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

for a fleeting moment the concept re vehicle tinted windows and 'officer safety' rolled through my mind but i dismissed it as believing the legislature couldn't be that smart ~ could they?

ipse

utbagpiper said:

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

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, more than one LEO has made the argument that a blanket or coat covering something rose to the level of RAS!

Citizen said:

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

....

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.

Click to expand...

The anarchist once again resorts to insult and slight by denying to acknowledge another man as his equal. He would address his equal directly and by name. Yet he refuses to do so for someone based simply on philosophical disagreement. This seems to call into serious question his professed offer to fight for all your rights, or his implicit claim to view all men as equals. He clearly views some men as less than his equal.

The anarchist also refuses to consider on the "reasonable man test" or any self-consitency. How dark do windows have to be tinted in order to provide real privacy? Real privacy, as opposed to merely making some legal claim of wanting privacy. The anarchist argues the government can't have it both ways, but then wants it both ways himself. The anarchist is not self consistent. And if anachro-libertarian philosophy demands any single virtue beyond adherence to the NIOFF principle, it is absolute self consistency. Indeed, the whole basis of NIOFF is a self-consistent view of what is or isn't a real right.

I proposed a rational man, self consistent test about whether a person really believes tinted windows provide privacy. If a man really believes tinted windows provide privacy, that man will have no qualms leaving a very valuable, hard to replace item sitting on his back seat in an unattended car, in a high foot traffic area. Anyone who hesitates to do that, doesn't really believe the window tinting (whether legal or not) provides real privacy. He just wants to make a legal claim that it does. Real privacy is obscuring from view sufficiently that I'm not worried about some meth head seeing the item and doing a smash and grab to steal it.

Rather than address this test, to either rebut it as flawed in some way, or to show that he really does believe tinted windows would provide privacy, the anarchist engages in dishonest debate tactics by trying to avoid the rational, self-consistent discussion with diversion and personal attack. He claims it is all about what I think is reasonable. This is false. It is all about what the individual believes is reasonable across multiple cases. If tinted windows don't provide sufficient privacy to entrust something valuable, then rationally they don't provide sufficient privacy to claim the government is invading privacy.

If the anarchist wants to claim that with sufficient window tinting he would leave that valuable, hard to replace item, on his back seat, unattended, then he can make the case that such tinting is sufficient to invoke a privacy claim against the government agents.

Or he might propose some other self-consistent, rational test.

Instead, he demonstrate the adolescent attitude of too many anarchists who simply demand, "I can do whatever I want. There shouldn't be any rules at all." Such a creature can lay no legitimate claim to any of l/Libertarianism's logic, reason, or self-consistency.

Charles

JoeSparky said:

Unfortunately, more than one LEO has made the argument that a blanket or coat covering something rose to the level of RAS!

Click to expand...

I believe it. To me, this is akin to someone claiming that only the guilty would ever exercise their 5th amendment rights.

There is no doubt we have much work to do to fully secure our rights. In fact, I seem to recall that someone proclaimed that such efforts would be eternal, as in never ending.

Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, I think we are mostly headed in the right direction. The courts are sometimes 2 steps forward, 1 step back. But overall I think we are heading the right direction in terms of greater legal respect for our rights to be secure in our property.

Charles

I find this pretty disturbing

[
Withstanding only a statute to the contrary, any order from a cop is lawful.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a citation for that? I have a real problem believing that everything that a cop tells me to do, even if I am not breaking any law, is a "lawful order". You may very well be right, but I would really like to see where it says that in the law.

utbagpiper said:

I believe it. To me, this is akin to someone claiming that only the guilty would ever exercise their 5th amendment rights.

There is no doubt we have much work to do to fully secure our rights. In fact, I seem to recall that someone proclaimed that such efforts would be eternal, as in never ending.

Fortunately, in the grand scheme of things, I think we are mostly headed in the right direction. The courts are sometimes 2 steps forward, 1 step back. But overall I think we are heading the right direction in terms of greater legal respect for our rights to be secure in our property.

Charles

Click to expand...

A certain LEO that we have both dealt with has suggested that only CRIMINALS stand for their rights!

JoeSparky said:

A certain LEO that we have both dealt with has suggested that only CRIMINALS stand for their rights!

Click to expand...

Fortunately, at least in these parts, that certain LEO is more the exception than the rule.

Eternal vigilance.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

your joking right? clear windows don't get any darker at night they also don't hinder light transfer from other vehicle headlights.

5% all around can and DOES create a problem with night driving. I have been in illegally tinted cars with 5% on all corners, at night you can't see jack squat out the sides, and when you do see headlights your distance judgment is VASTLY skewed do to the dimness of them.

also tint is only 1 step, it is not a provide all privacy, glove boxes can be locked, same with trunks, if stuff is stored in either and he finds nothing in the car cabin with RAS, then you can require the use of a warrant to search those areas, you can also request a lawyer, either private or public defender be present during the search.

Ezek said:

your joking right? clear windows don't get any darker at night they also don't hinder light transfer from other vehicle headlights.

5% all around can and DOES create a problem with night driving. I have been in illegally tinted cars with 5% on all corners, at night you can't see jack squat out the sides, and when you do see headlights your distance judgment is VASTLY skewed do to the dimness of them.

also tint is only 1 step, it is not a provide all privacy, glove boxes can be locked, same with trunks, if stuff is stored in either and he finds nothing in the car cabin with RAS, then you can require the use of a warrant to search those areas, you can also request a lawyer, either private or public defender be present during the search.

Click to expand...

Oh, my, no, I wasn't joking at all. We're saying the same thing. You and I are definitely on the same page on this.

Citizen said:

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.

Click to expand...

utbagpiper said:

The anarchist once again resorts to insult and slight by denying to acknowledge another man as his equal. He would address his equal directly and by name. Yet he refuses to do so for someone based simply on philosophical disagreement. This seems to call into serious question his professed offer to fight for all your rights, or his implicit claim to view all men as equals. He clearly views some men as less than his equal.

The anarchist also refuses snipp... The anarchist argues snipp...The anarchist is not self consistent.

snipp...

the anarchist engages...snippp...

If the anarchist... snippp...

Instead, he demonstrate the adolescent attitude of too many anarchists who simply demand, "I can do whatever I want. There shouldn't be any rules at all." Such a creature can lay no legitimate claim to any of l/Libertarianism's logic, reason, or self-consistency.

Charles

Click to expand...

Citizen, allow me to be the first to offer congratulations on the Order of Chivalry honourarium title bestowed, by the mate: 'The Anarchist ~ Citizen' !

tho, i think he shortened too much and perhaps your true title should read, the "Anarcho-Capitalist ~ Citizen" as it better defines your philosophy...

i hope, this new honourarium will not boost your ego too much.

ipse

added, tho re-reading your post i guess i missed your insults, real or perceived that the mate has brought up....eh, filed it under "H".

utbagpiper said:

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.

Click to expand...

so you assume that everyone has the same level of vision? just because dark tint may prevent one person from seeing in the dark, doesn't mean another person can't see either. that's not a good enough excuse to me.

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.

Click to expand...

what if you have a truck and no cover on the bed? then what? carrying around a blanket when there's a perfectly good invention that requires no space inside your cab. not a good enough excuse either.


just because you can/can't doesn't mean i should/shouldn't.

Nightmare said:

Withstanding only a statute to the contrary, any order from a cop is lawful.

Click to expand...

that doesn't make sense. a cop derives his authority by the law. he can't tell you to do anything that is not explicitly stated in the law, and you are required to obey, legally. if you are standing on a sidewalk, and there's no law against it, he can't make you move 'just cuz'.

if someone is smoking a cigarette outside on public property near children, and it's not illegal to smoke outside near children, do you really have to listen to a cop who tells you to move 'for the children', or face arrest or infraction?


once there's no law to enforce, a cop becomes a normal citizen. he has to obey the traffic laws while in his cruiser just like you and i, with the exception of emergencies. and even then, he has to "try to be safe".


just like a cop can't "pull you over to give you ice cream".

utbagpiper said:

If the anarchist wants to claim that with sufficient window tinting he would leave that valuable, hard to replace item, on his back seat, unattended, then he can make the case that such tinting is sufficient to invoke a privacy claim against the government agents.

Click to expand...

i didn't realize i was only allowed to have valuables if i promised to lock them up when i leave them in my car. i didn't realize that i had to have [bold]any[/b] justification for anything i choose to do that doesn't affect the safety, well-being, or liberty of another citizen.

Instead, he demonstrate the adolescent attitude of too many anarchists who simply demand, "I can do whatever I want. There shouldn't be any rules at all." Such a creature can lay no legitimate claim to any of l/Libertarianism's logic, reason, or self-consistency.

Charles

Click to expand...

i can do whatever i want, whenever i want. as long as it doesn't affect someone else's liberties. how do you determine that equates to anarchy? of course there should be rules- rules concerning actions that affect others. if i can see out my tinted windows safely, then move along son and getcha eyes checked.

Ezek said:

also tint is only 1 step, it is not a provide all privacy, glove boxes can be locked, same with trunks, if stuff is stored in either and he finds nothing in the car cabin with RAS, then you can require the use of a warrant to search those areas, you can also request a lawyer, either private or public defender be present during the search.

Click to expand...

did you read this before you wrote it?


because having the window tint accomplishes the same thing without having to go through the process of putting it in the glovebox...


RAS is not a green light to search the cabin area of your car. not sure if you knew that or not, just thought i'd throw it in here.

Citizen said:

Oh, my, no, I wasn't joking at all. We're saying the same thing. You and I are definitely on the same page on this.

Click to expand...

he doesn't get it. it's okay.

Nightmare said:

Generally the law prohibits rather than permits, so you will have to examine your state law for orders/actions prohibited to a cop.

I think that you will find the rationale to be that the cop becomes responsible for your safety once you are detained and you will have to challenge his judgement in court, not in public.

Click to expand...

the only thing that makes a cop a cop is the ability to arrest and enforce all laws. if there's no law to enforce, or liberty to protect, he is no different than any other citizen...in uniform or not, on-duty or not.

If a cop knows that he pulling over a citizen to give away ice cream will result in no negative consequences, then what he sees in your car, post Strieff, will be admissible in a court of law. Heien and Strieff have completely eliminated our 4A protections, we are now at the mercy of whether or not any given cop is feeling benevolent (free ice cream) or malevolent (cuffed and stuffed) that day.

OC for ME said:

If a cop knows that he pulling over a citizen to give away ice cream will result in no negative consequences, then what he sees in your car, post Strieff, will be admissible in a court of law. Heien and Strieff have completely eliminated our 4A protections, we are now at the mercy of whether or not any given cop is feeling benevolent (free ice cream) or malevolent (cuffed and stuffed) that day.

Click to expand...

Completely eliminated our 4th amendment ?

What you doing about it then?

hammer6 said:

did you read this before you wrote it?


because having the window tint accomplishes the same thing without having to go through the process of putting it in the glovebox...


RAS is not a green light to search the cabin area of your car. not sure if you knew that or not, just thought i'd throw it in here.

Click to expand...

yeah.. he see's something in your car and believes it to be illegal, he can and will search your car, this is the passanger compartment/cabin of the car. locked items can easily be refused to be open.

does he necessarily have a green light to do so? no, but they will, and if they want to really be ****** bags, cause they don't find anything, they call out the K9 unit.

I would know it has happened to me. the issue with it is the officers mentality.

and no window tint does NOT accomplish the same thing, because the windshield is clear and must remain so under law. if he peeks in through the front and sees something. then guess what, all your tint didn't do **** now did it?

any good PREPERATION requires some contingency and redundancy.

OC for ME said:

If a cop knows that he pulling over a citizen to give away ice cream will result in no negative consequences, then what he sees in your car, post Strieff, will be admissible in a court of law. Heien and Strieff have completely eliminated our 4A protections, we are now at the mercy of whether or not any given cop is feeling benevolent (free ice cream) or malevolent (cuffed and stuffed) that day.

Click to expand...