ticket for no seatbelt!!?

[Camaro Dom]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

if we get nationalized healthcare i wonder how long its gonna be b4 tobacco gets made illegal, and dangerous sports, and all that other stuff. People need to be responsible for themselves. I dont want to pay for a lifelong smoker's medical bills the same way you dont wanna pay for my hockey concussions and stitches. i'm dead serious, if hillary becomes prez, i'll leave to canadia. its only like 30 miles from here anyways.

and Belle, that sentence made sense b/c i'm making the point that i can do with my body as i please but the government wants to try and restrict me now wiht seatbelt tickets and whatnot. those same politicians support abortion too, which is what i dont understand. They try to preseve life by forcing us to wear our belts, but they deem it OK to destroy life right when it begins

[Belle]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

if we get nationalized healthcare i wonder how long its gonna be b4 tobacco gets made illegal, and dangerous sports, and all that other stuff. People need to be responsible for themselves. I dont want to pay for a lifelong smoker's medical bills the same way you dont wanna pay for my hockey concussions and stitches. i'm dead serious, if hillary becomes prez, i'll leave to canadia. its only like 30 miles from here anyways.

and Belle, that sentence made sense b/c i'm making the point that i can do with my body as i please but the government wants to try and restrict me now wiht seatbelt tickets and whatnot. those same politicians support abortion too, which is what i dont understand. They try to preseve life by forcing us to wear our belts, but they deem it OK to destroy life right when it begins

Ok, now that I go back and read it, it did make sense.... sorry... way too muchcold medicine flowing through me right now, lol

[bah]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

its not about protecting my own life. Its about being FORCED to protect my own life. Really, its just another excuse for a cop to pull so he has a "justifiable cause" that he searched your car. Slowly but surely we trade away every little bit of liberty we have for the illusion of security. If i die cuz i didnt wear my seatbelt, thats MY problem. Not the governments. Me driving w/o a seatbelt wont affect anyone but me. My flying body wont cause lung cancer in standers-by, and it wont cause me to kill other people for money like narcotics can... its a PURELY personal thing. the government has no business telling me what i can and cant do with my body. The funny thing is, usually the people in favor of these laws are the same people who also claim "freedom of choice" for a woman and her unborn child...
You guys are right, its stupid, its easy and its painless to put on your belt. Like i said, i do because i'd like to live for a long while, but if i forget, I dont want Big Brother taxing my a$$ for so they can buy another $400 toilet seat.

It's the government's job to protect it's citizens, the government is doing its job so stop *****ing

[Fireball27]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

if we get nationalized healthcare i wonder how long its gonna be b4 tobacco gets made illegal, and dangerous sports, and all that other stuff. People need to be responsible for themselves. I dont want to pay for a lifelong smoker's medical bills the same way you dont wanna pay for my hockey concussions and stitches. i'm dead serious, if hillary becomes prez, i'll leave to canadia. its only like 30 miles from here anyways.

True, if we end up with nationalized healthcare then we'll end up a nannystate just like England. And nobody wants that... right now its fast becoming THE hardest place in the world to drive.

[Camarorulz]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

Originally posted by Fireball27
Hm, i've heard somewhere tho that if you decline to have your car searched then that gives the cops "probable cause" because you're acting "suspicious"...

Didn't I say I could back that up?
If you read nothing else, read the paragraph in which I have bolded one sentence.

http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/consti...ment04/03.html

Vehicular Searches.--In the early days of the automobile the Court created an exception for searches of vehicles, holding in Carroll v. United States55 that vehicles may be searched without warrants if the officer undertaking the search has probable cause to believe that the vehicle contains contraband. The Court explained that the mobility of vehicles would allow them to be quickly moved from the jurisdiction if time were taken to obtain a warrant.56

Initially the Court limited Carroll's reach, holding impermissible the warrantless seizure of a parked automobile merely because it is movable, and indicating that vehicles may be stopped only while moving or reasonably contemporaneously with movement.57 Also, the Court ruled that the search must be reasonably contemporaneous with the stop, so that it was not permissible to remove the vehicle to the stationhouse for a warrantless search at the convenience of the police.58

The Court next developed a reduced privacy rationale to supplement the mobility rationale, explaining that ''the configuration, use, and regulation of automobiles often may dilute the reasonable expectation of privacy that exists with respect to differently situated property.''59 '''One has a lesser expectation of privacy in a motor vehicle because its function is transportation and it seldom serves as one's residence or as the repository of personal effects. . . . It travels public thoroughfares where both its occupants and its contents are in plain view.'''60 While motor homes do serve as residences and as repositories for personal effects, and while their contents are often shielded from public view, the Court extended the automobile exception to them as well, holding that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in a mobile home parked in a parking lot and licensed for vehicular travel, hence ''readily mobile.''61


The reduced expectancy concept has broadened police powers to conduct automobile searches without warrants, but they still must have probable cause to search a vehicle62 and they may not make random stops of vehicles on the roads, but instead must base stops of individual vehicles on probable cause or some ''articulable and reasonable suspicion''Supp.5 of traffic or safety violation or some other criminal activity.Supp.6 By contrast, fixed-checkpoint stops in the absence of any individualized suspicion have been upheld.64 Once police have validly stopped a vehicle, they may also, based on articulable facts warranting a reasonable belief that weapons may be present, conduct a Terry-type protective search of those portions of the passenger compartment in which a weapon could be placed or hidden.65 And, in the absence of such reasonable suspicion as to weapons, police may seize contraband and suspicious items ''in plain view'' inside the passenger compartment.66

Once police have probable cause to believe there is contraband in a vehicle, they may remove it from the scene to the stationhouse in order to conduct a search, without thereby being required to obtain a warrant. ''[T]he justification to conduct such a warrantless search does not vanish once the car has been immobilized; nor does it depend upon a reviewing court's assessment of the likelihood in each particular case that the car would have been driven away, or that its contents would have been tampered with, during the period required for the police to obtain a warrant.''67 The Justices were evenly divided, however, on the propriety of warrantless seizure of an arrestee's automobile from a public parking lot several hours after his arrest, its transportation to a police impoundment lot, and the taking of tire casts and exterior paint scrapings.68 Because of the lessened expectation of privacy, inventory searches of impounded automobiles are justifiable in order to protect public safety and the owner's property, and any evidence of criminal activity discovered in the course of the inventories is admissible in court.69


It is not lawful for the police in undertaking a warrantless search of an automobile to extend the search to the passengers therein.70 But because passengers in an automobile have no reasonable expectation of privacy in the interior area of the car, a warrantless search of the glove compartment and the spaces under the seats, which turned up evidence implicating the passengers, invaded no Fourth Amendment interest of the passengers.71 Luggage and other closed containers found in automobiles may also be subjected to warrantless searches based on probable cause, the same rule now applying whether the police have probable cause to search only the containers72 or whether they have probable cause to search the automobile for something capable of being held in the container.73

There is no legal basis for a search based purely on suspicion. There has to be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in possession of contraband or weapons in order for the search to be legally valid. The contraband has to be "in plain view" in order for the search to be valid.

[Fireball27]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

Didn't I say I could back that up?
If you read nothing else, read the paragraph in which I have bolded one sentence.

There is no legal basis for a search based purely on suspicion. There has to be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in possession of contraband or weapons in order for the search to be legally valid. The contraband has to be "in plain view" in order for the search to be valid.

I don't remember saying you couldn't?

I just said i "heard", because, someone i know once got in an accident and the cop asked to search the car, the person declined, and the cop did anyway. He found marijuana.

[vanbibber]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

well... lol this thread got pulled 5 ways to sunday...

carry on.

[rt1]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

I don't remember saying you couldn't?

I just said i "heard", because, someone i know once got in an accident and the cop asked to search the car, the person declined, and the cop did anyway. He found marijuana.

I bet that's one of the loopholes. The cop could possibly use the accident as reason for the search. Like he was trying to find the cause of the accident. Just a guess, or maybe the accident opened the glovebox, and it was in plain view.

Rob

[Fbody3400]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

well then you dont watch much tv when youre in st louis, cause they constantly run commercials saying they will pull you over for seatbelt violations.

honestly, why not wear it? i dont get it. you wont get a ticket, and you wont die in a car accident. its a win/win

really though, the whole seat belt point isnt worth discussing. its one of those clear cut issues in life. if you dont wear one, youre a fool, end of discussion.

Oh I do wear my seatbelt. I see no point in not wearing it.

[rt1]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

There is no legal basis for a search based purely on suspicion. There has to be reasonable suspicion that the suspect is in possession of contraband or weapons in order for the search to be legally valid. The contraband has to be "in plain view" in order for the search to be valid.

Where did you get that from? If there is contraband in plain view, then the cop doesn't need to ask for consent to search. WTF is a "plain view search"?

Rob

[Belle]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

I don't remember saying you couldn't?

I just said i "heard", because, someone i know once got in an accident and the cop asked to search the car, the person declined, and the cop did anyway. He found marijuana.

Without knowing all the details it would be hard to know why the cop searched anyway, but when they are dealing with young kids they do stuff like that sometimes knowing that the kid doesn't always know any better, or if your friend had the scent of weed on him from smoking it that would be enough to search.

[Fireball27]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

Without knowing all the details it would be hard to know why the cop searched anyway, but when they are dealing with young kids they do stuff like that sometimes knowing that the kid doesn't always know any better, or if your friend had the scent of weed on him from smoking it that would be enough to search.

Yea, i dunno the details either... just that this guy said that he "gave" the cop "probable cause" by saying no. Seems aweful catch 22ish to me, but theres probably more too it.

[Belle]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

Yea, i dunno the details either... just that this guy said that he "gave" the cop "probable cause" by saying no. Seems aweful catch 22ish to me, but theres probably more too it.

You never really know unless you are there. I don't think just saying no is suspicious enough though... I think there has to be something else. Although this could be a state to state thing and that's why no one is agreeing. Maybe the laws are all different

[Camarorulz]

Re: ticket for no seatbelt!!?

Originally posted by rt1
Where did you get that from? If there is contraband in plain view, then the cop doesn't need to ask for consent to search. WTF is a "plain view search"?

That's exactly what the article says, and that's exactly what the Supreme Court said. The only ways a cop can LEGALLY search is if there is (A) reasonable suspicion that the suspect is containing a weapon (B) Contraband in "plain view" or (C) if the cop asks to search and the suspect agrees. This last one is debatable, though, simply because many people don't know they have the right to decline a search.

Your question doesn't make sense. If something is in "plain view" it is in "plain view".... how much more simple do you want it to be.

here is the legal definition of reasonable suspicion:

reasonable suspicion
: an objectively justifiable suspicion that is based on specific facts or circumstances and that justifies stopping and sometimes searching (as by frisking) a person thought to be involved in criminal activity at the time
Note: A police officer stopping a person must be able to point to specific facts or circumstances even though the level of suspicion need not rise to that of the belief that is supported by probable cause. A reasonable suspicion is more than a hunch

Notice at the end how it says that it's much more than a hunch.....no loopholes there...if the cop just went on a "hunch" or his "gut" then the search isn't valid, even if contraband is found.