Life in New Zealand

[uscitizen]

Do you wanna be kept safe or not?


Bwahahahaha.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Do you wanna be kept safe or not?


Bwahahahaha.

Safety or lose liberty's? I'll take liberty for 5000 alex

 

[Dr Grump]

But if you've lost safety you have no liberty...;o)

 

[jillian]

Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.

that's not correct.

terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.

reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...

seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.

it's been a while, but that's my recollection.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But if you've lost safety you have no liberty...;o)

I'll take my chances.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.

that's not correct.

terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.

reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...

seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.

it's been a while, but that's my recollection.

Dear God.
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing - North Carolina Attorney Resources - North Carolina Laws

North Carolina Probable Cause

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable. Police officers may be “suspicious” -- frankly, it may be fair to say they are generally always suspicious of criminal activity… that’s their job. Yet, in order to pull you over, that suspicion must be reasonable and based on facts consistent with illegal activity. The suspicion is that “criminal activity is afoot.” That’s a complicated way of saying there is a reasonable likelihood that the law is being broken.



North Carolina Probable Cause





This is a recent case in North Carolina that the defendant appealed his case because he said the arresting officer did not have Probable Cause
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by denying his motion to suppress. Defendant renews his
contention from his motion to suppress that police lacked
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop. After
review of the record, briefs, and contentions of the parties, we
affirm.

The trial court further found that, after stopping defendant’s
vehicle, Officer Bracey observed defendant drop marijuana between
the center console of the vehicle and the driver’s seat, and
smelled the odor of marijuana on defendant’s person after defendant
exited the vehicle. The court thus concluded that police had
probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle. Based on the
evidence presented and the trial court’s findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause to search
defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090733-1.pdf







North Carolina Probable Cause

North Carolina Probable Cause

 

[shintao]

Do we really want this in America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0g3KimbI0&feature=grec_index

Well hell Yes we want it. 62% say they want it and that is the Majority thought.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ah4zO_Dp4g&feature=related[/ame]

 

[jillian]

Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.

that's not correct.

terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.

reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...

seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.

it's been a while, but that's my recollection.

Dear God.
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing - North Carolina Attorney Resources - North Carolina Laws

North Carolina Probable Cause

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable. Police officers may be “suspicious” -- frankly, it may be fair to say they are generally always suspicious of criminal activity… that’s their job. Yet, in order to pull you over, that suspicion must be reasonable and based on facts consistent with illegal activity. The suspicion is that “criminal activity is afoot.” That’s a complicated way of saying there is a reasonable likelihood that the law is being broken.



North Carolina Probable Cause





This is a recent case in North Carolina that the defendant appealed his case because he said the arresting officer did not have Probable Cause
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by denying his motion to suppress. Defendant renews his
contention from his motion to suppress that police lacked
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop. After
review of the record, briefs, and contentions of the parties, we
affirm.

The trial court further found that, after stopping defendant’s
vehicle, Officer Bracey observed defendant drop marijuana between
the center console of the vehicle and the driver’s seat, and
smelled the odor of marijuana on defendant’s person after defendant
exited the vehicle. The court thus concluded that police had
probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle. Based on the
evidence presented and the trial court’s findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause to search
defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090733-1.pdf







North Carolina Probable Cause

North Carolina Probable Cause

from your link:

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

the standard varies dependent upon the invasiveness of the search.

from the case you posted:

Based on the evidence presented and the trial court’s findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause

i think the point everyone was making was that it doesn't take much to allow the stop. as was pointed out, if the officer says your 'taillight is out' that's sufficient. prove him a liar after he 'taps' the light and it *works* again.

once the bare minimum of reasonable suspicion is met on the stop, if the officer *oberserves* something leading to further search, he has every right to execute the search.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

that's not correct.

terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.

reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...

seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.

it's been a while, but that's my recollection.

Dear God.
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing
North Carolina General Statutes § 20-219.11 Notice and probable cause hearing - North Carolina Attorney Resources - North Carolina Laws

North Carolina Probable Cause

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable. Police officers may be “suspicious” -- frankly, it may be fair to say they are generally always suspicious of criminal activity… that’s their job. Yet, in order to pull you over, that suspicion must be reasonable and based on facts consistent with illegal activity. The suspicion is that “criminal activity is afoot.” That’s a complicated way of saying there is a reasonable likelihood that the law is being broken.



North Carolina Probable Cause





This is a recent case in North Carolina that the defendant appealed his case because he said the arresting officer did not have Probable Cause
Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court
erred by denying his motion to suppress. Defendant renews his
contention from his motion to suppress that police lacked
reasonable suspicion or probable cause to justify the stop. After
review of the record, briefs, and contentions of the parties, we
affirm.

The trial court further found that, after stopping defendant’s
vehicle, Officer Bracey observed defendant drop marijuana between
the center console of the vehicle and the driver’s seat, and
smelled the odor of marijuana on defendant’s person after defendant
exited the vehicle. The court thus concluded that police had
probable cause to search defendant’s vehicle. Based on the
evidence presented and the trial court’s findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause to search
defendant’s vehicle. Accordingly, we affirm.
http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/unpub/090733-1.pdf







North Carolina Probable Cause

North Carolina Probable Cause

from your link:

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

the standard varies dependent upon the invasiveness of the search.

from the case you posted:

Based on the evidence presented and the trial court’s findings of fact, we
conclude the police had reasonable articulable suspicion to execute
the stop, and subsequently developed probable cause

i think the point everyone was making was that it doesn't take much to allow the stop. as was pointed out, if the officer says your 'taillight is out' that's sufficient. prove him a liar after he 'taps' the light and it *works* again.

once the bare minimum of reasonable suspicion is met on the stop, if the officer *oberserves* something leading to further search, he has every right to execute the search.

from your link:

I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause

i think the point everyone was making was that it doesn't take much to allow the stop. as was pointed out, if the officer says your 'taillight is out' that's sufficient. prove him a liar after he 'taps' the light and it *works* again.

I also highlited a portion of one of my links.

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.

 

[jillian]

I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause

you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.

I also highlited a portion of one of my links.

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.

you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.

the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.

as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.

*edit* now it's opened... and the statute starts

a) Whenever a vehicle with a valid registration plate or registration is towed....

and that has nothing to do with a traffic stop.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause

you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.

I also highlited a portion of one of my links.

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.

you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.

the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.

as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.

Have you ever completeda traffic stop? Have you ever issued a traffic citation?

 

[jillian]

I noticed that you did not highlite the last two words of that sentence.

In every stage of a DWI stop, arrest and detainment proceeding, the police officer must have either reasonable suspicion or probable cause

you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.

I also highlited a portion of one of my links.

A police officer may have observed you breaking some type of traffic law (speeding, swerving, etc.) in order to stop you in the first place. He or she cannot stop you because you looked a certain way or because they “felt” like stopping you. That would be called an unparticularized hunch. Again, the basis of the stop must always be reasonable. Gut instincts are not considered legally reasonable.

you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.

the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.

as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.

Have you ever completeda traffic stop? Have you ever issued a traffic citation?

which has what to do with what the law is? i'm curious. there is a constitutional standard. your state, like every other, meets that standard.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you're not reading. that's the law both here and there. you need only reasonable suspicion for the stop. probable cause develops from what you observe after.




you're not reading and we're going in circles because you're somehow determined to *prove me wrong*. we're not saying anything so different. but these are legal terms of art.

the point is that here and there, the standards are similar.... including in your state.

as for needing probable cause in the statute you sited... i don't have it opened in front of me, but iirc, that was for when a car is TOWED.

Have you ever completeda traffic stop? Have you ever issued a traffic citation?

which has what to do with what the law is? i'm curious. there is a constitutional standard. your state, like every other, meets that standard.

It has a lot to do with it. I have completed traffic stops and issued traffic citations. You had to have proable cause to stop a vehicle. Differant states have differant terminolgys and procedures for traffic stops.

 

[editec]

YOu have the right to drive unmolested from unwarranted stops and searches about as much as you have a chance of becoming POTUS, folks. (particularly if you're young)

There's your constitutional rights and then there's reality.

The only place the theory might intersect with reality is in court IF you can afford it.

I have noted, however, that the more expensive the car I'm in, the less likely some cop is to pull it over for a fishing expedition.

When when my hair was long, (this was about ten years or so ago)the reasonably suspicious activity that got me pulled over was driving while hip.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here in North Carolina a police officer must have probal cause to stop a car.

that's not correct.

terry v ohio requires only reasonable suspcion.. not probable cause.

reasonable suspicion can be for 'speeding'... 'recklessness'... rollng through a stop... leaving a bar and getting into your car... a 'taillight'... unsafe lane change... and so on and so on and shooby dooby dooby...

seriously, you can be stopped for almost anything. and based on what is seen in plain sight, the search can get progressively more invasive.

it's been a while, but that's my recollection.

me and some of my fellow letter carriers all stop at a coffee shop across from the PO for morning Coffee and shoot the shit.....the California Highway Patrol guys stop there too,one day while talking with them....a Carrier said ...."you guys can not pull someone over without good reason".....the CHP guy said..."i can pull you over anytime i want and i assure you i will have a "good reason"... and you had better believe we can do that".....

 

[Samson]

Do we really want this in America?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BR0g3KimbI0&feature=grec_index

aren't you one of the people who tells others to shut up because they don't live here?

just sayin'

and i'm kind of looking forward to hearing what our fomer NZ cop has to say on this subject. i'm thinking it's more bogus histeria.

"Bogus Hysteria?"

On USMB????