Quick Poll, help!

[Cips]

Hey guys, this is with the paper that is being written regarding the use of radar detectors and banning them vs. pro's and con's to keep them. Couple of questions if you guys could weight in your opinion.


Is a radar detector just a license to speed for you?

How has your detector allowed or helped you to become a better driver?



Thanks guys


Stilldrivin
Escort 9500i (not updated... yet.. X Band and POP OFF)
G4 Veil with laser shield

No, not a license to speed but it does help me travel a little bit faster than usual.

It has helped me become a better 'spotter' at looking for LEO's.

[Blaze Orange]

We don't debate, we...teach, yeah, that's it...teach others of our opinions.

Anyway, I'm stilling around to see what you have to say.

You're right....the use of the word "debate" is often seen as being combative....which isn't my intent.

How about...."we'll sit around the campfire a wee bit, and chew the fat..."

[9500ier]

Speeding tickets are not a tax and they are for you breaking the law. However, the legislature, the cops, the judges, and the citizens all know most of them are BS and that's why they are treated so lightly. In practice they are a tax on the ignorant and the uncanny and people who do not spend hours researching the properties of traffic radar and how to defeat. Most people never even fight their tickets. So everyone knows that it makes money and the limits are not practical most of the time, but they don't care because you are still breaking the law.

I know, it's gay...

[Blaze Orange]

The 4th amendment has nothing to do with surveillance. Its Search and Seizure without probable cause. So, even as unrelated to the 4th amendment as capturing your speed with a device is, to refute your statement, if an officer has even the slightest thought that you might be speeding, he has every right to make sure you are or aren't, that's probable cause. The posted speed limit is a LAW and he/she, as a law enforcement officer can actively enforce that law and make sure all that are using the governement/state/province/county/whatever provided roadways are doing so within that law. paperlantern

Now, to say the 4th has nothing to do with surveillance errs. But first, lets have a civic lessons concerning the Bill of Rights. Rights granted in this Bill are not granted by our Government, but instead are, as so noted by the Framers, unalienable rights. That is, God given rights we are born with. The Bill of Rights is the citizen's leash on his/her Government to limit and restrict that Government from acts of tyranny that usrups a citizen's unalienable rights. This concept extends outward with a broad hand to control the behavior of Government agents such as Police Officers, and Judges.

Now, it is correct to say the 4th is about Search and Seizure, but focusing only on the Probable Cause clause which restricts and restrains the Government as to what can and can not be searched or seized, ....

(Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96.

And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment [p359] violations "only in the discretion of the police." Id. at 97.

These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored "the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment," [n24] a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition...)...

is to ignore the Privacy clause, the reasonable expectation of privacy contained not only within the 4th, but also in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Amendments. As always, the interpretation of The Privacy clause, in substantial part is through the lens of societal norms about acceptable levels of privacy from governmental intrusions.



more later....

[CJR238]

Now, it is correct to say the 4th is about Search and Seizure, but focusing only on the Probable Cause clause which restricts and restrains the Government as to what can and can not be searched or seized, ....
...

I don't quite get your point, when a LEO pulls me over for speeding he doesn't search my car, and if he's asks I have the right to say no, and i have said no.

Wasn't this thread about speeding?

[Paperlantern]

The 4th amendment has nothing to do with surveillance. Its Search and Seizure without probable cause. So, even as unrelated to the 4th amendment as capturing your speed with a device is, to refute your statement, if an officer has even the slightest thought that you might be speeding, he has every right to make sure you are or aren't, that's probable cause. The posted speed limit is a LAW and he/she, as a law enforcement officer can actively enforce that law and make sure all that are using the governement/state/province/county/whatever provided roadways are doing so within that law. paperlantern

Now, to say the 4th has nothing to do with surveillance errs. But first, lets have a civic lessons concerning the Bill of Rights. Rights granted in this Bill are not granted by our Government, but instead are, as so noted by the Framers, unalienable rights. That is, God given rights we are born with. The Bill of Rights is the citizen's leash on his/her Government to limit and restrict that Government from acts of tyranny that usrups a citizen's unalienable rights. This concept extends outward with a broad hand to control the behavior of Government agents such as Police Officers, and Judges.

Now, it is correct to say the 4th is about Search and Seizure, but focusing only on the Probable Cause clause which restricts and restrains the Government as to what can and can not be searched or seized, ....

(Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 96.

And bypassing a neutral predetermination of the scope of a search leaves individuals secure from Fourth Amendment [p359] violations "only in the discretion of the police." Id. at 97.

These considerations do not vanish when the search in question is transferred from the setting of a home, an office, or a hotel room to that of a telephone booth. Wherever a man may be, he is entitled to know that he will remain free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The government agents here ignored "the procedure of antecedent justification . . . that is central to the Fourth Amendment," [n24] a procedure that we hold to be a constitutional precondition...)...

is to ignore the Privacy clause, the reasonable expectation of privacy contained not only within the 4th, but also in the 1st, 3rd, and 5th Amendments. As always, the interpretation of The Privacy clause, in substantial part is through the lens of societal norms about acceptable levels of privacy from governmental intrusions.



more later....

So far nothing has contradicted my statement. Yes you bolded the "Wherever he may be", but again, clocking you on a freeway is not searching, OR seizing. The speed of your car IS public information.

A police officer cannot SEARCH your car just for pulling you over for whatever traffic infraction. But if he pulled you over because your vehicle matches the description of one involved in a previous crime, or he smells marijuana, he CAN, THATS probable cause.

What you are eluding to, is that your speed is a private thing, and someone finding out your speed is a search and seizure. Which is NOT true, and no matter which way you bend it or turn it, it will NEVER BE. A speed limit is a law put in place to keep roads safe, people exceeding the speed limit are breaking the law. Capturing one's speed is how that law is enforced. Your reasoning is like saying a cop watches you run a red light but should do nothing because its your business.

Let's step back for just a minute and put ourselves in a world where Blaze Orange's thoughts are true. It is now illegal to capture one's speed because that is private, and all LIDAR/RADAR and other forms of speed calculating are all banned, even police are ordered to ignore speeders because it is private information. Would anyone HONESTLY WANT to drive in that? No restrictions of any kind on speed, on ANY road, ANYWHERE. You probably think hell yeah, but it would be chaos, roads would be closed 3- 4 days a week everywhere from fatal crashes. The person is smart, people are dumb. It would be an all out free for all on every road, 100+mph on freeways, people screaming down streets that used to 35MPH at 60 - 70+. No pedestrian would be safe, i know i wouldn't want to try and cross the street.

Speed limits will never go away, and speed enforcement will never change, because its necessary to keep people safe, no twisted, screwed up statement you can come up with, or get out of a legal book anywhere will contradict it, or change it.

I for one feel very lucky to live in the area I do and to have the system in place that I do. Some countries dont govern traffic anywhere near as consitantly. Some places have "police" that have radar equipment, but there are no posted speed limits. Plus thier equipment isnt calibrated... ever... Cops can pull you over for doing 46 in a 45 one day, then the next day pull you over in the same place for doing 43 in a 40, and hit you with a bigger fine when you argue with him that he just told you it was a 45 zone the day before. Yes I feel very lucky. And instead of griping about it, so should you.

[category4]

1) No it isn't a license to speed.
2) I actually think it makes me pay more attention because I tend to catch myself speeding and when the RD burps I snap back in and realize I am going to fast.

I agree.

[CJR238]

What you are eluding to, is that your speed is a private thing, and someone finding out your speed is a search and seizure.

He may be eluding to that, but I see no relevance other than to quote legal information that has nothing to do with his point and make it sound like it supports his point.

I can quote legal terms too:
Search and seizure is a legal procedure used in many civil law and common law legal systems whereby police or other authorities and their agents, who suspect that a crime has been committed, do a search of a person's property and confiscate any relevant evidence to the crime. We are also provided the right to be free from "unreasonable" search and seizure. This right is generally based on the premise that everyone is entitled to a reasonable right to privacy.

So I am guessing if what is being eluded to is correct and I am caught speeding anything over the speed limit they will take my car and everything relevant to that crime.

Strange I have been pulled over dozens of times and I still have my car. Its also odd that I was asked by an officer to search my car and I told him no, so he didn't and couldn't by law. It would have been unreasonable.

O, and by the way:
law enforcement needs to obtain a search warrant before engaging in any form of search and seizure. Search and seizure would be "unreasonable" without a warrant or without permission.

Privacy clause, now that's an interesting idea. I have the right to privacy when I am out in the public. Well I guess that means if I am out in the public and I want privacy I should go inside. or just not get caught doing whatever i want.

[Blaze Orange]

I'm going to move the topic over to another thread in a wee bit, so as not to hijack this poll. Also, my computer keeps locking up when I'm visiting this forum (my home system is too primative for this forum, and posting from the library ain't working with their 30 minute time limit, and a 20 mile round trip. I'll soon be upgrading to something better shortly as a 10 year old computer is just too much of a dinosaur....back later, so hold those thoughts, please)