|
In response to
"NWBR: The difference between random traffic stops and your hypothetical grow op search is that the traffic stop is happening on public property"
by
Reagen
|
Okay, but let's look at the situation being discussed.
|
Random stop occurs. Not because I was speeding. Not because I was swerving. Just because the guy came up behind me, thought he should do a check and pulled me over.
He then speaks to me and I present no evidence of being drunk - because if I do, then there's no problem going further, right?.
Still, he decides I'm the guy to check, so off I go to the cruiser to blow.
Tell me:
A) No matter the results, what public actions was I taking that suggested I should have at least thirty minutes taken up of my time?
B) Why shouldn't there be some test for the police to have to proceed to more further testing.
The public vs. private property argument really doesn't hold water, because the police can enter any private home with a warrent - they just have to prove to a judge that there was a test applied that merited the search.
I just want a test.
This type of legal change to to prevent breathalyzer results being tossed from court. My question, how many of those cases actualy happen? Let's know the scope of the problem before "fixing" it.
(PS: I also believe there'll be abuse by the cops. Look at this week's Jaffer case as one example.)
|
Responses:
|
Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.
|
|
