home

Seatbelt checkpoints with night vision goggles?

By Last Night in Little Rock, Section Civil Liberties
Posted on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:10:12 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

In this article from Charleston, WV, with accompanying video from local TV news, a pizza delivery driver was stopped for no seatbelt at a seatbelt checkpoint and marijuana was found.

A Putam County man was arrested after city police said they found more than two pounds of marijuana his car during a seatbelt checkpoint.

Roger Lee Caldwell, 25, was arrested in Friday when police said they discovered the marijuana inside several pizza delivery bags, according to a release from the department.

Caldwell worked as a pizza delivery employee for a local pizza establishment, but police did not say which one.

More...

Apparently a search incident to a seatbelt violation is permissible in West Virginia.

In the e-mail that brought this to my attention, the correspondent tells me that he came upon a seatbelt checkpoint at night on a bicycle, and the officers were wearing nightvision goggles and said they used to them see into the cars in the dark as cars passed by.

This is precisely why the Black Caucus in the Arkansas legislature successfully fended off yet another attempt by law enforcement to make not wearing a seatbelt a primary violation for which one may be stopped.

< Supreme Court Reinstates Death Sentence | Gitmo Charges Against Canadian Teenager Dismissed >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Seatbelt checkpoints with night vision goggles? | 57 comments (57 topical)
    agree/disagree (none / 0) (#1)
    by Joe Bob on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:22:19 AM EST
    I have a hard time working up much outrage about making seatbelt violations a primary offense. I don't see the logic in making something illegal but not letting police stop people from doing it. I think the whole night vision goggles thing is a little wacky, but it just allows the police to do the same thing they would be doing while the sun was shining.

    What I find most objectionable about this story is the checkpoint itself. I know checkpoints such as this have been found to be legal in past cases involving DUI enforcement, but I still think they're wrong because they run right over the presumption of innocence. Likewise, if you feel a checkpoint is a violation of your rights police can use one's avoidance of the checkpoint as a pretext for stopping you anyway.

    Presumption of innocence (none / 0) (#3)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:53:52 AM EST
    Joe Bob, presumption of innocence is a standard appropriate to the courtroom, not the streets. It is a shorthand way of saying that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of alleged criminals.  This encompasses things like requiring defendants to appear in court without shackles or other extreme security measures that may bias the jury. It is not a standard applied to law enforcement officers.

    Rather, law enforcement operates in a system where short stops and searches are legal because they are deemed "reasonable" under the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, sobriety checkpoints are deemed "reasonable" because they are performed under specified guidelines, with minimal intrusion, and with opportunity for vehicles to avoid them by turning around.

    Parent

    Not true in practice.... (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:17:05 PM EST
    I made a U-bird one time to dodge a checkpoint, the cops followed my arse and pulled me over.  

    Apparently, not wanting to be hassled is probable cause for a stop.

    Parent

    did you make an illegal u-turn? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:24:27 PM EST
      That could have been an important issue. I once had a case where my client pulled off into a parking lot and then reentered the highway going the opposite direction  to avoid going through a checkpoint and he got pulled over.

       The only grounds cited by the cops for then stopping his car was the avoidance of the checkpoint. We won a motion to suppress (the cops found some drugs) because it was an unlawful stop in the absence of any illegal act because not wanting to go through a checkpoint was ruled insufficient evidence to support probable cause for the stop.

    *

      On the night-vision goggles, I'm glad to see those "homeland security" grants are being put to good use.

    Parent

    The U-turn was legal.... (none / 0) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:35:04 PM EST
    The thought crossed my mind to ask why I was stopped but I thought better of it...I just kept my mouth shut and gave them my papers.  I came back clean and I was on my way before too long.  Pissed off, but on my way.

    Good to know that if I was holding I could have gotten off though, thanks Decon.  And good job!

    Parent

    RE: Your Client (none / 0) (#9)
    by mack on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:58:04 PM EST
    We won a motion to suppress (the cops found some drugs) because it was an unlawful stop in the absence of any illegal act because not wanting to go through a checkpoint was ruled insufficient evidence to support probable cause for the stop.

    However, your client was still harassed by the police.
    I call it harassment because the stop was ultimately ruled unlawful.

    On the night-vision goggles, I'm glad to see those "homeland security" grants are being put to good use.

    Oh C'mon!  We all know that terrorists never wear their seatbelts!

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#10)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    As Decon says, they absolutely must give you the opportunity to evade the checkpoint, and so long as you have not committed any traffic violations they may not stop and search you.

    Police officers rely on the fact that people are intimidated by official inquiries and ignorant of the law to bend the rules.

    Parent

    You are both correct (none / 0) (#14)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:09:29 PM EST
        My client was unlawfully stopped, searched and arrested. He then spent a night in jail and had to post bond. Then he had to hire an attorney and when we refused to plead to a simple possession charge he was indicted for a felony. He had the case hanging over his head for over a year before it was ultimately dismissed.

       

    Parent

    RE: (none / 0) (#18)
    by mack on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:31:27 PM EST
    So he refused to what I assume is a standard misdemeanor plea bargain in your area and was indicted on a felony.  Sounds like standard operating procedure so far...

    What do you think his chances are on an unlawful arrest lawsuit?
    I'll bet on slim to none.

    Parent

    the SoL long since ran (none / 0) (#19)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:38:11 PM EST
      This was a long time ago and given the relative paucity of damges, a serious issue as to whether the police were on notice as to the illegality of their action and my client's lack of jury appeal, it was not a case I wanted.

     

    Parent

    It makes a bad law worse (none / 0) (#16)
    by roy on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:13:05 PM EST
    If I choose to accept the risk of flying face-first through my windshield and leaving however much of my skin on the highway as is necessary to skid to a stop, rather than wrinkle my shirt, that's my business.  The government shouldn't punish me; physics will do that if I crash.

    Even among people who accept that seat belts should be mandatory, there's still reason to oppose primary enforcement.  Under secondary enforcement, the societal cost of enforcing seatbealts is very small (per incident), just adding a few minutes to a stop that would have happened anyway, and adding a small amount to a fine that would have been levied anyway.  Under primary, the cost is a whole new stop (screwing up traffic, checking IDs, endangering the cop as he stands by the road, a chance to mask profiling as a good thing, ...) and a whole new fine (a trip to the courthouse to pay or contest, paperwork and transactions to track, ... ).

    The above intentionally disregards the benefits of money from fines being spent by the state, just because I think treating law enforcement as a fund raiser is icky.

    Parent

    It'd be interesting to see (none / 0) (#20)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:07:24 PM EST
    the societal cost of enforcing seatbelt [laws]
    a comparative analysis if the societal costs of enforcing seatbelt laws with those societal costs of the accidents of non-seatbelt wearers.

    Parent
    Don't forget to factor in.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:28:49 PM EST
    the instances where the seat-belt actually contributes to the injury.

    Case in point, when I got smashed head-on my passenger dislocated his shoulder thanks to his belt.  I was unbuckled and only got a knot on the head.

    Parent

    societal costs is a red herring ... (none / 0) (#22)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:33:31 PM EST
    ... that is used more and more to justify almost anything. Being overweight probably costs society more than smoking, seatbelts etc, put together.

    Parent
    You asked for it. (none / 0) (#24)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:49:14 PM EST
    Communitarian policy. As my parent used to say, "I feed you, I clothe you; therefore I get a say in what you eat and wear."

    If we are expected to join schemes which help spread the costs of healthcare or insurance, we have a say in how other people burden those systems.

    Parent

    Yup (none / 0) (#31)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:17:10 PM EST
    you could probably make the argument now, even absent socialized medicine.

    Assuming seat belt laws do in fact lower insurance co's overall medical payouts due to auto accidents, if we had no seatbelt laws and fewer people wore their belts, the insurer's payouts - and therefor our premiums - would be higher.

    Whether one agrees that societal costs are red herrings & cluster f*cks or not (and I don't argue either way) my main point is that whether or not you decide to wear a seat belt is not a decision that has no direct consequences on other people.

    It would seem, as is often the case on TL, that this discussion boils down to a matter of degree, ie., everything we choose to do in life has some effect on society, both bad and good. So, in this particular issue, at what point should an individual's free choice be influenced by society?

    Hell if I know.

    All I know is any member of society that rides with me in my car is required to use their belt.

    Parent

    I agree with seatbelts ... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:48:19 PM EST
    ... and wore them long before the gov't intruded into it. That's just plain stats.

    BTW, regarding DUI standards and enforcement, even with all the MADD sponsored draconian laws, U.S. drunk driving deaths rise.

    IMHO, there should be sundown provision for all laws. If they are proven not to work the basic premise should be re-examined, then scrapped or modified.


    Parent

    Healthcare and insurance are private entities ... (none / 0) (#38)
    by Sailor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:40:14 PM EST
    ... not the gov't. The gov't is supposedly bound by the Constitution.

    And when your parents said that you were a minor ... I hope.

    Parent

    And? (none / 0) (#45)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 06:07:09 PM EST
    The government mandates automobile insurance. Liberals want to nationalize healthcare.

    In both cases, the government forces me to participate in shared-costs schemes with people who are grossly more burdensome than myself. Therefore, I should have a say in the burdens they are allowed to put on the system.

    That goes for mandated automobile insurance now. It will go for Hillary!Care if we get there.

    Parent

    Just wait (none / 0) (#28)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:04:44 PM EST
    if the U.S. ever manages to institute national healthcare. In Canada for instance everything from use of seatbelts to obesity to drug use is discussed in terms of societal costs to the healthcare system and the costs to everyone who's paying into it. However, the action taken usually tends to be more in the way of education and outreach programs to solve the problems instead of heavily armed police lurking at checkpoints with night goggles hoping for the chance to snag evildoers. Though we'll see how long the culture can hold out here under outrageous sellout trade deals like TILMA and the corporate goal of "deep integration" with the U.S.

    Parent
    Law doesnt care about that kind of thing (none / 0) (#56)
    by peacrevol on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 10:13:03 AM EST
    They make up laws like that to steal money from good people and to give themselves another reason to pull people over and try to find something to take them to jail for. You know, the good cops are out there bringing in the bad guys. It doesnt really matter how.

    Parent
    RE: comparative analysis (none / 0) (#23)
    by mack on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:34:27 PM EST
    Actually, that kind of analysis would be a complete cluster-f*k since you wouldn't be able to get anyone to agree on the metrics.

    For the sake of discussion, I'll assume we are talking about seatbelt laws as a primary offense.

    To illustrate what I mean by complete cluster-f*k, I think the societal costs of enforcing seatbelt laws result in the loss of civil liberties (meaning I can be pulled over by the police for not wearing a seatbelt and searched because my car smelled funny or I looked at them crooked) and trump anything you or anyone else could come up with in regards to non-seatbelt wearers involved in accidents.

    Not trying to pick an argument with you or imply that you are for or against these laws, just trying to illustrate the futile attempt at the analysis.


    Parent

    But if he had two pounds of vodka... (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 11:42:49 AM EST
    ...he'd be fine and dandy.

    Does anyone remember? (none / 0) (#4)
    by NMRon on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    When they were passing the seatbelt laws in the late '80's, one of the big complaints was that police would use the authority to make additional random stops of people (i.e., another infringement of civil liberties). Police Departments all over the country and lawmakers absolutely vowed that no one would be stopped just for seatbelts (I remember this specifically in New Mexico). Lack of wearing a seatbelt would only be ticketed as a result of being noticed after some other infraction, they promised.

    Well, we see how much you can trust proponent rhetoric.  I've received three tickets over the years, everyone for a seatbelt bust and nothing else (including once while sitting at a freakin' light).

    another anecdote (none / 0) (#13)
    by manys on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:09:07 PM EST
    In California, for years the law was such that a missing seatbelt could not be the primary reason to stop someone, but that the occupants could be ticketed for seatbelts if they were pulled over for something else. At some point that restriction was removed, possibly with the aim of protecting the children.

    Parent
    Ron, I gotta ask (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:39:02 AM EST
    1. Why don't you wear them?

    2. At what point do you give and follow the law??


    Parent
    Nanny Laws (none / 0) (#8)
    by mack on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 12:49:10 PM EST
    Seatbelt laws are nothing more than bullsh*t feel-good nanny laws.

    Now these laws are being used as a tool to justify police stops.

    I've been told that my arguments regarding nanny laws and their eventual effects on civil liberties amounted to nothing more than slippery slope arguments.

    I can't believe that people actually support this kind of crap legislation and believe statements by politicians that these laws will not have a negative impact on our civil liberties.

    Seatbelt laws are a disgusting byproduct of lazy elected officials looking to "enhance" their political careers.

    Also.... (none / 0) (#11)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:00:53 PM EST
    seat belt laws are a great way to extort..err raise...revenue.

    Parent
    Fwiw (none / 0) (#12)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:04:29 PM EST
    Wiki has this info on seat belt laws:
    In USA, seatbelt legislation is left up to state governments. Depending on which state you are in, not wearing a seatbelt is either a primary offense or a secondary offense, with the exception of New Hampshire, which does not have a law requiring people over age 18 to wear a seat belt.

    Primary offense meaning a police officer can pull you over for the seatbelt law violation alone, and secondary offense meaning you can only be punished for the seatbelt law violation if you're already pulled over for another reason.

    As of January 2007, 25 states and the District of Columbia have primary seatbelt laws, 24 have secondary seatbelt laws, and one state (New Hampshire) has no laws[20].
    It's up to the states (none / 0) (#15)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:11:44 PM EST
    BUT Congress coerces states with the spending power because states that don't enact the laws lose eligibility for certain federal funds. (Same with DUI and some other highway safety laws)

    Parent
    New Hampshire rocks!!!... (none / 0) (#17)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 01:24:57 PM EST
    "Live free or die"....more than just a slogan.

    Parent
    They were pulling over here in IN this weekend (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:50:04 PM EST
    for just that.

    My dad is a doctor whose pulled many an ER shift.

    He believes firmly in seat-belt and helmet laws.

    Here in IN you don't have to wear a seat-belt if you own a truck that you use for buisness.  You get a special blue plate and can kill yourself if you choose.

    You also don't have to wear a motor cycle helmet.

    It bugs me that here in this state they are sending two mixed messages.  A) buckle up B) don't if you pay an extra tax and don't sweat a helmet.

    IMHO driving a car is not a right but a privlidge given to you by the state.   If you accept that privlidge then you play by the rules.

    In the end the message TL should be spreading is if you'regoing to carry durgs in your car "Buckle Up".

    I never bought into the whole.... (none / 0) (#26)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 02:58:30 PM EST
    "driving is a priveledge" thing.  Why isn't riding a bicycle a priveledge then?
    How about walking?  All are ways of getting from Point A to Point B.

    I would think if you're a free american who builds or buys a motor powered vehicle, you have an inalienable right to use said motor powered vehicle.  More proof that I must be nuts...

    Parent

    Shorthand (none / 0) (#27)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:02:51 PM EST
    "Driving is a privilege" is shorthand for "Driving on community roads is a privilege."

    You are more than welcome to build or buy a motor powered vehicle and drive it all you want. But if you want to bring it onto state roads, you have to get a license and get it licensed, and you have to obey the traffic laws. You have no right to drive on roads that you don't own, only a privilege.

    Parent

    As a taxpayer (none / 0) (#29)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    you're one of the millions of co-owners of the road. Thinking about the government as "them," as if it's someone else who owns the public resources of the society, leads to some counterproductive ideas about government and what it is for, and leads to doing things like heading up government agencies with the people who least believe in their mission. (Think Brownie.)

    Parent
    Indeed. (none / 0) (#32)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:19:15 PM EST
    AA, as one of the millions of the co-owners of the road, I'd appreciate it if you purchased car insurance and wore a seatbelt. I have to share the road with you. I'd rather not have to share your hospital and repair bills, too. It's not personal, but I just don't know you well enough. ;)

    Parent
    And there (none / 0) (#36)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:35:11 PM EST
    I thought you'd be interested in this great timeshare...

    Parent
    I guess that makes sense..... (none / 0) (#30)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:13:54 PM EST
    I never thought of the state as owning the roads.

    So if you drive off-road you're good to go?

    And wouldn't that make bicycling or walking on state roads a priveledge, since the state owns them?

    Parent

    Yes (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:20:09 PM EST
    And wouldn't that make bicycling or walking on state roads a priveledge, since the state owns them?
    Try biking or walking on the LIE and see how quickly you get your privilege revoked.

    Parent
    Indeed, uh, again. (none / 0) (#34)
    by Gabriel Malor on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:20:27 PM EST
    Yep. And yep. Cycling and walking are privileges, too, but are much less regulated because they result in much smaller costs to the rest of us.

    Parent
    excuse my ignorance, (none / 0) (#37)
    by gollo on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:25:12 PM EST
    but I thought a 'right' is something that cannot be removed, but a privilege is something that can.

    i.e you have a 'right' to free speech, but not a 'right' to vote, only a 'privilege'.

    Am I on the right path?

    Parent

    gollo (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:44:25 AM EST
    I think this based on you having to be of age, a citizen, etc.

    Parent
    not really (none / 0) (#52)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:57:03 AM EST
      "Rights" can be revoked. Government must afford you due process but even the most fundamental of rights-- life and liberty -- are frequently taken from people. Property rights can also be taken.

         To my way of thinking a right is something you have  unless the government after due process takes it from you as an individual and a privilege is something you possess only because government has granted it to you.

     

    Parent

    Thanks fellas.... (none / 0) (#42)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:02:58 PM EST
    for reminding me.  It dawned on me soon after I typed, jaywalking...duh.

    Parent
    There are about 70 feet per capita of (none / 0) (#44)
    by JSN on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:26:36 PM EST
    public streets and highways in the US. That seems low I know people with driveways longer than that.

    Parent
    Gabriel (none / 0) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:53:23 AM EST
    There are many places you can't drive off road, including your own property if so designated by the EPA...

    Parent
    yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by Deconstructionist on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 03:21:18 PM EST
    and you will see no pedestrian or bicycle signs at the entrances to some public highways and you also have to obey rules on foot or on your bike.

      The bottom line is that living in a civil society involves making some compromises. We are not perfectly free. We could each find dozens of laws we think are misguided, counter-productive, overly restrictive or otheerwise objectionable. We still have to obey them or face the consequences.

       

    I hear ya Decon.... (none / 0) (#43)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:08:23 PM EST
    but deep down I'm glad so many people do not obey every law to the letter, and police use their judgement to not enforce every law to the letter.  What a horrible world that would be.

    They truly are made to be broken.  

    Cops using infra-red googles to make seat-belt collars begs for scorn, I'm sure you would agree.

    Parent

    I've already (none / 0) (#48)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 07:33:58 AM EST
     mocked that.

      The issue of discretion in the enforcement of laws and rules is more problematic. I certain;y agree that we want some exercise of sound judgment and reasonable discretion but the problem is discretion can be and is abused.

       A classic example of the problem with officials exercising no judgment is the "zero-tolerance" policy for drugs and wesapons adopted by many schools. When we read of suspensions and expulsions for kids bringing antacids or penknifes to school we shake our heads and ask why a little common sense can't be exercised.

       On the other hand, when discretion is used to target some and excuse others for the same thing we are also very concerned. I know-- as a white, upper middle-class type-- that police can be very selective. When I was young I seemed to get pulled over fairly frequently but now haven't been pulled over in years even though I have driven with expired tags and inspection stickers from time to time. We know black people are more likely to be targeted for these minor infractions and so are younger and poorer people or people in certain parts of town, etc.

      The degree of discretion and where in the system it is exercised is a tough issue.

    Parent

    It is tough... (none / 0) (#53)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:01:58 AM EST
    and will never be perfect.

    Laws are made by man, and we all know how fallible mankind is.  Thats why I'm always calling for a bare minimum of laws, and skeptical when people call for new ones.  I think we could shred half the law books and function quite well.

    Parent

    Our system (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:24:26 AM EST
    recognizes that. Getting a law enacted is not easy and that is intentional. (Of course, the flipside is that getting a law repealed is not easy either.)

      All the steps to passage in each chamber, the parliamentary maneuvers available to thwart passage, bicameral legislatures, the veto power, etc., are all intended to make it hard for proposals to become laws.

    Parent

    ahh - pizza delivery bringin' the dope, too (none / 0) (#40)
    by scribe on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 04:54:57 PM EST
    a pizza delivery driver was stopped for no seatbelt at a seatbelt checkpoint and marijuana was found.

    A Putam County man was arrested after city police said they found more than two pounds of marijuana his car during a seatbelt checkpoint.
    Roger Lee Caldwell, 25, was arrested in Friday when police said they discovered the marijuana inside several pizza delivery bags, according to a release from the department.

    Caldwell worked as a pizza delivery employee for a local pizza establishment, but police did not say which one.

    Back in my younger days (i.e., more than 20 years ago), I worked as a pizza delivery driver.  All sorts of stuff went on - not the least of which was at least one other driver supplementing minimum wage plus tips plus mileage plus free pizza* by dealing pot, and another (driving a little sports car) regularly smoking a joint - the way most people would smoke a tobacco cig - while driving deliveries.  Or the one disgruntled driver crashing his 70-something AMC Matador through the back of the shop.

    I don't mean to make light of what is yet another intrusion by police into everyday life, and another way for them to arrest people, but if a dullard like I am figured out the one guy was dealing and the other was driving stoned, I think the cops have, too, and decided to draw a big target on the pizza guy.

    *After working there for about 6 months, I quit and got a "real" job.  I'm a real pizza lover and I never thought it would have been possible, but for about another 6 months after that, I had no desire to eat pizza.

    What is it with pizza and vice?.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 05:01:01 PM EST
    Ever see "Loverboy"?

    It goes both ways too...a friend of mine used to get smoked out all the time as a tip when he did the food-delivery gig.

    Parent

    You can see where this is leading (none / 0) (#46)
    by retank on Mon Jun 04, 2007 at 09:41:51 PM EST
    The Colorado State Patrol said it issued 3,033 seat-belt citations and 6,651 speeding tickets, and pulled over 30,045 vehicles over the Memorial Day weekend.

    Jeebus.... (none / 0) (#54)
    by kdog on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 09:06:07 AM EST
    thats a lotta ball-busting.  And a lotta revenue.

    Parent
    And,,the laws don't apply to everyone (none / 0) (#47)
    by retank on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:54:43 AM EST
    Evidently, Tom Tancredo doesn't feel the need to wear a seatbelt while interviewing for the presidency

    No 4th Amendment (none / 0) (#57)
    by baked potato on Tue Jun 05, 2007 at 02:16:30 PM EST
    My wife was stopped at a "DUI Checkpoint" where a female officer chirpily asked her how her day was going.  My wife indicated that her day had been going fine until she had to submit to a violation of her rights.  The cop then asked to see my wife's license, whereupon my wife explained that she had just been at the gym so her license was in her wallet in her bag in the trunk of the car.  Before letting her get her bag out of the trunk, the cop harangued her and actually threatened her with arrest for "not having her license with her."

    Tyranny starts in little ways.

    Seatbelt checkpoints with night vision goggles? | 57 comments (57 topical)