2022-23 NOMINATIONS: "Cone of Shame"

[SubGod22]

You are probably right, we probably shouldn't, but it's unfortunately a MUCH larger waste of time if you say no. They'll just make you sit there while they intimidate you and try to figure out what they want to do about it.

They can't make you wait beyond a reasonable time to complete their purpose for the stop. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. The days of sitting and making you wait half an hour to bring out a drug dog or something are gone. They have to complete their business and let you go or risk facing a lawsuit that the civilian will almost always win, and will most likely get settled out of court as case law on such issues is pretty well established at this point.

[Kel Varnsen]

Along those lines, I've always felt that guilty people need good lawyers, and innocent people REALLY need good lawyers.

[Kung Wu]

They can't make you wait beyond a reasonable time to complete their purpose for the stop. The Supreme Court has ruled on that. The days of sitting and making you wait half an hour to bring out a drug dog or something are gone. They have to complete their business and let you go or risk facing a lawsuit that the civilian will almost always win, and will most likely get settled out of court as case law on such issues is pretty well established at this point.

Interesting, I'll google that when I take a break.

[SubGod22]

Interesting, I'll google that when I take a break.

Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972

American Bar Association - Supreme Court Finds Prolonged Traffic Stop Unconstitutional

In Rodriguez v. United States, No. 13-9972 (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court held that, absent reasonable suspicion, unnecessarily prolonging a traffic stop can constitute an unreasonable seizure. In a 6–3 majority opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court rejected the Eighth Circuit’s holding that a de minimis extension of a traffic stop could be justified under the Fourth Amendment.
.....
Describing a traffic stop as analogous to a Terry stop, the Court held that the tolerable duration of a traffic stop is only as long as is necessary to complete the tasks associated with the traffic infraction. Such tasks include checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, checking the car’s registration and proof of insurance, and ultimately issuing a traffic ticket when necessary.

[molly jabali]

Because he has rights and doesn't have to. I have nothing to hide in my vehicle but I'm never giving permission to police to search it. Borrowing a vehicle? Even more reason to not let them search it.

I know, most go through life with the thought process if you have nothing to hide, let the cops do whatever they want. I go through life knowing that we all have rights and the cops aren't entitled to search anything without probably cause or a warrant. And the odds may be slim, but we've seen cops plant drugs and such just in order to make an arrest. So I'm not going to take the chance that one of those types are involved.

Cops can ask. We don't have to say yes, and really shouldn't. More often than not it's a waste of everyone's time and nothing more than a power trip to show who's boss.

I agree...If I was a man of color, I don't know HOW I would choose here....

[Topshock]

You are probably right, we probably shouldn't, but it's unfortunately a MUCH larger waste of time if you say no. They'll just make you sit there while they intimidate you and try to figure out what they want to do about it.

That doesn't matter, people have to defend their rights and stand up to them.

[Atxshoxfan]

According to the article, it sounds like he allegedly rolled through a stop at an intersection.

I want to know why he allowed them to search the car. A simple traffic stop like that isn't reason enough for them to just go in without permission.

I don't think you can deny a search since when on public streets or property.
I've had police search my car when pulled over for speeding in Waco.
I guess that was for driving while white?

[SubGod22]

I don't think you can deny a search since when on public streets or property.
I've had police search my car when pulled over for speeding in Waco.
I guess that was for driving while white?

You can absolutely not consent to a search. Both of yourself and property. Just because your car is on a public street, does not strip you of your fourth amendment rights. They must have probable cause or a warrant to search without your consent.

[Kung Wu]

That doesn't matter, people have to defend their rights and stand up to them.

It's all good in theory, but I gotta take a crap!!! My bowels ain't waitin' on my rights man! I'm pinching ass cheeks here man!!!

[Stickboy46]

Wonder if the car was "borrowed" from a booster ...... Maybe someone hadn't caught up to the times that they could just give it to him outright!

[Ted Lasso's Neighbor]

Beyond Meat’s Doug Ramsey Arrested for Allegedly Biting Man’s Nose After Arkansas Win - https://bleacherreport.com/articles/...r-arkansas-win

The chief operating officer of Beyond Meat was arrested Saturday after allegedly biting a man's nose in a parking garage near Razorback Stadium in Fayetteville, Arkansas.

According to C.C. McCandless of KNWA/FOX24, Doug Ramsey was charged with terroristic threatening and third-degree battery.

The alleged incident occurred after Arkansas' 38-27 win over Missouri State.

Per McCandless, Ramsey was attempting to exit the parking garage when the driver of a Subaru made contact with his vehicle's front tire on the passenger side. Witnesses said Ramsey then exited his car and "punched through the back windshield of the Subaru." That led to a physical altercation between Ramsey and the Subaru driver, during which he allegedly bit the person's nose.

[Kung Wu]

That COO is snotty, but he has a nose for anger management.

[Atxshoxfan]

You can absolutely not consent to a search. Both of yourself and property. Just because your car is on a public street, does not strip you of your forth amendment rights. They must have probably cause or a warrant to search without your consent.

Ok, I believe you but I've just never really looked into that matter since I've never had to worry about having something illegal in my car. But the fact that cops searched my car after a speeding violation (me being white ) kind of means that it happens to us white folk too. I have no idea what they were looking for, but I assume they had a reason based on the vehicle I was driving be reported for something or some other reason. I really didn't care, I cooperated and it delayed me about 5 minutes and I was on the road.

Give the cops crap for doing their job, would only delay you and cost police hours that could be better spent on tracking down the real bad guy.

[Topshock]

Anybody that thinks driving black doesn't result in more harassment and illegal searches than driving white is beyond delusional.

[SubGod22]

Ok, I believe you but I've just never really looked into that matter since I've never had to worry about having something illegal in my car. But the fact that cops searched my car after a speeding violation (me being white ) kind of means that it happens to us white folk too. I have no idea what they were looking for, but I assume they had a reason based on the vehicle I was driving be reported for something or some other reason. I really didn't care, I cooperated and it delayed me about 5 minutes and I was on the road.

Give the cops crap for doing their job, would only delay you and cost police hours that could be better spent on tracking down the real bad guy.

They ask because they're hoping to find something. If you're willing to give up your rights, that's your choice. And if the cops want to waste more of their time by trying to strip me of my rights, that's on them, and taxpayers should be angry that they waste so much time harassing people for all of their fishing expeditions. They simply take advantage of people either not knowing their rights or knowing that they make people uncomfortable and nervous and that they're more likely to say yes.

Most of their searchers are simply hoping to find something they can tack onto your simple moving violation. They have no real reason or cause. If they thought your car was involved in something and that's why they wanted to search it, they would or should articulate that.

I care more about my rights that officers wasting their time. And to be completely honest, the small town cops I talk to on a semi-regular basis agree with me. I've had a number of conversations with those that I know about things like this. I've asked a number of questions over the years from those cops that I trust and every one of them has talked about the importance of rights and for us to understand them. I don't fault police for asking, because they can. I have issue when they threaten people when they say no, because at that point they're stepping over the line and trying to intimidate people out of their rights or the cops simply don't understand or care about the Constitution. Some of those exist.

In the case of Bates, at least from what we know, they had no reason to expect anything and he had every right to decline. He didn't and now he has this legal issue that never should have been.

I know it's expecting too much, but I think our schools need to do a better job of teaching kids what their rights are and how they actually work, but most of them are glossed over outside of the first two.

And as I said before, I have nothing to hide in my car or my home, but I'm never consenting to a search of either without a warrant.