Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Hire Cops Instead of Hassling Hundreds of Citizens

Not a nickle more for the wasteful Police Department until it stops wasting our tax dollars!

The Police Department claims there's no way that it can live up to the promise to hire 20 new cops this year.

Yet buried in the paper on Saturday was this little item:
Kansas City police arrest 7 for DUI at checkpoint

KANSAS CITY | DUI arrests

During a sobriety checkpoint late Friday and early Saturday, Kansas City police made 7 DUI arrests and arrested two other people for other unspecified traffic violations.

Police stopped a total of 286 vehicles from 11 p.m. Friday to 4 a.m. Saturday near the intersection of Ward Parkway and Wornall Road, according to a press release.

Karen Dillon

How many cops worked how many hours for those seven arrests? I'll guess 10 or so, probably more. How many hours of paperwork went into it, before and after? Were any of those hours paid at an overtime rate? 5 hours of checkpoint means at least a full 8 hour shift, maybe more. Ignoring the prospect of overtime pay, I'm willing to bet they blew over 80 hours of cop time on 7 arrests and 279 needless hasslings of law-abiding citizens, with attendant delay for those unlucky saps. More than 10 hours per arrest, and if they eliminated two checkpoints a month, they would save the equivalent of a new cop.

I personally think that DUI checkpoints are a warrantless unreasonable search and seizure conducted without probably cause, but the courts disagree with me. Regardless of their legality, though, they remain a singularly intrusive and ineffective waste of resources for a department that cries about underfunding.

Labels: , ,

39 Comments:

Blogger craig said...

Serious question. How do you feel about DUI saturation patrols?

4/02/2008 7:56 AM  
Blogger Keith Sader said...

Geez Dan, you almost sound *gasp* Libertarian on this! ;-)

4/02/2008 8:34 AM  
Blogger Bull E. Vard said...

I certainly agree with you on this. DUI checkpoints are one of the most inefficient uses of police resources. Not only that but checkpoints shred a lot of the goodwill that the police are supposed to build.

4/02/2008 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to work with KCPD on a regular basis. The command staff under the Chief are great, but everyone from Captains on down suck.

I appears to me that it is an incredibly wasteful organization with poor internal record keeping. The way the off-duty system is run is almost criminal.

Like the KC school district, KCPD needs a thorough flush.

4/02/2008 9:21 AM  
Anonymous travel said...

Absolutely agree. There are just "a few" more serious problems to deal with.

4/02/2008 9:57 AM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

I agree about the checkpoints.

They remind me of those scenes from Communist-bloc countries where the state police could stop someone on the street and demand to "see their papers".

The police need to have just cause before pulling someone over and conducting a check.

These "sobriety checkpoints" are nothing more than a random fishing expedition to see if they can find somebody doing something wrong.

Just another indication that we are rapidly becoming a fascist police state.

4/02/2008 10:21 AM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

I agree! DUI Checkpoints are useless.

The police should just wait until one of those 7 that they arrested got into a wreck and killed one of your friends or family members. Then they could ask if you thought DUI checkpoints would have been a good idea.

If we had fewer DUI checkpoints we would probably have more drunk drivers on the street. (At least 7 more last Friday night) With more drunk drivers on the street, we could have more alcohol-related deaths. Then we could justify spending the money on them.

DUI checkpoints are a deterrent whose effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that only 7 were arrested.

FACTS:
50 percent of Americans will be involved in an alcohol-involved traffic collision in his or her lifetime.

Nearly 23,000 people are killed every year in alcohol-related traffic collisions.

One American life is lost every 22 minutes in an alcohol-related traffic collision.

From a report issued in 2000, that compiled data from 107 cities in a period of 1995-1997

The number of alcohol-related traffic fatalities per 100,000 people varied between 0.86 and 10.23. The average number of fatalities per 100,000 people was 4.75.

Lincoln, Neb. was lowest at 0.86; Kansas City and Dallas were highest at 10.10 and 10.23, respectively.

Conclusion:

Until the number of DUI arrests at these sobriety checkpoints drops to, and continues to stay at, zero, I will thank every police officer that works these checkpoints.

Dan…

These last two articles have demonstrated some pretty selfish ideals.

You don’t want to be inconvenienced by a sobriety checkpoint that took 7 drunk drivers off the street, and quite possibly saved the lives of a few others.

You want to take control of private businesses because you don’t want to be exposed to tobacco smoke.

You want less control in the public realm of public safety and more control in the private.

I’ve got a reasonable solution. Stay home. If you don’t like something about MY restaurant or bar – Don’t come in. If you don’t think that taking 7 drunk drivers off of the street is a good use of public funds, don’t complain when one of your friends or loved ones gets killed by a drunk driver.

An article written by David Burnett of the Virginia School of Law states that; “Obesity may be the greatest cause of preventable death in the United States”. Will we see you be one of the first to jump on the bandwagon to restrict what foods can be sold in restaurants, because they are bad for the health of those that choose to eat there?

4/02/2008 10:43 AM  
Anonymous Whistleblowme said...

Congratulations, Whistleblower! Your latest comment represents the dumbest, most self-righteous bit of idiocy ever published on a blog. You are the champion, my friend.

If you are truly worried about drunk drivers, do you really think that clustering a bunch of officers on a suburban intersection miles from a bar is a wise use of resources? Do you?

Do you think that it should take around 10 hours of police time to catch a single drunk driver?? 10 HOURS?! How stupid is that? If those officers had been deployed around town pulling people over when they saw some asshole weaving down the street, they would be actually accomplishing something worthwhile with their time instead of hassling innocent citizens. Don't you think?

4/02/2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why don't we just shut down all the roads between 8:00 pm until 7:00 am - that should satisfy Whistleblower's "Safety at all cost" approach?

Or just ban cars entirely? That would save lives . . .

Whistleblower, do you ever think?

4/02/2008 11:27 AM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

whistle - You are willfully missing the point. We all agree that people shouldn't drink and drive. The question, what is the most efficient way of preventing it.

I would think that having police standing at the door of drinking establishments checking the sobriety of everyone who walks out of the bar and before they get to their car woould be much more efficient and would result in a lot more arrests.

At least they would have reasonable cause to believe that someone coming out of a bar may have been consuming alcohol.

But stopping every single car that passes a random location in the hopes of maybe catching someone is ridiculously inefficient and amounts to unlawful search and seizure...no warrants, no probable cause.

If the government were truly serious about stopping drinking and driving, they would require auto manufacturers to put a breathalyzer lock on every vehicle sold.

But they don't. They would rather have the revenue generated from all of the fines and the taxes that the bar and restaurant owners generate

4/02/2008 11:29 AM  
Anonymous Brent said...

It is pretty amazing though that Dan doesn't favor DUI checkpoints -- something designed to prevent deaths from drunken drivers - vs favoring bans on smoking when 2nd hand smoke is responsible for seriously harming fewer people. I agree with whistleblower that it does come off as very selfish.

I don't think the 7 arrests is really valid data to use...because it could be a very big deterrent. It'd be interesting actually do research on the matter to make the opinion off of...

4/02/2008 12:25 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

I’ll only respond to XO, as those that leave anonymous comments only do so out of fear of being held accountable, and are not worthy of my time.

Sobriety checkpoints are a much better visual deterrent than officers patrolling the streets.
The standards for public intoxication are much different than those for drunk driving. We have way too many bars to assign police officers to stand in front of them. Which bars should they focus on? When you leave a bar, the police officer has no authority to ask if you are going to drive. They would need to follow you to your car. Watch you get in the driver’s seat, and then try to convince the court that you were going to do something illegal.- tough case to prove.
Besides that, the cost to the city would be the same, or more.

Kansas City.. #2 in the nation for alcohol related traffic fatalities in the 2000 report. It almost makes you want to swell up with pride – Doesn’t it?

Seven people, that were aiming deadly weapons at the general public, were arrested by the police officers on Friday night.

I doubt that they setup the checkpoint at some random location. The location is most likely that of an area with a high incident of DUI arrest/accidents. The law requires it to be.
A breathalyzer lock on every vehicle sold would increase the cost of vehicles to those that don’t consume alcohol. I doubt the numerous law abiding citizens of this country would approve that. What happens when it breaks down and leaves someone stranded? It would also assume that every driver is guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent.

Having worked at sobriety checkpoints in the past, and having dealt with more than my fair share of drunks, including those that drive; I can assure you that one’s ability to get drunk and drive is not based on the generation of revenue.

Using Dan's numbers:

10 police officers worked an 8 hour shift to support this checkpoint. That's 80 hours. Let us assume that a police officer cost the city $100.00 per hour. That would result in $8000.00 spent by the city to take 7 potential murderers off of the street. I consider that to be a deal. If the cost was ten times that, I would still consider it to be a deal.

Before you start screaming about your rights of privacy being violated, you should review MICHIGAN DEPT. OF STATE POLICE v. SITZ, 496 U.S. 444 (1990) in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled sobriety checkpoints to be legal.

Ask yourself! Have sobriety checkpoints been effective in the past?

I’m not saying that sobriety checkpoints are the most effective deterrent; only that they have been proven to be an effective deterrent. If week-after-week, sobriety checkpoints would have failed to result in any DUI arrests; I would consider them to be ineffective.

A police officer patrolling the streets does not acquire some kind of super power that permits them to identify a drunk driver by a mere glance. Far too many times, the police officer only gets summoned to the deadly results.

Ask one person that lost a friend or relative to a drunk driver how much money should be spent to stop drunk drivers. How many people do you know that have been killed by a drunk driver? I can tell you this; I ran out of enough fingers and toes many years ago. – Most of those have been police officers.

4/02/2008 1:20 PM  
Blogger craig said...

Whistleblower,
Your theory is sound, but the practicallity of it is flawed. Saturation patrols have been shown to be much more effective and fiscally responsible for deterring DUI's. I don't really care about the "fascitst" statements, if it keeps people from plowing into a family minivan, I am all for it. But "wolfpack" patrols do a better job of that than checkpoints.
With cell phone technology, check points are pretty much obsolete. But with the announcement of a saturation patrol, the public is more on their toes and more apt to not drink and drive.

4/02/2008 2:43 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

whistle - "Sobriety checkpoints are a much better visual deterrent than officers patrolling the streets.
The standards for public intoxication are much different than those for drunk driving. We have way too many bars to assign police officers to stand in front of them. Which bars should they focus on? When you leave a bar, the police officer has no authority to ask if you are going to drive."

So put a patrol car on the street outside the bar and pull over anyone driving away from it. Do this at random bars all over the city just like they pick random intersections. I can't imagine a better visual deterrent than that. You would then have probable cause and your yeild of drunks would be much higher and you wouldn't be shaking down innocent, law abiding citizens like a bunch of Gestapo looking for Jews.

"A breathalyzer lock on every vehicle sold would increase the cost of vehicles to those that don’t consume alcohol. I doubt the numerous law abiding citizens of this country would approve that."

Airbags and seatbelts increase the cost of vehicles for people who never have a wreck. Yet they are required on all cars for the public safety. Requiring breathalyzer locks on all vehicles would virtually eliminate drunk driving. That would have a far greater impact on public safety than airbags.

"It would also assume that every driver is guilty until they prove themselves to be innocent."

This is exactly what happens at sobriety checkpoints. You are not allowed to proceed unless the officer is convinced to his satisfaction that you are not drunk. Or otherwise impaired. Or that you don't have any outstanding warrants. Or you don't have any mechanical problems with your vehicle. Or that your papers are in order. Only then, after you have proved your innocence of any crimes, past or present, are you free to go. All with no warrants or probable cause.

As for the Supreme Court ruling, it will come as no surprise to learn that I think the SCOTUS got it wrong.

They do that sometimes, you know.

4/02/2008 3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did WhistleblowER refuse to answer a comment by WhistleblowME because WhistleblowME did not use his or her real name?

Wow.

4/02/2008 4:23 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

Craig...

I agree that wolf pack patrols are pretty effective. However, when a police officer follows a drunk driver, the driver often wrecks while watching the police officer out of his/her rearview mirror.

Most effective vs. safest method.

Dealing with drunk drivers will never be a safe, or cost effective method of spending taxpayer dollars; just a necessity.

XO...

"So put a patrol car on the street outside the bar and pull over anyone driving away from it."

Most people don't park right outside of the bar, and most people that have a BAC of .08 don't walk like they are drunk. Going to a bar is not illegal. You must first violate the law before they can pull you over. Checkpoints are a legal exception.

Checkpoints are a less than perfect response to a deadly problem. Get the number of drunk drivers arrested at checkpoints down to zero, and I bet we could eliminate checkpoints.

"Airbags and seatbelts increase the cost of vehicles for people who never have a wreck."

I’m a firm believer that the government should not be able to make me wear a seatbelt. If I don't care to live, that should be left up to me. (Unfortunately, like those that refuse to wear motorcycle helmets, everyone shares the burden of higher insurance rates to pay for those that survive.)

There has been talk of installing aftermarket breath analyzers in the cars of those that have been convicted of DUIs. I'm all for that. And I think we can do it legally.

I’ve passed thru a number of sobriety checkpoints over the years. I have never been detained so that they could run any other checks. If they are checking for anything more than your sobriety, I find that to be wrong.

There are many SCOTUS opinions that I disagree with. Unfortunately, they are how the lower courts determine the law. That is, until another case is granted Certiorari, and the law changes. Or we amend our Constitution.

4/02/2008 4:58 PM  
Anonymous Whistblower said...

Yeah, he really did, because he thinks that posting under the name "whistleblower" means something.

More likely, though, he knew he couldn't answer Whistleblowme's points.

4/02/2008 5:01 PM  
Blogger ryan said...

http://duiblog.com/

I would *love* to see the numbers on all those "wrecks while watching the police officer out of his/her rearview mirror."

Surely we're not just making shit up! Right?

4/02/2008 5:14 PM  
Anonymous whistleblowme said...

I was just messin' with Whistleblower. He made some very good points.

If it costs $10,000 to save a life, so be it.

He's right. That is a pretty good deal.

The questions that I presented to Whistleblower were more of an attack than a question.

How could the police officers have know how many drunk drivers were on the road that night until the checkpoint completed? Though that may have been an area of increased DUI arrests or accidents involving alcohol in the past, we can't count on it to remain that way forever. Maybe next time the police will pick a more productive location.

After all, most of us learn from our mistakes.

4/02/2008 5:56 PM  
Blogger Dan said...

That's pretty funny - somebody faked Whistleblower, and now somebody's faking Whistleblowme. What a tangled web those whistleblowing people weave . .

Now, back to the reality-based world, okay?

It is not reasonable to spend more than 10 hours of police time per DUI arrest when there are so many better ways to go about ridding our streets of drunk drivers. In fact, it is a hindrance on effective law endorcement. Give me ten hours and a set of lights on a Friday night, and I'll haul in at least a dozen by myself.

Whistleblower, you're way off base when you act as though you need to lecture anyone on the dangers of drunk driving. We've all suffered the losses. Your privacy-invading method, though, hassles hundreds of law-abiding citizens and reduces enforcement where it is needed.

4/02/2008 6:56 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

whistle - gee, this is fun, isn't it? I feel like we are bonding.

"Most people don't park right outside of the bar..."

Most people park just as close to their destination, bar or otherwise, as possible. Because most people are lazy. Drunks doubly so.

"...most people that have a BAC of .08 don't walk like they are drunk."

Maybe not. But those with a BAC of .16 sure as hell would. Maybe the BAC limit is way too low? A whole lot of people who aren't impaired at all wind up paying out the ass and get stigmatized because MADD has a lot of lobbyists generating a lot of laws that generate a lot of revenue for local governments. The BAC that causes impairment is based on may factors. Two beers will hit a 95lb, 5'0" woman with an empty stomach much harder than they will hit a 6'4", 350lb behemouth who used them to wash down an all you can eat taco bar.

An arbitrary BAC limit of .08 for everyone all the time is just silly and not supported by science. It's only supported by MADD.

"You must first violate the law before they can pull you over."

That's not true. All they need is probable cause to suspect that a law is being broken. If they observe "furtive activity" (suggesting hiding or disposing of drugs or weapons) in the car in front of them, that's probable cause.

Hell, if everyone else on the highway is zooming around at 85mph and someone with tinted windows and a loaded trunk is driving at EXACTLY 55mph, that could be probable cause.

Probable cause is whatever the arresting officer says it is. You know it, and I know it. Rarely will a prosecutor or a judge second guess a cop on probable cause.

"Get the number of drunk drivers arrested at checkpoints down to zero, and I bet we could eliminate checkpoints."

You could do that by requiring breathalyzer locks on every vehicle.

Of course, that might put a real damper in the lives of all of those stressed out cops who get off their shift, go out drinking (HARD drinking) with their buddies, and then drive home relying on "professional courtesy" to not get DUI's themselves.

Don't even try to deny it because you know it's true. Cops drink and drive A LOT! They think they can handle it better than anyone else and they think they deserve it. They are wrong on both counts.

"There has been talk of installing aftermarket breath analyzers in the cars of those that have been convicted of DUIs."

Don't need those for convictions. They have GPS probation ankle bracelets that can detect the presence of alcohol in the bloodstream through the skin. They are in use today.

The breathalyzer locks on all vehicles would eliminate the need for the ankle bracelets because it would eliminate drunk driving (and dry up the extraordinaraly lucrative revenue stream for gub'mints that has been lobbied in place by MADD).

"I’ve passed thru a number of sobriety checkpoints over the years. I have never been detained so that they could run any other checks. If they are checking for anything more than your sobriety, I find that to be wrong."

Every single report I have seen on the results of a sobriety checkpoint also report the number of people arrested on outstanding warrants, firearm possesion, drug possesion, and other violations.

The police use these sobriety checkpoints as a fishing expidition to stop presumambly innocent civilians and try to see if they are guilty of ANY illegal activity. DUIs are just the only SCOTUS justified (for now) means for them to do so, so that's what they call them.

If you "...have never been detained so that they could run any other checks..." perhaps that was do to "professional courtesy".

In a previous comment you said "Having worked at sobriety checkpoints in the past, and having dealt with more than my fair share of drunks, including those that drive..."

That would certainly imply that you are, or were, a cop. They generally don't let civilians or neighborhood watch members participate in sobriety checkpoints.

Any chance that the ID that you showed them when you were stopped involved the display of a badge and they just waived your drunk ass on through?

Geez, that was exhausting. I gotta do some laundry, eat some supper and watch a cheezy sci-fi flick from Netflix

Peace!

4/02/2008 7:25 PM  
Blogger craig said...

XO,
Other than being a little long and making some broad strokes at police officers (some do drink and drive, but the vast majority don't, and "professional courtesy" is overblown), that post was spot on. Taking on MADD is almost as bad as crossing the Mafia.

4/02/2008 8:07 PM  
Blogger whistleblower said...

XO...

Flashing a badge in hopes of professional courtesy may occur regularly when getting pulled over for a speed infraction, but not a very smart move if your drunk. Too many cops have lost friends to drunk drivers. Years ago a badge flash may have worked, but not anymore. Besides that, in big cities the police departments have gotten too large. You only get to know people that work in your precinct, and most of those that you do know work the same shift as you.

I don't agree with the DUI laws, not because of the fact that a 95# women will get drunk faster than a big burly man. (not a very sound argument) I find the BAC limits to be a method of reverse discrimination. I could have a BAC of .10 and I'll guarantee you that my reaction time is faster than an 80 year old man. But that 80 year old man, suffering from an equal deterioration of response time can legally drive all day long.

4/02/2008 9:24 PM  
Blogger Spyder said...

If there's going to be DUI check points there should be check points one the way to daycares & grade school for kids seat belted in. If you don't want to wear your seat belt I don't give a shit. But kids are too young to make that decision. Just because you are their parent does not give you the right to put them in danger like that.

4/02/2008 10:29 PM  
Blogger Nightmare said...

See this is why we need to be armed! that way we can just shoot people who don't think like we do.

I have had two DUI's in 2 States, and I have NEVER been stopped by a DUI Checkpoint!

I don't understand what the purpose is. Most of those check points get published ahead of time and people who are drunk go a different direction home, or stay at home and get drunk, or even go to a different bar no where near a check point. If they want to catch the drunks they don't need to sit outside the bars, they need to sit outside the Waffle houses and Denny's, and Perkin's restaurants. Where the drunks go to "sober" up before heading home...You sit a couple unmarked units by ANY 24 hour eatery, and come 2-4am, you will find 30-70 arrests a night. You couldn't use a fucking paddy wagon to haul away all the drunks, you'd need a team of tow trucks and a semi truck to haul them away.

4/03/2008 3:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

All of you need to talk to a guy I know who's daughter was killed by a DUI. At the trial he went over the divider and got the guy by the throat. The judge fined him, but, he said it was worth it. He goes to every parole board hearing and asks that they let the guy out.
This guy thinks DUI check points save lives.

4/03/2008 5:00 PM  
Anonymous Jane said...

Has anybody fact checked The Star yet to see if the arrest were for DUIs or were some of the arrests for driving without insurance, license, or for warrants? The Star has been wrong b4 on the number of DUI arrests b4.

4/03/2008 5:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous 5:00 -

Why should I talk to that guy? Can he somehow explain how it makes sense to waste 10 manhours (or more) to arrest a single drunk makes more sense than racking up the dozen or so any decent cop could nail in a single shift?

I've lost friends and relatives to drunks, too. I'm saddened by your friend's loss, but I'm not made stupid by my sadness.

4/03/2008 7:16 PM  
Blogger sophia said...

The KC crime blog regularly posts the numbers on these checkpoints, and those sound about standard. They've been doing that WP/wornall location for years. They have to announce the general location in advance, and that intersection is a good bet when they announce "south kansas city."

I do think the police have stepped up on saturation patrols lately. I got pulled over in one near my home a few months ago. I got lectured for my bad tags and got to go, but while they ran my license/plates I saw pretty much every other car on the street pulled over (just after midnight on a weeknight). And I've got a buddy who had a similar experience (with an uglier outcome) in midtown on a monday night.

And lastly, I've been involved in lawsuits where people have killed people in car accidents through simple acts of negligence that had catastrophic results. Funny thing, I've never seen a deposition of a victim's family member where they said "hey, at least the defendant wasn't drunk! That would have made my pain so much less!" Cars are dangerous things, and people commit negligence every single day driving them. Most of the time no one gets hurt. Driving drunk increases your chances of causing an accident. But so does talking on the phone. And being tired. And don't even get me started on texting. I'd rather share the road with a hard drinker with a BAC of .16 than a young woman texting her friends.

4/03/2008 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Harold Kushner said...

Anonymous 5:00 - Thank you for that story. So often, tragedy strikes good people. It's good to know it strikes douche bags once in a while.

4/03/2008 7:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dan what about the white people in the Zoo association that are blackmailing KC over Zoo funding?

When will discuss that?

4/04/2008 8:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Race card?

Really????

And, besides, didn't Dan just slam Tim Kristl, who I'm pretty sure is white, for his Liberty Memorial bullshit?

That had to be one of the most pathetic comments ever that wasn't posted by Mainstream or Whistleblower.

4/04/2008 9:04 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"unreasonable search and seizure conducted without probably cause, but the courts disagree with me."

Hey dumbass do you even know what the above statement means. When you are stopped at a checkpoint what exactly do the police search and seize from you. If you haven't been drinking the most they even do is look at your drivers license while attempting to determine if you have or have not been drinking. Truthfully how many times have any of us really been through a checkpoint and in the overall scope of things how intrusive was it. These have been going on for over a decade and they have never become any more intrusive than the day they started.
Why don't you freaking cry babies get a life, go home at a decent hour and you will never be through another checkpoint again. By the way I frequently work checkpoints and none of you d-bags expresses your opinion to me.

4/04/2008 9:15 AM  
Anonymous Porch Pundit said...

Oh, great. It's wonderful to hear from the hostile, profane, gutless anonymous cop, daring me to question his tin-horn authority at a DUI checkpoint. It's that level of professionalism that makes us all love our opportunities to have you intrude into our weekend.

The seizure is inherent in the stopping, and the search is your damned flashlight searching all over my car and checking my breath. Yes, ossifer, that is a search - check with your department lawyers.

4/04/2008 9:54 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The seizure is inherent in the stopping, and the search is your damned flashlight searching all over my car and checking my breath. Yes, ossifer, that is a search - check with your department lawyers."

I would love to post under my real name but I need the paycheck to bad. D-bags like you find it necessary to file complaints and run me through the ringer. See at my job every little complaint gets looked at. I wish I had your job mopping spunk at at the local glory hole where my boss doesn't question my activities outside of work.
Shining a flash light in your car doesn't constitute a search and smelling your funky pecker breath for alcoholic beverages doesn't either. So citizen check with your public defender it doesn't.
I feel dumber after reading your post. Next time your a victim don't call a tinhorn.

4/04/2008 10:15 PM  
Blogger Xavier Onassis said...

anon 10:15 - Oh puhLEEZE! Poser! No way you have a badge. Unless it has a stamp on the back that says "Matell" or "Made in China".

You don't have any knowledge of the law or proper law enforcement.

I'm guessing you are what...12 years old? Pretending to be a grown-up in the blogosphere?

"... need the paycheck to bad..."

I think you meant "...need the paycheck TOO bad...".

They probably haven't covered the difference between "to" and "too" in 6th grade English yet, have they?

Try to pay attention next year.

"Shining a flash light in your car doesn't constitute a search..."

Yeah, douchebag, it does. Do some research.

How about while you are running your hypothetical check on my license, I get out MY flashlight and come back and start looking around in YOUR hypothetical patrol car. Shining my flashlight in YOUR eyes. Demanding to see your badge and credentials.

Would you consider THAT a search?

Take that question to your teacher on Monday. See what she says.

Enjoy recess and the playground while you still have it.

Childhood is so precious.

4/04/2008 11:03 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You found me out I am 12 years old. Thanks for pointing out, that I left off the extra o in too. I must have confused more than a few people. I am sure they missed the point of my post, but thanks to you it is all cleared up.
Actually shitbird I had done my research but if it case law you require then check the following.
(1972) Where officer while shining flashlight on sticker on windshield of car to obtain city license number for citation for illegal parking saw hand-rolled cigarette on front seat of car which he believed to contain marijuana and arrested defendant for possession thereof, search of vehicle and defendant, who was standing outside of car, subsequent to arrest and seizure of marijuana revealed thereby was legal. State v. Hawkins (Mo.), 482 S.W.2d 477.
I have read the 4th ammendment more than a few times and I know the difference between concealed and plainview. I know what constitutes exigent circumstances versus the need for a warrant.

Your insults are as weak as your early 90's look. The whole sunglasses, bald, with a taint scrubber on your chin is as wore out as your argument. Although, you are from Independence so that look might get you laid at the Calico Cat.
I would like to encourage you to whip out your flashlight, question my authority and search my car. Throw a post up afterwards and let us know how that panned out champ.
Truth is number cruncher you don't have the heart or nuts to do my job. Before you accuse me of being some snot nosed rookie I have been on the job over 15 years for a large department. Point is I know what is and isn't legal.
So, next time you get a warm fuzzy feeling when you lay that big hairless head on your pillow, it's a guy like me keeping you safe. So a simple thank you will do.

4/05/2008 12:36 AM  
Anonymous Lance said...

(Stepping lightly over all of the hostility...)

I agree with Dan. Checkpoints are a waste of time and money and the burdens that they impose on the citizenry outweigh any benefits that they may provide.

Someone pointed out that these checkpoints are staffed by police on overtime. I'm sure that isn't cheap. It doesn't matter if the money to pay them comes from state or federal grants rather than the department's budget, because it all comes from us one way or another! The government doesn't have any money of its own, remember?

Just b/c the Supreme Court says that they are "legal" doesn't make it right - once upon a time slavery was legal. Our law enforcement resources are too precious. Half of all homicides go unsolved in Kansas City but we're spending our officers' time running checkpoints?

4/06/2008 12:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yo Whistleblower!

This is how the founding fathers envisioned the government:
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin

This is how the government envisions the government:
"I'm a cop. Respect my author-i-ti!"
-- Cartman

Which do you side with?

7/17/2008 11:43 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home