• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Heat in Virginia leads to cops violating 4th amend to hand out ice cream ? Whaat?

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/prankster-cops-hand-out-ice-cream-cones-instead-of-tickets/

Warner continues, asking her, “Are you familiar with vehicle code 1.7.3.9?”

When the woman shakes her head, the officer reveals that it’s not a real violation.

“It’s actually against the law to drive on a hot day without an ice cream cone,” he said, handing her a frozen treat.


Seems harmless until they seize your car for some asset seizure garbage.
 

Va_Nemo

Member
Joined
May 1, 2016
Messages
654
Location
Lynchburg
I think I would probably end up arrested for a giving the cop a not friendly or receptive response to his offer. I would probably advise him the program needed better planning and to get to the meeting he needed a bladder voiding on a vertically suspended braided hemp lifting device.

I doubt I would be a forum/child friendly speaker in that conversation.

Nemo
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
http://nypost.com/2016/08/01/prankster-cops-hand-out-ice-cream-cones-instead-of-tickets/

Warner continues, asking her, “Are you familiar with vehicle code 1.7.3.9?”

When the woman shakes her head, the officer reveals that it’s not a real violation.

“It’s actually against the law to drive on a hot day without an ice cream cone,” he said, handing her a frozen treat.


Seems harmless until they seize your car for some asset seizure garbage.

while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?
Then they could have set up a stand where drivers could voluntarily stop to get a frozen confection - that could be construed as good public relations.

IMHO - fake traffic stops are not good PR.
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
Then they could have set up a stand where drivers could voluntarily stop to get a frozen confection - that could be construed as good public relations.

IMHO - fake traffic stops are not good PR.

I agree .... I'd be at the courthouse the next day. All seizures and searches are presumed to violate the 4th amendment w/o a warrant/PC.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
while I will say the execution of this is rather in poor taste, I think the basic idea was okay. as the basic idea was to hand out ice cream and be nice to the community.

kinda like those bygone days of the beat cop?

you missed the bolded part, didn't you?

also I fail to see where they searched vehicles..
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
you missed the bolded part, didn't you?

also I fail to see where they searched vehicles
..

I think you would agree that they did peer into the interior for a look-see....something that they would have likely been able to do otherwise.

So, IMO...its a seizure and search conducted.
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
I think you would agree that they did peer into the interior for a look-see....something that they would have likely been able to do otherwise.

So, IMO...its a seizure and search conducted.

Ever hear of window tint?

without tinted windows, your cars interior is ultimately public knowledge to any passerby purveyor of such things mostly this holds true when parked though.

granted the stop provides the parking of the vehicle required to conduct such peering, and, as a result, the entire stop itself is unlawful due to the stop being conducted with no actual laws broken.

again BAD execution, BAD form, BAD taste.

but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
--snipped--

but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)
While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Ever hear of window tint?

without tinted windows, your cars interior is ultimately public knowledge to any passerby purveyor of such things mostly this holds true when parked though.

granted the stop provides the parking of the vehicle required to conduct such peering, and, as a result, the entire stop itself is unlawful due to the stop being conducted with no actual laws broken.

again BAD execution, BAD form, BAD taste.

but in l8ight of the recent crap going on, at least it was an ice cream cone with ice cream and not a bullet ejected from a barrel cause the driver might have been black and the white officer feared for his life. ( facetious sarcasm here)

Omigosh!! What an amazing point!!

Fourth Amendment case law holds that a "plain view" search is legal.* That is to say, if a cop is in a physical location he is legally allowed to be in, then if he see's something illegal, he can seize the contraband, and arrest the individual. To expand, if the cop illegally enters a home with neither a warrant, nor a recognized exception to the warrant clause, and sees something illegal--say a bong still emitting smoke--then he cannot legally seize the bong, nor arrest the smoker. The bong will be thrown out of court as evidence--or should be, anyway. On the other hand, if a cop walks up to a car and sees a nickel-bag of weed on the seat, he can seize the bag and arrest the driver/passenger/etc. (exact details of case law apply as to who in the car can be arrested.) Plain view. If it was in plain view, it did not require a search. No search, no Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause or a warrant.

But, there is another angle. There are reams of court cases addressing privacy. Would public attitudes hold this or that private? Did the defendant take this-or-that step to ensure others couldn't see (did he consider it private and want to protect his privacy?) Did the defendant abandon his privacy interest in this or that by leaving it open to public view? Reams of court cases on this.

So, along comes our example driver. He's tinted his windows to prevent others from seeing inside his car. He's literally demonstrating that he is protecting the privacy of his car's interior. An angle courts have ruled on regarding taking steps to protecting privacy and removing from public view.

And, yet!! Over here we have government making it illegal to tint your windows "too much".

They can't have it both ways!! Government can't prevent you from protecting your privacy, rule against you for not protecting your privacy interests, and then at the same time allow a plain view search!! They're having their cake and eating it, too!!

Their own law is against them. Ever hear of something called collateral estoppel? It is a legal term. Its fancy-pants language for "if you argue this here at this time, then you cannot later contradict yourself by later arguing something over there that contradicts your earlier argument.

Omigosh!! Thank you, Ezek! Thank you! Thank you!!


*There are just way too many court cases on these points to be able to cite. However, even the simplest, most inept google scholar search will produce numerous returns. Heck, if interested, one can just go to Wikipedia and search "plain view doctrine". If other wiki legal articles are any example, there will be a ton of citations at the bottom of the article.
 
Last edited:

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.

was not trying to break any rules, merely an ill tempered humor at the parroting of current media. hence the statement note at the end.
 

Grapeshot

Legendary Warrior
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
35,317
Location
Valhalla
While I understand your point, others may not. That kettle of fish does not need stirring.

Please be aware of Forum Rules #6 and #9. OCDO does not malign LEOs or LEA.

was not trying to break any rules, merely an ill tempered humor at the parroting of current media. hence the statement note at the end.
As I said, I understand your intent = sarcasm and humor.

Sometimes we forget that we are posting to a very widely read public forum, not a private, members only blog. Anyone* can read OCDO w/o registering, just can't post.

*Anyone = politicians, media, antis, soccer moms, as well as good ol' boys. Our non-registered readers far exceed those wishing to take part in discussions.

We (you and I) have no problem. (handshake)
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
Omigosh!! What an amazing point!!

...

So, along comes our example driver. He's tinted his windows to prevent others from seeing inside his car. He's literally demonstrating that he is protecting the privacy of his car's interior. An angle courts have ruled on regarding taking steps to protecting privacy and removing from public view.

And, yet!! Over here we have government making it illegal to tint your windows "too much".

They can't have it both ways!! Government can't prevent you from protecting your privacy, rule against you for not protecting your privacy interests, and then at the same time allow a plain view search!! They're having their cake and eating it, too!!
...


Or maybe, those who really want to protect the privacy of their belongings would do something more than just rely on window tint. After all, cars registered to drive on public roads do actually need to be safe to operate on the roads and that limits how dark window tint can be even if the big, nasty, evil, illegitimate government didn't impose limits. Short of limos, motorhomes, or panel vans with segregated driving compartments, significant portions of every vehicle's passenger compartment are visible through the windshield and driver's side windows, through which the driver must have visibility to safely operate the vehicle.

Storing personal items in the trunk, an enclosed console, in a box or case, or even tossing a blanket over the top of them if they are just sitting on the seat does far more to protect privacy than does relying on even the darkest tint, once one realizes that in the vast majority of vehicles, the windshield and driver's side windows offer a pretty significant view into the car.

Yet again, your hammer is making everything look like a nail to you.

Charles
 

Ezek

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
411
Location
missouri
Or maybe, those who really want to protect the privacy of their belongings would do something more than just rely on window tint. After all, cars registered to drive on public roads do actually need to be safe to operate on the roads and that limits how dark window tint can be even if the big, nasty, evil, illegitimate government didn't impose limits. Short of limos, motorhomes, or panel vans with segregated driving compartments, significant portions of every vehicle's passenger compartment are visible through the windshield and driver's side windows, through which the driver must have visibility to safely operate the vehicle.

Storing personal items in the trunk, an enclosed console, in a box or case, or even tossing a blanket over the top of them if they are just sitting on the seat does far more to protect privacy than does relying on even the darkest tint, once one realizes that in the vast majority of vehicles, the windshield and driver's side windows offer a pretty significant view into the car.

Yet again, your hammer is making everything look like a nail to you.

Charles

I agree with this , mostly.

rear windows are able to be tinted to 5% with front side windows at 35%, this combo actually makes passagers and object in the car very vague in outline, and hard to clarify what they actually are, and the best one I love is a use of the two way mirror film.

the two way mirror film allows over 35% light through, but the mirror effect is what makes it the best option. the windshield however is a problem. as it is very clear and must remain so.

however if you use mirror tint, put your things in the glove box, or trunk, or reasonably OUT of sight, then you have taken steps to protect your privacy while in your vehicle IMO.

the problem with the stop and search is all they have to do is STATE while the camera is rolling they smell something, like an illicit Narcotic widely used for recreational purposes. ( saw a cop do this to a guy on a 600CC import MOTORCYCLE on youtube, about fell over in disbelief, no way your gonna smoke or transport that and have room in the tiny thing under the passanger seat for your papers to drive legally. if it was me that was stopped I would have probably fell over laughing, while asking if he was actually serious.) and they now have carte blanche to rip your stuff apart.
 
Last edited:

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
http://www.smarttint.com/


Get this tint .. the limit to tinting is for the driver to be able to see out and operate the car safely, I would argue. Not so prying eyes can see in.

Stop the car...bam ! Activate tint.

A rifle on the dash can also be of use, in those states that allow one to plop down a rifle on the dashboard that does not obstruct your view.
 

utbagpiper

Banned
Joined
Jul 5, 2006
Messages
4,061
Location
Utah
I agree with this , mostly.

rear windows are able to be tinted....

however if you use mirror tint, put your things in the glove box, or trunk, or reasonably OUT of sight, then you have taken steps to protect your privacy while in your vehicle IMO.

Ignoring what current law is about window tint in any jurisdiction, the point remains, of course, that cars driven on public roads actually need to be safe to drive. I'm not aware of any window tinting or mirror finish for automobile windows that blocks visibility into the car while still allowing enough light through to safely use on windshields or the driver's side windows. Simply put, window tint is not a reasonable step, by itself, to assure privacy. Blocking even half of the light entering the windshield makes cars unsafe for nighttime operation. Until someone installs self-blackening "snap glass" that blacks out when parked, and lightens when being driven, windows are going to be mostly visible. I suppose sun shades might help. But I don't view them as being reliable privacy devices.

Consider this simple test: If the item you wanted to remain private was a hot item for thieves, and very expensive for you to replace, would you rely on the method claimed to prevent a thief from noticing the item while your car was parked, unattended at a mall or other unsecured workplace with lots of foot traffic? When I place items out of sight so as to avoid smash and grabs while my car is unattended in public, I do not rely on window tint. I don't even rely on a blanket or coat over the back seat. I get the item into the trunk (ideally it is placed there well before I park lest anyone watching me park notice me put something in the trunk), glove box, center console, or other area where there is 100% visible privacy.

Of course, I also make an effort to avoid having illegal items in my car. This is NOT an "If you're innocent you have nothing to hide argument." It is just a statement of fact. I do not intend to break the law and so I don't have illegal items in my car. I do not intend to invite thieves, and so I don't have anything that could possibly be of any value, visible in my car. The firearm lock box is well out sight. The trunk, glove box, and center console are kept closed. I avoid even leaving empty backpacks visible as I don't need the cost and hassle of fixing a smashed window just because some meth head is more than willing to bust up my car to make sure there isn't something of value inside a visible backpack.

the problem with the stop and search is all they have to do is STATE while the camera is rolling they smell something, like an illicit Narcotic widely used for recreational purposes. ( saw a cop do this to a guy on a 600CC import MOTORCYCLE on youtube, about fell over in disbelief, no way your gonna smoke or transport that and have room in the tiny thing under the passanger seat for your papers to drive legally. if it was me that was stopped I would have probably fell over laughing, while asking if he was actually serious.) and they now have carte blanche to rip your stuff apart.

You'll get no disagreement from me on this problem.

Even as one who doesn't support legalization of additional recreational drugs, I am very supportive of some significant changes in how the law is enforced. The "war on drugs" has long since become a war on too many civil rights. As an analogy, I'm very much in favor of maintaining and enforcing low speed limits in school zones. Stats on survivability of pedestrians hit at different speeds, and best brain research on children's inability to judge distance, speed, and time of arrival, all demand that drivers exercise extreme caution in areas and at times where large numbers of children are known to be crossing the road. But, I would very much oppose any "war on speeding". Enforcement needs to be commensurate with the danger to society posed by the crime. The recreational drug user who keeps his use private enough that he can only be prosecuted using highly invasive techniques, probably isn't posing much danger to society.

One of great dangers of having certain, fairly common items completely banned is that planting that item on someone becomes a very easy and damaging setup. Whether that is someone deliberately planning evidence, or your teenage kid's friend who drops something out of his pocket accidentally while riding in your car the end effect is the same. Civil asset forfeiture can certainly create an incentive for deliberately planting evidence to justify what turned out to be an unwarranted search.

It is a problem.

Charles
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
SNIP I agree with this , mostly.

I don't. It doesn't even pass the smell test.

If the so-called "reduced visibility" through highly tinted windows was a safety issue, nobody would be allowed to drive a car with clear windows at night. I've been in cars with heavily tinted windows--you can still see more than driving at night.

No, no. This is too clearly a law aimed at allowing police a free plain-view search and to elevate their "comfort level" when approaching a car they've seized in a traffic stop. Oh, my. What a coincidence, "officer safety"--that touch-stone of rights diminishment--just happens to align with plain-view searches.

But, wait there's more.

He also put it on me to exercise my privacy in his way. According to him, if I want some privacy, I have to suffer the inconvenience of locking stuff in the trunk. No, no. I cannot exercise privacy my way, nor judge finely how much privacy I want, or how much inconvenience I am willing to put up with weighed against the degree of privacy I want. No, no. If I want privacy, I have to follow his dictates and totally hide things. Each time. Every time. No, I cannot tint my windows "too much" which is a one-time event. I must follow his dictate and inconveniently totally hide whatever item for which I want a degree of privacy, every time. His judgment about the degree of inconvenience acceptable, not mine. Or, yours. Or, anybody else's. His.
 
Last edited:
Top