for those of you too lazy to read the entire thing.

Held:

1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

Page 440 U. S. 649

(b) The State's interest in discretionary spot checks as a means of ensuring the safety of its roadways does not outweigh the resulting intrusion on the privacy and security of the persons detained. Given the physical and psychological intrusion visited upon the occupants of a vehicle by a random stop to check documents, cf. United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U. 3. 873; United States v. Martinez-Fuerte, 428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

(c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

Read the bolded parts, know what you're talking about. The ruling here expressly forbids you from pulling over people with the sole purpose of checking their DL. Sorry, the days of your willy nilly pulling people over solely for checking DL's are over.

[Geor!]

Negative. The law states immediately pull to the right. Most officers prefer that you pull out of traffic but not if you have to travel a long distance to do so. When an individual travels for a while it starts throwing red flags up, like they are trying to hide things in the vehicle. Law is written immediately but it is up to officer discretion whether to write the citation.

I've had one let me go for doing 80 in a 60 for pulling off of the highway and onto a side road once and have also had a bitch reaching for her gun as she approached for doing the same thing. Then when we start talking, she starts putting me through the third degree. Why did you pull over here? Where are you coming from? Where are you going? If you're going home, why did you turn down this road? She also let me go with a warning, but she was one of the biggest assholes I've ever had the displeasure of running into. God forbid trying to do something safe.

[jewozzy]

UMADBRO? Just because they made the law after this particular case it doesn't mean that the law isn't unconstitutional. Remember, the supreme court doesn't rule on every law that's made, only the ones that are challenged. And this post proves you have no grasp of how the legal system works. Federal trumps state, every time. This is a federal ruling, so even you are bound by it, regardless of whether or not it happened in Delaware. If what you say was the case, then the Kitzmiller V Dover trial that originated out of PA wouldn't apply here in TX, but it does. Keep showing your ignorance of the system you're supposed to uphold.


Figure that out all by yourself, or did you need some unconstitutional statute to spell it out for you?

as a driver on a texas road you are required to have proof of a valid dl. with that being said you can be stopped just to check your dl (ever seen a dl check point? it is the same). if you are asked to produce a drivers license you are required to do so and the stop ends there. in the event you do not provide one nor have one then it can go further but if you have a valid dl then its over. it is taught in every law enforcement academy in the state...

what do you do for a living?

[ThreeFingerPete]

Even that two minute inconvenience is worth it to me knowing that they are looking for things that could potentially jeapordize my own safety.

At what point would it be "too much" since they are "keeping you safe"? I call bullshit. The chances of something bad happening are far less than they want you to believe. The chances of medical problems due to excessive radiation exposure for travelers and TSA agents are much greater, and more so the chance of getting your rights violated by unjustly being searched, patted down, groped, etc is definitely not worth it.

[racrguy]

I figured you were the one that was all drove up.

Again, explain to me how this law is on Texas books. Until you do that, we're stuck.

Me mad about it? Not mad, but perturbed.

The question you asked is what's wrong with the system, no one inside questions whether or not the laws are lawful and just, they just assume that it's legal, otherwise it wouldn't have passed.

To answer your question directly, ignorant lawmakers, that's how this "law" came to be on the books. None of them that voted for the law did the research to find out if it's even constitutional. Why is it still on the books? No one has challenged it to the point that the law would be overturned. But I'd imagine if you were to pull someone over simply to check their DL, and they were aware of this SCOTUS ruling, either you won't be checking their DL, or they'll be getting a payday because you'll pull the "I'm a cop and I'll do what I want" line, even though you've been educated that the particular law in question is unconstitutional.

[03trubluGT]

UMADBRO? Just because they made the law after this particular case it doesn't mean that the law isn't unconstitutional. Remember, the supreme court doesn't rule on every law that's made, only the ones that are challenged. And this post proves you have no grasp of how the legal system works. Federal trumps state, every time. This is a federal ruling, so even you are bound by it, regardless of whether or not it happened in Delaware. If what you say was the case, then the Kitzmiller V Dover trial that originated out of PA wouldn't apply here in TX, but it does. Keep showing your ignorance of the system you're supposed to uphold.


Figure that out all by yourself, or did you need some unconstitutional statute to spell it out for you?

I figured you were the one that was all drove up.

Again, explain to me how this law is on Texas books. Until you do that, we're stuck.

[racrguy]

This proves that you have no real grasp of how the legal system works. Just because the SCOTUS siad that Delaware can't do it, doesn't mean that it covers every other jurisdiction. There are several nuances that I don't even grasp, even though I have a pretty good working knowledge on this stuff. Even with that said, I never pretend to hold a juris doctor in law.

But, I have to believe that Texas has found some loophole or other way to work around this since Transportation Code 521.015 was last addressed:

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007

So, if the SCOTUS case was in 1979, Texas has had plenty of time to work a way around this ruling since it is obviously still on the books.

If you want to argue futher, I suggest you find someone with a genuine law degree, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

UMADBRO? Just because they made the law after this particular case it doesn't mean that the law isn't unconstitutional. Remember, the supreme court doesn't rule on every law that's made, only the ones that are challenged. And this post proves you have no grasp of how the legal system works. Federal trumps state, every time. This is a federal ruling, so even you are bound by it, regardless of whether or not it happened in Delaware. If what you say was the case, then the Kitzmiller V Dover trial that originated out of PA wouldn't apply here in TX, but it does. Keep showing your ignorance of the system you're supposed to uphold.

What a smart ass post.

Figure that out all by yourself, or did you need some unconstitutional statute to spell it out for you?

[03trubluGT]

No shit. The shitty part is that if you do this, even though you are in the right, some bonehead cop will take you to jail.

That's an easy lawsuit to win.

Are you guys done finishing each other off?

[03trubluGT]

Expecting the police to be bothered by reading something as mundane as a Supreme Court ruling is far too much, I guess. I mean, they haven't had long to research this particular ruling, it's only been in place for 32 years.

No wonder so many people pull out the FTP card.

What a smart ass post.

[03trubluGT]

And failing to realize that what the other courts say doesn't make a hill of beans difference. The Supreme Court says it's a violation of the 4th, and no other court has the authority to overturn that ruling.

This proves that you have no real grasp of how the legal system works. Just because the SCOTUS siad that Delaware can't do it, doesn't mean that it covers every other jurisdiction. There are several nuances that I don't even grasp, even though I have a pretty good working knowledge on this stuff. Even with that said, I never pretend to hold a juris doctor in law.

But, I have to believe that Texas has found some loophole or other way to work around this since Transportation Code 521.015 was last addressed:

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1027, Sec. 4, eff. September 1, 2007

So, if the SCOTUS case was in 1979, Texas has had plenty of time to work a way around this ruling since it is obviously still on the books.

If you want to argue futher, I suggest you find someone with a genuine law degree, otherwise you are wasting everyone's time.

[Pro88LX]

True, but once it's all over and done with it's time to make it RAIIINNNN!

shit maybe i can just start doing this for a living!

[racrguy]

Yea, but still a fucking pain in the ass.

True, but once it's all over and done with it's time to make it RAIIINNNN!

[Pro88LX]

That's an easy lawsuit to win.

Yea, but still a fucking pain in the ass.

[racrguy]

No shit. The shitty part is that if you do this, even though you are in the right, some bonehead cop will take you to jail.

That's an easy lawsuit to win.