Another Professional Law enforcement blunder!

Posted in the Pine Prairie Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#1 Mar 5, 2013
A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime. In constitutional law in the United States, a traffic stop is considered to be a subset of the Terry stop; the standard set by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio regarding temporary detentions requires only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
So why is the SO allowing officers to perform traffic stops to issue a subpoena?? Not a good idea!!! Lawful??? We shall see!! Where was the crime/PC??
Blue

Oklahoma City, OK

#2 Mar 6, 2013
Spaz wrote:
A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime. In constitutional law in the United States, a traffic stop is considered to be a subset of the Terry stop; the standard set by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio regarding temporary detentions requires only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
So why is the SO allowing officers to perform traffic stops to issue a subpoena?? Not a good idea!!! Lawful??? We shall see!! Where was the crime/PC??
Constitutional rights violation. Illegal seizure of person and property. Where did this happen?
Lawyer Cam

Ville Platte, LA

#3 Mar 6, 2013
Spaz wrote:
A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime. In constitutional law in the United States, a traffic stop is considered to be a subset of the Terry stop; the standard set by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio regarding temporary detentions requires only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
So why is the SO allowing officers to perform traffic stops to issue a subpoena?? Not a good idea!!! Lawful??? We shall see!! Where was the crime/PC??
The Fourth Amendment protects you from unreasonable seizure of yourself or your PROPERTY. A police officer may arrest you if he has probable cause to believe you engaged in criminal activity in front of him. However, arresting you without probable cause is illegal. A police officer cannot seize your personal property or material evidence from your home without a search warrant. Your vehicle cannot be stopped and searched without an officer demonstrating reasonable suspicion that you ARE engaged in criminal activity. It was a clear violation against you bud! Need a lawyer?
Bebier

Ville Platte, LA

#4 Mar 6, 2013
Professional Law Enforcement and the EPSO do not go together. They are so far apart that it is pathetic. They are an insult to all professional policemen in Louisiana. What they did is wrong, and embarrassing. Are they too lazy to go to your residence to serve you? They have no supervision and no leadership.
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#5 Mar 6, 2013
Bebier wrote:
Professional Law Enforcement and the EPSO do not go together. They are so far apart that it is pathetic. They are an insult to all professional policemen in Louisiana. What they did is wrong, and embarrassing. Are they too lazy to go to your residence to serve you? They have no supervision and no leadership.
I never said a department! But i like your way of thinking.
Big Papa Pump

Ville Platte, LA

#6 Mar 7, 2013
Yall are all a bunch of idiots go get laid and stop arguing back and forth like ppl give a shit about this website. It was made for loosers like you guys that have nothing else better to do with your lives if you can do a better job shut the hell up and go do it quit running your damn mouths. Its people like YOU thats embarassing
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#7 Mar 7, 2013
Big Papa Pump wrote:
Yall are all a bunch of idiots go get laid and stop arguing back and forth like ppl give a shit about this website. It was made for loosers like you guys that have nothing else better to do with your lives if you can do a better job shut the hell up and go do it quit running your damn mouths. Its people like YOU thats embarassing
Big "Pump"???? LOL. Looks like you're pretty damn embarrassing too dumb azz!!
Thats Sad

Ville Platte, LA

#9 Mar 7, 2013
Spaz wrote:
A traffic stop, commonly called being pulled over, is a temporary detention of a driver of a vehicle by police to investigate a possible crime. In constitutional law in the United States, a traffic stop is considered to be a subset of the Terry stop; the standard set by the United States Supreme Court in Terry v. Ohio regarding temporary detentions requires only reasonable suspicion that a crime has occurred or is about to occur.
So why is the SO allowing officers to perform traffic stops to issue a subpoena?? Not a good idea!!! Lawful??? We shall see!! Where was the crime/PC??
Sir I can tell you have no ideal about the Law in respects to serving a Judges Order. We are not in Ohio.
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#10 Mar 7, 2013
Thats Sad wrote:
<quoted text>Sir I can tell you have no ideal about the Law in respects to serving a Judges Order. We are not in Ohio.
"Ideal"???? How about idea, and it's not from a judge yank!! Learn the law before you preach here!! Violation is what it was!! Low on the totem pole for experience and professionalism. Ohio??? Get a grip!
Bebier

Ville Platte, LA

#11 Mar 7, 2013
Thats Sad wrote:
<quoted text> Sir I can tell you have no ideal about the Law in respects to serving a Judges Order. We are not in Ohio.
We all know we are not in Ohio. But this a fedral supreme court decesion and sets law for the nation. What rock did you climb out from under. You must be Dwayne Ledeaux.
Thats Sad

Ville Platte, LA

#12 Mar 8, 2013
thats all good, but your still wrong.
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#13 Mar 8, 2013
Thats Sad wrote:
thats all good, but your still wrong.
Ok Mr DA! STFU!
Thats Sad

Ville Platte, LA

#14 Mar 9, 2013
Spaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok Mr DA! STFU!
Well I can see you will need help with the answer. See your stuck on the notion that the officer conducted a traffic stop. Go back to your Ohio Law Books and read carefully. You may find that there are more than just traffic stops a law enforcement Officer can conduct. Okay thats the only hint you are gonna get. By the way Im going out on a limb when I say this, Its probably not the way it was served but more the content of the paper work. Im gonna guess child support order. OKAY YOUR TURN!
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#15 Mar 9, 2013
Thats Sad wrote:
<quoted text>Well I can see you will need help with the answer. See your stuck on the notion that the officer conducted a traffic stop. Go back to your Ohio Law Books and read carefully. You may find that there are more than just traffic stops a law enforcement Officer can conduct. Okay thats the only hint you are gonna get. By the way Im going out on a limb when I say this, Its probably not the way it was served but more the content of the paper work. Im gonna guess child support order. OKAY YOUR TURN!
Negative!! And what the hell does Ohio law have to do with anything? Shows how much you really know! Terry v Ohio is case law the set precedence to state law!! Jakazz!!
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#16 Mar 9, 2013
Thats Sad wrote:
<quoted text>Well I can see you will need help with the answer. See your stuck on the notion that the officer conducted a traffic stop. Go back to your Ohio Law Books and read carefully. You may find that there are more than just traffic stops a law enforcement Officer can conduct. Okay thats the only hint you are gonna get. By the way Im going out on a limb when I say this, Its probably not the way it was served but more the content of the paper work. Im gonna guess child support order. OKAY YOUR TURN!
Oh by the way azzcream, it's a witness subpoena! Idiot.
thats sad

Ville Platte, LA

#17 Mar 10, 2013
Spaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh by the way azzcream, it's a witness subpoena! Idiot.
Great rebuddtle.
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#18 Mar 10, 2013
thats sad wrote:
<quoted text>Great rebuddtle.
Correctly spelled "rebuttal" (law) a pleading by the defendant in reply to a plaintiff's surrejoinder. Thanks gain counselor!
thats sad

Ville Platte, LA

#19 Mar 11, 2013
Spaz wrote:
<quoted text>
Correctly spelled "rebuttal" (law) a pleading by the defendant in reply to a plaintiff's surrejoinder. Thanks gain counselor!
How long did you have to read your OHio LAw book to find that info.
Spaz

Ville Platte, LA

#20 Mar 11, 2013
thats sad wrote:
<quoted text>How long did you have to read your OHio LAw book to find that info.
I'm sure you're one of those phucktards from California!! Explains your lack of knowledge of the law!!
Huhh

Oklahoma City, OK

#21 Mar 13, 2013
I'm guessing the Ohio/ California comments are supposed to be directed towards me. If they are I have to inform you that I no longer play on topix, but if I do I don't hide under a fake name. I claim my posts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Pine Prairie Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
skanky homewreckers 4 min Beenthere 6
LA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Louisiana... (Oct '10) 7 min Rodger 3,363
First Black Judge Mon Rs Facebook Repor... 1
Sheriff of Evangeline Parish Sep 18 Willie 6
Chases lead to hunt, capture of Turkey Creek su... Sep 18 baarian 1
Should Chief Lartigue be voted out ? Sep 18 Painter 133
Dani Russ GOT DEM BUGZ!!! Sep 17 DEP U T 2
•••
•••
Pine Prairie Dating

more search filters

less search filters

•••

Pine Prairie Jobs

•••
•••
•••

Pine Prairie People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Pine Prairie News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Pine Prairie
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••