JockO de Frog
Active Member
They must get their donuts free because he didn't ticket me.
Sewo arrested, controlled substance
- Thread starter SnoSki
- Start date
JockO de Frog
Active Member
Dumb, yes. But too old to be naive.
Billy Clyde
Active Member
This is a different kind of exorcise. Cardio. It's designed for message board athletes ("chat-thletes?"). It allows a person to maintain an elevated pulse and heart rate without ever having to leave the keyboard.
Atomic Frawg
Full Member
There is not a LP today that cannot be seen by the headlights of the car behind it. The headlights on cars are brighter than they have ever been and project further, sometimes creating their own safety issue by blinding oncoming drivers. The tiny bulbs that illuminate LPs do little to aid in their visibility at night, and it's not a real safety issue. It's for LEOs, who again, have have ways of lighting plates. One man's opinion.
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
2 licenses plates, one on the front and one on the rear, of a vehicle are tremendously helpful to LEO's when attempting to locate a vehicle. Simply put it on @satis1103 and you wont be cited.
Billy Clyde
Active Member
So if you are walking next to the curb and your friend gets run over by a car and the drunk driver doesn't stop... You should just pull one of those bright lights out of your pocket?
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
Cops need to enforce a law indiscriminately. Many departments keep track of what officers use as PC and demographics. This does come up in court.
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
I'm not arguing against two plates if you go back and read what I posted rather than the reply. I have two plates. Of course there should be two plates.
It's the license plate lights, on either side of the plate, that cause the infringement of people's right to avoid police harassment and scrutiny. There is no reason to have that law.
When it comes to pretext stops, remember, we have the right to be left alone, to not have to prove anything, and to go home or wherever we're going without interruption or questioning. It is much more frequent that police use these two little lights to interrupt people's days to fish, than the times where those two lights make the difference between seeing and not seeing an LP.
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
Curious, have you even read the law you are complaining about?
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
No I kind of rely on reading police reports where that is mentioned to the driver.
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
And actually, now that I look at it again, I have.
Here's the problem. If I am an officer I can say "yeah, your LP light doesn't make it visible from 50 feet." And how the hell is the driver going to dispute that?
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
I'll have to look again but I think the requirement is more about visibility by feet at night and not 2 lights.
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
It is. And most cars have 2 lights in my experience. So that's why I describe it as two lights.
By the way - as you know, a cop COULD be less knowledgeable about the statute, WRONG about his reason for the stop, and think it requires 2 or 5 or 10. As long as his mistake about the law is in good faith, the stop stands. That's scary.
It could say a jar of fireflies for all I care, it's not a necessary law in my opinion, and is far overused.
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Ask to have a look at it with the officer. If he is wrong, you are right.
Case in point. I was pulled over in Bryan, TX by a motorcycle cop for my tail lights being tinted. I made sure my tail lights were within the law, even kept the statute in my center console. I disagreed with his PC. Asked if he had a laser. He did and he agreed to test the required distance. I was right. Sent on my way with an apology from him. It was all on video.
Land Frog
Darn baylor!
Ask to get out of your car to check the light. If the officer is wrong, evidence after that may be fruit of the poisonous tree.
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
How many people who have not been in the legal profession know that term "fruit of the poisonous tree" even? How many people have true 4th amendment knowledge or caselaw reading experience? How many people know the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion for example? And of the laypeople who know the terms, how many of them have an incorrect understanding due to the Law and Order drama factor?
All that the typical, average IQ layman knows in this scenario is that an officer has pulled him over. Many laymen feel it's dangerous to even question an officer or their motivations for being pulled over. And seeing how many police videos of recent vintage have shown an argument about a traffic stop turn into a police shooting, I don't blame them. So what results? They end up capitulating and letting the officer say or do whatever, figuring he must know what he's talking about.
All I am trying to express is a frustration - my OPINION is, that as members of a free society, we should be allowed to carry on until an actual real problem is reported or observed. Not a "per se" problem that is not functionally problematic.
I think police fishing expeditions are excessive, intrusive and unnecessary, and my opinion is that we need to cut it off at the pretext-stop pass, before we end up in Random Roadblock Search valley someday when a pro LE Supreme court makes a questionable decision. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree.
Eight
Member
i would guess on the average day driving around harris, ft bend, montgomery, and walker counties i see 2-3 vehicles that have something obscuring their back license plate that prevents me from clearly reading the plate while parked at a light directly behind them in broad daylight let alone at night.
amazingly there are times when there is a county constable, sheriff's office, or police officer nearby who clearly can see or actually not see what i am seeing and yet no stop.
the arbitrary manner in which some of these laws are applied is the part which is most troublesome to me and having a friend who was a dps trooper who worked the i-10 corridor east of houston and a friend who worked for the hpd dui taskforce and both have admitted they both in their careers would look for reasons to pull over vehicles that met certain profiles throughout their career i think this is another case where i am not sure the means justifies the end.
amazingly there are times when there is a county constable, sheriff's office, or police officer nearby who clearly can see or actually not see what i am seeing and yet no stop.
the arbitrary manner in which some of these laws are applied is the part which is most troublesome to me and having a friend who was a dps trooper who worked the i-10 corridor east of houston and a friend who worked for the hpd dui taskforce and both have admitted they both in their careers would look for reasons to pull over vehicles that met certain profiles throughout their career i think this is another case where i am not sure the means justifies the end.
jake102
Active Member
FWIW - if people are basing their world knowledge off fictional television shows and "viral" video clips, then they probably have it coming. I don't necessarily disagree with your point on the LP lights or whatever. Just pointing this little piece of information out.
satis1103
DAOTONPYH EHT LIAH LLA
You're right. Some of the worst clients we work with are the ones who have just enough knowledge about the law to feel smart, yet not enough to actually help in their defense. Most often they just end up being demanding towards their attorney, and asking for inappropriate motions and measures, while keeping a false sense of confidence.
YA
Active Member
My favorite saying to these types of clients is your google search doesn’t trump my law license.
