Kentucky State Police: Post 3 News Release

 

Gosh, better get him off the streets before he goes on a killing spree.

There were 3 checkpoints friday night on 68 from Maysville to Carlisle, had to be over 15-20 officers. Overkill dont you think for a stretch of road that really leads to nowhere. I bet they got a ton of people for violations on the way to Deming's errrr Robertson Co graduation.

I ran into a checkpoint in NKY at 10 pm.

Gosh, better get him off the streets before he goes on a killing spree.

backto ya,

What if they had let them go (or had never even stopped them) and then stoned or high they were involved in a wreck 2 miles down the road and it came out later that officer had just stopped them (or should have) and let them go? A lot of people would have been all over the officer for not getting this guy off of the road.

Where did I say any of that? I'm not for government finding more reasons to ignore the 4th ammendment to try and find criminals. Not wearing a seat belt is harming no one. It is not a major offense, and should not be a reason to pull me over.

 

We are 100% on the same page.

So you don't support fugitives being found and arrested, you don't support stolen cars being found, you don't support drugs being confiscated that are found during traffic stops, you don't support DUI offenders being taken off of the road?

 

Look, I'm all for smaller government and for government not over reaching. But the stuff some of you are complaining about is ridiculous.

 

Terrible response. It comes across as an "end justifies the means" reply. Surely you don't mean that.

Terrible response. It comes across as an "end justifies the means" reply. Surely you don't mean that.

Not exactly but I don't fundamentally think a traffic stop with just cause (law being broken) is that. What is the difference in being stopped for a seat belt infraction and being stopped for a rolling stop at a STOP sign, not signaling for a turn or lane change, speeding 5 mph over, tailgating, or even driving too slow.

Not exactly but I don't fundamentally think a traffic stop with just cause (law being broken) is that. W.

 

Your reply seemed to indicate you were fine with anything as long as it stopped a crime.

 

Thanks.

There are studies that support the value of seatbelt laws and studies that say the overall decrease is either insignificant OR that there is a significant relationship with fatalities.

 

IMO the laws are put in place either to grab federal money in some way OR they are put in place as a reason to allow police access. I'm not thrilled with either.

Your reply seemed to indicate you were fine with anything as long as it stopped a crime.

 

Thanks.

No not at all, I just don't think a bona fide traffic stop counts as "Anything".

 

I am against illegal searches and invasion of private property. I am against coerced confessions and also against any abuse of power by the authorities. It is just on this subject I don't see where stopping a car with a clear violation is an issue of any kind. Tell me why do you think it is wrong to stop a car that is breaking the law?

 

You can debate the Law (might be a crappy law) all you want, but debating the enforcement of that law is another issue all together.

No not at all, I just don't think a bona fide traffic stop counts as "Anything".

 

I am against illegal searches and invasion of private property. I am against coerced confessions and also against any abuse of power by the authorities. It is just on this subject I don't see where stopping a car with a clear violation is an issue of any kind. Tell me why do you think it is wrong to stop a car that is breaking the law?

 

.

 

 

I never said it was a bad thing. I'm saying THIS LAW is a bad thing IMO. I'm cool with it being a secondary violation.

There are studies that support the value of seatbelt laws and studies that say the overall decrease is either insignificant OR that there is a significant relationship with fatalities.

 

IMO the laws are put in place either to grab federal money in some way OR they are put in place as a reason to allow police access. I'm not thrilled with either.

 

The state laws in almost every case were passed because Washington tied Federal Highway funds to states passing these laws and national speed limits. So yes they were a money grab of sorts, for a state to get it's share of highway funding they had to pass laws of this type.

 

There were already a ton of other things that could be considered probable cause to pull some over before the seat belt law was passed. It wasn't passed to allow access IMO but to save lives and get $$$ from DC.

The state laws in almost every case were passed because Washington tied Federal Highway funds to states passing these laws and national speed limits. So yes they were a money grab of sorts, for a state to get it's share of highway funding they had to pass laws of this type.

 

There were already a ton of other things that could be considered probable cause to pull some over before the seat belt law was passed. It wasn't passed to allow access IMO but to save lives and get $$$ from DC.

 

So you admit that the "unintended" consequence is privacy violations, i.e., access to peoples' cars? I just don't see how people are OK with this. Especially those who otherwise complain about Big Brother every chance they get. All in the name of "law and order," I suppose.

So you admit that the "unintended" consequence is privacy violations, i.e., access to peoples' cars? I just don't see how people are OK with this. Especially those who otherwise complain about Big Brother every chance they get. All in the name of "law and order," I suppose.

 

Where did I say that? I said that there were already plenty of laws that would allow people to be pulled over. This Seat Belt law wasn't needed to have a reason to pull over cars, we all break plenty of traffic laws everyday. I also said that this may be a crappy law and that is what should be discussed not the enforcement of the law.

 

I'm more concerned about other abuses of power than possibly getting pulled over because I chose to break the law and didn't wear my seat belt. But even with getting pulled over for a seat belt violation an officer can't complete a search on your person or vehicle without there being other mitigating factors.

Here is a hypothetical question that may have already been asked. What if an officer pulls you over for not having a seat belt on when you really do. Then they determined that you commited some other crime instead (Drug possession, DUI, etc.). Do you have an argument that you were pulled over illegally? Or is it treated as a normal traffic stop and anything can happen?

 

The courts tend to lean towards a mistake being made in good faith, Such as an officer running a license plate and it coming back to a different vehicle then stopping the vehicle. After making the stop, the officer realizes the X they saw on the plate is actually a K. If the officer winds up with further charges, the courts tend to say the officer made the stop in good faith.

 

I'm indifferent on seatbelts. But you can't fault the officer or his agency for utilizing the grants. They don't make the rules of the game, they just play it. Blame the government for making laws, not the ones who enforce it. No agency who is strapped for funding is going to tell state or federal government "No we don't want your grant money cause we think seatbelts as a primary violation is stupid." At the end of the day, those guys working grant OT are people with mortgages and families to support, they're just doing their job.