If a cop pulls you over...

[Triumph]

It's just occurred to me that in the UK, you don't have a choice, it's "I'm going to search your car" not "May I please search your car"...

It is as it should be over here IMO.

Well why not extend that "protection" to your home? More crimes are committed in homes than in cars, I'd wager. Better to let the police search people's homes for evidence of crime, without any probable cause, than deal with the alternative. They could probably find all kinds of illegal activities going on under people's roofs (rooves?) that they wouldn't know about otherwise if they weren't allowed to search!

You are the epitome of the British subservient mindset, nurtured over hundreds and hundreds of years of living under a monarchical system that forces people into different classes, each class relinquishing authority to the class above itself. Surely it's not as bad as in some other cultures, but it's real and it is there. This is why we broke ties with your people a long time ago. Because you are OK with the gub'ment poking its nose into your business, and we are not, in general. I guess it's not really your fault, you've been born and raised in that system and you really had no choice in the matter. Your ancestors have probably been relinquishing authority to their betters since the time of King Henry, so it's almost genetic by now.

 

[ichy]

If I got pulled over for speeding, I try to make conversation with them. Never gotten a speeding ticket because of it despite being pulled over for felony speeds twice. Its crazy what you can get away with if your not a total douche' about things.

I assume you're joking, but I'd say that speeding fast enough for it to be a felony (if that's even possible! What're you doing, 155 in a 25 zone?) makes you inherently douchey.

 

[HAL9000]

Well why not extend that "protection" to your home? More crimes are committed in homes than in cars, I'd wager. Better to let the police search people's homes for evidence of crime, without any probable cause, than deal with the alternative. They could probably find all kinds of illegal activities going on under people's roofs (rooves?) that they wouldn't know about otherwise if they weren't allowed to search!

You are the epitome of the British subservient mindset, nurtured over hundreds and hundreds of years of living under a monarchical system that forces people into different classes, each class relinquishing authority to the class above itself. Surely it's not as bad as in some other cultures, but it's real and it is there. This is why we broke ties with your people a long time ago. Because you are OK with the gub'ment poking its nose into your business, and we are not, in general. I guess it's not really your fault, you've been born and raised in that system and you really had no choice in the matter. Your ancestors have probably been relinquishing authority to their betters since the time of King Henry, so it's almost genetic by now.

Oh blah blah blah I've heard it all before "Subservient, Monarchy, relinquishing authority" Doesn't change the fact that it makes good logical sense and I can see no downside to letting the police search your car when pulled over. (not house, car)

 

[Triumph]

Oh blah blah blah I've heard it all before "Subservient, Monarchy, relinquishing authority"

Well it's true.

Doesn't change the fact that it makes good logical sense and I can see no downside to letting the police search your car when pulled over. (not house, car)

Why not house then? What is the downside to them searching your house?

And I'll tell you the downside. Cops are human. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there are no constraints on what they can do, they WILL abuse the power. This is a very real possibility that cannot be denied and is why such constraints are in place.

 

[BoberFett]

We all know about neckbeard and his preferences. He just enjoys getting "searched" by the police.

 

[HAL9000]

Well it's true.

No it isn't it's a completely load of bullshit that americans waffle regularly whenever someone from the UK disagree's with their deluded "free world" view.

Why not house then? What is the downside to them searching your house?

It's prejudicial as rather than seeing a suspiciously driven car drive past or a car that is speeding, then deciding to search it they have to go out of their way to find a house, that's why.

And I'll tell you the downside. Cops are human. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. If there are no constraints on what they can do, they WILL abuse the power. This is a very real possibility that cannot be denied and is why such constraints are in place.

Good thing they don't have absolute power in the UK then...

 

[HAL9000]

We all know about neckbeard and his preferences. He just enjoys getting "searched" by the police.

:awe:

 

[Fayd]

So I'm curious to see what people's attitudes/beliefs are about this. Let's assume you're pulled over, and after running your license and tags the cop asks you if he can search your car. What would you do?

"i don't consent to a search at this time."

 

[Triumph]

No it isn't it's a completely load of bullshit that americans waffle regularly whenever someone from the UK disagree's with their deluded "free world" view.

Ok maybe i'm exaggerating, but there is definite truth in history. Our societies are defined by their respective history, and history is on my side of the argument.

It's prejudicial as rather than seeing a suspiciously driven car drive past or a car that is speeding, then deciding to search it they have to go out of their way to find a house, that's why.

That's a pretty poor example. In fact, the more I think about it, it's a terrible supporting argument. What about cops just driving around on their regular routes, and they come across a house that looks "suspicious"? Your cops only drive A to B and never pay attention to what is around them?

Please, I beg of you to come up with another example because I'd really like to hear it. Why can't cops just enter your home and perform a search?

Good thing they don't have absolute power in the UK then...

So you agree that they have more power than in the US?

 

[Zenmervolt]

It's prejudicial as rather than seeing a suspiciously driven car drive past or a car that is speeding, then deciding to search it they have to go out of their way to find a house, that's why.

Please explain why mere speeding is automatically "suspicious." Also explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven."

ZV

 

[Rifter]

I say not unless he has a warrant. Sure it might make you look guilty but thats better than giving up your rights.

Ask any lawyer in the world and they will tell you giving the police permission to do anything is a very bad idea, it will NEVER benifit you.

 

[HAL9000]

Ok maybe i'm exaggerating, but there is definite truth in history. Our societies are defined by their respective history, and history is on my side of the argument.



That's a pretty poor example. In fact, the more I think about it, it's a terrible supporting argument. What about cops just driving around on their regular routes, and they come across a house that looks "suspicious"? Your cops only drive A to B and never pay attention to what is around them?

Please, I beg of you to come up with another example because I'd really like to hear it. Why can't cops just enter your home and perform a search?

Peoples homes are afforded another level of privacy as it's where you live, it's where only those you invite in have the right to enter, cars are just means of transport, it's not your home the police can enter it as you can alert them to your presence without them having to find your static location, you go to them not the other way round.

So you agree that they have more power than in the US?

Of course! as they should, it's embarrassing how little power the police have in America... Having to ask permission to search your care? Please... That's a great idea! The criminals can just say no!...

Please explain why mere speeding is automatically "suspicious." Also explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven."

ZV

Because it's a crime.

 

[Murloc]

in your home, you may have legal stuff you don't want to be seen, like documents, or your money, or porn.
Also searching a house is a huge waste of resources if it's meaningless.
Most important, it feels like someone is violating your privacy, and a search means that everything gets thrown around.

In the car instead, if you have nothing to hide, he just peeks inside with a lamp and asks you to open the trunk to see if there's anything wrong.
Someone looking suspicious may be hiding something. If he wasn't, they just made you lose 5 minutes of your time and looked inside your car, it's not a big deal.

1. Please explain why mere speeding is automatically "suspicious."
2. Also explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven."

1. you may have committed a crime and you're running away, but you're nervous so you stupidly surpass the speed limits. Or maybe someone saw your car while you were doing it.
2. an overloaded car at 2 am full of extracomunitarians.


In italy a few days ago they stopped a car at 2 am with some romas inside.
They searched it because it was suspect.
Not because of the way they drove, but because the car was overloaded at 2 am.

They found 300 kg of stolen copper wire inside the car.

If they couldn't search your car without a warrant and only based on suspicion, they wouldn't be able to bust criminals this easily.

I agree on privacy principles etc., but there's no need to be so hardcore about them in situations like these.

 

[Brigandier]

Peoples homes are afforded another level of privacy as it's where you live, it's where only those you invite in have the right to enter, cars are just means of transport, it's not your home the police can enter it as you can alert them to your presence without them having to find your static location, you go to them not the other way round.



Of course! as they should, it's embarrassing how little power the police have in America... Having to ask permission to search your care? Please... That's a great idea! The criminals can just say no!...



Because it's a crime.

Police don't need permission to search your car. They need permission, or probable cause. If someone truly was suspicious, or acting suspiciously, the cop could search the vehicle without permission.

I like this system, it saves regular citizens from unreasonable searches while still allowing the police to pick up on egregious offenders.

 

[jlee]

Because it's a crime.

Actually, only in certain circumstances in some states. It's just a civil offense here. 😉

The criminals can just say no!...

That's what warrants are for.

 

[ichy]

In the car instead, if you have nothing to hide, he just peeks inside with a lamp and asks you to open the trunk to see if there's anything wrong.

A cop can look into your car from the outside in the US without any kind of warrant, probable cause of reasonable suspicion. If something is in plain view then it's fair game. Opening the trunk is totally different.

 

[ichy]

I agree on privacy principles etc., but there's no need to be so hardcore about them in situations like these.

The issue that a lot of Americans have, even fairly pro-law & order ones like myself, is that the War on Drugs has led to an unfortunate militarization of law enforcement in this country. Every crummy little town has a SWAT team nowadays, and far too many police officers have an "us vs. them" attitude. Not saying that all of them do, or even the majority of them, but it only takes one encounter with a bad cop to screw up your life. Civil foreiture also creates a perverse incentive for police departments to bust people regardless of whether they're guilty or not.

 

[HAL9000]

Police don't need permission to search your car. They need permission, or probable cause. If someone truly was suspicious, or acting suspiciously, the cop could search the vehicle without permission.

I like this system, it saves regular citizens from unreasonable searches while still allowing the police to pick up on egregious offenders.

Why would an American police officer search your car if they weren't suspicious of something...?!

 

[Brigandier]

Why would an American police officer search your car if they weren't suspicious of something...?!

It's called fishing.

 

[HAL9000]

It's called fishing.

Bizzarre, I've not heard of that over here.

 

[-Slacker-]

In the car instead, if you have nothing to hide, he just peeks inside with a lamp and asks you to open the trunk to see if there's anything wrong.
Someone looking suspicious may be hiding something. If he wasn't, they just made you lose 5 minutes of your time and looked inside your car, it's not a big deal.

Lol, you sound like a perv trying to get a chick to let you grope her tits, arguing that it's not such a big deal and that it'll feel good anyway. 😀

Dunno, that's the vibe I get when I read that quote.

Also, hal, dude, aren't you tired of being universally hated by all of humanity?

 

[Triumph]

Peoples homes are afforded another level of privacy as it's where you live, it's where only those you invite in have the right to enter, cars are just means of transport, it's not your home the police can enter it as you can alert them to your presence without them having to find your static location, you go to them not the other way round.

You are effectively granting rights to a physical entity (a house) over that of a person. The intent is that a person should be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures. Even if I grant you the household argument, I can pose another. Remove the car entirely, say you are simply walking down the street. Should a police officer have the ability to search your pockets at his own behest? (Remember the narrow focus of the discussion here. An officer in the US, seeing no evidence of a crime, has to ask to search your vehicle. You do not think he should have to ask. Should his pockets be treated differently than his car?)

Of course! as they should, it's embarrassing how little power the police have in America... Having to ask permission to search your care? Please... That's a great idea! The criminals can just say no!...

This is sad.

Bizzarre, I've not heard of that over here.

Then you are living in a world with blinders on.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Because it's a crime.

1) You did not answer the second part of my question. Please explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven." This will need to be an objective test that is applicable in all circumstances. Naming a specific instance is not helpful as it does not provide guidance for determination in all circumstances.

2) Speeding (within normal bounds, we're talking about someone going 65 in a 60, not someone going 110 in a 25) is an infraction. Just like putting up an overly-tall flagpole in your front yard. It's is not even a misdemeanor.

3) Simply the fact that speeding is an offense does not provide rational basis for inferring additional offenses. If I accidentally install a fence 6" over the property line on my neighbor's land, your reasoning would allow the police to search my house because I've "committed a crime" and therefore they automatically have reason to be suspicious. This is, of course, absurd. You need to, and have so far failed to, provide a reason to support the idea that speeding, in and of itself, absent any other criteria, provides a rational basis to assume that a person is hiding something in his car.

1. you may have committed a crime and you're running away, but you're nervous so you stupidly surpass the speed limits. Or maybe someone saw your car while you were doing it.
2. an overloaded car at 2 am full of extracomunitarians.

1) You may have committed a crime and you're running away, but you're so together that you're driving exactly the speed limit and obeying all laws too. Do you believe that suspicion exists in all cases, even when there's no separate reason for a stop? My scenario is at least as likely the one you outlined.

1 b) If someone saw the car, then the identification of the car is the origin of the suspicion, not the mere act of speeding. Please try to keep your examples relevant to the discussion at hand.

2) So that's the only situation that constitutes "suspicious" driving? I asked what constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven," I did not ask for a specific instance as an example. As I said above, I'm looking for an objective test that will be applicable in all situations.

ZV

 

[HAL9000]

1) You did not answer the second part of my question. Please explain what, precisely, constitutes a car being "suspiciously driven." This will need to be an objective test that is applicable in all circumstances. Naming a specific instance is not helpful as it does not provide guidance for determination in all circumstances.

2) Speeding (within normal bounds, we're talking about someone going 65 in a 60, not someone going 110 in a 25) is an infraction. Just like putting up an overly-tall flagpole in your front yard. It's is not even a misdemeanor.

3) Simply the fact that speeding is an offense does not provide rational basis for inferring additional offenses. If I accidentally install a fence 6" over the property line on my neighbor's land, your reasoning would allow the police to search my house because I've "committed a crime" and therefore they automatically have reason to be suspicious. This is, of course, absurd. You need to, and have so far failed to, provide a reason to support the idea that speeding, in and of itself, absent any other criteria, provides a rational basis to assume that a person is hiding something in his car.

So to you it's not logical to conclude that criminals commit crimes, and that known criminals are more likely to commit further crimes...?

 

[Zargon]

So to you it's not logical to conclude that criminals commit crimes, and that known criminals are more likely to commit further crimes...?

as already stating, here in the US, speeding is not a crime in most cases, in IL, its a crime starting at either 25 or 30mph over the speed limit, so speeding doesnt make you a criminal