[TheeBadOne]

Pitt. fireman is latest DPS pot arrestee

A Pittsburgh firefighter was arrested Thursday by state police, charged with transporting 184 pounds of marijuana.
Fletcher Jones, 32, was stopped by an officer with the Arizona Department of Public Safety just after midnight on Interstate 40 approximately seven miles east of Flagstaff for an improper lane change, according to information released by an official at the DPS Flagstaff office.

DPS Det. Jay Atwater said that the officer approached the rented 2003 Buick LeSabre being driven by Jones and began to ask Jones questions. The answers to those questions led the officer to ask Jones if he could search the vehicle, Atwater said.

During the search, the officer discovered 184 pounds of marijuana in the trunk of the car. The marijuana was inside duffel bags.

After his arrest, Atwater said Jones told officers that he was traveling from Tucson to Pittsburgh.

"In the vehicle, the officer noticed a complete set of fireman's turnout gear," Atwater said. "It seems Mr. Jones is a Pittsburgh fireman."

A deputy fire chief for the Pittsburgh Fire Bureau confirmed a Fletcher Jones, same age, became a firefighter in 1993, according to reports received by a reporter with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The deputy fire chief acknowledged awareness of the Flagstaff arrest.

Jones told officers he picked up the marijuana from a third party, who had secured the marijuana from a Mexican organization in Tucson, Atwater said.

"He was a mule," Atwater said.

Jones was booked into the Coconino County Jail on possession of marijuana for sale and transportation of marijuana for sale.

According to information from the Metro anti-drug task force in Flagstaff, marijuana sells for approximately $650 to $700 a pound in northern Arizona. DPS information has marijuana going for $400 to $500 a pound in source cities such as Tucson or Phoenix.

But as the marijuana moves farther east, its price increases -- up to $1,400 to $1,500 a pound on the East Coast -- according to DPS information. The reason for the increase centers on transportation costs and increased exposure to risk of getting caught.

So far this week, five people have been arrested and 871 pounds of marijuana worth approximately $1.22 million on the East Coast has been seized in three separate drug busts by DPS officers in Flagstaff.

DPS officials attribute the increase in marijuana seizures this week to the harvest season for marijuana. October is the height of the season, which begins in September and runs through March.

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=75100
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Just when I thought nothing suprised me anymore! I wonder if this fellow will get union respresentation? Does he deserve union representation? :confused:

[Augustwest]

If I'uz drivin' around with that much reefer in the trunk, I'd be goldurn sure I obeyed all the traffic laws...

[vrwc]

ha inproper lane change bull crap, as an ex leo i can tell you that is a line of crap, rental car+midnight+Interstate+bored trooper=searches
which i think is wrong, thats one of the reasons i am no longer a leo i dont like being a part of the police state (disclamer i am not anti-leo, about 85% of leo's are good people, its just the police state nannys are the ones who want to be at a desk making policy, instead of behind the wheel serving the community

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by vrwc

ha inproper lane change bull crap, as an ex leo i can tell you that is a line of crap, rental car+midnight+Interstate+bored trooper=searches
which i think is wrong, thats one of the reasons i am no longer a leo i dont like being a part of the police state (disclamer i am not anti-leo, about 85% of leo's are good people, its just the police state nannys are the ones who want to be at a desk making policy, instead of behind the wheel serving the community

"as an ex leo i can tell you that is a line of crap" Soooo, you have a cyrstal ball? Or are you saying that as an X-leo you have special powers or senses? Do you have any specific information that this specific stop was a "pretext" stop? If not, that is bias showing though.

[Pilgrim]

Sounds like profiling to me.

Pilgrim

[vrwc]

no no crystal ball, just an opinion , i have no information other than what was reported, this guy was most likely doing things to attract attention, you seem to be offended by something that i wrote, so sorry for whatever, I was just posting my opinion,

[Fed168]

Sounds like a trooper with a good nose. Cheers to him.

[El Tejon]

Let me guess: he found it!:D

[Brian Dale]

the officer approached the rented 2003 Buick LeSabre being driven by Jones and began to ask Jones questions. The answers to those questions led the officer to ask Jones if he could search the vehicle, No details. Trooper followed a hunch? Whatever the reason for the search, we don't need this guy fightin' fire.

[Parker Dean]

I agree that the stop was likely the result of profiling. I'm no LEO but I am out on the road in So TX and I get stopped quite frequently for lessee now:

Improper lane change 2X. It seems that you need to keep the turn signal on all the way into the other lane for three flashes after you straighten out :rolleyes:

Illegal tint 3X. Never mind that the car carries the "legal" sticker and passes the litle test box every time. Oh and one time the cop was going 70 or so the other direction on a 4 lane divided highway at dusk, yeah right. He never even looked at the car after I got stopped Never asked for proof of insurance either.

Following an eighteen wheeler "too closely" 1X. I saw the trooper in the median and counted the distance, six seconds between the eighteen wheelr and I.

Speeding 2X. I wasn't . The first time he claimed I was doing 85 I made a little verbal challenge of Are you sure? and got a quick n nasty "I think I know what I'm doing!". Jerk. I was the only car around and he was going the other direction on a divided four lane. It's been years but I remember he said he didn't use radar just his eyes.

I'm sure there are others but i can't remember enough detail to bother. Anyway no tickets or even warnings are given as a rule, I got a couple of warnings I think one was for the tint, but they DO always ask to search the car

Anyway I'm now familiar with how the game is played and I suppose I'm not going to get too worked up about it. FWIW I've noticed that once my car is known they leave me alone until I buy another and the process starts again.

[444]

"The answers to those questions led the officer to ask Jones if he could search the vehicle, Atwater said. "

Why would he agree to this ? Why would anyone agree to this ?

I don't buy the illegal lane change either. I doubt that it took a genius to have suspicions. And he had to have some reason for pulling the guy over so lane change is as good as anything else.

[Don Galt]

You may not like drugs, and I for one choose not to do them, but the fact of the matter is all drug laws are unconstitutional. This cop just violated his oath, as well as violated this guys rights with an apparent illegal search. (Not to mention pulling him over without cause, another violation of his rights.)

[tyme]

How many people here always properly signal during lane changes?

Dude, thank God that marijuana is off the streets! Someone might... be getting stoned... or something.

Unless the firefighter was a pothead and was stoned while fighting fires or while sitting in the firehouse waiting for calls, I don't see how his night job as a marijuana courier had any bearing on his ability to fight fires.

Did the guy really consent to a search? If so, he must have been stoned. The article doesn't say he consented. It says the trooper asked for consent, then it goes on about what was found during the search.
But as the marijuana moves farther east, its price increases -- up to $1,400 to $1,500 a pound on the East Coast -- according to DPS information.
Can someone explain why the DPS tracks marijuana prices?

[Fed168]

You would be amazed how daft people get when they carry contraband- alot of times they answer yes for the simple fact they would feel guiltier if they answered no. More often than not they think the officer is too stupid to find anything, so why not have a look? You have to wonder what the person is thinking.

In regards to the traffic stuff- a seasoned officer knows that traffic offenses happen, and may act upon them. In the course of the stop, he may see something or hear something that sounds odd, out of the way, or notices that things just do not match. So the officer may choose to investigate further and see what comes of it.

Sounds like pretty simple police work.

[El Tejon]

When I was in LE, I had an Indiana state po-po tell me he could tell the approximate weight of the amount of marijuana to be found in a vehicle based on the kind and number of air freshners around the rear-view mirror.:D

This was the same trooper who was on "America's Dumbest Criminals" when the guy drove his car to the state police post with a dugout on his dashboard over his VIN. "Hey, officer, can you look at my car. Something's wrong."

How to get yourself into a misdemeanor without even thinking!:D

[Standing Wolf]

Another Great Victory in the famous war on drugs. By the way, we, uh... are winning, aren't we?

[Orthonym]

I was driving through Tatum, Tx back in the Fall of '92 on my way back to Atlanta from Austin, when I was waylaid by drug criminals with badges. I believe my offense was: Driving slowly and carefully. I was driving slowly because I was broke and needed to stretch my gas to Mississippi where my Gulf (BP?) credit card would work. I was driving carefully because I still believed that my obedience to the law required the policemen to leave me alone. Silly Orthonym!

The pretext was one of my tires' supposed touching of the end of a paint stripe on the road, where said road went from one lane to two, or something like that. During the entire rest of the sordid event, nobody ever produced a citation pad!

Of course I refused permission to search. The officer then said something like, " Well, that's your right, but it's my right to make you wait here while we get the dog, etc., out here, and to search anyway if I see etc etc. ..." Feeling terrorized, alone, and far from home, (broke, too), I gave him the key to the camper shell.

They let me go after an hour or two, my only consolation being the multiple fire ant bites the LEO suffered while crawling under the truck. (Finding nothing, of course) There was, naturally, no citation.


What really creeped me out about the business was that these fellows were NOT thuggish, but formally polite, acting as if they thought they were doing a noble virtuous deed while stomping all over the spirit, if not the letter, of the law! (not to mention amendments 4, 14, and 9!)

When I got to my destination I unpacked all my formerly clean clothes and washed them again. I just didn't want to put on the underwear those guys had pawed through before doing so. To paraphrase Lucy Van Pelt, "Eyeuuw! cop germs!"

[tyme]

It's sickening that police can detain for quite a while waiting for a drug dog when they have no probable cause.

[Pilgrim]

Of course I refused permission to search. The officer then said something like, " Well, that's your right, but it's my right to make you wait here while we get the dog, etc., out here, and to search anyway if I see etc etc. ..." Feeling terrorized, alone, and far from home, (broke, too), I gave him the key to the camper shell.

Call their bluff. Make them get the dog. Make them justify to their supervisor why they are tied up for two hours on a traffic violation trying to make a big dope bust.

Pilgrim

[rock jock]

all drug laws are unconstitutional
All federal drug laws may be unconstitutional, but the states have free reign in this area. And please don't quote the 9A to me. I have read it and commentaries about it and it doesn't mean what you want it to mean.

[tyme]

rockjock, even if drug laws at the state level are constitutional, enforcement of them inevitably requires violations of due process and of rights against search and seizure.

[rock jock]

tyme, you can always say "no". Of course, that assumes the average druggie has the intelligence to know his rights in the first place.

[Moparmike]

184 pounds!!!!!!!!:what: :what: It must have been packed TIGHT to fit in the back of a LeSabre. Not that I would know or anything....:uhoh: :scrutiny: :scrutiny:

Man, he should have built a van out of the stuff. It worked in Cheech & Chong...:D

He shouldnt be fighting fires. But he shouldnt have been prosecuted under such an unconstitutional law. Hell, I ran 85mph-100mph from Little Rock to Fayetteville w/o a single cop. Not that I would advise it, but it shows what a little luck and knowing your area's shift change will do.:cool: :p

And no, I had no contraband. My mom was even in the car. The car needed to have the "gunk" ran out of the engine w/ premium. German cars like that sort of thing.

[Brian Dale]

tyme, I don't see how his night job as a marijuana courier had any bearing on his ability to fight fires. It's about judgment, IMO. Ordinarily, I don't care if other people smoke dope when they're not behind the wheel (and the story doesn't say that this guy was smoking it, so I presume he was not). In a workplace with objective hazards present, I want careful people around me. For other examples, I don't want anyone at work with me in a chemical laboratory or driving a forklift who's half a step slow because they smoked the previous day.

If he's a FF, the standards I follow are higher. You have the moral right to insist that the other people on your fire crew are people with good sense. In the modern world, I take it as given that smuggling dope is a moderate-risk, high-potential-cost activity. I wouldn't want anybody with a hundred speeding and reckless driving tickets backing me up on a hoseline, either. Traffic tickets don't make somebody a bad person. It's that if they're crazy drivers, I'm not going to trust their judgment. Judgment calls: "Naaah, that power line's not gonna come loose." - " Oh, don't worry about that wall; it looks fine." - "Don't waste time stabilizing that car; it'll probably stay put. Just grab the guy & go."

No Thanks.

[Don Galt]

He's just lucky the cops didn't sumarily execute him on the spot:

http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v03/n1569/a05.html

Rock Jock--

Most drug laws are federal. The states are decriminalizing the drug laws they have now. Furthermore, state police agencies get and use equipement stolen from people under assetforfieture and federal money to fight drugs. So, even if it was a state trooper, he is an agent of the federal government and thus in violation of the constitution.


Really, all these issues-- drug laws, gun laws, virtually everything the government does--- comes down to a question of human rights. Either you support them or you don't.

IF you support the drug laws, you undermine your alleged support for human rights when it comes to guns.

[444]

"I take it as given that smuggling dope is a moderate-risk, high-potential-cost activity."

And firefighting is often a high risk, high potential cost activity. At best moderate risk.

[Futo Inu]

Dude - NEVER allow a consensual search. What kind of smuggler rookie do we have here?

[Brian Dale]

444, thanks. I didn't make clear my view of the benefits.

FF: high benefit; done to decrease or prevent death and property loss, and with time constraints.

Smuggling dope: easy money, recreation, ?

In a place where the unavoidable risks are high, my personal preference is to be around people who minimize their casual risks. I have less experience than a lot of folks, and I can't speak for anybody else.

[Quartus]

Happy Bob said it for me - this guy is obviously STUPID. And that is true regardless of the right or wrong of drug laws.

vrwc, don't worry about TheeBadOne. In his world, it's a Federal offense to suggest that a LEO did something wrong, unless you can show that the officer was actually convicted in court. At least, I suppose it would be okay to point that out.

[Bill Hook]

FWIW I've noticed that once my car is known they leave me alone until I buy another and the process starts again.

Might I inquire as to why you are always selected for this treatment? Doesn't sound like it's the car they're focusing on.

Are you "guilty" of a DWB (driving while black)? ;) :rolleyes:

[Orthonym]

Some activities require one to be maximally sharp and alert; others don't.
For example: If I had a helicopter, you betcha the guy who maintained it would have to pee in a jar. I'd go further than that. Find out if his wife is nice to him, if he's getting enough sleep, if he's drinking too much coffee, etc etc.
Being a clerk at Blockbuster would not seem to require such stringent measures, but I heard a while back that those folks were testing HAIR SAMPLES! This for the kind of dumb job which most people could probably do better when zonked down on something.

[Parker Dean]

Originally posted by Bill Hook
Might I inquire as to why you are always selected for this treatment? Doesn't sound like it's the car they're focusing on.

Are you "guilty" of a DWB (driving while black)?


Yeah, right?

I try not to abscribe such motivations to others but I have noticed a certain, shall we say surprise, of some officers when they find that I'm white. And you're not the first to make such an observation either. I seems my friends think the car looks a lot like what some other racial stereotypes might drive. Mainly because it's beat-to-hell. I use it (and the ones previous) because it was cheap and still gets the job done but mostly because there's no point in having a nice car out there when you're driving 2-4000 miles a week.

OTOH, I do have this nagging suspicion that if I were driving a new BMW I wouldn't get a second glance.

[444]

I agree.
After I got divorced I actually went without a vehicle for a year or two. I walked to work and dated women that were willing to drive all the time. Walked to the grocery store etc.
My first car after that was a POS that I bought for $200. I drove it for several years. I got pulled over all the time. I mean at least once a month. Never was actually given a ticket; ever.
After buying new cars (actually all I buy are pickups) I haven't been pulled over for years.

[Bill Hook]

Okay, I understand. I didn't know you drove a beater all the time.

I always see what I assume to be "poor" people with junky cars pulled over. Especially around the nicer suburbs.

Doesn't make it right, but these folks obviously (99%+ chance) don't live there. Also guess that criminals generally don't drive BMWs and those that do don't commit property crimes. 'Course one of my professors drove a rusting mid-70s Impala with, I swear, a piece of corrugated siding to replace is missing trunk lid.

I also imagine cops don't feel the "poor" will challenge them, know their rights, or be able to get much recourse. IRS audits are generally targeted toward lower income individuals, statistically, from what I've read, for many of the same reasons - its easier to beat up on the "helpless."

[Orthonym]

The sleek, arrogant, well-tanned guys in the Jaguars and recent Cadillacs (especially this time of year) don't seem to think that the traffic laws apply to them, but I NEVER see one get pulled over.

[Quartus]

What kind of smuggler rookie do we have here?



Futo, I think the answer to that's in the thread title: 184 pounds of DOPE!


;)

[TheeBadOne]

A point to ponder: Older cars often have equipment problems, IE: headlight/taillight out, loud muffler/no muffer, etc, and thus are subject to stops that newer cars arent. For that very reason alone they will be stopped more than newer cars. Now, when it comes to speeding/weaving etc, they are both equal, but throw in the equipment violations and older cars get stopped more, period.

[Orthonym]

MY older vehicle has rust holes, hardware cloth for a grill, and actual green mold growing on one side of it. It also has: nearly new tires, excellent brakes, tight steering linkage, and all of its lights working. I love driving it around the neighborhood and getting dirty looks from the female neighbors. As for my driving behavior, I think I may be one of the two or three people in this town who actually signals BEFORE changing lanes!:cuss:

[Quartus]

older cars get stopped more, period

Yup. Just the law of averages. Yet another reason to keep your car clean and in good repair. Less hassle all around.

[Orthonym]

I reserve the right to be a slob!

[TheeBadOne]

I must admit my old bomb is pretty dirty, but everything works on it. :D

[sm]

Sheesh, I miss the old days and older cars...

In an old sedan..."honest officer I didn't know..."
In a Muscle car, at the sight of blue lights ( or those darn vista cruiser station wagons...recall that moon roof dealie looked liked a light bar...)
pull over quickley, jump out , raise hood "dang accelerator linkage is stuck..."

Never got to the check the trunk stage ....we might just end up talking engines and such...no ticket...forgot why pulled over in the first place...

[Orthonym]

If I wanted to smuggle some contraband by car, I would tape it up underneath the vehicle of an elderly solid citizen who was going where I wanted the stuff to arrive, without telling her. Art's Grandma?:evil:

[Parker Dean]

Originally posted by Bill Hook
Okay, I understand. I didn't know you drove a beater all the time.


Well I don't know about ALL the time :) I've got a nice Mustang for personal transportation. The Cougar is the work beater.

Originally posted by Quartus
Yup. Just the law of averages. Yet another reason to keep your car clean and in good repair. Less hassle all around.


In fact I did do a little experiment last fall along those lines.

I had formed the opinion that the Cougar was attracting more attention than it had when I got it a year earlier. About the only thing that changed was that the black paint was hazy and never looked clean, the tires looked grey and the plastic headlamps were yellowed. Basically a well used 150K plus mile car.

So one week (yes it took a week) I polished the paint, rims, headlights etc and it again looked mostly presentable. After I got done I could swear I was attracting less attention from the LEO community.

The proof came a couple of weeks later in Falfurrias. I was Northbound on U.S. 281 inside the Fal city limits and coming up on the intersection for TX 285 where I was going to go right and hop over to U.S. 77 to run into Corpus. Anyway a DPS trooper is Southbound. The speed limit is 40 and my speedo read like 42. As he approaches he hits the brakes and swerves so hard over into the turn lane that the front of his car is aimed at the front of mine and we would have collided if he hadn't stopped in the turn lane. So I knew right there he wanted me. I ignored him and continued on towards my turn which was maybe a hundred yards ahead.

He completes his U-turn and floors it coming up fast on my left like they like to do so they can sit in your blind spot and see if they can rattle you. Well he's approaching on my left a good twenty miles an hour faster than I but now I'm up to my turn lane. I signal well in advance but apparently he doesn't catch it. Just as he pulls up to my blind spot and is hard on the brakes to match my speed I'm entering the right turn lane. Needless to say I'm watching his antics more than the road so I get to see him actually pull right, about halfway into the lane I was just in so that he can follow my right turn, when suddenly he apparently says "Aww, hell with it" and straightens up in the lane he had approached in and goes and sits at the red light to continue straight. I continue the right turn and on home without further incident.

About the only thing that I can think of that would've changed his mind like that is that the car at that time looked like it was cared for instead of a beaten POS and he figured it didn't fit the profile.

But we also know that rental cars generate a lot of LEO interest too, so clean isn't ALL the equation. It can't look like a rental either.

[Parker Dean]

Originally posted by Orthonym
If I wanted to smuggle some contraband by car, I would tape it up underneath the vehicle of an elderly solid citizen who was going where I wanted the stuff to arrive, without telling her.


Funny you should mention that. A similar idea had occurred to me a couple months back when the dogs at the checkpoints seemed to take a higher interest in my car than usual. Enough so that the Border Patrol searched the car a couple of times which had not happened in five years. I would've just written it off to chance except for the dogs.

Then after a couple of weeks they quit. Odd.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by Orthonym

If I wanted to smuggle some contraband by car, I would tape it up underneath the vehicle of an elderly solid citizen who was going where I wanted the stuff to arrive, without telling her.

Why try to hide it on someone you don't know? Just hire some senior citizens. It's been done many times. They are subseptible to the $$$ just like anyone else. Dopers know this, and that people are bound to overlook them as mules. A perfect match.

[Orthonym]

Nor very greedy. I guess it's just my Boy Scoutness, but if I were going to do a bit of smuggling, I wouldn't want to expose innocent parties to arrest and imprisonment. TBO, YOU are the one who suggested corrupting the nice old lady in this here hypothetical case. Just as I've always figured, the
police mind and the criminal mind are really very similar.:neener: :neener:

Just try and keep those nasty impulses controlled, mmkay?:D

[444]

"...........but these folks obviously (99%+ chance) don't live there."

You might be surprised. Some people just don't are about cars, or about impressing other people. Some other people don't care about houses or the neighborhood they live in. I think I paid about five grand less for my current pick-up than I did for my house (not counting property and improvements). Actually after taxes and all the extra fees it was about the same. I had an uncle (now dead) that was very wealthy. He lived in a multi-million dollar house, but drove a Ford Taurus. He saw a car as a mode of transportation and that was it. His wife drove a Rolls Silver Shadow and now drives a top of the line beamer. Part of the time I drove that $200 pickup, I made far more than that a day.
As the old saying goes, you can't judge a book by it's cover. Although most people never really punch in to that idea.

[Bill Hook]

You might be surprised. Some people just don't are about cars, or about impressing other people. Some other people don't care about houses or the neighborhood they live in. I think I paid about five grand less for my current pick-up than I did for my house (not counting property and improvements).


I know. I worked w/ a lady who had millions of dollars worth of rental properties and office buildings who drove a 15 year old Camry and lived in one of the nicest 'burbs around where i was living at the time. Still, the car was cared for and looked like it.

[MicroBalrog]

Does he deserve union representation?

Why not?:confused:

[444]

He isn't going to get union representation. This is a criminal matter, not something that is job related. This has nothing to do with the union.
Of course, if he loses his job (which is almost a certain thing) this is covered in the union contract. But, I feel pretty certain that a matter like this is throughly covered in the contract. Our contract stipulates that if you are charged with a felony you are suspended from work until the matter is resolved. Whether or not you are paid is at the discretion of the chief. If you are convicted, you lose your job.
By the way, I am a member of the same union as he is. Not the same local, and each local has their own contract, rules and regs, and SOPs, but I feel pretty certain that the conviction for a felony is clearly covered in their union/management agreement.

[TheeBadOne]

Thank you for the reply.
I guess to further clarify what I'm looking at, if he is convicted, then fired for the conviction, will he get union representation to fight for his job? I'm guessing by your reply the answer is no (covered in the contract).

Thanks again

TBO

[444]

Well, first of all he will be in prison, so he can't work even if they didn't fire him. I have no knowlege of their particular contract, SOPs, or rules and regs (I am in the same union, but not in that local) but I feel pretty certain that he will be fired and also feel that he would not recieve union representation because he clearly violated the rules of employment.
I have discussed this before on here, but often times people get the wrong impression about union representation. Sometimes the union fights a case where the person involved is obviously a scumbag. The union isn't fighting FOR the scumbag, they are fighting because management violated the contract in their actions. Obviously if both sides can make up the rules as they go along, the contract is worthless. We have had cases like that in my own local. Management fired a guy that no one wanted working here, but they did it in such a way as to violate the contract, so the union was obligated to fight it. The union officials told management point blank, no one wants this guy working here and you could easily get rid of him IF you follow the rules and proceedures for doing so.
This is really no different than the police trying to bust known criminals. Everyone may know the guy is a criminal, but they have to follow the law in busting him. They can't just hold a kangaroo court. They have to jump through all the hoops, dot all the "I"s and cross all the "T"s. On the surface this might look crazy, but establishing rules and following them is what makes a society civilized.

[TheeBadOne]

Thanks again, looks like most of us are on the same page.

[Don Galt]

Uh, no. We've seen illegal searches, illegal detainment, etc. Hell in the half dozen times I've been pulled over, twice it was legitimate. I drive a beater too. I have friends who've been pulled over in beaters, had their insurance card demanded, and then had the card torn up by the cop! (OR sometimes they'll just write "invalid" on it.) Now why would a cop do that? Hmmm?

Clearly there is something wrong with the ranks of "law" enforcement.

This is a nationwide phenomena, and nothing is done with it.

Hell, should a Mayor want to clean up his cities police force, he'll recieve static and resistance constantly until its election time, and then suddently the news will be filled with stories about crimes and how they could have been prevented if only the mayor had done such-and-such.

So, every year the cops become more like the SS, they asset forfietrures line their pockets and the government gets less and less control over them. And every year we get closer to the tipping point where an outright gun ban would have the full support of the cops who enthusiastically look forward to "busting" gun owners.

Maybe we're already there.

[Tamara]

I have friends who've been pulled over in beaters, had their insurance card demanded, and then had the card torn up by the cop! (OR sometimes they'll just write "invalid" on it.) Now why would a cop do that? Hmmm?

When these outrageous instances occurred, you surely got the badge numbers of the cops in question, right? What city was this in?

[LawDog]

Excuse me? Cops are tearing up vehicle insurance cards?

Cards issued by an insurance agency? I'm sorry, legal instruments held by an individual and issued by (and property of) a third party (private corporation)?

Umm. Okay.

Your friends' insurance agencies, have no doubt filed the civil actions upon being notified of these acts, yes?

LawDog

[Orthonym]

I think it may be the most important cop skill. Some call it "Verbal Judo". I think it's revolting, by any name.

[Orthonym]

Now that I have looked at the intervening posts, I'm reminded of something my Dad told me today. He was in Jackson, MS at a Walmart, when he had a tire go flat. A disreputable-looking guy drove up in an old scruffy pickup and helped him change the tire. According to Dad, the guy was the famously-stinking-rich Sam Walton himself. Don't laugh, we seem to collect weird co-incidences in my family. E.g. Mary Jo Kopechne actually did work for someone who worked for my Dad at one time.

[LawDog]

"Verbal Judo" is a series classes taught taught by Dr. George J. Thompson on increasing the communication skills of not only Peace Officers, but also teachers and businessmen.

It has about as much to do with intimidation as nursing a baby does.

LawDog

[Don Galt]

The cops tearing up insurance cards, or writing invalid on them, happend in Houston Texas.

It happened in the early 90s.

Oh, and of course, when you are being threatened with jail by said cop, how do you think he will react to being asked his badge numbers?

These incidents were written up in the Houston Chronicle back then...and much worse. (Like the three drunk, off duty, out of uniform, cops in a pickup truck who forced a woman off the road, and then shot her as she called 911. Somehow, the prosecutor couldn't find it in his heart to charge such servants of the public.) Its about that time I left Houston.

I didn't mean to imply that cops were tearing up insurance cards nationwide...

The point I'm trying to get at is that as long as cops are enforcing unconstitutional laws, we have a real problem. What will happen when total gun confiscation is enacted?

[Don Galt]

No, but "if you don't consent to this search, I'm taking you to jail" is all about intimidation, and it is not constitutional, but courts uphold such searches all the time.

Threatenting to take someoen to the police station, or to jail, is a threat to initiate force. Any search conducted under such threat is a coerced search.

Yet this is standard operating procedure, is it not?

[telomerase]

Now if this happened to Rush Limbaugh, he'd just check himself into a luxury hotel/ "rehab clinic" for 30 days and he'd hear no more about it.

[Quartus]

Yet this is standard operating procedure, is it not?


Hmmmm. I'm not saying it doesn't happen, but IIRC, SCOTUS has clearly said NO to this as probable cause. Anyone recall the cite?

[Orthonym]

Yup, they did it to me. Didn't find nuthin, (nuthin to find) , but they might as well have sodomized me, considering how I felt afterwards. (AND TO THIS DAY!)

[Don Galt]

Coercing you into consenting to a search is an immoral act. It should be criminal. They belong in jail.

Anytime you subsidize an activity you'll get more of it. As long as it's cheaper (in terms of risk) for any group of people (politicians, police, etc.) to commit crime, you will get more crime out of them than you would the general population of the same size.

The local scandal is the police chief who killed his wife (and them himself) apparently after abusing her for years... the scandal is that he got away with it so long.

But I'm not surprised-- since the prosecution, judges and police are all agents of the state, and all have a common goal-- convictions-- they are not going to police each other. This is why we have no action taken after the WTO riots-- who's going to hold cops accountable for rioting? What prosecutor is going to jeapordize their ability to prosecute any future cases in that way?

And of course, allegations of wrong doing by cops are handled by an internal review board, which, amazingly, seems to discover that they are always innocent! Amazing!

Anything happen to those Tennessee guys who killed the dog last year?

But this fireman-- likely a real hero-- will get jail. The system is broken.