chuck j wrote:Within reason they can search my vehicle any time they like , total waste of time for them though . If it helps catch drug runners , illegals or criminals I'm all for it . I have never been searched before . I have only had one bad encounter with a Highway patrol in Archer county , everyone knew he was a complete jerk . He purposely tried to make you angry , he got a kick out of it . I simply turned the tables on him , he was mad because I was not even though he gave me a seat belt ticket . I even asked him to stay a second while I prayed for him . He was red faced .
chuckj, I love the asking him to stay a second while you prayed for him.
The Apostle Paul wrote:Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
A perfect life application example.
That said, I have to ask, how will stopping and searching
your vehicle help them catch drug runners, illegals, or criminals? It won't. Google "what is a terry stop", and one of the links you'll get back is the Wikipedia page on it:
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop.
In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.
The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.
To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.
So, it would appear that DPS troopers (and the DEA) are basing their Terry Stops along I-20 on the improbably notion that, if you are driving on I-20, you must be involved in criminal activity.......and the evidence for your being involved in criminal activity is that you are driving along I-20......
Are you beginning to see the circular reasoning here? It goes like this:
Premise: If you are [insert activity here], you must be involved in criminal activity.
Proof of Premise: The proof of your criminality is that you are [insert activity here].
Now, here are some substitutions for "[insert activity here]" - ALL of which are equally preposterous as evidence of criminality:
- doing your laundry
- walking the dog
- wearing a tie-died t-shirt
- driving a [insert brand of car here]
- laughing
- watching reruns of Mr. Green Jeans
- attending a Star Trek convention
- reading the Bible
- talking to a friend
- driving along I-20
- eating a Big Mac
- etc., etc., etc.
See what I did there? #10 is just as ridiculous a presumption of criminality as any of the other items on the list. It if
WERE an indicator of criminality, then police would be duty-bound to stop ALL cars and search them along I-20. And when the word got out and traffic began abandoning the Interstate for the backroads, they would be duty-bound to cover those back roads, and stop and search every single vehicle on
those roads.
The fact is, they are fishing. That's
all they are doing. And that is unlawful behavior on their part. The sad fact—and I understand why—is that most people will submit to it, simply because they do not want to be detained any longer than the bare minimum. If you
lawfully resist being detained, and refuse consent to a search, cops are going to—
unlawfully—interpret your refusal of consent as evidence
for a Terry stop. And even if they don't find anything.....which they
won't as long as your are not engaged in criminal activity....your detention will have lasted about 8 times as long as if you had just submitted. Most people, even people who are aware of these issues and hate how police powers have transmogrified, will simply submit and grit their teeth, because they are already busy and don't have time to devote to the price of making a stand.
Personally, I am one of those who is cooperative, but grits his teeth. I respect Law Enforcement. I do
NOT respect the individual officer who is comfortable with violating the limits of a Terry Stop, as defined by the highest Court in the land - a Court whose authority vastly supersedes the authority of any individual police officer. If the Court strictly defines the limits of a Terry Stop, and an individual officer exceeds those limits, that officer has:
- violated the law; and
- failed to uphold any oath they might have taken to uphold the Constitution........ALL of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment.
If I have broken the law, then do something about it, and I will accept the consequences. But if I have NOT broken the law, and you (the police officer) cannot point to “
specific and articulable facts” as evidence prompting your suspicion of my criminality, then you cannot justify the stop. Period. You have brought shame on your badge, your department, and your personal honor.
I am not one of those guys who follows cops around, trying to make their jobs harder. I actually LIKE having a police force in my town, and I respect my local PD and am appreciative of the great job they do. I count a number of currently serving police officers among my personal friends, as well as among my extended family. I hung out with one of them just last night at a family wedding. (I've posted about him previously here:
viewtopic.php?f=15&t=74384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) But I have to say that if I am subjected to a fishing expedition like that, and they cannot articulate specific facts for why I am being detained, then I'm going to be recording the transaction on my cellphone.....and yes, I WILL put it on youtube.
