Marijuana.com

Shroud

I just found a link to this website from a news article on the NORML website.
http://www.flexyourrights.org/
I was interested in your opinions on this website and the information provided therein. Do you think websites such as this one are ultimately good for the relationship between the public and law enforcement? Secondly, is an LEO willing and of a mind to clearly define what a person's rights are when they ask to search the vehicle?

For example:
LEO: Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?
Motorist: Could you explain to me my rights concerning this question before I respond?

I understand that an LEO is not a lawyer but I was curious about the lattitude they possess for providing motorists with information about the law during a traffic stop if prompted about it.

 

Niteshift

Anarchist Barbie mentioned the site the other day and I dropped by it.

"Do you think websites such as this one are ultimately good for the relationship between the public and law enforcement?"

It has the potential to go either way. They give some good advice and some borderline advice. They're certainly less extreme than some other sites, but they still try to put their own political spin on a lot of it. There are a lot of stats cited without counterbalance and a lot of implications made that I disagree with.

Knowing your rights is never a bad thing. But there is a difference between asserting them and trying to make a political statement in the process. Sites like this one can be used positively and negatively, the reader gets to choose.

"Secondly, is an LEO willing and of a mind to clearly define what a person's rights are when they ask to search the vehicle?"

That was something they said that I disagreed with.

They said there is no law making us tell you that you can refuse. That maybe technically true, but there are a bunch of court decisions that tell us we are supposed to. They may not be laws, but they might as well be, because if we don't follow them, the case is going to get tossed.

What is not required is that I volunteers that information, although some courts have suggested we should. But across the board, courts have held that we have to honestly answer when you ask "Do I have to let you".

Before anyone get's all bent out of shape about me saying that we're not required to volunteer, I ask you to look through threads on hear where I'm told over and over that they won't believe what I tell them about their rights because I'm a cop. So why should I volunteer something you won't believe anyway?

"LEO: Would you mind if I search your vehicle, please?
Motorist: Could you explain to me my rights concerning this question before I respond?"

It's happened before and I have no problem with it.

If you think about it, that's what we already do with the "Miranda" warning......... we tell you about your rights, what you have to do, don't have to do etc. Why should a traffic stop be any different?

"I understand that an LEO is not a lawyer but I was curious about the lattitude they possess for providing motorists with information about the law during a traffic stop if prompted about it."

Provided I have the time and we are in a relatively safe location (I may ask you to move into a parking lot etc. rather than stay along the edge of the road), I generally enjoy answering legit questions.

I say legit, because if the "question" is a guise to give me your political views, I might leave. But if you have a real question, and ask it in a non-confrontational manner, I'm usually happy to answer it as completely as I can.

If I don't have time, I may even tell you when I should have time and answer it then if you're still interested.

__________________
A burning desire for social justice is never a substitute for knowing what you're talking about. -Thomas Sowell

Sometimes the light at the end of the tunnel is muzzle flash.

Shroud

I really appreciate the response Niteshift. After posting the thread, I meant to go back and qualify some of my questions to the extent that I was trying to ask them in as neutral a manner as possible. Thank you for assuming that was the precise intent and responding as such.

The problem these days is that people are used to viewing law enforcement, particularly in the US, as the enemy. One of the comments that I meant to add is that I entirely agree with you about the political spin of the website in question. I suppose it is hard to keep politics entirely out of such a subject.

I couldn't have said that better if I tried.

As always, thanks for taking the time.

Niteshift

"The problem these days is that people are used to viewing law enforcement, particularly in the US, as the enemy."

I'd submit to you that more people do not than do.

One advantage I get in having a job that deals with the public is that I get to deal with all segments of it. Not just customers interested in my products, like a store clerk or that have a specialized need, like a receptionist..............I get both ends of the spectrum and everywhere in between. That means I get to talk to a lot of people with very diverse views.

The majority, in my experience, still hold a positive view of the police. They may disagree with a particular law, or take exception with getting a ticket. They may disapprove of the actions of a particular cop being splashed all over CNN, but most still seem to be happy we are there, willing and able to do some of the things they can't (or won't) do for themselves. Most people still seem to think we are underpaid (they're right ) and most still teach their kids to look for a police officer if they are in trouble and need help.

But you know the old saying "Birds of a feather.....". On my own time, I tend to hang out with people that hold political and social beliefs similar to my own. Without the exposure I have through my job or by frequenting websites that don't cater to my beliefs exactly, I guess it would be easy to get a little myopic about some topics.