|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2016 11:46:20 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 22, 2016 14:59:26 GMT
I'd change your title since the article has very little to do with guns.
I don't know how I feel about the ruling. On one hand, traffic stops are often what break major cases, but the traffic stop was legal. If you have a warrant when they run your name, I would hope they would do what needed to be done.
On the other hand, does this give the police the green light to pull someone over without cause to run their name and check for warrants? Seems a little sketchy to me.
In the end, I choose to be a Pollyanna and believe that most cops are doing their job and doing it well and won't be pulling people over just because.
That said, just because the evidence can be used in court, it does not preclude a civil case against an officer or department for profiling or violating civil rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 22, 2016 15:09:40 GMT
I'd change your title since the article has very little to do with guns. I don't know how I feel about the ruling. On one hand, traffic stops are often what break major cases, but the traffic stop was legal. If you have a warrant when they run your name, I would hope they would do what needed to be done. On the other hand, does this give the police the green light to pull someone over without cause to run their name and check for warrants? Seems a little sketchy to me. In the end, I choose to be a Pollyanna and believe that most cops are doing their job and doing it well and won't be pulling people over just because. That said, just because the evidence can be used in court, it does not preclude a civil case against an officer or department for profiling or violating civil rights. This case wasn't about a traffic stop. The case, Utah v. Strieff, No. 14-1373, arose from police surveillance of a house in South Salt Lake based on an anonymous tip of “narcotics activity” there. A police officer, Douglas Fackrell, stopped Edward Strieff after he had left the house based on what the state later conceded were insufficient grounds, making the stop unlawful. So a police officer now can stop you just because, run a background check, and see if you have warrants just because. No reason but to screw with people or a "hunch". |
|
