- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: ETA Spinoff - Traffic Laws - TODAY, exist primarily as an end around the 4th Amendment
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:30 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:30 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
0
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:33 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
That's not fair, Grumpy... you didn't detail which traffic laws were nefarious
On their own it's not that they are nefarious. It's how they are used in practice which is the point of my thread.
They are used especially non-speeding laws mostly as a method to be able to stop and potentially search people who otherwise you couldn't. In other words the thing they can't do if you're just walking down the street they take the opportunity to do because you got in a car
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:38 pm to Keltic Tiger
quote:Sovereign citizens are fricking morons who think they found some loophole that makes them not subject to the laws of the United States. They aren't worried about the 4th amendment. You're confusing people who want to defend their constitutional rights with Sovereign citizen nut jobs
, admit it, you are a Sovereign Citizen?? The 4th Amendment is their bible. And still lose in court every time
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:39 pm to Whiskey Delta Actual
quote:you probably should research a little bit about the use of civil asset forfeiture and how ridiculously absurd it has become. A great example of something that sounded good in somebody's brain right up until the police got a hold of it
Maybe it was the cocaine, bulk currency and/or smuggled bodies they recovered that led to your scree,
Posted on 6/11/25 at 7:40 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
tell me you make 35k a year and live in a mobile home without telling me you make 35k a year and live in a mobile home.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:22 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
quote:
In other words the thing they can't do if you're just walking down the street they take the opportunity to do because you got in a car
....and broke a law.
But, yes, I do get your point... there are many towns in SC that have ridiculous speed limits like 20 or 25, or speed limits that change every other block you pass.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:32 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:43 pm to SallysHuman
quote:More than one person and judge has observed that it is pretty much fricking IMPOSSIBLE to drive in a manner that if I follow you for any period of time, you won't violate SOMETHING.
....and broke a law.
And that's before we get to the reality that the cop doesn't even have to actually be correct. If he pulls you over for bullshite that doesn't end up sticking in court, it STILL opens the door to all manner of 4th Amendment shenanigans.
I don't think people realize how often cops pull people over for what are OBVIOUSLY pretextual stops.
"Oh, you made a "wide" turn".
"Oh, you didn't signal prior to 200ft of the intersection"
"Oh, you were going 5 mph under which seemed suspicious".
"Oh, you turned off the road as soon as I got behind you which looks like you're avoiding me".
And on and on............
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:46 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
But, yes, I do get your point... there are many towns in SC that have ridiculous speed limits like 20 or 25, or speed limits that change every other block you pass.
I should add the, "hmm, I smell alcohol or marijuana" line. Which is DOCUMENTED to turn up NOTHING more than half the time. In other words, the cop's nose is no better than a coin flip.
Or, the, "hmm, let me take forever to give a ticket so I can give my K9 time to show up since courts have rule that technically, I can't "extend" the stop for K9s. No problem. I'll just talk your ear off until my cop buddy shows up.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:47 pm to ChineseBandit58
Me making light of another attempt at a 4cubbies earlier bs nonsensical comment that he was making. There were no exact details of anything other than traffic laws are bad that infringe on our rights to do what we want. If something at least was specific, say small towns using traps for income I could have agreed. I had a trucking firm for decades and always had tickets & lawsuits to deal with across the country so I’m not oblivious about anything traffic
Posted on 6/11/25 at 8:50 pm to Nosevens
quote:Except that is NOT what I said. I said IN PRACTICE they are USED to sidestep the 4th.
There were no exact details of anything other than traffic laws are bad that infringe on our rights to do what we wan
It's not necessarily the individual laws that are bad(although some are silly). Most are perfectly fine. They just end up abused.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 9:14 pm to Grumpy Nemesis
Except that you edited the original comment saying exactly different from what you are describing now. You completely left out any relevant information and said traffic laws are bad because they are used to do a continuum of bad things to create fines and seizures.
Posted on 6/11/25 at 9:55 pm to Nosevens
quote:
Except that you edited the original comment saying exactly different from what you are describing now. You completely left out any relevant information and said traffic laws are bad because they are used to do a continuum of bad things to create fines and seizures.
I apologize for not anticipating your low level of reading comprehension such that it was required that it be spelled out in detail for you to get it. I will try to remember to put it on third grade level for you next time
Posted on 6/12/25 at 7:13 am to Grumpy Nemesis
Comprehension was well enough that me and the other down voters understood the complete nonsense of what you tried to pass off. The fact that you tried to edit to get away from it is laughable
Posted on 6/12/25 at 7:15 am to Grumpy Nemesis
You are correct. The real degradation of our 4A rights occurred with court rulings based specifically around driving. Tech is the 2nd wave-generation of this degradation.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 7:20 am to Whiskey Delta Actual
quote:
All of this because they ran a stop sign? crossed the fog line? failed to signal?
Maybe it was the cocaine, bulk currency and/or smuggled bodies they recovered that led to your scree,
You don't have to be charged with a crime for CAF my dude
quote:
Police seized Robert Reeves' Chevrolet Camaro and $2,000 in cash in 2019 on suspicion that he had stolen a skid steer from Home Depot. But as Reason's C.J. Ciaramella wrote in 2023, Reeves was not arrested or charged with a crime, and he was not able to actually challenge the seizure of his vehicle, as the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office (WCPO) declined to file a notice of intent to forfeit it.
Oh yeah and then if you do try to fight the civil asset forfeiture, they will then try to prosecute you with BS charges
quote:
About seven months later, Reeves joined the class-action suit, filed by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, which alleged that Wayne County's civil forfeiture program violated the Constitution in multiple ways. Prosecutors responded expeditiously. First, the WCPO wrote the next day to a state police task force instructing it to release Reeves' car and his cash. Then, two weeks later, prosecutors filed felony charges against Reeves for allegedly receiving and concealing stolen property. Perhaps most notably, the government asked a judge to suspend his lawsuit while the criminal case against him proceeded, and Wayne County's Department of Corporation Counsel (DCC) used the charges as a defense against the suit.
A judge would dismiss those charges for lack of evidence—in February 2021, over a year later, in part after delays brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. Prosecutors were undeterred. They refiled the same charges shortly after that dismissal, only for them to again be dismissed for lack of evidence, this time in January 2022
Posted on 6/12/25 at 7:39 am to Grumpy Nemesis
In my mind because of forfeiture laws/rules we are now talking about two, obviously related, things- search and seizure.
Before expansive forfeiture rules they were pretty much the same.
You can still refuse the search and make them get a warrant. It's pot luck whether or not they'll get it. Some judges might laugh in their faces; others are like many of us in the general public and think that if the cops want to search you it is because they know you need to be searched.
But the forfeiture rules have diverged and common day things (e.g. $2000 in cash) becomes "suspicious" and it is in the eye of the beholder. Forfeiture should, at the minimum, should only come after probable cause just like search. There's pretext, and there's probable cause. They are not the same.
What's worse, to your point Grumpy, not only have the traffic stops become pretext the seizure has become the real end around to the search. "If I had to seize your $2k in cash, then obviously I have probable cause to search farther".
And SFP is right- tech is a whole other ballgame. If you geofence someone at the LA riots (or J6 riots), which is not searching their phone and is using the carriers data- not a persons, and then use that as the probable cause to search their home, car, and break into your devices it is the same thing as stopping you for a broken license plate light and then popping your trunk without permission or warrant.
Before expansive forfeiture rules they were pretty much the same.
You can still refuse the search and make them get a warrant. It's pot luck whether or not they'll get it. Some judges might laugh in their faces; others are like many of us in the general public and think that if the cops want to search you it is because they know you need to be searched.
But the forfeiture rules have diverged and common day things (e.g. $2000 in cash) becomes "suspicious" and it is in the eye of the beholder. Forfeiture should, at the minimum, should only come after probable cause just like search. There's pretext, and there's probable cause. They are not the same.
What's worse, to your point Grumpy, not only have the traffic stops become pretext the seizure has become the real end around to the search. "If I had to seize your $2k in cash, then obviously I have probable cause to search farther".
And SFP is right- tech is a whole other ballgame. If you geofence someone at the LA riots (or J6 riots), which is not searching their phone and is using the carriers data- not a persons, and then use that as the probable cause to search their home, car, and break into your devices it is the same thing as stopping you for a broken license plate light and then popping your trunk without permission or warrant.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 8:00 am to SallysHuman
quote:and possibly medians
Right turns involve one lane... left is crossing lanes. That's all I got.
out of sight of some traffic or other obstructions
people unfamiliar with the operation of the intersection
Posted on 6/12/25 at 8:20 am to Nosevens
quote:
Exactly right ! No way we should be required to stop at a red light to allow flow from another direction under penalties for not doing so. It would be much better not having to stop just to hope that your son or daughter makes it across the intersection at say 80-90 mph while another vehicle tries not to T-bone them doing 80-90 mph themselves
The point isn’t that traffic laws are unnecessary. The point is that police use those stops to search people and their vehicles.
Posted on 6/12/25 at 8:39 am to LSUGrrrl
There are certainly bad apple LEO's. But have you seen any of the 100's of Sovereign Citizens' video's out there? I don't want those idiots driving on any road my family & I use regularly. Like everything in today's world, no system is perfect. But I side on making my world safer for me & my family.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News