Thread: Oops I attempted to carry a straight razor onto a plane!

Originally Posted by rtaylor61

That reminds me of the scene in "Cannonball Run" when Adrienne Barbeau gets pulled over, zips down her top, rolls down her window, only to be confronted by a female officer, who says something to the effect of "You can put them away, they won't do any good this time"!

RT

LOL I vaguely remember that scene....I tell ya....it pisses me off that breasts are accepted at more places than VISA

Originally Posted by FiReSTaRT

I'm glad we agree on this one Joe. I lead a fairly open and transparent life, but it's a CHOICE. I'd like to have this choice instead of it being imposed on me by law. I don't automatically follow authority either, so if a constable expects me to give up my Charter rights just b/c he's wearing a badge, he's in for a polite rude awakening.
By the way, that does not mean that I do not cooperate with the police. If I come across a safety concern that they should be dealing with, ofcourse I call the 22nd division and let them know.

Even the most conservative part of me says this is right. It's amazing how many cases are lost because police mess up procedures. As a minimum, if we all insist on our rights it will keep them honest and lead to more convictions (how's that for conservative?). At best it will improve government respect of our rights.

If it weren't for all the abuses the laws providing for civil suits would not have been neecessary. We sometimes forget that the reason for the Constitutional rights was that government abuses actually existed. It's a patriortic duty to assure that the Constitution is respected. Our leaders swear to protect and defend the Constitution and nothing else. Careless or reckless disregard is not a form of defense.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

You guys are right, but I gotta tell you, I have been pulled over for speeding twice in the last 5 or 6 years. Both times I simply said I know I was going to fast, etc, etc...I was just honest about it, because I knew I didnt have the time or desire to fight about it in court, and both times the cop ended up letting me go. I believe its because I was easy to deal with and didnt play dumb. If there was a violation that I was willing to fight over in court I would do exactly as you describe, luckily it hasnt come to that though.

You may actually be giving the policeman a case when he doesn't have one. And if he's qorking against a quota you'll get your ticket, even though he didn't have enough evidence.

The only time I ever got out of a ticket was when the cop stopped me and said I was speeding without stating a speed (it was a 35 MPH zone. I had passed a line of cars at about 45 MPH when I noticed the car at the front of the line was a police car. I immediately cut back and slowed to the limit. He stopped me and said I was doing over 60. I simply said "impossible, all I did was pass you to avoid a dangerous situatio against oncoming traffic. He kept asking how fast I was going and I simply insisted that I wasn't speeding. He couldn't give me a ticket because all he knew was I was momentarily going faster than him, but before he could track me I was back in lane at a legal speed.

Had I admitted I was going even 36, I surely would have gotten a ticket.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

I have a friend in pennsylvania who is a state trooper and ALWAYS gives the good looking women tickets

Is that so he can get their name and address?

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Is that so he can get their name and address?

Nope, its just his little way of getting even I think hehe

Originally Posted by Joe Lerch

Although I tend to agree with you from a practical point of view, the only reason the police do this is that they know they can get away with it and that you'll want to avoid a hassle. From defending people treated improperly I can also confirm that the only way you'll resolve that kind of thing without a proceding in court is by agreeing that the police had probable cause, before they'll dismiss any charges (summons etc.).

I'm a practical guy, but what I've seen going on lately has hardened me. The authorities and our leaders are now taking a lot of liberties with our rights. I remember that old movie where a guy shouts out of a window "I've had it and I won't take anymore." That's where I am now. They seem to forget that they're my employees, not my boss. And my thinking is that if anything like that happens to me I'll assert my rights. After all, I can make it inconvenient for that idiot cop by forcing him to come to court and, if I'm angry enough, to answer my questions on the witness stand. If enough of us did that, we would be respected more, and so would our rights.

One thing that turned me around was when a friend and I were discussing recent telephone spying by the government and my friend said "come on, what do you have to hide?". This is an intelligent guy, and I suddenly realized how bad things had gotten.

I don't disagree with you. I think it's sound advice to never consent to a search of your car/house/person. You may not have anything to hide, but you're then giving them carte blanche to tear apart your stuff looking for whatever it is they think you have. I just think the reality is that you might (and in some areas, almost certainly will) be searched anyway. In which case, if they do find something they deem incriminating, you're going to face a rather protracted court process to have the evidence suppressed.

Domestic spying is a separate issue. I think your friend is completely wrong on that. When the President isn't even willing to go to the secret FISA court, which he doesn't even have to do until /after/ the tap has been put in, someone is up to no good. This is one of those issues on which liberals and conservatives should come to the same conclusion, because whether you view it as a privacy or a constitutional issue, it's wrong either way.

I agree that we the peasants... I mean people shouldn't just roll over and go along to get along. I also realize, however, that when somebody calls in a report of a possible crime the police are obliged to do their due diligence and investigate. One thought that really shook me up about the incident afterward was what might have happened if they had decided to arrest me if I'd refused access to my computer. If the other inmates at the jail had found out why I was there things could have become very unpleasant for me. And they wouldn't believe my denials as most of them believe that people don't get arrested unless they've done something wrong. The police and district attorneys also count on people wanting to avoid a court proceeding because the attorneys' fees would bankrupt them. There are public defenders for those with little or no income and the wealthy can get the best justice money can buy but those of us in the middle are too rich to be poor and too poor to be rich.

Originally Posted by JerseyLawyer

I just think the reality is that you might (and in some areas, almost certainly will) be searched anyway. In which case, if they do find something they deem incriminating, you're going to face a rather protracted court process to have the evidence suppressed.

And if you gave them permission you can't even suppress it.

I had a suppression hearing in a case where the state trooper admitted to the most forceful administration of a blood test on cross-examination, and he even asked me what the difference was between "without permission" and forceful. The judge rendered a verdict from the bench, in which he found every one of my facts and then ruled that there was no improper blood test. You should have seen the commotion in that courtroom. I would have loved to appeal that ruling. Unfortunately, the client didn't want to.

So much for suppression.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

If the other inmates at the jail had found out why I was there things could have become very unpleasant for me. And they wouldn't believe my denials as most of them believe that people don't get arrested unless they've done something wrong.

But they'll tell you they didn't do whatver they're in for.

A search is a whole other story. If you deny the search and they do it without a warrant because they have "reasonable cause" to suspect that you are transporting something in particular, and they find anything different from that specific type of item it is inadmissable. If they however get a warrant because you refuse a search, I believe that can be used as evidence in court even if its not what the warrant allowed the search for....I am not sure how that works.

Honestly though, I work with law enforcement off and on, and its a very few that give a bad name to the vast majority. Yes LEO's tend to stick together simply because they can identify more easily with one another due to the line of work, the truth is they are just normal guys and generally really nice people. However, there is the occassional school bully that never grew up and wanted to carry a gun or be absolved from speeding tickets.

I understand why they stick together and sometimes exhibit and us vs. them mentality, I am on the fence as I am not a public servant however I do similar work on the side (private detective, personal protection, armed escort, bail enforcement). Since I am not a cop, I have very few people to talk with who can identify with my lifestyle, and most people who are not LEO's don't understand why I do what I do without becoming an LEO, and people that are LEO's also wonder why I don't become an LEO, so I get it from both sides. Most people just they think I am a weird because I carry a gun without being a cop. The truth is I don't like the political red tape and the department politics of law enforcement, and much of the time, the pay isnt great, although every now and then I think about joining, I am quickly reminded of why I have decided not too.