Only in America

[MadAxeMurderer 6,214]

@JG52Maybe I watch too many facebook videos while cooking etc.

 

1: The police are allowed to lie. They can claim to have the right to search, and unless you are rock solid on the applicable law it is hard to deny them their unlawful action.

They also ask ambiguously. So you don't mind if I search quickly. Both yes and no can be interpreted by them as giving permission. Stack those negatives

You have to unambiguously say: I don't give permission to search. 

This is followed by: Well if you've committed no crime why are you refusing a search, This is very suspicious. I could arrest you for being suspicious. 

 

2: Again lots of videos of handcuffed (often black people) demanding to know why and being shouted at to sit in the car, and threatened with arrest for resisting arrest while the police tell them they will find out later why they were arrested. Even telling them they will find out in jail.

Also police claiming that acting suspiciously is probable cause.

Finally saying they are investigating to see what crime has been committed. So they illegally detain you while scrambling to find a crime that fits

 

3: Again police allowed to lie.

I gave you a lawful order to show your id, you have to show it. 

What is your probable cause?

You have to show your id

What is your probable cause?

You will be arrested if you don't show your id

 

The fundamental problem is that police are judged on how many arrests they make, and how many tickets they write, and especially how much revenue they generate.

The metric is not how safe they make the area, but how many arrests and tickets. 

[tor 16,868]

2 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

@JG52Maybe I watch too many facebook videos while cooking etc.

 

 

 

What you don't see is what happened before the video started.

 

This conversation really can't go anywhere. I'm out :)

[tor 16,868]

[JG52 1,018]

13 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

I think a lot of victims of "legalised highway robbery" otherwise known as civil asset forfeiture might have some comments on the (lack of) protection provided by the 4th amendment.

The 4th Amendment does not have anything to do with asset forfeiture, more commonly known as the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.  If the seizure is in violation of the 4th Amendment, then anything related to the investigation as a result is known as fruit from the poisoned tree and cannot be used in court.

 

My last asset forfeiture was a new Porsche 911.  The driver came through my stationary RADAR trap in the wee hours of the morning at about 85MPH.  When I took my RADAR out of standby to log the vehicles speed, the speed immediately dropped from 85 to 45MPH, which is prima facie evidence of a RADAR detector, which are illegal in my jurisdiction.  The driver did not see me, but his detector triggered immediately and he jumped on the brakes to slow down to the posted speed limit.  Possession of a RADAR detector was a $25 fine with no points.  However, driving 40MPH over the posted limit was reckless driving and requires a court appearance to adjudicate the case.

 

When I asked the driver to show me his detector, he denied having one and could not explain why he suddenly decided to slow to 45MPH on a 3/4-mile stretch of road at nearly 1:00 AM.  Since he refused to present the detector and I had probable cause to search his vehicle, I cuffed him and put him in the back of my cruiser for his and my safety.  I think he was confident that I would not find the detector, so he complied without any resistance.

 

I owned several 911's prior to then, so I knew the likely areas to hide a detector.  I found the antenna professionally installed in the driver's side turn signal lens, but had to continue searching for the box.  As I lifted the front hood (the 911's trunk), I heard some banging from my cruiser.  The driver was trying to get out, but was securely cuffed and belted into the back seat, so it wasn't an issue for me.  I didn't see anything in the fuse box area, so I lifted the carpet to reveal the spare tire area.  Instead of a spare tire, I found five blocks of tightly packaged material, which later turned out to be several kilos of marijuana.  The driver broke one of my cardinal rules: Don't do two stupid things at the same time.  If you're hauling substantial amounts of illegal drugs, don't speed.  I eventually found the RADAR detector box under the passenger seat.

 

As I returned to my cruiser, I called for a tow truck to take the car to the impound lot.  While filling out the impound form for the car, I asked the driver who held the lien on it.  He told me there wasn't a lien and he paid cash for the car.  He then added the drug business was good.  I stopped filling out the impound form and started filling out the RICO asset forfeiture form.  The driver's unsolicited comment successfully resulted in another county receiving a new Porsche 911 for use in its undercover operations.  The driver received a felony conviction for possession with intent to distribute.

 

Bottom line: Had the driver told me where the box was and showed it to me, I would not have had probable cause to search his vehicle.  Had I started in the interior instead of the trunk near the fuse block, and found the box, I would not have had any reason to continue searching.  If I did continue to search and found the drugs, they would not be admissible in court and the vehicle would not have been seized. 

[JG52 1,018]

9 minutes ago, MadAxeMurderer said:

@JG52Maybe I watch too many facebook videos while cooking etc.

 

The fundamental problem is that police are judged on how many arrests they make, and how many tickets they write, and especially how much revenue they generate.

The metric is not how safe they make the area, but how many arrests and tickets. 

 

 

I will leave you to your FB fantasies and back out of this conversation.  As @tor described accurately, the vidoes you watch could be snippets and not the entire, possibly boring, events leading up to the arrest.  I think at least a third of the people I arrested demanded to know why I was arresting them, even the one with blood stains on their hands after fatally knifing another person.  The person was apparently in a different frame of mind that would not be obvious in a short FB or YT video.

[Keleth 9,279]

4 hours ago, JG52 said:

  When I took my RADAR out of standby to log the vehicles speed, the speed immediately dropped from 85 to 45MPH, which is prima facie evidence of a RADAR detector, which are illegal in my jurisdiction.  The driver did not see me, but his detector triggered immediately and he jumped on the brakes to slow down to the posted speed limit.  Possession of a RADAR detector was a $25 fine with no points.  However, driving 40MPH over the posted limit was reckless driving and requires a court appearance to adjudicate the case.

 

 

Confused.

Did you legally capture him doing 85?

You say about your detector catching him at 85 but then you took it out of standby?

4 hours ago, JG52 said:

When I asked the driver to show me his detector, he denied having one and could not explain why he suddenly decided to slow to 45MPH on a 3/4-mile stretch of road at nearly 1:00 AM.  Since he refused to present the detector and I had probable cause to search his vehicle, I cuffed him and put him in the back of my cruiser for his and my safety.  I think he was confident that I would not find the detector, so he complied without any resistance.

So because he couldn´t explain why he slowed down that´s enough evidence to search his car because he denied having a radar detector(I´ve caught myself speeding before and slowed dramatically)?

4 hours ago, JG52 said:

I cuffed him and put him in the back of my cruiser for his and my safety

Trying to work out how that´s for his safety as well, unless it´s because you would have shot him if he´d ran.

 

If he´d had no detector or dope then what would have been the outcome because I still can´t tell if you had legal proof that he was speeding.

[kathdonn 387]

6 hours ago, tor said:

The answer is, was, and will always be Dubya.

[JG52 1,018]

1 hour ago, Keleth said:

Confused.

Did you legally capture him doing 85?

 

Yes, and this will likely be my last comment in this thread on this subject.

 

The RADAR units are calibrated by an FCC-approved center and we maintain the calibration logs at the courthouse.  At the beginning of the shift I check the accuracy of the unit with two tuning forks (also calibrated with separate log books) to indicate 35MPH and 55MPH.  If the unit fails the test, then I can't use it and get another unit out of the store room.  The failed unit goes back to the FCC shop for repair and/or calibration.  Periodically during the shift and always at the end of the shift, I test the unit again with the tuning forks and notify dispatch of the test time.  If the unit passes the test, then every RADAR-enforced speeding ticket issued up to that time is still valid.  If not, then every speeding ticket issued after the last passing test is not valid and I stop using the unit.  When I submit the tickets at the end of my shift, any invalid tickets are annotated and the court will notify the driver within one working day.  In over ten years after being RADAR certified, I never had a unit fail a test.

 

The speed indicated on the RADAR panel is the speed the vehicle is traveling, so I legally captured him at 85MPH.  The unit continuously indicates the real-time speed, but logs the highest speed in a second flashing digital display (high speed hold) as soon as I put it back in standby.  The highest speed remains flashing until I reset it.  While he was in my cruiser, he could have seen the unit flashing "85" since the console was on the middle of the dash in plain sight with bright red 1-inch LEDs.  I can't put the unit back in active mode until I reset the high speed hold.

 

Quote

You say about your detector catching him at 85 but then you took it out of standby?

 

The normal operating procedure is to keep the unit in standby (not transmitting) until I am confident the target vehicle is speeding.  I press the button on the remote to take it out of standby and put it into active mode.  In a few milliseconds, the speed of the target vehicle is registered on my RADAR console.  At the same time, or close to it, the detector in his car alerted him to the RADAR signal and he reacted accordingly.  However, the human reaction time is much slower than the digital electronics in my RADAR unit.

 

Quote

So because he couldn´t explain why he slowed down that´s enough evidence to search his car because he denied having a radar detector(I´ve caught myself speeding before and slowed dramatically)?

 

No, the question about why he slowed down was small talk.  The fact that he slowed down gave me the probable cause to search.  The most common answer given is "I realized I was speeding and decided to slow down", which is likely BS, but it doesn't matter.  In his case, he couldn't even manage a BS answer.  It was nearly 1:00AM, which is quite dark on the country roads and I was parked in a small clearing on the side of the road with most of my cruiser concealed from oncoming traffic by the vegetation.  It is very unlikely that he saw me from 3/4-mile away at that hour.  The courts in my state have determined that the sudden drop in speed when a RADAR unit is switched to active mode is prima facie evidence of a detector and gives me probable cause to search the vehicle if the driver does not produce the detector when asked.  We don't seize the detector, just issue a ticket for using it AND issue a ticket for speeding.

 

Quote

Trying to work out how that´s for his safety as well, unless it´s because you would have shot him if he´d ran.

 

While I'm searching his car, I can't keep an eye on him.  He might wander off in traffic, or might decide to attack me.  If he's handcuffed in the back seat of my cruiser, he can't hurt anyone and I know where he is.

 

I would not have shot him for a misdemeanor traffic offense.  I already had his driver's license, wallet, and car keys.  If I left him unattended while I searched and he bolted for the woods, I would have stopped the vehicle search, notified dispatch that he was a runner, called for a K-9 unit to help search for him, and called for a tow truck.  The probable cause to search for the detector is still valid, but can be done in the impound lot.  For what it's worth, the 911 was stripped down later to search for additional contraband, but I don't know if any was found.  That was a CID responsibility in order to continue building a case for his felony trial.

 

Quote

 

If he´d had no detector or dope then what would have been the outcome because I still can´t tell if you had legal proof that he was speeding.

 

The RADAR reading and my RADAR certification are the legal proof of speeding.  I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you. 

 

If I didn't have a RADAR unit, I could also follow a driver for a short distance after matching speed.  The speedometers in police cruises are calibrated and verified periodically with RADAR units.  Tracking is also valid proof for speeding and the officer does not require RADAR certification to follow a speeding vehicle and monitor the speed.

 

If I could not have found the detector AND did not find any contraband while searching for it, then he would have been released with a reckless driving ticket (85 in a 45 zone) and a mandatory court date.  My familiarity with the 911, specific training, and experience gave me the tools to know where to start looking and what might not belong in the vehicle.  Finding the antenna in the first 30 seconds of looking confirmed there was likely a detector in the vehicle.

 

Not all speeders are drug runners and not everyone caught in my RADAR immediately slows down; however, most slow down when I turn on the blue lights.  Contrary to what MAM believes, all cops are not out for ticket or arrest quotas.  I found I get more mileage out of warnings and lectures than issuing tickets.  Sometimes I would turn on the lights and then turn them off if the driver slowed to the posted limit.  Sometimes they didn't slow down, so the chase was on and they eventually stopped and were ticketed.

 

Everyone can have a bad day and do stupid things.  When I turn on the lights and make the stop, I already know what ticket (or tickets) I can issue and defend in court.  I will make my decision to write the ticket within the first ten seconds of our contact.  If I do issue a ticket, I will remain on the side of the road after I release you so I can write down the details of the stop on my copy of the ticket.  I will include the reason for the stop, my observations prior to the stop, the driver's and/or other occupant's reaction, behavior, and excuses, as well as any other relevant information like weather, road conditions, and traffic.  If you ever see a cop on the side of the road with the lights on and no one else in the area, they are usually memorializing the event so the details will be available for the court date later.

[BethAnnBitt 2,904]

I’m about to board my return flight from Denver to Reykjavik and onto Zürich.  I spent 4 weeks caring for my mother and helping her move to a better senior living situation.  Was my first trip back since February 2020 and I spent Thanksgiving with family and stayed several weeks with my very best friend from teenage years.  I love living in Konstanz, but I had a wonderful time with my people.  😊 

[kathdonn 387]

@BethAnnBitt, I'm happy you  could  spend so much time with your mother. And I appreciate how much of your time you must have devoted to her care.
@sarabyrd just left today after her planned 1-week vacation was highjacked by my hospitalization for a gallbladder emergency. Just watching everything she, her sister, and her SIL have done wear me out. Like you, it was up and down, cook and fetch meals, do laundry, and all the other things an invalid requires done for her.
So everyone out there, give thanks for family members caring for family members. It's not just time to sit and chat, though if you're lucky there'll be time for that, too. It's work.

[fraufruit 41,931]

10 hours ago, JG52 said:

Contrary to what MAM believes, all cops are not out for ticket or arrest quotas.  I found I get more mileage out of warnings and lectures than issuing tickets.

 

I have to agree with this. I got 13 warnings before getting my first speeding ticket. 

[keith2011 2,571]

12 hours ago, BethAnnBitt said:

 I spent 4 weeks caring for my mother and helping her move to a better senior living situation.

 

Sadly my mother in the UK has now had to move to a residential care home for the elderly, just interested to know how does it work in the USA? Is care for the elderly covered by medical insurance or is there any state/federal funding to help pay?

[fraufruit 41,931]

My mother spent the last 2 years of here life in a care home in the U.S. Her room cost about $9,000 per month. I think her Medicare insurance covered most of her meds but that was it.

[MikeMelga 7,240]

31 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

My mother spent the last 2 years of here life in a care home in the U.S. Her room cost about $9,000 per month. I think her Medicare insurance covered most of her meds but that was it.

I know people want to be close to relatives and friends, but that amount is just stupid. Moving to another country would cost a fraction of that. Heck, in Portugal, you could rent a house, have a dedicated full time nurse, a dedicated full time servant and still save money!

 

[keith2011 2,571]

37 minutes ago, fraufruit said:

My mother spent the last 2 years of here life in a care home in the U.S. Her room cost about $9,000 per month. I think her Medicare insurance covered most of her meds but that was it.

Yes much the same in the UK, not quite so expensive, the care home is 1200GBP per week and if her money runs out the state will pay, unlike here in Germany the children are not liable. Plans to cap the costs of elderly care in 2023 at 85k GBP in England have been delayed in the recent budget by at least 2 years.

[fraufruit 41,931]

21 minutes ago, MikeMelga said:

I know people want to be close to relatives and friends, but that amount is just stupid.

 

There are cheaper places. Only the best for Mama. Not stupid. 

[MikeMelga 7,240]

1 hour ago, fraufruit said:

 

There are cheaper places. Only the best for Mama. Not stupid. 

Sorry, did not mean it was a stupid decision, in Portuguese we would stay its "a stupid amount of money", i.e. a lot of money.

[LukeSkywalker 7,597]

2 hours ago, keith2011 said:

Yes much the same in the UK, not quite so expensive, the care home is 1200GBP per week and if her money runs out the state will pay, unlike here in Germany the children are not liable.

In Germany children are only liable if they earn more than €100K per year. That was changed in recent years. 

[keith2011 2,571]

8 minutes ago, LukeSkywalker said:

In Germany children are only liable if they earn more than €100K per year. That was changed in recent years. 

 

Is it just based on the childrens earnings or do they consider assets and savings etc? I also have an ageing German mother-in-law.

[PandaMunich 16,562]

19 minutes ago, keith2011 said:

Is it just based on the childrens earnings or do they consider assets and savings etc? I also have an ageing German mother-in-law.

Only on the child's income from all sources worldwide - the child's assets are disregarded.

And your income doesn't matter at all, you are just the son-in-law, only your wife's income matters.

 

For details, please read:

• https://www-finanztip-de.translate.goog/elternunterhalt/?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp
• https://www-verbraucherzentrale-de.translate.goog/wissen/gesundheit-pflege/pflege-im-heim/elternunterhalt-kinder-zahlen-erst-ab-100000-euro-jahreseinkommen-28892?_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp