View Single Post
Old 02-03-12, 09:23 PM
Senior Member
Digital_Cowboy's Avatar
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Tampa/St. Pete, Florida
Posts: 9,355

Bikes: Specialized Hardrock Mountain (Stolen); Giant Seek 2 (Stolen); Diamondback Ascent mid 1980 - 1997

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PaPa View Post
Is this from Indiana statute, or are you assuming that all states are the same? Many state and city ordinances are different. Idaho Statutes, for example, do NOT require tail lights, only reflectors, The City of Twin Falls, Idaho, however, does require a taillight.

But what it really boils down to, is 'probably cause' (PC) to make a lawful stop. Recognizing the individual as a previous offender doesn't cut it. There has to be a legitimate reason to suspect a violation HAS OCCURRED, IS OCCURRING, or is ABOUT TO OCCUR, before the officer can arrest.
I think that you mean probable not probably cause. I also know that past bad acts aren't always admissible, but if I'm not mistaken they have been used to justify getting a search warrant. Also if a person is known to commit certain crimes then does it not make sense for law enforcement to pay extra attention to them?

An example would be when law enforcement sets up it's DUI checkpoints within close proximity to bars and restaurants. And no one questions the police setting up DUI checkpoints. One of the ironies with those DUI checkpoints is that they're really only setup a small number of times during the year, i.e. 4th of July, Christmas/New Years Eve, etc.

And other then the DUI checkpoint being setup within "close proximity" to bars/restaurants or during the holidays what probable cause do the police have for checking the drivers that they stop and check?

Yes, I agree that we should do everything we can to get not only drunk drivers but incompetent drivers off of the road.
Digital_Cowboy is offline