Brent's going to love this... 3753

Not quite. While I agree with your limited statement, it goes further than that. If a cop sees a vehicle that contains a person who has been known in the past to traffic in drugs, yet he has no knowledge of this person CURRENTLY being engaged in illegal activity, and he then finds an EXCUSE to pull over said car NOT WITH THE INTENTION of ticketing him for the alleged violation that led to the stop, but with the intention of fishing for other illegal activity, THAT IS AGAINST THE ULTIMATE law of the land - the US consbreastution.

Now, if the same cop in the same situation uses that excuse to pull over that vehicle, and uses the SAME EXCUSE to pull over every other vehicle that violates that same law, no issue - because he is treating them equal to all other drivers. If he then notices something illegal, fine.

The problem is that a cop will see 100 cars go by, with the same violation, and ignore all of them, until he sees a car that fits a PROFILE that he feels will result in a bigger bust. If that profile is something like the inside of the car is full of smoke because the four teenagers inside are each toking a joint, again no issue. However, if he pulls them over for a dirty license plate, and then doesn't write them for that, he is in the wrong, whether or not he found anything else.

The point is that his intention is what matters, and too often cops intend to harbutt people, instead of intending to truly fight crime.

Those cases where the intention was to ticket them for something illegal, and he happens to see something else, as long as he truly pulls over as many other violators of that law as he can, nobody should complain.

Yes I am. Think about it this way, when a law is pbutted we buttume it is legal until it is challenged and overturned. But as soon as it is overturned, we acknowledge that it was never valid, and all convictions against that law are subsequently overturned, thus leading to the logical conclusion that the law was never valid, and the activity was never illegal. Just because someone is arrested does not mean they broke the law, only that the cop BELIEVED him to violate the law.

Semantics, I know, but what logically follows is that just because there is a law, we can not buttume that the activity prohibited by said law is actually illegal, until a challenge is issued and the SCOTUS rules on the case. One not need be a lawyer to be able to go through the laws of any state and find a minimum of 1000 laws on the books that are unconsbreastutional. I could list hundreds from Illinois and the communities within, without so much as getting out of my seat. Just because those laws have not been challenged does not make them valid.

************************* Dave