lololol I always wonder why people answer all the questions when they have been puled over, especially if they weren't doing anything wrong. You do not have to answer their questions. Why would you give them your phone number? I know, the whole 'If you've got nothing to hide' line, but you just say 'If you had probable cause/ reasonable suspicion, you wouldn't be asking'. Ohh yeah, if you answer some questions and not others, that is reasonable suspicion, if you don't answer any, it is not.
I honestly don't see a problem here -- from what Jason wrote, it was a pretty simple stop and they were more than fair with him. I was expecting to see a litany of fix-it tickets written ... "damn punk kid" ... but it seems as if they were just checking things out. You have to realize as Amante put it, Greenwich is not like most other places -- it's an EXTREMELY wealthy town and the residents are mostly Wall St / Hedge Fund VPs/MDs/etc. who go to bed at 10pm. So you have to understand that a car driving in circles at 4am _is_ suspicious, especially with $hundred million homes in the area -- you could be scoping for a break-in, etc. It's not like midtown manhattan where someone driving at 4am is normal. Also, the reason there were 3 cars was very simple -- not much going on at 4am, so when one guy announces a stop, the others are bored and figure they'll stop by to see what's up.
If you have nothing to hide, what's the harm in answering any and all questions? If you aren't doing anything wrong, if the officer asks for something, answer. He'll find out significantly quicker that you're innocent of any wrong doing and'll let you on your way.. As soon as you say "I don't have to answer that", or "this is unlawful, I'm calling my lawyer", etc- you become suspicious. A young kid driving around at the wee hours of the morning without a specific destination in mind could, most likely, enter the whole 'probably cause' thing- especially if there has been (and is currently) issues with theft/robbery.
So if a LE person walks up to your house and askes to search it, you would let him? Maybe you left your xmas decorations up after the new year and well, it is suspicious. Or maybe when you are driving? I do it at roadblocks all the time. It is a waste of my time. Just a fishing expedition. If you answer no questions it cannot be used against you, it is when you answer selectively that it can.
You sincerely think that's the same thing as what Jason posted before? If so, I might as well save my breathe as that's irrational, and it'll only lead to a pointless, endless, argument. But, that's my point. If you have nothing to hide, what questions can be used against you? If you're breaking the law, and you answer a question accordingly, you will get in trouble. Simple solution; don't break the law. Right?
Here's a few lines from one encounter I had: LE: Would you consent to search of your vehicle? Me: To search for what? LE: Well...... would you consent to a search of your vehicle? Me: To search for what? LE: For anything your not supposed to have. Me: Like what? LE: Drugs. Me: And what makes you think you are going to find some in my vehicle? LE: uhhhhhh Yes, I could answer them, but if they really had evidence against me, they wouldn't need to ask. The point of my posts is 'Why should I have to give up my right to privacy?' What's the quote? 'If you are willing to give up your privacy for safety, you deserve neither.'
Ah! It all makes sense now! The wealthy are somehow entitled to better protection than the rest of us. Equal in the eyes of the law eh?
of course they are entitled for better protection. they pay more for it. you wanna b1tch about that, pay the greenwich taxes then u can b1tch.
"Well, the glove compartment is locked and so is the trunk in the back. I know my rights, so you're gonna need a warrant for that." I tried that on the 2006 Bullrun. Needless to say the choice was search of seizure. Seizure meant no more driving. Search meant losing the leg to Chicago. Guess what I picked?
you don't have to, thats your right. but its their right to hassle u in another way. then it becomes your choice if you'd rather be hassled than defend your right. we all know cops were so wrong in the rodney king case, but guess what? u still do NOT want to be rodney king, do you??
And you of course being a supreme court Justice can decide who gets what protection under the law? What I am trying to explain is that being in a rich section of town does not mean you are no longer subject to the laws of the land. The fact that they pay large sums in property taxes for their homes is irrelevant to the discussion on rights - we are all equal under the law. At least that's what I was taught and would like to continue believing about this great nation. That a select few do not honor that, are a shame to us all and especially to those men and women who wear a uniform and put their lives on the line everyday to protect and serve their fellow citizens. And seriously, loose the attitude, we are adults here discussing in a mature manner. Referring to my comments as *****ing is uncalled for.
I don't get to decide anything. Shiet, I don't even decide which b1tches I want for a 3some or 4some, my GF decided that for me, twice. But that's not the point, the point is the PD in Greenwich decides how they want to protect their community, and they were just doing their job as how they see fit. I failed to see how the laws of land were broken. Please, so if you pay for a more expensive health insurance plan than I do, and you get to select better doctors from a wider network, doesn't mean we are not equal under the law?? Sorry I don't know how to sugarcoat, you were being sarcastic and complaining, it really came off as b1tching to me.
I think the basic point is that we're referring to Jason's traffic stop here. No laws were broken -- he wasn't harassed or given any unreasonable tickets. His car wasn't searched. They didn't even ask to do so. He was doing something that in Greenwich is suspicious, and he was questioned about it and let go with no hassle. There is nothing wrong with that IMHO. The key is the context -- you have to understand that in Greenwich, CT, a kid driving in circles at 4am *IS* suspiscious, whether you think so or not. 364 (or 363 or 362 or whatever) nights a year, nobody does that - at least not there - and when somebody DOES do that, more likely than not they're up to no good (casing for robberies, etc.). The police do have a job to do, and in Greenwich, prevention is as much a part of their job as anything else. I'm usually not one to side with LEOs on traffic stop issues, but in this case I think they were in the right.
Not that threesomes have anything to do with a discussion on constitutionally protected individual rights but hey, cheers on that! :thumbsup: Back to the topic. The PD in Greenwich is still part of the state of CT and thus part of the United States. Rights of persons enshrined in the constitution and the bill of rights trump any one officer's opinion on how he/she thinks they should perform their enforcement tasks. For example, if the PD suddenly decided to pull over and check every single person passing through that community without a special "sticker" that indicated residency in the aforementioned town, surely you can see how that selective enforcement would be simply unacceptable but more importantly, unconstitutional (see the fourth amendment : which guarantees the right of citizens to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures). Again, my point is, we are all equal under the law - no set of federal (with specific exceptions to convicted criminals and other identified interest groups - and even those are being challenged to some extent) or state laws (considering jurisdiction) are for no reason, inapplicable to the general populace. You fail to see how the laws of the land were broken. Doesn't mean that someone's rights weren't infringed upon. Also, health insurance policies aren't guaranteed by the constitution hence this is a straw-man argument. Rights are protected by the constitution, not health insurance or physician preferences. Finally, tones are hard to decipher over the "series of tubes" so I'll try to use more emoticons to show when I am being sarcastic or humorous.
i have a plastic bag filled with flour, a 12 inch dildo with a condom on it and some random dominatrix gear stuffed under my seat in case i am ever asked for my car to be searched.. amante
Think of it this way if you lived in Greenwich and saw someone driving around at 4 Am in the morning up and down streets would you be concerned and maybe call the police?? Or even in your own neighborhood where you live now , what would you think and do? The police were not harassing you they were doing their job !!! If I saw someone I did not know driving around in my neighborhood late at night I would call the police. As for your comment on why 2 more police cars pulled up , that is normal procedure. They have no idea who you are or if maybe you are carrying a weapon. You were not harassed and your civil rights were not violated as some people who posted here seem to think.
Your post is ridiculous. The cops broke no laws and followed procedure . So are telling us that you think it is ok for someone to drive around at 4 Am in the morning in one of the wealthiest areas in the US ?? Ok it does not even matter if it was Greenwich or East bumfk USA , the police have the right to question someone who look suspicious at that hour in the morning ! Would you want people driving around your neighborhood at 4 am in the morning? You make all these references to the Constitution and Bill Of Rights . Lets be realistic here. Why dont you move to IRAQ or some other third would country and then come back here and complain that his rights were violated .
This is precisely the kind of innane thinking that worries me about the future of this country. You are absolutely wrong that "no laws" were broken. In order for a police officer to conduct a custodial interrogation, which is exactly what this was, he must have "reasonable suspicion" that a law has been or is about to be violated. Merely driving down a street late at night or as in this case early in the morning alone is not sufficient to raise a reasonable suspicion of anything. He didn't violate any traffic laws, and nothing in what he did could have caused that officer to reasonably suspect that he had committed or was about to commit any crime. Subtle as it may seem to some of you, this is how our Constitutional rights are erroded, and we slowly slip into being a police state. The bedrock of our society is our freedom, including the freedom to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, as guaranteed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. I don't care if he was driving around in the ritziest part of Greenwich or the back streets of the South Bronx. The cop had no basis to pull him over and subject him to a custodial interrogation. Effectively, he was under arrest for some period of time (he was NOT free to simply say "Goodnight Officer" and leave -- that is tantamount to being under arrest). He was fortunate that the cops just toyed with him and let him go. I know many people who have had their cars torn apart by over-zealous cops, been given bogus tickets, had guns pointed at them, and otherwise been harassed. Jason should not have been stopped, and there is no excuse to justify what the cops did. It was wrong, plain and simple, as a matter of law. So what's the big deal? He was stopped and questioned and let go. No biggie, right? Well, I believe in the "slippery slope" theory of Constitutional rights. Once we start allowing the police to routinely violate our rights, they will continue to be erroded. Our laws and our adherence to them, especially by those sworn to uphold them, is what distinguishes us from other places around the world. If we give those up, or allow them to be taken from us by state action, then we are headed down that slippery slope to the same kind of society that we condemn in other places around the world where the rule of law is routinely ignored.
You are an attorney and you think that the police were out of line ?? I at a loss for words , I am busy Day Trading right now and will come back to this at another time.
I will keep this simple . If someone was driving around in your neighborhood late at night would you : 1) Question it and maybe call the police 2) Not do a thing because you dont want to violate their constitutional rights in some way Lets take this further say that person driving around was looking to break into your or your neighbors home What is more important?? That persons rights or your safety?? You have convoluted the constitutional rights issue in a major way. He was not just driving down the street he was driving all over the place. The cops were probably following him for a while before they decided to pull him over . Maybe someone saw him driving around and called the police . Did you think of that ? What about the rights of the people living in that Greenwich Neighborhood?? If the police did not pull Jason over then they would be violating the rights of those people in that neighborhood. Think of it this way ,what if it was not Jason driving around but someone else looking to rob one of those homes. And if the police did nothing and that person did rob that home and even worse if they did harm to the people in that home. Let me see you come up with a good answer to that !! You are an attorney if you think that the police broke some kind of law then why dont you sue the Greenwich police department on Jasons behalf. Just make sure you do it Pro Bono !!
