Right, but that is a very grey area where not everyone agrees. If the cop can articulate that fact well then it is usually a good deal, but there are so many variables that some say it isn't enough.
And that's ok, but still falls in that grey area.
Cops on fishing expeditions 2906Thanks for ignoring the hyperbole. On point, I don't know that any case you could reference would cover this. See, I have to believe that...
Hehe... yeah, we can all dream. I'm not saying that there won't be a warning given to him afterwards, but again, I'll never write a citation. Citations can be tried in lower courts; warnings can't.
And I completely agree, but unfortunately that isn't how the system works and the judges often have no choice. In Texas, traffic violations are tried in lower courts than higher criminal violations. If the criminal pleas not guilty to the traffic offense and somehow wins, then his defense attorney in county or district court will jump all over that and throw it out first off. When he argues that his client was found not guilty of violating the traffic offense he was originally stopped for then anything beyond that point is inadmissable because he can say that the stop was invalid from the beginning.
Well good. I'm glad that we can agree on that but what I think where we're (all inclusive in the n.g.) having the issue is when you're working criminal interdiction solely on vehicles you want to pull over but have to find a solid reason to first. If I see a car where I think the occupants look like they're up to no good, but have nothing other than a hunch, I wait until I see a violation and then stop them. Most in here disagree with that practice.
-- --- jaybird --- I am not the cause of your problems. My actions are the result of your actions. Your life is not my fault.
Cops on fishing expeditions 2905Well said. I was recently on a jury, and like I told a friend of mine, I thought he was probably guilty of something, just not guilty of what he was...
