Chab
Just imagine going through a spot check and getting told to pull over on the side only to get arrested for no front plate or expired inspection. WTF!!
Oh well, I figure in about 100 years this country will over govern and destroy itself. Kinda like what happened to Rome.
Doug
From the article
quote:
ÊTexas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding.
the Supreme Court simply ruled that under Texas law the arrest was legal and did not give rise to a situation where she could sue for the arrest.
The also went on to say that the state should be lobbied to change the law, an opinion I agree with.
Keep in mind this is an opinion from north of the border
[ 25 April 2001: Message edited by: poSSum ]
The lady habitually got into run ins with the same officier(like all small towns theres only 1-2 traffic cops). The officer was always citing or warning for the same minor stuff speeding, seat belts, kids not in belts. which leads into one of the kids throwing a toy out a window. So they went back to look for it all the kids were hanging out the windows, and so was she as the looked for the toy. While this going on the cop pulls up and sees all the kids hanging out the window and mom driving eradic(sp?). The officer did what was necessary and arrested the mom for being stupid.
I read that article last night and was surprised at the ruling. While I understand and support that police officers should have the leeway to exercise their discretion in whether or not to arrest someone, Justice Souter's ruling appears to be inconsistent with the findings in the case. The ruling was that the arrest did not violate the victim's 4th ammendment rights against unreasonable siezures but Justice Souter's own comments were that the officer had used extremely poor judgemnent and gratuitously imposed humiliation upon the person arrested. I don't get it. If the officer's judgement was extremely poor and he gratuitously imposed humiliation, then doesn't it follow that the arrest was then unreasonable, as its purpose was, ostensibly, to impose humiliation? Since when are cops allowed to do that? The opponents of this ruling have a valid concern that this opens the door to abuses by the "few" bad apples who don't belong in a uniform. I can only hope that the community's police chief has the integrity to discipline this officer. Justice Souter's comments were pretty strong. The message between the lines is that yeah, the arrest was found to be legally valid, but considering the circumstances, it was Bull%$%$, and that's not what the police ought to be doing.
I have no problem with the arrest if it might save somebody from death or injury. This rulling doesn't change anything that hasn't been going on in Texas for years.
I also don't feel sorry for the woman, especially when she wasn't detained for more than 4 hrs.
[ 25 April 2001: Message edited by: John -- '01 HAWK ]
BTW I don't appreciate your condescending tone. Unless I was a cop how would I know all the details of what is legal & what is not? No one teaches us this & I'm willing to bet most people don't read every single law on the books even though it does apply to us. Now that this has been brought in the open I think it should be changed. There are a lot of things you have no clue about but that doesn't mean I would be condescending to you. You were a cop so you know, that doesn't make you better. So the, "sorry to burst your bubble of ignornace" comment was a STUPID thing to say.
[ 25 April 2001: Message edited by: SStylez ]
Steve
Steve
P.S.- Abuses undoubtedly occur in police work as they do in every field, but making it more difficult for the people that allow you to sleep safely in your home to do their jobs isn't a wise solution. That's like taking away all high performance cars because some fools operate them recklessly.
P.P.S.- While we're on this topic, let me explain why it's vitally important that police have this ability to arrest for even the most minor of offenses and why the US Supreme Court made the RIGHT and not the wrong decision.
I'll give you a scenario: Did any of you see the Nicholas Cage film, "8mm?" It's a very disturbing film about a group of sexual predators that would get young girls, then sexual abuse, torture, and "snuff" them while filming their atrocities. They'd then sell these films to their sick, wealthy clients. Ok, so you as a law enforcement officer/agency become aware of similar activities, but you don't have enough evidence to get a search or arrest warrant to stop these fiends. In the meantime, their list of victims continues to grow. What do you do? You observe their habits, see where they go and when. Maybe you get a tip about when they transport the tapes. Maybe not. In any case what you then do is lay for them, stop them for ANY motor vehicle violation (you can almost always find one if you follow someone long enough), then arrest for any kind of BS violation like not wearing their seat belt. Once the arrest is made, then you have legal access to their car, you search it and find evidence of their more serious crimes (the tortures, murders, etc) and you break up the ring.
Did this Texas officer abuse this right? I think, unquestionably, he did. I also think this was a very isolated incident and that it rarely occurs. How many of us, after all, have been handcuffed and arrest after being stopped for a traffic violation remembering that the police officer COULD HAVE done so? Probably none of us. So, yes, the Texas officer was wrong, but because of this to then take this right, this tool, from all of law enforcement would have been a wrong and dangerous thing to do and the US Supreme Court was wise enough to see that.
[ 26 April 2001: Message edited by: XTrooper ]
quote:
Originally posted by XTrooper:
That's like taking away all high performance cars because some fools operate them recklessly.
WOW!!! Does that ever hit the nail on the head! Well said X! In today's environment it could happen in a nation near you!
Having said all that, I don't think Steve's message was condenscending either. Ignorance is not a comment about someone's intellectual ability. It merely means you don't have knowledge about something. If you call someone who is a genuis but know nothing about cars, ignorant to car stuff, does that make him stupid?? Of course not, Steve was just pointing out that we don't know the law.
Please don't say things that make me have to agree with Steve, it is too hard on me!
It's bad enough to be victimized by the robbers, rapists, and other assorted bad guys out there. At least you can act in self defense to protect yourself and your loved ones. It's another matter entirely to be treated this way by people who supposed to be there to protect you from this stuff. When it's an officer out of line, you're up against someone with powers and authority and a legal system that can turn your whole life updside down on that officer's whim. What's to stop that officer from lying in court to cover his butt? I readily concede that these are isolated incidents, but people will not tolerate it any more than you would have tolerated having your lawful orders casually disregarded when you were on the force.
Don't misunderstand me. I'm in no way trying to light a fire here. I'm simply offering a different perspective. As a trooper, you had a tough job and you and your fellow officers had to watch out for one another. I have absolutely no problem with that at all. But it seems to me that there should be some mechanism to give a bad cop a kick in the butt when they step out of line. This was a court victory on the issue of police authority and it should have been. The police need to have the discretion to decide whether or not to arrest. However, if I was Chief of Police in that town, that officer would have a few things to answer for. Peace.
I appreciate your intelligent and well written post. Further, I agree wholeheartedly with it in its entirety. I would point out that in a good organization there is a mechanism for dealing with the bad apples that unfortunately at times infiltrate the ranks. Even before that, there is, or should be, a vigorous and thorough enlistment process so that the majority of the unfit are weeded out before they ever wear the uniform. After that, there is a set of rules and regulations which must be abided by along with strict penalties for failing to do so. The organization in which I spent my career, the NJSP, conducted courts martial every week for violations of our "Rules and Regulations" and the punishments meted out were more often than not severe. I, and most of my fellow troopers, always accepted this situation as part of the price of being a member of a quasi-military organization where so much responsibility was entrusted in us. Most of us fulfilled that trust and responsibility as embodied in our motto, "Honor, Duty, Fidelity."
Steve
[ 26 April 2001: Message edited by: XTrooper ]
quote:
Originally posted by DanA_F99_1977:Please don't say things that make me have to agree with Steve, it is too hard on me!
Life can be sooooooooo cruel at times. 
Thanks for your comments. I agree completely. The front-end screening process is the place to catch 'em if they're not a fit for the role. The standards have to be high and the folks have to be up to it. You're right...it is part of the price to be paid for the responsibility you have and the ones that don't hold to your standards raise the price higher...
PoppyZ28,
I don't think that people are missing the point so much as we have been discussing a punishment that should fit the crime. I agree with you that if you break the law and get caught, you should be a grown-up and pay the consequences. Some crimes are obviously more severe than others, and where arrest is required as a matter of public safety and restoring order, some "infractions" are minor enough that they truly don't merit the harshness of being arrested.
Andy
