> So pretty much it is just based on opinion that you see it as abuse and do not want to be randomly searched. That is fine.
Not just my opinion, but the opinion of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and others who started a war over it, founded a country on it, and then wrote that opinion right into the U.S. Constitution.
> For some reason, you have the mindset to treat them as people wanting to "get you".
Perhaps I should remind you that they get bonuses and promotions when they reach various quotas for arrests and are demoted and fired when they don't. Their whole careers and status among their peers and family and friends is based on them meeting target numbers of arrests each month.
And, if those numbers are a bit difficult to achieve, they will have no problem arresting a few people that they know to be innocent.
> More often than not, if you allow him to search, you will probably get off because the cop is not going to take extra time to search someone who admits that he can search them.
Oh, that makes perfect logical sense to you and me. But, cops don't think that way. To them, what you say is not important. They have already decided whether they want to search your car long before they ask your permission. And whether you say Yes or No won't affect whether they do or don't search it.
> Think about it. If all the cop has heard on his stops are people saying "you need a warrant", you think he would still search someone that actually says he can? Possibly
Watch C.O.P.S. sometime. In every single case where a driver agrees to a search, the cop gets a big smile on his face and summons in six other officers to ransack the car. Every time.
> It is obviously psychology and interrogation techniques that cops learn at their academy.
Remember back when you said that I was accusing cops of always being out to get people? Well, what do you think the whole point of teaching cops "psychology and interrogation techniques" is all about? Obviously, they teach cops to go out and "get" people.
> Better chances that you will get off.
Yet, if you are not doing anything illegal, other than maybe speeding, you should not have to enter into a battle of wits to keep yourself out of jail. The cop should give you the ticket for your infraction and then send you on your way. He should NOT be randomly searching for additional crime.
> Even if you did commit a crime, there is always court to have you plead for less punishment.
Good luck with that. Remember that judges and prosecutors are also paid and promoted by the number of their convictions. And, there is a whole industry based around the court system that would go broke if a certain number of people weren't convicted every year.
You know that a DUI pretty much costs the suspect about $10,000 in fees, right? Most of that goes to the companies that do BAC testing, ankle bracelets, bail bondsmen, and automobile lock-outs. They rely on high numbers of convictions.
My local town has radar vans that automatically issue tickets to passing vehicles. There was an article recently that said that the city pays a huge amount for a company to run all the vans and mail the tickets, so they need to have almost each ticket upheld in court to afford the payments.
The whole court system runs on the number of arrests and convictions. They can't afford to let people go.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
reply
share
Arvin-G-Borkar
9 years ago
Can't say I would outrightly reject the notion that the law enforcement and even courts would need money from people committing crimes; however, usually, the courthouses are paid by the state, on state taxes, and the police force, by the government.
It is still undecided by me what exactly cops want. I mean yeah they want to pull you over and convict you, maybe 75% of the time, but then why let someone go right? Why let me go, even if there was nothing wrong with me staying under the speed limit? He could have just as easily convicted me of something else, if he was that hard pressed for making his final quota and even go as far as to search my car, since I gave him consent to. I do believe cops have certain quotas; however, I cannot fathom that they would really be that selfish.
Better watch out, better start crying. Better hurry up, run and hide. Krampus is coming to town! >:)
reply
share
bing-57
9 years ago
> It is still undecided by me what exactly cops want. I mean yeah they want to pull you over and convict you, maybe 75% of the time, but then why let someone go right?
There are only a few reasons a cop might let you go, and they are all his own personal reasons. He may realize that you aren't doing anything illegal and that any arrest or ticket he issues will never hold up in court, so it's not worth the embarrassment. Or, he may be in a hurry to get somewhere else; maybe his shift is ending or he has to go pee or it is raining. Or, he thinks he can get something out of it; maybe you are a hot chick or a rich dude. You go free based solely on his whim; if he's having a good day, you go free and if he's having a bad day, you go to jail.
That's not a way to run a police force.
> Why let me go, even if there was nothing wrong with me staying under the speed limit? He could have just as easily convicted me of something else, if he was that hard pressed for making his final quota and even go as far as to search my car, since I gave him consent to.
They often do. A couple of years ago, I was pulled over for having a non-standard muffler. She demanded to search my car and I said "No." So, she arrested me on suspicion of DUI and searched it anyway. She found nothing, but to make the search legal, she had to continue the arrest, despite the fact that I blew under the limit on the breathalyzer. It cost me $2,500 to fight the false charges.
> I do believe cops have certain quotas; however, I cannot fathom that they would really be that selfish.
Why not? They are granted the power to do anything they want and never be punished for anything. Surely, the majority of people in the world would abuse such advantages. Everyone is selfish.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
reply
share
Arvin-G-Borkar
9 years ago
"So, she arrested me on suspicion of DUI and searched it anyway. She found nothing, but to make the search legal, she had to continue the arrest, despite the fact that I blew under the limit on the breathalyzer."
If you blew under the limit of the breathalyzer, you should have been let off. How would they prove it in court that you did anything wrong if you were within the legal limits of your alcohol content?
Better watch out, better start crying. Better hurry up, run and hide. Krampus is coming to town! >:)
reply
share
bing-57
9 years ago
> If you blew under the limit of the breathalyzer, you should have been let off.
Yes, I know. But, she had to continue with the arrest to justify her illegal search of my car after I denied her permission. Had she let me go, she knew she was going to be facing a valid complaint from me and possibly a lawsuit. But, if she continued the arrest and then claimed that she simply was mistaken about my alleged DUI, she's off the hook legally. And the bonus is that she gets credit for a DUI arrest (they get credit for each arrest, regardless of whether the suspect is actually convicted). She saved her own skin by arresting me.
> How would they prove it in court that you did anything wrong if you were within the legal limits of your alcohol content?
Well, as it happened, once the defendant goes to court and the lawyer makes a request to drop the case for insufficient evidence, the judge usually does drop the case. But, they count on most people trying to avoid the $2,000 in lawyer fees by just pleading guilty or talking a plea bargain. I paid to fight the case and they dropped their bluff. It didn't cost them any money to try to prosecute me.
Just because they have no reason to think they can prove a case in front of a jury does not mean that they won't bother to prosecute. They can often win the case anyway with a sympathetic judge or with a plea bargain.
And, from a little research, I have found that prosecutors can win a DUI case even if the person was within the legal DUI limits. If the prosecutor can prove that the driver was too drunk to drink, the legal limits don't matter. And how can he do that? By having the arresting cop get on the stand and testify about the driver's condition (stumbling, slurring, etc.). And, if the cop is willing to lie, you are convicted.
I mean, that's how they prosecuted DUI before they had blood tests. The blood tests are now just a way of proving a DUI case beyond a doubt. Unfortunately, passing a blood test does not make you immune to prosecution for DUI; it just makes it harder for them to win. But, they still can and do win without it.
--
What Would Jesus Do For A Klondike Bar (WWJDFAKB)?
reply
share