Survivalist Forum banner
Cancel
Create thread New Forums

State police search points at Rest Stops

Jump to Latest
41 - 60 of 64 Posts
#41 ·
randkl said:
Bullsh*t.

It is *never* illegal to record yourself live in a public location with a cop. Been determined time and time again in court. Without the "expectation of privacy", ie being in public is NOT an expectation of privacy, you can record any damned thing you want. No cop in the US can legally stop you from recording them in public. Ask the Boston PD about that one.

r
Click to expand...
Just wondering, what does placing astericks on either side of a word (*never*) mean/imply/accomplish? For the record I agree you're correct, and I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I just want to know what that means.
 
#42 ·
Just wondering,
Click to expand...
I know what it means to *me*, but what do *you* think it means?

;)

Asterisks are exactly like CAPITALS, they emphasize a word. Capitals are often looked upon poorly, though. Italics can be used to emphasize a word but a lot of text editors italicize quoted text automatically and you lose the emphasis. Bold is just plain tacky.

Just curious, how long have you been on the internet?

Stay safe.

rich
 
#43 ·
bighanded said:
I'm with you on your reply if it's a traffic stop...but based on their sign that states I am subject to search of I enter the rest area...that's where I'm wondering if they can get into my car without consent (consent implied since I took the rest area exit?)
Click to expand...
I'd be interested to know what they were up to because, based on the description, I can't see this being legit.

Just because some cop stakes out a place on the highway and throws up a sign that essentially says if you cross this line you consent to search it don't make it so. Closest thing is a DUI checkpoint and even then they don't have the right to search (per se).

MichiganPatriot said:
That's right, because anything found would be "fruits of the forbidden tree," an illegal search.
Click to expand...
Uh, that's fruit of the poisonous tree, sir. ;)
 
#44 ·
MichiganPatriot,

I'll assume by your handle that we both live in Michigan so all I have to say about your "The states generally have their sh1t together (sans California, but that's their own fault).
It the FEDERAL level that's dikkin' the dog on individual rights." is...
Come on... You know it isn't just federal.
Forced vaccinations and or medications.
State troopers hacking smart phones just because they can.
36" x 36" freedom of speech zones in the woods.
Schools "forcing" laptops on students then charging parents for insurance.
More and more home schoolers having their children taken away due to truancy.

How things should be according to the constitution and state constitutions and how things are in reality are two different things separated by money.
If you have the money to hire a lawyer to defend your constitutional rights then you get to have things how they should be, if you don't have the money then you get them how they are.
 
#45 ·
MichiganPatriot said:
CW, that's only in the case where you're using phone service and then it's federal. In some states, as long as ONE person involved in the conversation knows its being recorded, then its legal.(Yes according to federal law but state laws also apply) If you are running a recorder in a room with 4 people in it, and then leave, say, to use the can, anything that would have been said in the time you're gone from the room (if the recorder were not on your person) wouldn't be admissible as evidence in a court case. HOWEVER, depending on the law, it could cause quite a bit of public embarrassment if the media were to ever get hold of it! :D:
Click to expand...
That is not the case in Illinois. If you record the police without their permission using a cell phone it is a Class I Felony punishable up to 15 years in prison. If you record me without my permission it is a Class IV Felony.

There is a person in Illinois looking at 75 years who did just what you advocate.

You damn well better know your state laws in this regard as you may find yourself looking at some serious jail time.
 
#48 ·
Creek Walker said:
That is not the case in Illinois. If you record the police without their permission using a cell phone it is a Class I Felony punishable up to 15 years in prison. If you record me without my permission it is a Class IV Felony.

There is a person in Illinois looking at 75 years who did just what you advocate.

You damn well better know your state laws in this regard as you may find yourself looking at some serious jail time.
Click to expand...

I'll be willing to bet that there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" argument to that "law."
 
#50 ·
MichiganPatriot said:
Gee, here's a case now. That didn't take long.

(Click the word "case" above)
Click to expand...
Each state is different as this is MA.

In the state of Illinois if you record a police officer in the performance of his duties in public without his consent you are committing a felony.

In 1994 the Illinois legislature removed the privacy part of the Illinois wiretapping law because the Illinois supreme court had ruled against them in a case involving the video and audio recording of police while in the performance of their duties in public.

Now in the state of Illinois it is Illegal to record anyone without their permission. PERIOD, however it is used largely to protect police and government officials.

Again know your state laws as each state is different. A mistake could cost you a lot of heartache and monetary loss not to mention your freedom.

http://mywabashvalley.com/fulltext?nxd_id=190967

Once again it is a crime in Illinois to record law enforcement in public.

This has been discussed here:
http://www.survivalistboards.com/showthread.php?t=172753&highlight=crawford
 
#51 ·
Creek Walker said:
Each state is different as this is MA.

In the state of Illinois if you record a police officer in the performance of his duties in public without his consent you are committing a felony.

In 1994 the Illinois legislature removed the privacy part of the Illinois wiretapping law because the Illinois supreme court had ruled against them in a case involving the video and audio recording of police while in the performance of their duties in public.

Now in the state of Illinois it is Illegal to record anyone without their permission. PERIOD, however it is used largely to protect police and government officials.

Again know your state laws as each state is different. A mistake could cost you a lot of heartache and monetary loss not to mention your freedom.
Click to expand...


Not debating your stance, you are correct.......but what ISN'T illegal in Illinois?

That list would be shorter than what you just listed here:D:

I grew up there........which is why I will never live there again.
 
#53 ·
our local police (parish sherrif/city) around I20 use a simular tactic but it's for drug trafficing.

They put a large, easy to read sign about a mile in front of a little used exit that reads "Drug search ahead - prepare to stop". Now, there is no search ahead but those who are not familar with this ruse will panic and pull off the secluded exit hoping to evade the search just to meet a small army of local policia at the top of the ramp hidden just behind the trees.

It happens alot on an exit we take to get home and one will peel off, follow us close enough to get our plate, call it in and get the message that, yes, we are local and we aren't wanted then they do a "U" ey and head back to lay in wait again.

From what I understand, the state boys think this is nuts but they keep doing it so it must be working.
 
#54 ·
MichiganPatriot said:
Whatever. You knew exactly what I meant.

Where the heck are all the grammar police coming from?
Click to expand...
I thought it was what you meant since you even put it in quotes.

I apologize. My bad. I even tried to provide you the correct term all respectful and stuff by using "sir."

But thank you for your response and your "grammar police" comment for my attempt.

Carry on.
 
#56 ·
If you give them consent, that called "consent search" and can be stopped at any point by you. If you refuse to allow a search, they're out of luck.
Click to expand...
In my part of TX, if you refuse the search, they consider that RAS and will bring the dog out. They print the stories in the paper and the quotes from the Officer who says exactly that.
 
#57 ·
Ghostrider said:
I thought it was what you meant since you even put it in quotes.

I apologize. My bad. I even tried to provide you the correct term all respectful and stuff by using "sir."

But thank you for your response and your "grammar police" comment for my attempt.

Carry on.
Click to expand...
I thought "grammar police" kinda fit the subject. :D:
 
#58 ·
sagewillow said:
our local police (parish sherrif/city) around I20 use a simular tactic but it's for drug trafficing.

They put a large, easy to read sign about a mile in front of a little used exit that reads "Drug search ahead - prepare to stop". Now, there is no search ahead but those who are not familar with this ruse will panic and pull off the secluded exit hoping to evade the search just to meet a small army of local policia at the top of the ramp hidden just behind the trees.

It happens alot on an exit we take to get home and one will peel off, follow us close enough to get our plate, call it in and get the message that, yes, we are local and we aren't wanted then they do a "U" ey and head back to lay in wait again.

From what I understand, the state boys think this is nuts but they keep doing it so it must be working.
Click to expand...
There is or was a similar thing done on I-40 west of Knoxville just a few miles west of Harriman where this same tactic is/was used. Haven't traveled that particular stretch of road in several years so I'm not sure if this is still being done or not. That was the ONLY place that was done between Nashville and Knoxville on I-40.
 
#59 ·
sagewillow said:
our local police (parish sherrif/city) around I20 use a simular tactic but it's for drug trafficing.

They put a large, easy to read sign about a mile in front of a little used exit that reads "Drug search ahead - prepare to stop". Now, there is no search ahead but those who are not familar with this ruse will panic and pull off the secluded exit hoping to evade the search just to meet a small army of local policia at the top of the ramp hidden just behind the trees.

It happens alot on an exit we take to get home and one will peel off, follow us close enough to get our plate, call it in and get the message that, yes, we are local and we aren't wanted then they do a "U" ey and head back to lay in wait again.

From what I understand, the state boys think this is nuts but they keep doing it so it must be working.
Click to expand...
That happens here in Fla. but its not the locals its the FHP that has done it. I have not seen them use it in a while but from what I have heard it works pretty good on the druggies and DUI's.
 
#60 ·
TXSWFAN said:
In my part of TX, if you refuse the search, they consider that RAS and will bring the dog out. They print the stories in the paper and the quotes from the Officer who says exactly that.
Click to expand...
Not sure what RAS means, Reasonable Suspicion maybe but that is not Probably Cause and they can't go into the vehicle with just Reasonable Suspicion. The dog can sniff the outside of the vehicle whether you consent or not because you do not own the air. If the dog smells dope I believe that gives them Probably Cause depending on which state they are in. As mentioned above, there are no rights in Kalifornia or Illinois.
 
Save
Reply Quote Like Like
41 - 60 of 64 Posts
About this Discussion
63 Replies
29 Participants
Last post:
augoldminer
Survivalist Forum
posts
12M
members
169K
Since
2007
A forum community dedicated to survivalists and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about collections, gear, DIY projects, hobbies, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Off Topic Lounge Disaster Preparedness General Discussion Firearms General Discussion New Member Introductions Financial Forum