wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

\\\\\\\ 20 Jul 2010 06:52:21 -0400, wrote:



The SCOTUS also says the cop can make everyone get out, show ID, get
searched for weapons, search the car for weapons and run a dog through
it. Somehow, you immigration status seems pretty minimal at this
point.

he can demand ID. the passengers dont have to show him ****.

That is not true.
MARYLAND v. WILSON says they can all be rousted and the passenger
compartment of the car searched "for weapons". While that is going on
they can have a dog search the car too. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
At that point the cop will "ask" everyone for ID.
Have you ever said no to a cop on the side of the road?
Usually you end up in cuffs.
You can macho this as much as you like about what you would do but I
bet you haven't actually done any of it.

I've said no to cops on the side of the road before... Question: Have you
been drinking? Answer: No. Question: Are you single? Answer: Ummm... lol

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:46:50 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:06:59 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 10:13:53 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



In most states you have to show proof of insurance papers also. Or you
get
to walk to the nearest bus stop as the car is towed. With a ticket issued
to you. More than just showing your license to the cop. And the license
will show your citizenship.

The SCOTUS also says the cop can make everyone get out, show ID, get
searched for weapons, search the car for weapons and run a dog through
it. Somehow, you immigration status seems pretty minimal at this
point.

So, why is there a need for a new AZ law? It doesn't do anything for border
security.

Why do you care? You don't live in Arizona.

i lived there. never saw a problem with the illegals.

You didn't see a problem with your finances either. Maybe your shades are a
couple shades too dark?
--

John H

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:47:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is not true.
MARYLAND v. WILSON says they can all be rousted and the passenger
compartment of the car searched "for weapons". While that is going on
they can have a dog search the car too. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
At that point the cop will "ask" everyone for ID.
Have you ever said no to a cop on the side of the road?
Usually you end up in cuffs.
You can macho this as much as you like about what you would do but I
bet you haven't actually done any of it.

I've said no to cops on the side of the road before... Question: Have you
been drinking? Answer: No. Question: Are you single? Answer: Ummm... lol


The first one is the right answer to a question, the second one can go
either way. We have had cops harassing women here too. It is less
likely they get away with it these days but my nieces have some
stories where it didn't really work out.

The real question is whether you can say no when a cop "asks" you
something like "can I look in your trunk" or "can I see your ID".
A "no" is usually seen as reasonable suspicion that you are doing
something illegal. If you weren't you just have a long day and they
eventually send you on your way. If you are doing ANYTHING wrong, you
get hooked up and taken in.

You can say no, with the caveat that if he looks anyway, he better have
actual probably cause. The "can I see your ID" goes back to asking for the
DL. Driving is a privilege not a right, so he's within bounds to ask for it.
If you're walking down the street, there is a higher standard of probably
cause for asking for ID. That's the problem with the AZ law (well, one of
the problems).

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:36:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:46:50 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


i lived there. never saw a problem with the illegals.

They did a great job on your yard didn't they.

are you always racist or just against blacks and hispanics?

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:17:29 -0400, John H
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:46:50 -0400, bpuharic wrote:


i lived there. never saw a problem with the illegals.

You didn't see a problem with your finances either. Maybe your shades are a
couple shades too dark?

no. it just means the right invents problems where there are none,
and hides those that exist.

being right wing is a learning disability

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:44:48 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:



Jim - "Can I see you license, m'aam. Or perhaps a memorized number?"


You can't remember yours? I can even recite my mastercard number... 5291..
oh wait. lol


actually i know my DL number as well..

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:47:04 -0400, Harry ?
wrote:




Flajim can only count to 20, using all his digits. Most guys can count
to 21, but flajim is missing *that* digit.


that's OK. you can count you IQ...to 12...using all the fingers on
both of your hands.

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:35:26 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 17:40:56 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

\\\\\\\ 20 Jul 2010 06:52:21 -0400, wrote:



The SCOTUS also says the cop can make everyone get out, show ID, get
searched for weapons, search the car for weapons and run a dog through
it. Somehow, you immigration status seems pretty minimal at this
point.

he can demand ID. the passengers dont have to show him ****.

That is not true.
MARYLAND v. WILSON says they can all be rousted and the passenger
compartment of the car searched "for weapons". While that is going on
they can have a dog search the car too. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
At that point the cop will "ask" everyone for ID.
Have you ever said no to a cop on the side of the road?

yeah. i told a NJSP trooper to go get ****ed after he ****ed me off

On 20/07/2010 8:01 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:47:04 -0400, Harry
wrote:




Flajim can only count to 20, using all his digits. Most guys can count
to 21, but flajim is missing *that* digit.


that's OK. you can count you IQ...to 12...using all the fingers on
both of your hands.

Why, do you only get to 6 like a bird?

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 18:49:09 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:47:21 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

That is not true.
MARYLAND v. WILSON says they can all be rousted and the passenger
compartment of the car searched "for weapons". While that is going on
they can have a dog search the car too. ILLINOIS v. CABALLES.
At that point the cop will "ask" everyone for ID.
Have you ever said no to a cop on the side of the road?
Usually you end up in cuffs.
You can macho this as much as you like about what you would do but I
bet you haven't actually done any of it.

I've said no to cops on the side of the road before... Question: Have
you
been drinking? Answer: No. Question: Are you single? Answer: Ummm... lol


The first one is the right answer to a question, the second one can go
either way. We have had cops harassing women here too. It is less
likely they get away with it these days but my nieces have some
stories where it didn't really work out.

The real question is whether you can say no when a cop "asks" you
something like "can I look in your trunk" or "can I see your ID".
A "no" is usually seen as reasonable suspicion that you are doing
something illegal. If you weren't you just have a long day and they
eventually send you on your way. If you are doing ANYTHING wrong, you
get hooked up and taken in.

You can say no, with the caveat that if he looks anyway, he better have
actual probably cause. The "can I see your ID" goes back to asking for the
DL. Driving is a privilege not a right, so he's within bounds to ask for
it.
If you're walking down the street, there is a higher standard of probably
cause for asking for ID. That's the problem with the AZ law (well, one of
the problems).


You ignore the basic problem. It will always be your word against the
cop's that you said no. You will lose that one.
If your word was equal to the cop, there wouldn't be any traffic
tickets. They are all your word against his.

Well sure, but in our system you're innocent until proven guilty. Judges
_tend_ to believe the police over regular citizens, but he would still have
to produce something that caused him to get in your face.. Not that it's
much of an example, but I've seen people win in traffic court against the
testimony of an expert (police) witness.