Hacker News Reader

Comment by ck2 | Hacker News Reader

You are falling for the illusion. Because driving is a privilege, not a right, speeding tickets are a control on a population.

Speeding pullovers allow them to run all sorts of background checks on you, possibly search your possessions, copy your cellphone contents, etc. It's a 112k person-a-day sampling of the population.

That said, I haven't gotten a speeding ticket in well over a decade and rarely drive more than 5mph over the posted limit which is probably why. Last ticket I got was actually under 5mph in a speed-trap town (which I now avoid).

What I fear is the switch to speed cameras from speed police. Because you have little to no right to contest a speed camera ticket or examine the possibly faulty code that some unknown programmer put into it.

View on HN

This sort of touches on my main dislike of speeding tickets. It is basically the definition of a police-state. In a police state, all of the citizens are always breaking the law. It is therefore up to the police to selectively enforce the rules on those that they deem deserve punishment.

I grew up in Northern New Jersey where 'racial profiling' was a big problem. But really the main issue was that everyone on the NJ Turnpike is driving 70-80 MPH every day. The posted speed limits are a joke. I was passed by a patrol car while I was doing 85 once. If I had been suspicious (i.e. african american), I might have been pulled over.

Moreover, I think it teaches a bad lesson about law enforcement: everyone is doing it and it's only a crime if you get caught.

I'm not trying to troll, I'm genuinely curious: 'Search your possession' and 'Copy your cellphone contents' if you were pulled over for going to fast with a car are hyperbole and doomsday scenarios, right?

This isn't actually reality?

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-10-11/tech/tech_mobile_californ...

California Gov. Jerry Brown has vetoed a bill that would have prohibited police in that state from conducting warrantless searches of the cell phones of people under arrest.

"This measure would overturn a California Supreme Court decision that held that police officers can lawfully search the cell phones of people who they arrest," the governor's brief statement said. "The courts are better suited to resolve the complex and case-specific issues relating to constitutional search-and-seizures protections."

The courts said "there's no law against, so its ok". So California made a law against it. So the governor vetoed it because the courts had said it was ok. Police state much?

All they have to do is say they smell drugs or alcohol. Then they can search your car, bring in a drug dog and give it a fake trigger.

I don't even drink, forget drugs, and I've actually been stopped and searched while riding my bicycle down my street several years ago at night. Granted it's a bad area but still.

Right now around the world they are showing footage of cops using heavy duty military grade weapons meant for riots - against peaceful protesters - and you are questioning police overreacting and overreaching without an ounce of fear for their jobs?

Whoa. Nevermind the stupid drink/drug thing [1], but being pulled over on a bike and searched would be the day I'd give up, I guess. At least in DE this is, in my experience and my social circles, totally unheard of and unbelievable.

1: There are tests for alcohol/drugs. For drugs they _might_ search your car if there's a reasonable doubt, but so far I only know about these controls near borders, especially to NL: It's just easy/legal to get weed there and the customs police (?) isn't stupid and watching for ~interesting~ cars crossing over. I've never heard of searches related to alcohol. If there's any indication that you had alcohol you might have to do the breath test. If you fail that or don't want to do that, then it's off to the police station for a blood test. No need to search you or your car, and damn certainly not your mobile?

As someone who left all of his friends and family and connections behind in the USA when it became a police state and moved to Germany, I can tell you with certainty that it really is that bad there.

I'd like to point out the hypocrisy of holding Germany up as a bright and shining alternative[1]. Regardless of what you think about the state of government in the US, nothing you say about the Holocaust here will you get imprisoned.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#G...

Of course, those laws were actually first imposed by the US military after WWII:

The Information Control Division of the U.S. Army had by July 1946 taken control of 37 German newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, and 7,384 book dealers and printers. Its main mission was democratization but the agenda also included the prohibition on any criticism of the Allied occupation forces. In addition, on May 13, 1946 the Allied Control council issued a directive for the confiscation of all media that could contribute to Nazism or militarism. As a consequence a list was drawn up of over 30,000 book titles, ranging from school textbooks to poetry, which were now banned. All copies of books on the list were confiscated and destroyed; the possession of a book on the list was made a punishable offense. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order was in principle no different from the Nazi book burnings.

The censorship in the U.S. zone was regulated by the occupation directive JCS 1067 (valid until July 1947) and in the May 1946 order valid for all zones (rescinded in 1950), Allied Control Authority Order No. 4, "No. 4 - Confiscation of Literature and Material of a Nazi and Militarist Nature". All confiscated literature was reduced to pulp instead of burning. It was also directed by Directive No. 30, "Liquidation of German Military and Nazi Memorials and Museums." An exception was made for tombstones "erected at the places where members of regular formations died on the field of battle."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Repu...

My pet peeve. Considering "Freedom of speech" the most valuable freedom of all, because a particular piece of paper created a culture/country that is based on that idea.

Thing is - people here tend to disagree. Yes, you cannot say whatever you want. No, you're not easily allowed to have a gun at home. But look - that's a freedom that is debatable in itself and even if we'd discuss it for hours over a couple of beers: We'd probably end up having to agree to disagree on the merits of both approaches. Or philosophies. Or ideologies.

Look, I don't particularly like Germany. I think patriotism is as good an idea as being a fanatic football follower, regardless of your home country. Someone put it better than me here: [1]. There's a lot wrong in DE as well, but if someone from the US calls the US a police state and you're invoking that difference in belief and laws as kind of an example how bad it is over in DE, then I think you're lacking perspective.

1: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/09/22/one-world/

You're not allowed to have a gun at home in NYC, either. It's the worst of both worlds.

That one minor restriction of your freedom of speech really doesn't carry a lot of weight when I compare it to the widespread abuse of power by cops.

If I'm stopped by a cop in Germany or the Netherlands, I don't have a thing to fear, except for being fined for a traffic violation or a car malfunction. You don't hear stories about cops abusing their power, because they are extremely rare. Cops can be trusted.

If I'm stopped by a cop in the US, God knows what may happen. I could be beaten, have evidence planted on me or be accused of crimes where their word is simply enough. Cops are not to be trusted.

I'd rather yield to not being allowed to deny the holocaust, thank you very much. It's not as if the US doesn't have a whole range of exceptions to freedom of speech[1] anyway, some of which could reasonably be considered to include holocaust denial (incitement, defamation, obscenity). It's not arbitrary that it's forbidden in Germany and it's really ridiculous that some Americans keep bringing that up. Is that really the best you can do, complaining about the insidious nature of being denied the right to deny the holocaust?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Un...

Have you read the entirety of the first amendment? It has some bits about peaceable assembly and press in there too.

Been to NYC lately?

Here is how it goes. They stop you. While they've got you, it is easier to pile on charges than having to go chasing after someone else. Or they are just bored. Or they had a fight with their gf and now they are pissed off.

So they "smell" drugs. Ok, they ask you if they can search your car. They do it in a very casual kind of way, you know, "mind if I take a quick look around the front seat of your car?". If you know what is coming, you should say "no, I don't consent to a search". Then they tell you they'll bring in the drug dogs, so might as well let them as they'll "go easy on you". You still refuse.

So now you are going to get punished because you are not cooperative. Drug dog can come in anytime from a half-an-hour to an hour later. At this point it the officer is angry and he is pretty sure you have something to hide. He is expecting a nice drug bust. Drug dog comes in 2 hours later. Officer walks him around the car. Come back and says. Dog signaled, drugs. "We are going to have to search your car."

So they search your car. They don't find drugs but maybe they see a suspicious looking package in your trunk, is that a bomb? Could be. Maybe they see some white powder in your backseat.

Better take you into the station, it might be cocaine, they need to test it better. You are at the station, being booked. You are there for the whole weekend + a holiday on Monday.

Finally after 3 days they drop the charges and let you go. And all you wanted was to go and get flour and milk so you can make pancakes on Saturday for breakfast.

I can corroborate the being pulled over on a bike. I had it happen twice in one day. On my way into work, I was riding the road when an officer stopped me and cited this law

>"A low-speed vehicle shall be operated at a speed of not to exceed 25 miles per hour and shall not be operated on a highway or street with a speed limit of more than 35 miles per hour except for the purpose of crossing that highway or street. "

Since this road was 45mph, he told me I had to get on the sidewalk. On the way home, I'm on the sidewalk. Cop pulls me over, tells me I have to be on the road. He cited the law

>"A moped or low-speed vehicle shall not be operated on a sidewalk constructed for the use of pedestrians."

I did not get searched, but it does serve to back up that everyone is a criminal when it comes to traffic laws, and in quite a few cases they're crafted so carelessly that they can become impossible to follow, and even more impossible to understand.

I _can_ relate an anecdote from a friend who was biking through a DUI checkpoint and got stopped and checked for alcohol. He said the officer asked to look inside his backpack, but he refused and the officer didn't press the issue. That's second-hand information, though.

Yes and yes.

Once they pull you over some people are bothered more by the inconvenience of being pulled over than they are by the rights they give up. One of my friends allowed the police to search his car because he didn't want to wait for the drug dog. He got out of the ticket by cooperating, but what if they said they found something?

By not cooperating I got a range of tickets: live in this city but don't have a city parking sticker, don't have a safety inspection sticker, have the wrong type of insurance coverage. This was after the original reason he pulled me over (not speeding) didn't pan out. All of this because I wouldn't allow him search my car without a warrant.

Also, different states have different interpretations on cellphone contents. California, (normally quite liberal) just has a shitty interpretation of the law.

You've obviously never been harassed by the police. I was driving home from a late night study session in college and was pulled over. I was completely sober, and knew I had done nothing improper. The cop told me I touched the white line and I told him no I didn't. Then he proceeded to interrogate me about where I had been, where I was going, etc... After a few minutes of this charade I told him either write me a ticket for something I didn't do or let me go because I needed to get to sleep for an exam the next day. He then told me that he could keep there all night while waiting for a warrant to search my car, so I might as well let him search it.

At this point, I really needed to get this done with so told him to get ahead. I had a small cab pickup truck at the time and figured this shouldn't take too long. Him and his partner then took all of my stuff out of my car and placed it on the hood. They found a small pocket knife under my seat and tried to make a big deal about 'you said there were no weapons'. Yeah, okay. So, after all that and almost 2 hours of my time they got in their car and drove off leaving me to clean up all my stuff in the dark that's now sitting on the hood of my car.

This incident (and yes, I have others) happened over 10 years ago, and it's apparently only gotten worse. So yes, what was said is a reality.

Man, that pisses me off when they rip apart your car and then leave all your shit just sitting outside. They threw my laptop on the ground once, almost broke it, cracked the hinge.

I had nothing on me, I don't do anything. But they ripped the shit out of my car. Had the drug dog crawl all over my god damn seats with its muddy paws.

fuck those guys.

Actually the cameras are much better. If nothing else, it removes the need for about 80% of the police force in most places.

Doesn't the shift to speed cameras undermine your theory that speeding tickets exist mainly to allow randomly searching people? The police don't get to check your stuff when a machine sends you a ticket in the mail, after all.

I'm pretty sure you have as much right to contest a speed camera ticket as any other ticket. Most people don't try, but that's a different matter.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com