It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by cthomas
35Foxtrot - You are clearly missing the point. By not giving someone ticketed for speeding a chance at contesting an officer's opinion of their supposed speed, they are taking away the legal burden of proof required in every case, in every court of law in the United States. This law is unconstitutional, that's the point. What about a person who isn't speeding, but "fits the description" or offends another questionable belief an officer may hold. I am on the side of law enforcement, but no one is above the constitution, except police officers in Ohio, I guess. This is a step in the wrong direction; giving police officers the right to be judge, jury, and executioner opens up some dangerous doorways. By the way, in your example you stated something related to an officer's ability to spot equipment in a vehicle that might suggest the person is a criminal. Does that mean if a cop finds duct tape, plastic ties, rope, wire cutters, and other tools he believes are "mundane", as you put it, he should arrest the person on site? What is a mundane tool to you could be tools of the trade to another.
The point is, this is not a question of ability, but of constitutionality. The police, nor the government, should ever be able to enact laws that infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizens of this country. That is what our founding fathers had in mind, to design a system where the rights of the government never exceeded the rights of the people governed. What next, a cop drives by your house, hears loud music, kicks down your door, and throws you in cuffs on the floor with a boot on your neck because it has been his experience that people that listen to that kind of music loudly are all drug dealers? This is an exaggerated example, but the kind of legislation here you are supporting could lead to this type of activity in the future. Read the United States Constitution and maybe you will get a stronger sense of what 'We the people' actually means. This law is not it.
Originally posted by cthomas
35Foxtrot - You are clearly missing the point. ...
Originally posted by time91
Regardless of whether you agree with this premise or not I believe it sets a horrible precedent. We all know that there are quotas for how many tickets, arrests, etc. cops must make in many cities (proven in NYC). If a cop is behind on his quota he could just pull anyone over and hand them a ticket with no proof and without fear of any punishment or argumnet. How anyone supports this ruling....
Isn't there some phrase like innocent until PROVEN guilty in our legal code? This case grossly redefines "proof".
Originally posted by 35Foxtrot
How does it redefine proof? The courts are still there and all elements of a crime must be proven the same way in any criminal case.
No one is aboloshing the court system.
Also, I'd be interested in seeing your proof from NYC of quotas for the number of arrests an officer must make in a given time.