Traffic Stop
- Thread starter cuchulain
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
Like I said, im sure there's a lot of nice cops out there.
Obviously ive met one right here.
I didnt mean any disrespect personally.
I spent a long time trying to be as polite as possible, and I dont think my views on such an unimportant aspect of my everyday life should take away from anything we have in common.
One of my near lifelong friends is on his way through. We argue about this enough.
Again, what ive seen, and how I feel is just that. Take it with a grain of salt. I dont have feelings of hatred.
Warren
Obviously ive met one right here.
I didnt mean any disrespect personally.
I spent a long time trying to be as polite as possible, and I dont think my views on such an unimportant aspect of my everyday life should take away from anything we have in common.
One of my near lifelong friends is on his way through. We argue about this enough.
Again, what ive seen, and how I feel is just that. Take it with a grain of salt. I dont have feelings of hatred.
Warren
Reminds me of my mother driving she also had not had a ticket in the last 40 years . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2skfOY-dn4
Very interesting discussions I have to say. Even though I don't endorse speeding one tiny bit, I don't object to Peck's fighting his tickets. It is within his rights to do so and IMHO the system is set up to make money rather than save lives.
I was caught in a speed trap a few years ago - the posted limit was 40, which I was doing, then suddenly around a bend there was a sign that read 25 and there was also a cop with a speed gun not more than 300 ft from the sign. They also love to use their radar at the bottom of long hills where cars naturally speed up.
If the system is corrupt (which it is in some towns), it's beneficial to fight it.
I was caught in a speed trap a few years ago - the posted limit was 40, which I was doing, then suddenly around a bend there was a sign that read 25 and there was also a cop with a speed gun not more than 300 ft from the sign. They also love to use their radar at the bottom of long hills where cars naturally speed up.
If the system is corrupt (which it is in some towns), it's beneficial to fight it.
As I delved into it, the whole issue of the relationship between speed and accidents is actually very interesting. Research conducted by the Florida Department of Transportation showed that the percentage of accidents actually caused by speeding is very low, 2.2 percent, and a large proportion of this related to speeding on rural roads not major highways. In fact, research has overwhelmingly and consistently shown that those driving 10 mph slower than the prevailing speed limit are far more likely to cause an accident than those who exceed the speed limit by 10 or more MPH. So it actually looks like those who fornicate the canine are far more dangerous than those who speed.
It also occurred to me that the reality in Canada is far different than in the US. In Ontario, for example, the posted speed limit on major highways is 100 km/h (about 60 mph), materially less than the prevailing 70 mph (or higher) in most US states. In Ontario though everyone who lives here knows that the "real" speed limit is far higher, and virtually everyone in the know travels 120 kmh-130kmh on the highways and expects that everyone else will do the same. It has been suggested that this leads to a culture where speeding is not only expected, but effectively required. There is a movement to increase posted speed limits here to accord with the real world.
Those who oppose increasing the posted speed limits here point to the higher limits in the US and the fact that the US, per capita, has a far higher traffic fatality outcome than Canada and they blame, without evidence, the higher prevailing speed limits in the US as the cause.
All of which is to say, it is a complicated question with a complicated answer. Clearly as a society we are prepared to tolerate, from a cost/benefit perspective, a certain number of fatalities so that we aren't inconvenienced in our travel. For example, we could drastically reduce the number of traffic fatalities if we reduced the speed limit to some absurdly low number and incurred the cost of a massive escalation in enforcement relating to both speeding and other "bad driver" behaviour. This would clearly reduce fatalities, but we aren't prepared to incur the inconvenience (i.e. the cost) in order to achieve this positive outcome.
It also occurred to me that the reality in Canada is far different than in the US. In Ontario, for example, the posted speed limit on major highways is 100 km/h (about 60 mph), materially less than the prevailing 70 mph (or higher) in most US states. In Ontario though everyone who lives here knows that the "real" speed limit is far higher, and virtually everyone in the know travels 120 kmh-130kmh on the highways and expects that everyone else will do the same. It has been suggested that this leads to a culture where speeding is not only expected, but effectively required. There is a movement to increase posted speed limits here to accord with the real world.
Those who oppose increasing the posted speed limits here point to the higher limits in the US and the fact that the US, per capita, has a far higher traffic fatality outcome than Canada and they blame, without evidence, the higher prevailing speed limits in the US as the cause.
All of which is to say, it is a complicated question with a complicated answer. Clearly as a society we are prepared to tolerate, from a cost/benefit perspective, a certain number of fatalities so that we aren't inconvenienced in our travel. For example, we could drastically reduce the number of traffic fatalities if we reduced the speed limit to some absurdly low number and incurred the cost of a massive escalation in enforcement relating to both speeding and other "bad driver" behaviour. This would clearly reduce fatalities, but we aren't prepared to incur the inconvenience (i.e. the cost) in order to achieve this positive outcome.
Interesting, and somewhat troubling of a thread. I have been a deputy sheriff (in Iowa, and in Arizona) for nearly 20 years, and have found the vast majority of the deputies and officers I have served with to be fair, honest, hard working men and women. I'm not going to address all the negative comments and views many on this thread have presented.
Like all professions there are going to be few bad apples that will make poor and unprofessional decisions. You can't paint everyone, or everything, with a broad brush. Anyone that has not served and worked the highways, streets, ghetto, and other dark places will never really understand the job and what it entails. I would offer the invitation or suggestion to ride along as a civilian observer sometime to get a better understanding of what we do. No one ever likes the police until they need them, and then there are never enough, and they can't be there fast enough. At the same time, not having been there, and not knowing both sides of the story, its difficult to make a judgement on what occurred.
All that being said, I must compliment this fine group once again how we can express our views among our group civilly without flaming one another.
Like all professions there are going to be few bad apples that will make poor and unprofessional decisions. You can't paint everyone, or everything, with a broad brush. Anyone that has not served and worked the highways, streets, ghetto, and other dark places will never really understand the job and what it entails. I would offer the invitation or suggestion to ride along as a civilian observer sometime to get a better understanding of what we do. No one ever likes the police until they need them, and then there are never enough, and they can't be there fast enough. At the same time, not having been there, and not knowing both sides of the story, its difficult to make a judgement on what occurred.
All that being said, I must compliment this fine group once again how we can express our views among our group civilly without flaming one another.
I went on a ride along this summer and it was an absolutely incredible experience. I know a lot of officers enjoy having someone ride along and if you have any interest at all you should reach out to a local department and ask if it is possible (obviously don't do this if you have any warrants out lol).
I haven't read through the entire thread but I will tell you this. Police can no longer search your vehicle during a traffic stop if the stop was for a moving violation. Its called search incident to arrest. If they pull you over because they believe you have drugs in the vehicle from a possible drug deal you just made; then they need to have probable cause (51% proof) you've committed a crime. Even then they will most likely apply for a warrant and detain the driver and vehicle if consent isn't given. Once the search warrant is obtained they will either search on site or have it towed to the police station for the search to be conducted there. Again the stop has to be for the crime of drug use or intent to sell drugs etc to search the vehicle.
If they pull you over for a moving violation (i.e. speeding, fail to yield etc.) they can only penalize you for anything that is in the open (i.e. on the floor, in the seat, on the dash etc.) that they can physically see. They don't have the right to search your vehicle based on a moving violation. You smoking a pipe isn't probable cause that there are drugs (weed) in the vehicle either. The officer would have had to detect an odor of weed, and even then if the initial stop was for the moving violation he still can't search the vehicle without a warrant, because the initial stop was for the moving violation and not possible drug use. Unless you give consent to search the vehicle.
As gecko13 stated there are a few bad seeds out there, but many are just good honest men and women doing their job based on the laws they were sworn to enforce. There are many laws are pretty stupid and lame, but its not the officer that created them, he's just paid to enforce them. As they say, don't kill the messenger.
As for the comments about "speed traps". There is no such thing as a "speed trap". That would mean that the police officer put you personally in a position to speed and then pull you over for doing so and wrote you a ticket. Just like entrapment, the officer puts you in a position to commit a crime and then arrests you for said crime. I don't know any police officer that has ever put a person in a position to speed and then cited them for it. The term "speed trap" was made up by idiots that are dumb enough to speed through an area that is patrolled by radar. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame the men/women doing their job to keep the streets safe. If you speed then you take the risk of getting a ticket. If you get caught then own up to it, don't get pissed off at the police officer because you think you were tricked into speeding. It was your choice to speed, they didn't make you speed.
If they pull you over for a moving violation (i.e. speeding, fail to yield etc.) they can only penalize you for anything that is in the open (i.e. on the floor, in the seat, on the dash etc.) that they can physically see. They don't have the right to search your vehicle based on a moving violation. You smoking a pipe isn't probable cause that there are drugs (weed) in the vehicle either. The officer would have had to detect an odor of weed, and even then if the initial stop was for the moving violation he still can't search the vehicle without a warrant, because the initial stop was for the moving violation and not possible drug use. Unless you give consent to search the vehicle.
As gecko13 stated there are a few bad seeds out there, but many are just good honest men and women doing their job based on the laws they were sworn to enforce. There are many laws are pretty stupid and lame, but its not the officer that created them, he's just paid to enforce them. As they say, don't kill the messenger.
As for the comments about "speed traps". There is no such thing as a "speed trap". That would mean that the police officer put you personally in a position to speed and then pull you over for doing so and wrote you a ticket. Just like entrapment, the officer puts you in a position to commit a crime and then arrests you for said crime. I don't know any police officer that has ever put a person in a position to speed and then cited them for it. The term "speed trap" was made up by idiots that are dumb enough to speed through an area that is patrolled by radar. People need to take responsibility for themselves and not blame the men/women doing their job to keep the streets safe. If you speed then you take the risk of getting a ticket. If you get caught then own up to it, don't get pissed off at the police officer because you think you were tricked into speeding. It was your choice to speed, they didn't make you speed.
- Status