Just got a ticket for this.

[tomato]

they charge us for "Fix-it" tickets in California, these days.

I had one for lack of registration - my sticker fell off !! - when I had my old car, even though, my car WAS registered and they could easily check it. I asked them to remove the "non registration" ticket but they said no, I ended up paying a "fix-it" charge and having to pay again to get my sticker re-issued a second time grrrrrr

That was in Berkeley, though, they're notorious for stuff like that. They hate cars Actually that day, I got 2 tickets since I also got a fine for an expired meter (2 minutes expired)

[sbergman27]

I don't think that this is a case of it, but... a few times during the last few years I've been stopped on the Interstate for reasons which were obviously bogus. A Kansas HP officer stopped me a week or two ago, asking if my tag was expired. It was a temporary Oklahoma tag from the dealer, reading the purchase date of "02/25/10" and I didn't even have the paperwork to get a real tag yet. I noted that he was careful not to *say* it was expired, but to ask. I told him I'd just bought the car a couple of weeks ago, and he lamely explained that in Kansas they put the expiration date on the tag. (Hello? How long have you been a highway patrolman in our neighboring state of Oklahoma? And in all that time, I'm the first person with a new car from Oklahoma that you've stopped? Even though you are claiming that it's the soul reason you stopped me? And you look about 45 years old?)

And then the questions started. Where are you coming from? Where are you headed? Have you done any drugs or alcohol today? (It was 10:27 in the morning.)

Eventually, it appeared that the business had concluded. He started to walk away. But then, he turned... and I swear this felt just like an old Columbo episode... he asked the expected question: "Can I have a look in your trunk?"

I'm a male driver traveling alone, so I must be carrying drugs, you see. This happened to me a couple of times before. So I looked up just what my rights were. They can ask. I can refuse. So I refused. (Actually, that's what I did the two previous times, but it was on instinct and not knowledge.)

Now, understand that I didn't have anything more interesting than dirty underwear in the trunk. Any of those times. I simply choose not to do recreational drugs or transport them. But it is just plain *wrong* to stop people on bogus pretense, and then prey on the victim's presumed ignorance of his rights to intimidate him into letting you conduct a search.

So we talked political philosophy for a while. Really, we did. I couldn't believe I had the nerve to fence with a highway patrolman like that, but this third attempted violation of my rights and privacy really had me ticked.

( And yes, a lot more than even my friend Brian, in this forum, has managed to do. :-P )

What it finally came down to was that he admitted that he couldn't force me to allow the search. But... he could force me to wait for a K9 unit to arrive. I told him fine. If that's what we have to do, then fine. It's still wrong. But fine. He said it might take a while. Maybe 30 minutes. (He waited for my reaction.) I said fine.

He went back and talked to his buddy. After a while, he came back and said that the K9 unit was 30 minutes away and that he wasn't going to detain me any longer. I told him I appreciated that. And put out my hand to shake. He said that "everyone" said what I had said. (I have difficulty believing that real drug traffickers made exactly the arguments I did, or as well. But perhaps that's just vanity.) He shook my hand, and I looked him in the eye and told him, in as sincere a voice as I can manage, that there really *wasn't* anything of interest in my trunk. I didn't do it, but I probably should have asked him to think about that sometime when he had chance. But I was rattled. And my nerves have limits.

I was glad to be on my way.

-Steve

Edit: One really strange thing that I forgot to mention is that while he asked me if I had insurance on the car... he never so much as asked me for my driver's license or proof of insurance.

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by sbergman27

I don't think that this is a case of it, but... a few times during the last few years I've been stopped on the Interstate for reasons which were obviously bogus.

Your post reminds me of Jay Z and Linkin Park's song...

"The year is '94 and in my trunk is raw
In my rear view mirror is the mother fuckin law
I got two choices yall pull over the car or
Bounce on the devil put the pedal to the floor
Now i ain't tryin to see no highway chase with jake
Plus i got a few dollars i can fight the case
So i...pull over to the side of the road
And i heard 'Son do you know why i'm stoppin you for?'
Cause i'm young and i'm black and my hats real low
Do i look like a mind reader sir, i don't know
Am i under arrest or should i guess some mo?
'Well you was doin fifty five in a fifty four'
'Liscense and regestration and step out of the car'
'Are you carryin a weapon on you i know alot of you are'
I ain't steppin out of shit all my papers legit
'Do you mind if i look round the car a little bit?'
Well my glove compartment is locked so is the trunk and the back
And i know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that
'Aren't you sharp as a tack are some type of lawyer or something?'
'Or somebody important or somethin?'
Nah i ain't pass the bar but i know a little bit
Enough that you won't illegally search my shit
'Well see how smart you are when the K-9's come'
I got 99 problems but a bitch ain't one
Hit me"

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by Kaotic Lazagna

Your post reminds me of Jay Z and Linkin Park's song...

Wow! I mean... I'm white... and middle aged (though you'd never get me to admit it)... and I don't wear a hat. But the lyrics pretty much fit in every other way.

-Steve

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

[Kaotic Lazagna]

Originally Posted by sbergman27

Wow! I mean... I'm white... and middle aged (though you'd never get me to admit it)... and I don't wear a hat. But the lyrics pretty much fit in every other way.

-Steve

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

haha, yeah, I wanted to delete that part of the lyrics, but the rest wouldn't flow. haha

[yarrr]

Originally Posted by sbergman27

"And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me." - Unknown Author

Now that reminds me of NOFX - regaining unconsciousness

First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

[jamal1984]

thank you for you guys opinions, to be honest i would like to get rid of the eyelids and buy a projector h4 bixenon and paint my inside headlights black already, the Vinyl eyelids on my headlight is not affecting the beam at all, i did a test before i put it on my headlights.
Anyway, Yaris at Georgia listen up, you got an EYELIDS you becareful outthere,

[LA Yaris]

Sounds like a red neck cop to me.

[MadMax]

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...

[goliath1812]

Originally Posted by MadMax

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...

+1

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by MadMax

Sounds more like a cop doing his job to me. Those are the laws of the state...he didn't make them, he's paid to enforce them...

Back when I had car sound systems that were worth anything at all, I had a couple stolen during the night. The police "did their job" saying there was nothing they could do. Glad they finally made up for it by nailing this hardened criminal.

-Steve

[sbergman27]

I'm glad you posted it just as is.

-Steve

[sqcomp]

I'll concede that the officer probably had something better to do...

The thought that asking you to let him search your vehicle is not out of the question. You CAN refuse. It is your right to refuse an unlawful search and seizure absolutely. However, if I rollup on you, and you've got something wrong with the vehicle or are displying some sort of sign that something might be a bit off...I'll pull you over too.

Okay, I get you pulled over, I walk up on the vehicle and start talking to you. There are certain behaviors which might give me the reason to be suspicious of the situation. Admittedly, eyelids aren't at the top of offenses...

out of curiosity, with the sound system, what exactly were the police supposed to do? Post a guard around your vehicle? Were they supposed to police your stereo behaviors? Were they supposed to make sure you didn't put stickers on your vehicle tha advertised the fact that you have a bunch of equipment in the vehicle? Were they supposed to double check the installation of the stereo so as to make sure it was unremovable? ...or did you want them to call CSI Oklahoma City in there and break out the DNA analysis and blacklights?

...After all, it is their fault your stereo was stolen. Damned police! Having to let out all the crackheads and car thieves because they aren't allowed to check in the criminal's vehicles when they pull them over for having eyelids that are illegal...

Do you peeps even realize how much crime is stopped by these tertiary stops? What exactly is wrong for the police to make stops like this? Yeah it's annoying. But if you have nothing to hide, what's the issue?

If we don't like the laws, change them! If you don't like your car being broken into, change the sentencing laws. Make it a judge dread situation. Let's execute a crackhead.

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by sqcomp

The thought that asking you to let him search your vehicle is not out of the question. You CAN refuse. It is your right to refuse an unlawful search and seizure absolutely.

Except that most people probably don't realize that or are too intimidated to even consider their rights. Here's this authority figure telling you open your trunk, in a voice that implies that you don't have the right to refuse. But stopping just short of actually *saying* that you don't have that right. He was employing a lot of psychological techniques, including, but not limited to, the "Columbo" move I mentioned. (It's only after analyzing the incident later that I realized just how clever, or perhaps just practiced, his techniques were.)

However, if I rollup on you, and you've got something wrong with the vehicle or

You use the word "I" here. Am it to take it that you actually do this?

In my case, there was absolutely nothing wrong. My tag was fine. The patrolman *knew* it was fine. The tag was the most obvious, and flimsiest of ruses, unless we are to believe that he was just hired yesterday. Are you defending this type of abuse of authority?

There are certain behaviors which might give me the reason to be suspicious of the situation. Admittedly, eyelids aren't at the top of offenses...

My car's a black sedan like the OP's, except completely stock, with no problems at all. Don't try to confuse the two incidents.

Do you peeps even realize how much crime is stopped by these tertiary stops?

You're making the claim. The burden of responsibility for proving it is on you. But note that it is a separate question from that of the legal and ethical status of systematic intimidation of innocent people, by agents of the state, to trick them into handing over their rights.

What exactly is wrong for the police to make stops like this? Yeah it's annoying.

It's much worse than annoying. It's an effective erosion of the personal rights and privacy which were the bedrock upon which this country was founded. I suspect that citizens of most free and civilized nations could probably say the same about their countries. If convenience were my concern, I would have popped the trunk and been on down the road considerably more quickly, with less personal, internal agitation.

But if you have nothing to hide, what's the issue?

Nothing... except the very fiber of democracy. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Your question is, in it's way, quite chilling.

I've chosen not to address your questions about the stereo thefts in order to avoid diverting the conversation from the important points and principles into relatively trivial matters. Except to say that if recovering the equipment involved these kinds of groundless searches, I would not approve.

-Steve

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

[sqcomp]

It seems that what you want is the police to be everywhere and nowhere at the same time. You're pushing the fact that the police did nothing for you when your property was stolen yet if an officer wants to make the relatively minor annoyance of a tertiary stop you cry foul. I'm not going to stop you for no reason. The reason might not be apparent to you...I will tell you what I'm stopping you for.

Which is it?

When the bad guy rolls up on your car, smashed the window out in the middle of the night, and takes all your stuff...an hour later he's rolling down the road, 2 am, creeping slowly around the neighborhoods...I decide to stop him.

There are two factors that I have going for me. Probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion tells me that it is not normal for a vehicle to be creeping along residential street at 3am. I am going to get in close and see what I see. I stop the car for creeping around...and look! What do I see after running the plates, looking at the info on my MDT? I walk up on the person in the vehicle. I've got to look at EVERYTHING going on, his movements, his attitude, demeanor, what the car's condition is, what's in the car...I don't have the luxury of trusting people. Just because I walk up on you after checking your plates, seeing that whoever this vehicle is registered to is clean; this doesn't mean YOU are. Heck, it doesn't mean you're the owner. You may have just stolen the vehicle. You may be driving around trying to goad me out of my car to set me up for an ambush. I CANNOT assume that you are a nice person. When that happens, I die. That will NOT happen.

The burden of proof is not an issue; I'm working off PC and RS. Simply because you have a clean car doesn't mean you're innocent or guilty. It simply means you've got a clean black car. I'm working on different parameters than what kind of car you drive.

Don't try to play the innocent and scared person. If you're doing something suspicious, I'll stop you. If you've got illegal eyelids...I'll stop you. Who knows what else is in the vehicle, perhaps it's the stolen audio equipment, perhaps it's a gun sitting on the seat, perhaps there's a smell of alcoholic beverages coming from you and your vehicle.

Every fiber of Democracy...don't feed me that line. YOU pay me to try to keep you safe. If you're breaking the law, YOU pay me to investigate. You've got some illegal modification I have the option to stop you. The question for you is, what is "reasonable"? Is it reasonable to stop boy racer for illegal modifications to his car? Is it legal to ask him to search the car? Both answers are yes. Now, when you refuse, I have two options. I can let him go or I can (within a reasonable amount of time) get a dog to see if it gets a hit on your vehicle.

If the dog hits on your car, I have probable cause.

I LOVE the BF quote, it is actually one of my favorites. You have to ask yourself, at what point is reasonable. It seems to skew when someone does you wrong, yet when I'm stopping someone for a tertiary reason, I'm the bad guy. You are waffling. Don't change the rules of the game to suit your wants.

Next time you get stopped break this out, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I know what you're talking about when you say you feel that you're being violated. I'll give you this to think about, what is a reasonable expectation of privacy? What is a reasonable search? What would give me cause to ask you to search your vehicle? I cannot search your vehicle without probable cause. If you have illegal eyelids...that problem is solved. You've already broken the law.

[sbergman27]

Originally Posted by sqcomp

It seems that what you want is the police to be everywhere and no where at the same time. You're pushing the fact that the police did nothing for you when your property was stolen yet

Don't misrepresent what I've said. From my post, which you are responding to:

Originally Posted by sbergman27

I've chosen not to address your questions about the stereo thefts in order to avoid diverting the conversation from the important points and principles into relatively trivial matters. Except to say that if recovering the equipment involved these kinds of groundless searches, I would not approve.

That should settle that. I'm not interested in pressing this point because it is not the important one. Let's not go off in the weeds.

Don't try to play the innocent and scared person.

I'm hardly scared. I think your implication that I was not innocent is interesting. It is certainly quite reasonable to be apprehensive when those given authority start abusing it so obviously and unashamedly, right in front of one's face.

YOU pay me to try to keep you safe.

If it were my decision, the composition of the police forces would be somewhat different. Resulting in rather different state, city, and county employee payroll files. Plato may have gotten some things wrong, but he also had a few things right.

Your post sounds very defensive, BTW.

-Steve

[sqcomp]

Oh GTFO... You are absolutely correct, I shouldn't criticize the lack of grammar.

You can't defend your position with search and seizure so you're switching up.

All you can do is gripe about how you got pulled over for breaking the law. Keep on...let's hear the arguments on how it is wrong to stop someone for breaking the law.

If you don't like the law...change it. Vote the change in. You give the legal parameter and it will be enforced.

...as for the profiling issue...

when I was doing my old LP job, guess who stole the most? ...15 to 24 year old white females...

Who are most of the people that are dealt with now? White male meth users ranging from the early twenties to mid fourties.

[SailDesign]

Originally Posted by sqcomp

Oh GTFO... You are absolutely correct, I shouldn't criticize the lack of grammar.

You can't defend your position with search and seizure so you're switching up.

Acksherley, it was not the OP who "switched up", it was me. And I'm not bitching about his position, or yours, just the language.....

Do try to keep up.