"jl" wrote in message
oups.com...
On Jun 21, 5:00 pm, "Maxwell" wrote:
wrote in message

Well, I don't know what police state you live in, but in the state of
Idaho, police don't get to go around demanding to see your ID on the
spot unless you are doing something that is in violation of a law.
They don't get to pull you over either unless they have have violated
a traffic law.

Double check the laws in your state. Your statement is incorrect.

I believe *your* statement to be incorrect. In my state of North
Carolina (as well as the law in the other states I'm familiar with), a
vehicle may not be legally stopped without some reason, such as a
traffic violation. And you may read Terry v. Ohio on the question
whether a pedestrian may be stopped, but you can't just stop any
pedestrian without some reasonable suspicion. The Fourth Amendment
applies to the states as well as to the federal government. It has
been incorporated into state law by the 14th Amendment.

Dean was stating a violation was required in both examples, and that's not
correct. In fact agree with your comments, on both the pedestrian or
vehicle stop, only resonable suspicion is required.

For a while cops set up traffic stops and stopped every car coming
through. When they found the courts were throwing out their cases for
these dragnets in violation of the Fourth, they then began putting up
signs with "Drug Checkpoint Ahead" or "Sobriety Checkpoint Ahead" and
nabbing the motorists who hung a "U" or turned off at the next
connector.

We still have these in Oklahoma on a limited basis, an they are very
effective. Every time they do it, they kill their limit in less than a
shift. Drunks, expired licenses and registration, no insurance, you name it.
I'm not at all familuar with the case law in them, but I do know they
excercise some precautions. Announcing when and where to the media for
publication in advance, and moving them around the county to avoid being
accused of targeting a specific area, are two that I recall. I think the
reason you don't see more of them is more policy than constitutional. It
creates a real public relations nightmare. Unfortunitly, you have to greatly
inconvenience and sometimes even traumatize about 20 honest, hard working
citizens to catch one bad guy, and the loss of public support for the police
is just not worth it. If you no longer see them in your area, I would
speculate it more of a city, county or state policy. Policing agencies are
very aware of their need for public support, and when every old lady going
to church gets shook down in a roadblock out on the highway on the way in,
they will reassemble an return on you, or at least to city hall.


Now that's not to say that cops don't break the law because there are
few sanctions against them with any teeth. You're not ordinarily
going to get into the bad cop's pocketbook or get a lien on his house,
but you can file a motion to suppress evidence he has seized from you
in violation of your 4th Amendment rights and pursuant to the landmark
Scotus case known as Mapp vs. Ohio. And if the cop doesn't lie you'll
usually win.


I also agree that some cops often break the law, or at least push the
limits, and that reasonable suspicion creates an often abused gray area.
There have been at least three cop books written that I'm aware of, that
promote techniques on how to verbally swindle citizens out of their
constitutional rights to search their vehicle without a warrant. It's done
by playing word games to con you into giving consent. I think that both the
books and the techniques should be illegal, but unfortunately they are not.
But I can also honestly say that 95% of the cops I have known, don't play
those games. It's just not necessary to do a good job, and regardless of
what we hear in the sensationalized cases, cops often loose their jobs or
get passed over for promotion, if they establish a pattern of that kind of
behavior.