Yes. And do.

Do they need ā€œevidenceā€?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::+1:t4:

Legally?

They use reasonable suspicion to get probable cause. Every see them run a drug dog around the outside of a car. Once the dog ā€œalertsā€, they’ll dismantle the car.

The handlers are cueing the dogs.

1 Like

Most of it. The laws need to be changed. Most of this crap is War on Drugs stuff.

statue-liberty-crying-but-we-got-scared

There’s always some crisis.

A lot of cops and bureaucrats believe the exact same thing.

2 Likes

I know. And it’s absolutely terrifying.

1 Like

Now add in profiling.

Opening gates, peeking in windows, lyng, assumption of truth by the courts (privilege).

Just one thing after another.

Here’s another favorite; ā€œWe got a call and that gives us a right to ID you.ā€

Is a call ā€œreasonableā€ suspicion or probable cause?

ā€œGet your hands out of your pockets!ā€

1 Like

Pointless and argumentative. Save your concerns for the Judge. With the police, it just escalates things. Do you really think a Police Officer is going to say ā€œYour right Mr Jones, I have no idea what I suspect you of. Have a nice dayā€?

:rofl: good one

Who is my accuser?

There are plenty of videos out there of them letting them go after that. Granted it normally takes a supervisor to do it and some time.

Those who say the order is legitimate if grounded in the law (strangely enough) ignore that many laws are unconstitutional.

A friend of mine was a County Sheriff. He was required to carry his badge and gun whenever he was in public. I asked him about him responding to anything when he was off duty. And he told me that he was obligated to respond to any illegal activity whenever he saw it or was called to assist. He also told me that the majority of his training was the law with a specific focus on citizens rights under the law.

1 Like

Usually the Police Officer.

ā€œLetting them go afterā€ is a problem for me.

:wink: That’s right. Do I have a right to know what I am accused of? Before the trial?

I say yes.