-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Black Drivers Make up Majority of Minneapolis Police Searches During Routine Traffic Stops
- Thread starter InTheLight
- Start date
Let me tell you how it USUALLY went with me.
Stop white guy: He answers questions politely and answers pass the test.
Stop black guy: " His response to questios is "F... You! I aint got to tell my s...!"
Which vehicle do think will get searched?
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Drivers being rude to you does not give you probable cause to search a vehicle.
You just confessed to routinely violating the rights of Americans of African descent.
peace to you
Has nothing to do with rudeness.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
I actually agree it wasn’t about the rudeness with you, but I’m going by your own words. Whites are polite, blacks curse you. That’s why their vehicles get searched.
That is not probable cause to search a vehicle and is a violation of civil rights which you (according to your own words) routinely engaged in while a LEO.
peace to you
Its not probable cause to search a vehicle. I never said it was. I am getting disgusted with people on here who add their assumptions to what is said.
I never illegally searched a vehicle. I never violated the civil rights of anyone.
The purpose of traveling criminal apprehension is to detect crime. The sooner the officer can make that determination, the sooner the stop can be over.
Last edited:
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
From your post #42: You stated this is how traffic stops “Usually” went with you.
Stop a a white man and he is polite, answers questions and “passes” your test.
Stop a black man and he says “f... you” and “ I ant gotta tell you about my sh..”
Which vehicle gets searched?
Those are your words. You searched the vehicles of blacks because they cursed you, they were rude to you. In fact, that is how it “Usually” went with you.
That is a violation of their civil rights because you searched their vehicles without probable cause.
I am glad you acknowledge you didn’t have probable cause to search those vehicles. Admitting your bias is a good first step to repentance.
However, there is no way to undo all the harm of those civil rights violations you “Usually” committed. How many led to arrests or charges being unlawfully filed against those folks. We will never know.
peace to you
I said what I said. You ASSumed the rest.
Your post is pure lies. I really would expect no less from you. You continually bear false witness. Is it an inability to read? Is it intentional? Is it simply because you are too stupid to apply what is written? I honestly do not know.
Last edited:
Can, I will briefly explain this to you. I am sure it will not be comprehended by you.
Interdiction officers stop vehicles based on probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. During the stop, indicators are observed. From that point, the officer attempts to either build on or dismiss the indicators. Cooperation usually leads to dismissal of or explanation of the indicators. Being uncooperative causes it to be necessary for other legal methods to be used to either build on or dismiss the indicators.
Interdiction officers stop vehicles based on probable cause that a crime has been or is being committed. During the stop, indicators are observed. From that point, the officer attempts to either build on or dismiss the indicators. Cooperation usually leads to dismissal of or explanation of the indicators. Being uncooperative causes it to be necessary for other legal methods to be used to either build on or dismiss the indicators.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Reynolds, I’ll respond and try to be polite.
If the traffic stop is based on probable cause that a crime (other than the traffic violation) has been or is being committed, whether the driver is cooperative or not is irrelevant to the search of the vehicle.
I based my comments on your words, which indicate racial bias against Americans of African descent.
The rest of what you said is blather, disguised as some kind of legal code that doesn’t exist in the real world.
Peace to you
Well, I don't understand how an uncooperative driver, who states he will not give permission for their vehicle to be searched, ends up having his vehicle searched. How does that work?
Pure misinformation.
K9, plain sight, plain smell, 4th Amendment waiver, search incident to arrest, inventory are the obvious ones.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Correct. Searching vehicles because the driver is rude, which is what you said, is a violation of civil rights.
peace to you
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Police can search a vehicle with probable cause, unless the driver gives permission.
Police have a presumption of honesty. The courts and public, mostly, don’t expect police to lie about the contact with a citizen. That is much less true with Americans of African descent, based on many decades of experience.
When the LEO has racial bias, the contact becomes distorted. A black driver is uncooperative. The officer with racial bias takes offense and looks for an excuse to search the vehicle; some will just make something up.
The officer without racial bias will understand the driver has no obligation to cooperate beyond providing ID, registration and insurance. She will carefully consider what she knows and decide whether that rises to the level of probable cause that can be honestly articulated to a judge.
If she doesn’t have PC, she will write the ticket and say, “Have a nice evening, sir”.
Peace to you
I did not say that. You incorrectly made that assumption. As I said, lies told about me.
Failure to cooperate with an investigation, necessitating alternate methods to complete said investigation. That would be the accurate statement.
You make a false assumption. You assume an officer treats a person differently based on race.
You also left out reasonable articulable suspicion and the reasonable amount of time given for development into probable cause.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
A simple traffic stop doesn’t turn into an “investigation” leading to a vehicle search just because the driver is rude to the LEO. That is exactly how your traffic stops “Usually” went, according to your Post #42. Easy to read. No assumptions made.
It’s a “Usual” violation of civil rights, which you seemed quite proud of until you were called out.
Peace to you
Every traffic stop is an investigation. The more cooperative the person being investigated, the more quickly the investigation reaches its conclusion.
If you literally read what I say and stop interjecting your assumptions, you will reach the correct conclusions. (You probably wont but most will)
I NEVER had a search suppressed in my entire career. A couple went to appeals court, but in the end, they were always upheld.
canadyjd
Well-Known Member
Like I said, the courts and the public, generally, believe LEO’s are honest and will not lie.
Had you told the judge the truth, i.e., “your honor, the reason I searched the vehicle was because the black man was rude to me when I asked for permission to search the vehicle. That is a clear ‘indicator’ a crime has been or is being committed, according to my personal code of investigation”, you would have lost the appeal.
I suspect many of your searches would have been thrown out had your clear racial bias, (based on your own statements in POST #42), been been known.
I’ve had enough, I think. You will continue to attempt to justify your actions as a LEO, call me names and deny what you stated in post#42.
I think I remember you stating you were retired, and that’s a good thing for all.
peace to you