[mycroft]

If it doesn't get to "statistically, people who look like X" and are simply "statistically,people", then your issue doesn't apply. And I don't know anywhere in North America where that's done (legally, anyway, and without court challenge). Now, if the police decide on Chinese New Year to put a checkstop outside Chinatown and near the exit for Little Vietnam, there might be an issue about statistically who the people are that drive to and from those areas - the "stop and frisk" argument that "when we set up one of these stations, we stop every nth person"; but for every station set up in SoHo, they set up 14 in TriBeCa, in other words.

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

[blackshoe]

 kenberg, on 2014-March-19, 07:07, said:

Monitoring compliance with the law is a tricky concept. Most of us are not sociopaths but good god there are a lot of laws. Maybe there should be at least some reason to believe that we are doing something wrong before we have to prove that we are not.

Perhaps the purpose of "good god there are a lot of laws" is to ensure that we are doing something wrong whenever some cop decides to question us.

[blackshoe]

 mycroft, on 2014-March-19, 13:56, said:

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

I suppose if telling the cops where you've been reduces the hassle, it's worth doing, as long as you don't care that you're answering a question about something that's none of their business to ask.

[Bbradley62]

 blackshoe, on 2014-March-19, 14:38, said:

 mycroft, on 2014-March-19, 13:56, said:

I get caught frequently by this, because I live right behind the sports stadium that does the concerts, and there's a *lot* of checkpoints on game and concert nights. Usually I can say either "I'm coming from the bridge club" or "I'm coming from church"...

I suppose if telling the cops where you've been reduces the hassle, it's worth doing, as long as you don't care that you're answering a question about something that's none of their business to ask.

When I was a young man who drove a sportscar (meaning, not any time recently) I found that "I'm coming from a bridge tournament" was a great way to avoid a speeding ticket. I always made a point of having an ACBL Bulletin handy, with the tournament's ad page clipped, to show that I wasn't making this up.

[mycroft]

Well, the standard stop up here asks where you've been, followed by "have you had anything to drink?"

I don't know what the legality is, and the difference in such in Canada and the US. But you know...

[Trinidad]

 mycroft, on 2014-March-19, 16:04, said:

Well, the standard stop up here asks where you've been, followed by "have you had anything to drink?"

Well, that we would find harassment, invasion of privacy and a waste of time and money. It is not at all relevant where I have been ("Well, I just came from the SM dungeon"), nor whether I had anything to drink ("No comment").

The only things that are relevant is whether I am driving (easy to observe by the COP) and whether my body contains too much alcohol (which they will test). Just asking silly questions takes more time than the 1 second it takes to blow towards a funnel.

In addition, the police wants to do all this as fast as possible to prevent traffic jams. Fastfood chains should watch and learn. Typically, the entire act will be:

Driver stops the car and opens window.
"Good evening. We're performing an alcohol check." (The device is shown.) "Do you know how this works?"
- "Yes"
"Please blow towards the funnel until the beep."
- blooooow
BEEEP
"Thank you... All is fine, have a nice evening."
- Vroooom

In case you didn't pass the test, the last sentence is replaced by: "Thank you... Would you please pull over in that spot over there?"

The people who are tested don't appreciate questions about where they have been or what they have done. The other drivers don't appreciate traffic jams. And the tax payers don't appreciate the police wasting time (and tax payers' money) asking irrelevant questions.

Rik

[kenberg]

 Bbradley62, on 2014-March-19, 15:18, said:

When I was a young man who drove a sportscar (meaning, not any time recently) I found that "I'm coming from a bridge tournament" was a great way to avoid a speeding ticket. I always made a point of having an ACBL Bulletin handy, with the tournament's ad page clipped, to show that I wasn't making this up.

This surprises me!. I wonder if it would owrk if I said i was coming from a math meeting. When I was 21, I was driving a car that needed some front end work. (I junked it not much later). I was stopped by a cop who started lecturing me about endangering the life of the woman in the passenger seat. I replied that my wife and I just wanted to see a movie. The word "wife" led to a near miraculous change in attitude. In a nanosecond I was tranformed from young punk to struggling young family man. I was addressed as sir, and he put his ticket writng stuff back in his pocket.

I also had experiences that were very much in the reverse direction when I was young. Lesson learned: Have a woman with you and be sure to refer to her as your wife.

[helene_t]

I once was stopped by a cop who wanted to check the brakes of my bike which were in very bad shape. He asked for ID. Noted that my surname was the same as that of a well-known solicitor. He asked if I was family. Yeah, that is my mum's cousin. I didn't get a fine.

[blackshoe]

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-20, 04:03, said:

"Thank you... Would you please pull over in that spot over there?"

So the cop determines that you are too much "under the influence" to be allowed to drive, and then he instructs you to drive? Yeah, that makes sense.

Since we're telling stories...

During my Freshman year at college, I returned home for a vacation, and went over to the high school to say hi to some folks (teachers and students). I left the building when school let out, got in my car, and headed around the building. Saw1 a girl who was a year behind me and stopped to talk to her. Note that during our entire conversation there was no other vehicle traffic on this street at all. There were a lot of kids crossing the street on foot. After a while (ten minutes? twenty? I don't remember) the cop who was directing traffic down the street at the corner with the main drag walked down and instructed me to go park up on the corner. So I did. He came over and asked for license and registration, which I gave him. He walked back and looked at the license plate, then came back to me and asked "who's Barbara?" "My mother," I replied (it was her car). Then he proceeded to give me a lecture about "blocking traffic", at the end of which he said "I'm not giving you a ticket, but I know your mother well, and I'm going to tell her about this." Then he gave me back my papers and sent me on my way. I got home, and the first thing I asked Mom was "do you know a cop named Miller?" "Nope." "That's what I thought." Then I told her what happened. She just laughed.

[mycroft]

Oddly enough, I've never been tested...just the questions. Even when the answers were "at the bridge club" and "yes, one beer [three hours ago]" (with unstated the fact that it took me two hours to finish it). I *think* in Canada, we find the test without suspicion invasive in a way that the questions (which seem to be the invasive part elsewhere) are not.

[mike777]

 helene_t, on 2014-March-20, 06:53, said:

I once was stopped by a cop who wanted to check the brakes of my bike which were in very bad shape. He asked for ID. Noted that my surname was the same as that of a well-known solicitor. He asked if I was family. Yeah, that is my mum's cousin. I didn't get a fine.

Wow it sounds like the cops have an awful lot of free time to do this.

I watch something called Chicagoland on CNN. Each week the show is partially focused on Roseland where I grew up.
Murder, Rape, Drugs seem to be out of control. Keep in mind this is just a small prt of Chicago.

Crime reports in Roseland

Jan. 25 - Feb. 24, 2014

Click on crime types to show only those dots on the map.




violent crimes



23

reports

Robbery - 14
Battery - 6
Assault - 3
Homicide - 0
Sexual assault - 0





property crimes



109

reports

Theft - 73
Burglary - 20
Motor vehicle theft - 16
Arson - 0





quality-of-life crimes



98



reports

Criminal damage - 44
Narcotics - 50
Prostitution - 4

[barmar]

 Trinidad, on 2014-March-20, 04:03, said:

Well, that we would find harassment, invasion of privacy and a waste of time and money. It is not at all relevant where I have been ("Well, I just came from the SM dungeon"), nor whether I had anything to drink ("No comment").

The only things that are relevant is whether I am driving (easy to observe by the COP) and whether my body contains too much alcohol (which they will test). Just asking silly questions takes more time than the 1 second it takes to blow towards a funnel.

I suspect they're not really so much interested in the answers to the questions as observing you while you try to answer them. They just need to keep you engaged long enough so they can try to smell alcohol on your breath or recognize the mannerisms that are typical of inebriation. If you seem drunk or tipsy, I guess they'd have probably cause to ask you to submit to a breathalyzer. Of course, if you do admit that you just came from a bar where you were drinking, it makes things even easier.

[mike777]

At the very least the cops are invading our privacy but that is sort of what a cop does.

[kenrexford]

 mike777, on 2014-March-20, 14:44, said:

At the very least the cops are invading our privacy but that is sort of what a cop does.

Truth. I have no problem with the cop asking. If the law says that he can, why not? Heck, I might ask if I could just for voyeur reasons. The problem is that the law allows it and that some judges don't think that this is their job to stop.

[mike777]

 kenrexford, on 2014-March-20, 17:43, said:

Truth. I have no problem with the cop asking. If the law says that he can, why not? Heck, I might ask if I could just for voyeur reasons. The problem is that the law allows it and that some judges don't think that this is their job to stop.

A very interesting thread Ken and best wishes with your case. Let us know.

[barmar]

Lay citizens are generally intimidated by agents of the state. As they are not experts in the law, and are not expected to be, they don't necessarily know that they don't have to answer the cop's questions truthfully. This is why there are (or should be) limits on the practices of these agents. In a courtroom, the judge and the opposing attorney enforce procedural safeguards, but the police have to police themselves (pun intended). Although if they use illegal interrogation tactics, a judge may rule it inadmissable after the fact, but depending on this is harder than preventing the improper action in the first place.

[blackshoe]

"They screwed up, but I'm not going to prosecute." - The District Attorney of San Diego, commenting on a case where an innocent citizen was shot in the back six times by police during a botched drug raid, ca. 1986.

[kenrexford]

 blackshoe, on 2014-March-23, 18:53, said:

"They screwed up, but I'm not going to prosecute." - The District Attorney of San Diego, commenting on a case where an innocent citizen was shot in the back six times by police during a botched drug raid, ca. 1986.

Lima, ohio, the town in which I live, had a shooting a few years ago that illustrated the problem of poor decisions. Law enforcement had three controlled buys on a dealer, with up to 8 years for each. They then decided to go for five more smaller buys ,adding only one year each. They then had power to arrest him at any time.

Instead of a normal approach, they decided to go for an early evening raid in winter, when it's dark out. On a Friday. Why? Sound and light grenades and the swat team make for a good show, and that scares the neighbors. All good for deterrence.

The problem is that they raided a home known to have children. The end result was a double tap execution of a mom on her knees with a child in her arms, who was also hit and lost a finger.

[mike777]

today...no knock laws.

army..ok police army, really army enter 80 yearold in bed late at night house.

80 year old gets gun but never fires.

80 year old gets dozen bullets to body and somehow dies.( out of shape)


Again 80 year old did have handgun.

Also had 2 pot plants from son who had something called calif medical grass card, whatever that is.

old=handgun=drugs=youdie.....may die.

[kenrexford]

Update: I won the case 2:1. The court disagreed that the law was unconstitutional, finding essentially that the invasion was minimal. However, the Court determined that this invasion requires a warrant. This was a major win and radically changes Ohio law. Hurray to privacy!