It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Federal judge gives voters the middle finger, orders red light cameras to stay up in Houston
page: 2share:
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Wow your view on the 4th amendment (and probably the entire constitution) is awful.. just awful..
A LEO CANNOT randomly search you for no reason... in fact, they can't even pull you over for no reason, they have to have "Probable Cause"
A persons Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy is a law generated to protect specifically camera/media related crimes.. this was generated from a voyeurism case in which it was determined if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy they cannot be recorded, photoed, drawn, recorded or otherwise made public. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy extends to ones house, automobile, and property. Hence when a LEO pulls you over he CANNOT search your effects until given permission by you, given probable cause by means of obvious crime, or a warrant. If a LEO searches your car without permission and without a warrant he has to prove, in COURT, probable cause for a search of personal effects.
It's also determined anything concealed on a person ie under clothes or else hidden from view is considered private personal effects, a LEO would be required to prove probable cause or the commission of a crime to search personal effects on a person without a warrant or an arrest.
Cameras do not violate the 4th amendment however because they photograph a person while driving, in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while actually driving your car, in fact, it's illegal to hide your view from the public (ie, dark tinted windows, smoked windows etc) .. and specifically the camera is photographing the car it's self. It is however a question as to PROVING you did what the camera says it did.. usually they cannot, and if challenged in court the tickets are more often than not thrown out because 1. no Officer can testify, 2. the Court cannot prove there is no defect with the camera, and 3 sometimes the court cannot even prove it was you driving. Also it is a huge, massive, moral and legal issue regarding the PRIVATE operation of cameras.. it is imo at least a massive conflict of interest.
Wow your view on the 4th amendment (and probably the entire constitution) is awful.. just awful..
A LEO CANNOT randomly search you for no reason... in fact, they can't even pull you over for no reason, they have to have "Probable Cause"
A persons Reasonable Expectation Of Privacy is a law generated to protect specifically camera/media related crimes.. this was generated from a voyeurism case in which it was determined if someone has a reasonable expectation of privacy they cannot be recorded, photoed, drawn, recorded or otherwise made public. The Reasonable Expectation of Privacy extends to ones house, automobile, and property. Hence when a LEO pulls you over he CANNOT search your effects until given permission by you, given probable cause by means of obvious crime, or a warrant. If a LEO searches your car without permission and without a warrant he has to prove, in COURT, probable cause for a search of personal effects.
It's also determined anything concealed on a person ie under clothes or else hidden from view is considered private personal effects, a LEO would be required to prove probable cause or the commission of a crime to search personal effects on a person without a warrant or an arrest.
Cameras do not violate the 4th amendment however because they photograph a person while driving, in which you have no reasonable expectation of privacy while actually driving your car, in fact, it's illegal to hide your view from the public (ie, dark tinted windows, smoked windows etc) .. and specifically the camera is photographing the car it's self. It is however a question as to PROVING you did what the camera says it did.. usually they cannot, and if challenged in court the tickets are more often than not thrown out because 1. no Officer can testify, 2. the Court cannot prove there is no defect with the camera, and 3 sometimes the court cannot even prove it was you driving. Also it is a huge, massive, moral and legal issue regarding the PRIVATE operation of cameras.. it is imo at least a massive conflict of interest.
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
What planet are you from?
I would suggest studying the Constitution long and hard before attempting to debate it.
What planet are you from?
I would suggest studying the Constitution long and hard before attempting to debate it.
Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Again, wrong. the 4th protects you regardless.
4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
source: www.usconstitution.net...
please take note of the phrase: " to be secure in their persons".
On a side note: Why the fiasco with the TSA " pat downs"? Because its being viewed as a breach of the Fourth Amendment. Same holds true to this topic. Please feel free to re-read the above reference point.
Do not try and school me on The Constitution. The 4th is only guaranteed in cases whereas you have a total expectation of privacy. While driving on a road anywhere in the nation you have no expectation of privacy.
LEO do not require a warrant to conduct a search of one's vehicle and person during a traffic stop. If they did not have a reason to pull you over in the first place why are they pulling you over?
editby]edit on 4-12-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-12-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason
given)
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Are you on crack?
Cops cannot simply just pull people over and search their vehicles without probable cause.
You dont want people to school you on the Constitution, yet you obviously need some sort of education on it since you are 100% factually wrong.
You should at least do some research on the 4th Amendment, since its obvious you do not know much about it.
Are you on crack?
Cops cannot simply just pull people over and search their vehicles without probable cause.
You dont want people to school you on the Constitution, yet you obviously need some sort of education on it since you are 100% factually wrong.
You should at least do some research on the 4th Amendment, since its obvious you do not know much about it.
Originally posted by BigTimeCheater
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Are you on crack?
Cops cannot simply just pull people over and search their vehicles without probable cause.
You dont want people to school you on the Constitution, yet you obviously need some sort of education on it since you are 100% factually wrong.
You should at least do some research on the 4th Amendment, since its obvious you do not know much about it.
The 4th does not apply to school lockers and gym lockers and does not apply to traffic stops. The only spot a warrant is required is that of your private residence. Especially in cases whereas you are in a high crime area a cop can pull you over just for being in a known narcotic or gang area.
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Umm .. you might want to check your information before you post it.. because you're very, very wrong about traffic cops. Woefully ignorant.
Umm .. you might want to check your information before you post it.. because you're very, very wrong about traffic cops. Woefully ignorant.
Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
Umm .. you might want to check your information before you post it.. because you're very, very wrong about traffic cops. Woefully ignorant.
How about this, next time you are pulled over ask to call your lawyer and request to see their warrant, they will laugh at you.
Let me repeat this one more time :
LEO DOES NOT NEED A WARRANT TO SEARCH ANY MOTOR VEHICLE IN TRANSIT ON ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE ROAD ESPECIALLY IN CASES WHEREAS THE VEHICLE IN Q IS IN A KNOWN CRIME, DRUG OR GANG AREA. The 4th does not protect you against searches conducted in the public domain.
Member rcw175 about a yr or so back is a LEO and he pulled over an agent with the FBI and did not get flipped on over it because the agent was in a high crime area.
Expectation of privacy is only guaranteed when it comes to your home and property but the second you step off of your property you can be pulled over.
Any cop can stop anyone for any reason especially if you happen to be in what is called a "high crime", "known gang" or "high drug" area. If say, it's the middle of the day and you are in the only car on a particular strip as well as happen to be the only car on that strip of road, that alone looks suspicious enough to warrant getting asked and occostered. As the cop has no idea if you are there serving as a lookout for law enforcement or are looking to either buy product or merchandise or there to sell product or merchandise.
The 4th Admendment does in deed prohibit against illegal search and siezure however, if the cop has a suspicion that you are under the influence of any intoxicant (illicit, alcohol, prescription) 4th Admendment protection goes right out the window as your state of mind and physical appearance is usually enough to warrant the tossing out.
edit on 4-12-2010 by TheImmaculateD1 because: (no reason given)
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1
And your source for this wonderful knowledge?
As per my post at the top of the page.. an officer will need one of three things:
1. Probable cause, ie, seeing a crime in commission or due to behavior to suspect criminal activity.
2. A warrant.
3. Your express permission.
Hence anytime a police officer will search a car without probable cause or a warrant they will ALWAYS ask "is it ok if I look around" or some variation .. if you say "oh sure" you let them into your car. But you don't have to. Anytime an officer asks you to step out of the car, it is your right to remove the keys from the ignition and lock the car upon exit.
And no, they cannot pull you over for no reason.. they will follow you for a designated period of time (there is actually a state by state restriction on how long a cop can follow a citizen without turning their lights on if they intend to pull them over) and wait for you to commit a traffic violation .. from your tire touching the yellow line to a missed turn signal. They will always have a reason.
You need to educate your self to protect your self.
And your source for this wonderful knowledge?
As per my post at the top of the page.. an officer will need one of three things:
1. Probable cause, ie, seeing a crime in commission or due to behavior to suspect criminal activity.
2. A warrant.
3. Your express permission.
Hence anytime a police officer will search a car without probable cause or a warrant they will ALWAYS ask "is it ok if I look around" or some variation .. if you say "oh sure" you let them into your car. But you don't have to. Anytime an officer asks you to step out of the car, it is your right to remove the keys from the ignition and lock the car upon exit.
And no, they cannot pull you over for no reason.. they will follow you for a designated period of time (there is actually a state by state restriction on how long a cop can follow a citizen without turning their lights on if they intend to pull them over) and wait for you to commit a traffic violation .. from your tire touching the yellow line to a missed turn signal. They will always have a reason.
You need to educate your self to protect your self.
edit on 12/4/2010 by Rockpuck because: (no reason given)
reply to post by BigTimeCheater
This judge in particular is owned by private interest, she already have a record of been a puppet of BP, she was requested by BP to oversea lawsuits on the company in Texas.
So she is nothing but a whore to big companies and probably have stocks on the makers of the cameras, as she did of BP.
Remember this people are corrupted career politicians and as politicians they are nothing but owned by those that pay the highest bid.
This judge in particular is owned by private interest, she already have a record of been a puppet of BP, she was requested by BP to oversea lawsuits on the company in Texas.
So she is nothing but a whore to big companies and probably have stocks on the makers of the cameras, as she did of BP.
Remember this people are corrupted career politicians and as politicians they are nothing but owned by those that pay the highest bid.