Login with Facebook
 ADVANCED
American Fork DUI Checkpoint
View Latest Posts in This Forum or All Forums
   Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4
Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
 
 
By RockyMtnTed
Aug 2, 2012
Keenan Waeschle wrote:
talking on a cellphoneisn't anymore dangerous than talking with a passenger


That is simply not true. Keep telling yourself that but it has been proven to be false many many times.

FLAG
By Unassigned User
Aug 2, 2012
RockyMtnTed wrote:
That is simply not true. Keep telling yourself that but it has been proven to be false many many times.


Hmm I never saw anything having to do with talking on the phone and its dangers. What I understand is that the phone is a distraction, it starts ringing you look down to answer it, you need to make a call you look down to do so. However the laws are stupid because with my bluetooth in I am still looking down at my phone to answer and still "distracted" while talking on it. Prove to me that bluetooth is safer and I will believe these laws.

That being said I don't use my phone while driving unless it is a emergency. When I was dumb and young I was texting and driving and nearly took a header off of a cliff on a mountain road, luckily there was a big gravel turnout so I just spun my car around a couple times and finally got it stopped. That cured me.

FLAG
By T.C.
From Whittier, NC
Aug 2, 2012
As a side note to the traffic stop video above, notice that the car was stopped leaving the city, not going to the city, which was on the other side of the highway. Clearly, this cop is after money not drugs, drugs come in, not out. Money goes out, money gets confiscated and used by the police, drugs get confiscated and destroyed. If the cops were actually interested in the drugs, cars on the other side of the road would be stopped. Classic..

FLAG
By John Badila
From Salt Lake City, UT
Aug 5, 2012
John at the summit of Pfeifferhorn
Talking on the phone, or even just listening to the phone, even with a hands-free device is categorically different from talking to a passenger. It is much more dangerous, and may be equivalent to driving drunk. This has been demonstrated by numerous studies. Here are two of them:
distraction.gov/download/resea...

cmu.edu/news/archive/2008/Marc...

Obviously, texting is even worse.

FLAG
By Carl Sherven
Aug 5, 2012








edited to put in part 2 of 2

FLAG
By thomas bailey
From Lehi, Utah
Aug 23, 2012
Ya, this was such a bunch of crap, the cops set this checkpoint up every year, same place. Funny thing is, I rolled thru this violation of my 4th ammendmant rights at about 7:00pm, and I was rollin sooooo dirty, expired tags, invalid registration, slightly impaired, armed (legaly), and I drove thru after a quick Q&A, go figure!?!?

FLAG
By Keny Glasscock
From Salt Lake City
Aug 23, 2012
You must be so proud.

FLAG
By Scott McMahon
From Boulder, CO
Aug 23, 2012
Bocan
>


Man I wish I had the balls to pull that off!! Sad thing is as Americans we SHOULD!! We are brainwashed into thinking we will benefit form cooperation, but who really has had a better experience because they cooperated?

Not me.

FLAG
 
By matt davies
Aug 23, 2012
Cooperation with the cops is called evidence.
"Anything you say can, AND WILL, be used against you.

Learned the hard way.

FLAG
By Jon Zucco
From Denver, CO
Aug 23, 2012
yaak crack Red Rock Canyon, NV
This is ridiculous. I spent a couple months out in AF a few years ago. Never saw a cop once. In fact, one of the reasons it was so nice to go there was the peace and quiet freedom you'd get while camping out so close to the crags.

I am not in favor of driving under the influence or anything, but I do enjoy knocking back a cold one while at the crag. I'm afraid that this type of check point might inadvertently prevent people from packing out used beer bottles after a day or weekend of climbing.

Unless there are appropriately place recycling/trash receptacles, I weep for the future of AF's landscape.

Also; yes, there have been more and more climbers these days. Perhaps this is the cause of all the police attention to the canyon. Haven't been to AF in years, but if Utah is anything like Colorado, crags have become increasingly crowded with disrespectful weekend warrior types who leave the climbing areas polluted with dog shit and trash...etc etc... Looks like it's time to move up to WY.. Or maybe it's too late for that too...

Blegh.

FLAG
By mustardtiger
Sep 13, 2012
IDK
So I just happened to be scrolling through the forums on here and found this little thread. I am quite entertained by all the law professionals in this thread posting about their rights. First off police have the right to search you and your vehicle for weapons which will lead to them finding the drugs unless you know what your doing. This search is called a Terry search and is used to make sure that the person being pulled over doesn't have a gun readily available. This means the cops can search your glove box, center console, under the seats, etc. They cannot however search your trunk or any area that is not easy to get to for the driver. My boy Jay-z made the same mistake many other people make as far as the warrants go "And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that" That is simply not true. In no state do the police need a warrant to search a car, all they need is prob. cause. Now if you are looking for loopholes your best way to not get caught is to keep your drugs in the trunk, refuse consent and hopee that the canine unit is to far away to get there fast enough becuase it is illegal for the officer to keep you there for a prolonged amount of time and believe it or not most courts will suppress evidence if they watch the dashboard cams and see that the officer had you pulled over for 30 minutes while he waited for a dog.

Just to validate myself I have a degree in criminal justice and am in the process of getting my masters in criminal justice.

FLAG
By kBobby
From Spokane, WA
Sep 13, 2012
mustardtiger wrote:
Just to validate myself I have a degree in criminal justice and am in the process of getting my masters in criminal justice.

Do you feel validated?

FLAG
By ChrisV
From Denver
Sep 13, 2012
mustardtiger wrote:
So I just happened to be scrolling through the forums on here and found this little thread. I am quite entertained by all the law professionals in this thread posting about their rights. First off police have the right to search you and your vehicle for weapons which will lead to them finding the drugs unless you know what your doing. This search is called a Terry search and is used to make sure that the person being pulled over doesn't have a gun readily available. This means the cops can search your glove box, center console, under the seats, etc. They cannot however search your trunk or any area that is not easy to get to for the driver. My boy Jay-z made the same mistake many other people make as far as the warrants go "And I know my rights so you gon' need a warrant for that" That is simply not true. In no state do the police need a warrant to search a car, all they need is prob. cause. Now if you are looking for loopholes your best way to not get caught is to keep your drugs in the trunk, refuse consent and hopee that the canine unit is to far away to get there fast enough becuase it is illegal for the officer to keep you there for a prolonged amount of time and believe it or not most courts will suppress evidence if they watch the dashboard cams and see that the officer had you pulled over for 30 minutes while he waited for a dog. Just to validate myself I have a degree in criminal justice and am in the process of getting my masters in criminal justice.



Hit the books again mustardtiger. A Terry Seach is a search incident to arrest; a stop and frisk if you will. In a legal traffic stop, officers may frisk the individual if there is reasonable suspicion the individual is armed and dangerous. Police MAY NOT search your vehicle without probable cause or consent.

FLAG
By Eric G.
From Saratoga Springs, NY
Sep 13, 2012
ChrisV wrote:
A Terry Seach is a search incident to arrest


No, it isn't. Two different things. Hit the books.

FLAG
By mustardtiger
Sep 13, 2012
IDK
The Terry Vs. Ohio actually did determine that a person is allowed to be frisked without being arrested and that the car may also be frisked for weapons. "Terry frisk is limited to accessible places a weapon could be hidden, the trunk is definitely off limits at this point." This is from the Saint Louis School of Law.

slu.edu/Documents/law/Law%20Jo...

Yes the Search is meant for weapons but if drugs or any other illegal object is found in the car it is still legally obtained evidence.

If a police officer really wants to search your car they can do it just about anytime they want. If you are going 1 mph over the speed limit you can be arrested and your car will be impounded which then allows the police to search everything in the car.
Do I agree with this? No but it is the way things are today.

FLAG
By cdec
From SLC and Moab, ut
Sep 13, 2012
So if the glove box is locked is it exempt from a Terry search? Would there need to be a warrant to get into it if nothing was found while rolling the car? Road tripping this weekend in a subaru, no trunk, want to be reasonably sure of my options.

FLAG
 
By mustardtiger
Sep 13, 2012
IDK
No. I have never heard of a case where a warrant is issued for a car. Normally the only way a car is going to get a full search is if there is consent, prob. cause, or the car is impounded. I am not real sure on a locked because I don't know if that is considered readily available.

Most people really screw up by having some let overs laying around or something visible. If the cop can see it or it is very obvious that you have it then your screwed. My advice is always say no to a search of any kind and light up before getting in your car and keep your stuff in the trunk inside a backpack or something. I have been pulled over around 21 times and refused consent 3 times. To this day I have never been ticketed one time. If your on your home turf and you have clearly done nothing wrong then have some fun with the cop. I have messed with a cop a few times and usually they get a good chuckle.

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Sep 13, 2012
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
Mustard. When you say"police have the right" you are beginning with a fundamental misunderstanding of law. Your statements above are misleading too. If a cop doesn't have specific and articulable evidence or probable cause they have no rights. Yes they may break the rules. But armed with a little knowledge you can put many situations to rest.

In this country, the only rights you have are the ones you know you have and are willing to defend.

FLAG
By mustardtiger
Sep 13, 2012
IDK
Greg D wrote:
Mustard. When you say"police have the right" you are beginning with a fundamental misunderstanding of law. Your statements above are misleading too. If a cop doesn't have specific and articulable evidence or probable cause they have no rights. Yes they may break the rules. But armed with a little knowledge you can put many situations to rest. In this country, the only rights you have are the ones you know you have and are willing to defend.


I apologize if I worded that wrong. I am by no means a lawyer and I do not intend to be one. I have just had this stuff pounded into my head for 5 years now so when I see an argument like this I cant help but add my two cents. I don't understand what you mean by police don't have rights. This conversation seems a lot like the "you have the right to deny a Sobriety test or breathalyzer" conversation. In that case you do indeed have the right to deny it but once you are arrested they can and WILL test you when you get processed. Cops know their rights and civilians rights much better than most people so they are able to find ways of legally getting done whatever it is they want to do. Unless you are handicapped and unable to stand and you refuse consent then your car will be searched if it is that important to them.

FLAG
By Greg D
From Here
Sep 14, 2012
Out of the blue.  Photo by Mike W.
mustardtiger wrote:
I apologize if I worded that wrong. I am by no means a lawyer and I do not intend to be one. I have just had this stuff pounded into my head for 5 years now so when I see an argument like this I cant help but add my two cents. I don't understand what you mean by police don't have rights. This conversation seems a lot like the "you have the right to deny a Sobriety test or breathalyzer" conversation. In that case you do indeed have the right to deny it but once you are arrested they can and WILL test you when you get processed. Cops know their rights and civilians rights much better than most people so they are able to find ways of legally getting done whatever it is they want to do. Unless you are handicapped and unable to stand and you refuse consent then your car will be searched if it is that important to them.


Again, nice try by someone whom presented their qualifications. To say they can and will test you is wrong again. You don,t ever have to aquiesse to a blood or breath test. There are consequences. But you can still refuse. Perhaps your teacher works for law enforcement.

FLAG


Follow replies to this topic? Notify me at the top of web site.
1

Email me.
Page 4 of 4.  <<First   <Prev   2  3  4