Again, Whren v. U.S. I don't think you understood it all the last time you read it so I'll point you to a good cite:
"...The unanimous Court held that as long as officers have a reasonable cause to believe that a traffic violation occurred, they may stop any vehicle. In the present case, the officers had reasonable cause to stop the pebreastioners for a traffic violation since they sped away from a stop sign at an 'unreasonable speed' and without using their turn signal. Thus, since an actual traffic violation occurred, the ensuing search and seizure of the offending vehicle was reasonable, regardless of what other personal motivations the officers might have had for stopping the vehicle. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that the anxiety, confusion, and haste which the pebreastioners experienced from the stop-and-search outweighed the government's interest in traffic safety. While the Fourth Amendment does require a balancing test between a search-and-seizure's benefits and the harm it might cause to the individual, such a test only applies to unusually harmful searches and seizures. There was nothing unusually harmful about this traffic stop. "
Cops on fishing expeditions 2900You have shown you aren't that stupid, so I buttume you are being deliberately ignorant. The issue isn't whether one can find and enforce violations after a stop. The issue...
-- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
