Why not? I know my job. You are throwing are legal phrases with no regard to their definitions. This thread is not for you.
That’s enough right fucking there. That’s actually enough.
You suck as a cop, and should go straight to hell.
When anybody gets pulled over, they are automatically nervous.
We don’t all have guns in our cars, and we aren’t all drug dealers or, uh other types of criminals.
I bet it you could, you’d break my door down and arrest me for for 2 grams of marijuana?
That’s why you suck.
I agree.
Again you have no idea what you are talking about. Just being nervous would not be enough to raise to the legal definition of an articulable suspicion. There would have to be other elements also. I have had many people who could not keep their hands out of their pockets while I was conducting an investigation. I would tell them to stop but they would keep doing it. There was a pat down to see if they were going for a weapon. I found… nothing. Other times there has been something. There is something wrong with that? Should I wait for a gun to be pulled out first?
When anybody gets pulled over, they are automatically nervous.
Another ignorant comment. Most people know exactly what they did to be pulled over. Some are nervous, some are calm and friendly some are pissed off. Just like in any other situation in life everyone does not react the same way.
Notice how I keep this GQish? Take a lesson.
Moderator warning.
Eleusis. I’m not sure what your problem is this morning, but you’re out of bounds in this thread. You WILL not insult other posters in General Questions. And the general argumentative tone isn’t gonna fly. If you have a problem, open a separate thread in the Pit.
samclem General Questions Moderator
You pull people over for NOTHING!!!
A cracked windshield!
Tell the truth:
If a nice looking white couple has a ding/crack in their Lexus, do THEY get pulled over?
Or only not so nice looking other peeps?
Don’t lie.
It’s called profiling, and I actually support it.
But only at the airport.
OK man… Loach, you are hereby infuckingvited to the nasty dirty pit.
No thanks. You got nothing. To answer your question I have never pulled over anyone for a cracked windshield. Regardless of race. I just said it is a statute that the state legislature has passed. If you have a problem with a law go to those who can change it, your elected officials. I simply stated it can be used as probable cause for a stop since the elected officials who put the law in place thought it was important enough to place it in the books. If you have a problem with something I have done I would gladly answer for it. If you want to rant at me because you can finally have your say to a cop *anonymously * for that bag of weed you were arrested for, I’m not going to play your silly game.
In the vast majority of the UK, unless local bylaws make it illegal.
In case it’s not obvious, Loach has accurately portrayed a traffic stop, and correctly described actions which taken together would certainly support the “reasonable, articulable suspicion” standard required by Terry.
Eleusis has not, in this thread, demonstrated any particularly correct understanding of those terms and how they are applied.
Correction: City of Virginia Beach, not Commonwealth of Virginia law:
Sec. 23-7.1. Providing identification to police officer.
It shall be unlawful and a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person at a public place or place open to the public to refuse to identify himself by name and address at the request of a uniformed police officer or of a properly identified police officer not in uniform, or to provide false information in response to such a request, if the surrounding circumstances are such as to indicate to a reasonable man that the public safety requires such identification.
(Ord. No. 1570, 12-16-85)
I think you misunderstand the use of “public safety.” Frankly, I’m not sure quite why Virginia Beach would allow the out. The safety officer isn’t limited to asking for ID on the basis of public safety, but apparently if a reasonable person wouldn’t induce that public safety requires compliance, he can refuse. Personally, I’m not likely to attempt to tell a police officer to fuck off because there isn’t a public safety issue. Nor would I want to rely upon it as a defense to a prosecution under the ordinance. But it is there as an out <walking away shaking head thinking Virginia Beach’s city council might want to rethink that phrase after Hiibel>.
Oh, this is rich! Let’s recap.
An officer questioning you for the public ill?
I like this gem:
I was asked to cite. So much as called a liar for using the term by a self professed expert of laws in Virginia. Then when I provide a copy of the law am told I don’t understand the term.
Anyway, back to the OP. The bottom line is that theoritcally you can’t give consent to search but in practice it doesn’t matter. During the Terry stop the cops will frisk for weapons. Guess how thorough the frisk will be!
Not that, either. This question makes no sense – as if “public safety” is wrong, then “public ill” is right?
Neither “public safety” not “public ill” is an element of a Terry stop.
And I stand by what I said. As you yourself acknowledge:
There is no such Virginia law. There is a city ordinance in a city that’s in Virginia, though, and you’re right that in that law, “for the public safety” IS a term of some significance.
I’m not sure you do, but frankly, I’m not sure I understand it, either. I have never practiced in or near the city of Virginia Beach and have never dealt with that law. Nor has it ever been the subject of an appellate court ruling.
sigh
It never ends.
What does this even mean - you can’t give consent to search?
Will Repair, I must say this. You and your side-kick, eleusis, who is, admittedly, far behind you in understanding of things legal, are standing proof of why they send lawyers to law school. Mind you, as one who has been through law school, I often question the need for it. Until I run across someone who manages to process things like you have.
Quite apart from the fact that a city ordinance has little meaning in the legal world (outside of Virginia Beach, I venture to say no one cares what words they use), you appear to miss the point of my post. The issue of “public safety” isn’t in the ordinance to provide guidance to the police. It’s there to cover the ass of someone who refuses to provide identification as requested, in the rare instance that there really wasn’t a need to provide ID and the jury or other fact-finder agrees.
You do, I hope, understand the difference. The officer can ask for ID at any time; public safety is irrelevant. If you don’t provide it, you had best be certain that public safety didn’t require it. Contrast that with a satute or ordinance (I hope you know the difference) which places the burden of showing a “public safety need” upon the state (or city, as the case may be). You might not care, but you can bet the District Attorney does! 
When it might save your but, and when it does not apply to you when you are driving around with some pot in your possession.
The chip on your shoulder is visble for miles, dude. Give it up.
Thanks for doing a hard, dangerous and thankless job, Loach.
It better be thorough, it’s his ass on the line. If you mean that there will be an unwarranted search instead of a pat down, no doubt it has happened on occasion. It doesn’t do the cop much good. They have things called judges and suppresion hearings. If it is not reasonable for a cop to recognize an item as illegal conterband during a pat down they it will get thrown out. For instance a crack pipe is pretty easy to recognize, a dime bag of pot not so much. If you think that judges always side with the police then you have never been in a courtroom before.
DSYoungEsq. Minor point. You have no information that Will Repair is the “sidekick” of eleusis. I know how you meant it, we all know how you meant it, but since this is GQ, try to leave out guilt by association. “Just the facts, M’am.”
samclem GQ moderator
The Hawaii Supreme Courst put the stop to those here: The police would ask if they could search you. If you said no, they would infer that refusing was a suspicious circumstance, so they would search you. The HSC also clarified that consent had to be clear. One person who was searched because he said, “Do want you gotta do.” His case was thrown out.