police departments running me for warrants every time i show up to film them

[OC for ME]

Correct. They get let go with an explanation and an apology. Usually within a minute or two after at least a license statistics check which automatically does warrants. I've had numerous cases where the owner would have a suspended license. Person driving meets description. Pull car over realize its not then immediately tell them why they are stopped. Do status check of their license to cover everyone and have a good night sir/ma'am on their way. I've never ever had anyone freak out and demand to be let go. When explained as to why they are being stopped they have always been understanding. In fact I've had a few cases where the real owner is on the passenger seat I've asked if they knew it was suspended they'd say no and be glad I told them so they wouldn't drive.

I respect your opinion and strong believe about no "detainments" but I just don't run into many issues with people. I'm very courteous and explain everything to them. That seems to help a lot.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Why check the license? The driver is not the guy. :banghead: The only reason for the stop.:banghead: Ya just gotta run the non-perp for something, you guys can't help yourself.

fini fini

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Are you you refuting what a warrant is and designed for? I couldn't see your relevant point to the matter at hand underneath all the senseless bashing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Ah. The ol' "greased pig" act. You focus on what I highlighted. your attempt to establish a point by popularity [because as stated by other guys]. Lame, sloppy and dishonest.

 

[Primus]

Why check the license? The driver is not the guy. :banghead: The only reason for the stop.:banghead: Ya just gotta run the non-perp for something, you guys can't help yourself.

fini fini

Sir you run the driver because if he drives away and kills someone and doesn't have a license or its suspended its logged that I had him stopped and could have prevented said accident. So it'd be immoral and could cause legal trouble to just kick them loose. That's all no more no less.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Grapeshot]

You all are getting personal again.

No more insults, please.

 

[Primus]

Ah. The ol' "greased pig" act. You focus on what I highlighted. your attempt to establish a point by popularity [because as stated by other guys]. Lame, sloppy and dishonest.

Reported. Personal attacks.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Why check the license? The driver is not the guy. :banghead: The only reason for the stop.:banghead: Ya just gotta run the non-perp for something, you guys can't help yourself.

fini fini

That meets the description of poaching, doesn't it? How honorable.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Sir you run the driver because if he drives away and kills someone and doesn't have a license or its suspended its logged that I had him stopped and could have prevented said accident. So it'd be immoral and could cause legal trouble to just kick them loose. That's all no more no less.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

By that lack of reasoning, you are obligated to stop EVERY driver. There would be no log that you stopped him if his right to privacy had been respected, a respect due him because you mistaking him for another is not probable cause, is it?

 

[Primus]

By that lack of reasoning, you are obligated to stop EVERY driver. There would be no log that you stopped him if his right to privacy had been respected, a respect due him because you mistaking him for another is not probable cause, is it?

Ummm.... negative. I have rs to stopped based on likeliness of operator being owner. Based on that rs the person would be in my custody. Once released i still own then for anything egregious. For example if the operator wasn't the owner but he was s*** faced drunk.... do I let him go? Then try and find away to pull him over again since I know hes drunk? Cmon..

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Deanimator]

Sir can you cite an example? I ask because as stated by other guys, a warrant is designed to be searches for read and served by peace officers. Consider it a "hey heads up we are looking for this guy" memo. That's what it boils down to. So to restrict any peace officer from reading such "memo" defeats the purpose of putting it out there. Again we are very specifically talking about warrants NOT criminal history etc. Etc.

As I said, we're talking law or policy. That's totally ARBITRARY. You'd need to find out the specific law or policy in YOUR area.

I'm not saying it's unauthorized. I'm saying it COULD be unauthorized.

Of course that leaves aside:

1. How you know they're running you for warrants.
2. Why specifically you'd care.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Ummm.... negative. I have rs to stopped based on likeliness of operator being owner. Based on that rs the person would be in my custody. Once released i still own then for anything egregious. For example if the operator wasn't the owner but he was s*** faced drunk.... do I let him go? Then try and find away to pull him over again since I know hes drunk? Cmon..

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Reasonable excuses for unreasonable behaviour. You need to change your user name to Red Herring. By your logic[?], all drivers of vehicles owned by people that have warrants are suspects of drunk driving, by virtue of driving a car owned by someone with a warrant to for them. Running a license will not determine if a driver is under the influence. Did you sleep through cop school?

ETA: Take this day and work on your honesty. All day. Start now. Repeat after me: "This is done to fish in otherwise prohibited water".

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

As I said, we're talking law or policy. That's totally ARBITRARY. You'd need to find out the specific law or policy in YOUR area.

I'm not saying it's unauthorized. I'm saying it COULD be unauthorized.

Of course that leaves aside:

1. How you know they're running you for warrants.
2. Why specifically you'd care.

Primas's idea of a citation is "I ask because as stated by other guys, a warrant is designed". An appeal to popularity, cherry picking entire posts to find bits and pieces to support some twisted out of context idea to justify intrusions on people rights.

 

[Primus]

Reasonable excuses for unreasonable behaviour. You need to change your user name to Red Herring. By your logic[?], all drivers of vehicles owned by people that have warrants are suspects of drunk driving, by virtue of driving a car owned by someone with a warrant to for them. Running a license will not determine if a driver is under the influence. Did you sleep through cop school?

ETA: Take this day and work on your honesty. All day. Start now. Repeat after me: "This is done to fish in otherwise prohibited water".

Fuller really? Please re read the post. The DUI thing is a complete and separate example from say suspended license.

I would love to be honest right now and tell you what I think of you but last time I did that you immediately cried and said you were telling the administrator that I was bullying you and if I did list the things I think in honesty they would delete my posts since it'd be violating many rules. So I won't. And further I'll go back to ignoring you.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk