Sheriffs going back to request radar use

Oh, and once again, I would LOVE to point out that you still avoid the issues I have brought up, you know the ones that are at the heart of this thread. Now if anyone else, would like to debate the use of radar, please feel free to post. I am tiring of proving how much of an idiot Mencken is.

Thanks,
Eric (and that's my REAL, name)

A Police Officer wrote:

I cannot believe you people talk and speak this way of the very people you call the first time the crap gets thick. Who do you call when you have been assaulted, or have had something stolen, or even just an animal at 2 in the morning, which you believe to be a prowler. I don't see you people, going through a certified police academy, willing to put YOUR life on the line to protect the likes of yourself.

Talk about your "Scorned Pig"! If you get this enraged about a talk forum,(freedom of speech, mind you!), you are certainly not "good" cop material. Ytr

Know The Facts wrote:

Oh, and once again, I would LOVE to point out that you still avoid the issues I have brought up, you know the ones that are at the heart of this thread. Now if anyone else, would like to debate the use of radar, please feel free to post. I am tiring of proving how much of an idiot Mencken is.
Thanks,
Eric (and that's my REAL, name)

So you "think" deputies in Ms never had radar, well you are mistaken! The radar reform act was
because of reckless deputies and city cops abusing
early "hand-me-down" radar from the state boys.
Ask your older local attorneys, they'll remember.
Back when radar first was used in ms only the state boys had it, but when they upgraded, they handed the used/abused units down to the local authorities. None of these "trigger-happy" sobs
had a clue as to the errors most of these guns produced, and they didn't care either.(it produced local revenues). Until they rubbed the
wrong lawyer the wrong way one day,(of whom I could name, and he wrote the current statute), it
was almost a historical writ, for many local townspeople joined in his support. Tishomingo co.
was one of the top abusers in the suit. Just so
you'll know, you little wippersnapper.. OldMan

Well, I've had to be away working for a few days and so have fallen behind in responding to the, uhm, "debate" that our good officer friend is so heatedly engaged in here. Do allow me to continue, then.

Know The Facts wrote:

Third, WLOX TV, you know, the news, research their archives, or any Radar website, here I'll make it easier for you, http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp... , that would be WLOX TV,...

Well, thanks for posting that. When I read it, I giggled so hard that snot ran out my nose. Allow me to quote from paragraph six of that article:

"Major Randy Cook of the Harrison County Sheriff's Department says one of the objections he's heard from lawmakers is the potential for law enforcement to abuse the use of radar guns. But,[and here's comes my favorite part] he says that **was only a problem some time ago** when the department's budget was paid in part by issuing citations." (emphasis added by Mencken)

Contrast the Major Cook's quote with our officer's post #167 of 9/4:

Know The Facts wrote:

Mencken, Oh yeah, One more small thing. MISSISSIPPI SHERIFFS DEPUTIES HAVE NEVER USED RADAR FOR ENFORCING SPEED LIMITS. Do the research. You repeadly say that they have had this before and abused the privilage.

According to Officer Know the Facts, Mississippi deputies *never* used radar and never abused it.

According to Major Cook in a link <<posted>> by Know the Facts, they used radar "some time ago" and abuse >>was<< a problem.

Well? Which is it? I submit to you that what I said all along, that deputy abuse of radar was why the radar toy was taken away, is the truth and Officer "Know the Facts" proved it for me.

Know The Facts wrote:

it angers me when all you can do is spew useless garbage, that doesn't hold merit to what we are discussing, nothing you said is creditable, so who can't be trusted, who is a liar. I can back up everything I've said with facts, can you?

"Useless garbage"? I've just shown you and the world "useless garbage," and it came from *you* in the very article you cited to prove I was wrong.

NOW who isn't creditable? NOW who can't be trusted? NOW who's the liar? In one word, you.

I rest my case. Let's not give county mounties radar again.

Know The Facts wrote:

... and search and seizure laws, as applied to the search part, has gone unchanged since Terry Vs. Ohio, in 1968, so once again, I say, do your research before you speak.... idiot.

Terry v Ohio was the landmark case that decided the constitutionality of "stop and frisk." Your "research" didn't tell you this? You claim to be a lawboy; didn't you know that Terry deals with stop and frisk, not searching and seizing? So you're wrong wrong wrongwrongwrong from the start about Terry.

Second, you're wrong again when you say Terry has gone unchanged since 1968. Terry was changed -- at least clarified -- in Minnesota v Dickerson in 1993. Dickerson made clear what an officer could legally confiscate during a frisk.

This is *basic* stuff. Are you *sure* you're really LE? I think now that you must be some kind of public affairs liaison or a mall security guard. You know, you called me an idiot for what you said were errors I made, and I've proved myself to have been correct. I'm not into name-calling myself, but what name do you have for someone who makes errors like the ones you've made here, Officer....Sir.

Moving along in our point-by-point treatment of our young officer's apoplectic, spittle-flecked tirade #169 ...

Know The Facts wrote:

... And no-knock warrants, we don't have them ...

What did you say? Are you -- did you mean -- say that again for me.

Know The Facts wrote:

... And no-knock warrants, we don't have them ...

That's what I thought you said.

Well, who is "we" when you say "we" don't have no-knock warrants? Does "we" mean "in Mississippi"? Just for sheer close-to-homeness, do some research -- you're reeeeeeal big on "research," aren't you?-- do some research into Corey Maye's case.

Or does "we" mean "the USA"? If by "we don't have them" you mean "the US doesn't have them," your good US Supreme Court begs to differ. It's going to require you to do more <sigh> research, but take a look into a 1995 case, Wilson v Arkansas.

Know The Facts wrote:

I can back up everything I've said with facts, can you ? NO!

Oh, I think by now even *you,* Boy Wonder, can see I have facts aplenty. I have so many facts that you in a heap o' trouble, boy.

Next time, I think I'll school you in looser search and seizure laws.

Ok, 1.) I would like "Old Man" to please state the lawyer, who wrote the "current" Statutes, and I would also like you to site the case in which you refer to when you say "Suit". Thanks. 2.)(Mencken), I am really, really tiring of this, if you read the article you will see that when he says "which was a problem some time ago" he is referring to what percentage of the money the county gets from traffic tickets, agggghhhhh, you are an idiot. 3.) You say Terry Vs. Ohio has nothing to do with search and seizure, yet in your very next statement you state the following:

"Second, you're wrong again when you say Terry has gone unchanged since 1968. Terry was changed -- at least clarified -- in Minnesota v Dickerson in 1993.******!!!Dickerson made clear what an officer could legally confiscate during a frisk!!!!!*****"

Last time I checked, "legally confiscate" meant, seizure, idiot. You contradict your self, in your very own post.

4.) I was referring to Mississippi, since that is the location of the aurguement for this post. I know that California has had "no-knock" warrants, but was taken away, because of repeated kick-in's at wrong houses. Yeah, can't wait for you to spin that, but I'm sure you don't make mistakes, I'm sure you are perfect, right. Idiot.

Furthermore, I just want to put this out there, just so you can see it. Here is the Law, which states who can use radar. It is from the Mississippi Code of 1972.

SEC. 63-3-519. Use of radar speed detection equipment; authorization and limitations.

It shall be unlawful for any person or peace officer or law enforcement agency, except the Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol, to purchase or use or allow to be used any type of radar speed detection equipment upon any public street, road or highway of this state. However, such equipment may be used:

1. By municipal law enforcement officers within a municipality having a population of two thousand (2,000) or more upon the public streets of the municipality;

2. By any college or university campus police force within the confines of any campus wherein more than two thousand (2,000) students are enrolled;

3. By municipal law enforcement officers in any municipality having a population in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) according to the latest federal census on federally designated highways lying within the corporate limits.

The Mississippi Highway Safety Patrol will not set up radar on highways within municipalities with a population in excess of fifteen thousand (15,000) according to the latest federal census.

SOURCES: Codes, 1942, Sec. 8176.5; Laws, 1966, ch. 383, Secs. 1, 2; 1968, ch. 542, Sec. 1, eff from and after passage (approved May 15, 1968).

http://www.mscode.com/free/statutes/63/003/05...

And there is a link, look it up your self. There is no special mention of deputies not being able to run radar, there is no talk of abuse, or why the can't run it, it is solely based off of speculation, again, judging an agency before a crime was comitted, which is going against the very core of our legal, and justice systems. And "Old Man" I am curious, how a lawyer can write a "State Statute" being as how it is voted on by the Mississippi Senate and Mississippi House, then signed into law by the sitting Governor, that is, unless your "Lawyer Friend" was a Senator or Representative. Please explain, I am extremely curious. Thanks

It's school time again for you, Officer,

Sir.

So go get me a switch and push them britches down around your ankles now, you hear me?

Know The Facts wrote:

... and what are you talking about by making evidence laws more relaxed, more search and seizure laws, I would love for you to give examples of these, being as how there are tons of new laws passed every year that makes the chain of custody for evidence harder, makes it harder to obtain evidence ...

Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? You'd love for me to give you examples of this? Okay, then. The starting point, of course, is the Fourth Amendment, the citizen's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure unless a warrant is issued. But most searches now are done without a warrant. Searches without warrants started *long* ago, 1925, Carroll v US. From needing a warrant to not needing one, that is a relaxing of search and seizure law. And it's only gone downhill from there. Just a few more examples of relaxed standards of search and seizure:

Wyoming v Houghton, 1999, probable cause to search a car extended to also search passengers' belongings.

NY v Belton, 1981, okay to search passenger compartment and any container therein (not including trunk and hood, which became permissible to search in...)

US v Ross, 1982.

Chambers v Maroney, 1970, and MD v Dyson, 1999, okay to search without warrant even if there is time to get a warrant.

CA v Acevedo, 1991, okay to search container in auto without warrant and *NO* probable cause to search same auto.

Today I only dealt with vehicles, and there are more examples, but I've made my point. It's even worse when it comes to searching your property, which I'll take up next class. But it's already plain for even the lightest of mental capacities to see that I've taken your challenge to show relaxed search and seizure and I've proved what I asserted.

Thanks for playing, Officer,

Sir.

Ok, here we go again...
This is ridiculous, these cases you have stated, have not made any NEW case laws, with the exception of Carroll Vs. US, this landmark case of course laid the foundation for vehicle searches. ALL of the other cases you stated are just cases in which the ruling of Carroll Vs. US was proven to be upheld. NO NEW LAWS, just upholding what the court determined 83 years ago. And the last one CA Vs. Acevedo, you state that it is ok to search a container in an auto without warrant and No probable cause to search same atuo. I think you are mistaken, being as how in the ruling of the US Supreme Court, it is written and stated:
The police may search an automobile and the containers within it where they have ***probable cause*** to believe contraband or evidence is contained.[500 U.S. 565, 581]
It also states that in many of the cases where the area a police officer can search in an automobile stop, doesn't require a warrant, if the conditions are met that would require a warrant. I will break that down for you, so you will understand. If I see that you have drugs in your vehicle, I do not have to get a warrant, because the conditions for obtaining a warrant are already present.
Furthermore, I am glad you are doing some research now, at least you are learning the law, which is a step in the right direction to respecting law enforcement. See, the courts make waht is called "case law" in which a presidence is set, that presidence is referred to as "case law". When a court, makes a "case law" it is by definition, law. Which I am under oath, to uphold.
Let's break this down, again, so you will understand. ok...
In 1925, Carroll was stopped, vehicle searched, and illegal alcohol was discovered. He charged he was illegally searched. The court determined he was not illegally searched, because a vehicle was not covered or an extentsion of the 4th or 14th admendments. That set the Presidence of vehilce searches or "case law". Wyoming Vs. Houghton, NY Vs. Belton, US Vs. Ross, Chambers Vs. Maroney, MD Vs. Dyson and CA Vs. Acevedo ALL Challenged Carroll Vs US! THEY ALL CHALLENGED CARROLL VS US!!!!!!! And it was determined, In all the challenging cases that Carroll Vs. US was upheld. I do not get where you think this makes search and seizure laws more relaxed, when it simply up hold an 83 year old law. Please explain this to me. Thanks.... idiot!!!

I had planned to speak today on searches and seizures of real property, but I want to take a side trip for just a few minutes.

Look here at post #167 from the poster so-called "Know the Facts":

Know The Facts wrote:

Mencken, Oh yeah, One more small thing. MISSISSIPPI SHERIFFS DEPUTIES HAVE NEVER USED RADAR FOR ENFORCING SPEED LIMITS...

Now take a look at this, only two posts later from the poster so-called "Know the Facts":

Know The Facts wrote:

...Oh by the way, have you been to Lowndes County Mississippi ?, Have any of you that disagree with radar use been there ? Hmmmm seems that their deputies have had radar and been using radar to enforce speeding since, oh let's see, 1976, hmmm that's 32 years...

Now, my question to you, Know the Facts so-called, is this:

Were you telling the truth in your post #167? Or were you telling the truth in your post #169? Or do you *ever* tell the truth?

But I'm about ready to sum all this up for everyone.

Know the Facts (so-called) says the sheriff and deputy should be given the use of radar again because it works to reduce speeders. Well, sure it does. I've not said radar won't reduce speeding. It will. But the ends do not justify the means. And I mean "the ends" being fewer speeders and "the means" being deputies using radar, maybe honestly, maybe dishonestly.

County sheriffs and deputies used to have radar -- I remember it; Old Man (post 183) remembers it in Tishomingo County; Major Randy Cook, Harrison Cty S.O. remembers here in paragraph six http://www.wlox.com/Global/story.asp... that Harrison County abused radar a long time ago.

Contrast that with Know the Facts (so-called) in his post 167 where he says that deputies have *never* used radar in Mississippi and with post 169 in which he says Lowndes County deputies *have* used radar since 1976. One of those statements is untrue; either deputies had radar or they didn't. Which post should we believe? If both aren't true -- and they can't both be true -- then he's lying.

And yet Know the Facts (so-called) who *might* have been lying in post 167 or *might* have been lying in post 169, wants you to remember this from his post 163:

Know The Facts wrote:

It's officer verses suspect, and who is the judge going to believe. Yeah that's right, Law Enforcement, and why is that ? Because we are trusted, we are proven, we are honest, your pathetic lives are controlled by the responses I make.

Know the Facts (so-called) is right about that: the judge will believe him before he'll believe you even if Know the Facts (so-called, who says he's law enforcement) is standing there lying through his very teeth about whether you were speeding.

This proves it: when we can't trust a law enforcement officer to tell the truth here on Topix where not much is on the line, we *sure* don't want to give him the power to write us up and pop our checking accounts for a few hundred dollars if he's not telling the truth about it.

When this bill comes up again in next year's legislature, be sure you let your representative know that you do not want sheriffs and deputies writing tickets based on radar, because they can't be trusted to tell the truth.

I thank you for your attention. The Prosecution rests.

You are such a child. 1.) Anyone, evidentially not you, but everyone besides you can clearly see that what I was talking about was EVERY COUNTY BESIDES LOWNDES, because of course, they DO have Radar. 2.) Let me spell this out for you, since you seem to be on a 2nd grade reading level. NO OTHER SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT HAS EVER HAD RADAR!!!!. There is no, Mississippi Radar Reform Act, as "old man" stated. There was NEVER a lawsuit filed against the use of Radar. Show me some facts on this, actaul case numbers, and the like, then I'll look it up. But again, you make accusations without ANY kind of proof. No facts, just what the "good old boy (man)" says. And you say we have the "good old boy" system. Now, that about sums it up. So until you can PROVE!!!!! that Mississippi Sheriffs have EVER had Radar (except for Lowndes County)(Again cause your 2), then you can keep saying "Give their radar back to them" until then, I think you might need to redifine your statements, oh yeah, and again I'll point out, you still have not answered ANY of the questions I have asked, or answered any of the FACTS that I have used to PROVE you WRONG. So avoid the facts, avoid the issues, keep thinking what you want, keep thinking the world is out to get you and that no-one can be trusted. It must really suck to be you. Oh yeah, and by the way, I don't think anyone else on here really cares what you say, I am the only one still entertaining your ridiculous comments, and I am having quit a ball proving you wrong, time and time again.

Sorry "Know The Facts", Mencken has kicked your $ss over and over. You should just tuck tail and squeal out while you can.

Know The Facts wrote:

You are such a child. 1.) Anyone, evidentially not you, but everyone besides you can clearly see that what I was talking about was EVERY COUNTY BESIDES LOWNDES, because of course, they DO have Radar. 2.) Let me spell this out for you, since you seem to be on a 2nd grade reading level. NO OTHER SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT HAS EVER HAD RADAR!!!!. There is no, Mississippi Radar Reform Act, as "old man" stated. There was NEVER a lawsuit filed against the use of Radar. Show me some facts on this, actaul case numbers, and the like, then I'll look it up. But again, you make accusations without ANY kind of proof. No facts, just what the "good old boy (man)" says. And you say we have the "good old boy" system. Now, that about sums it up. So until you can PROVE!!!!! that Mississippi Sheriffs have EVER had Radar (except for Lowndes County)(Again cause your 2), then you can keep saying "Give their radar back to them" until then, I think you might need to redifine your statements, oh yeah, and again I'll point out, you still have not answered ANY of the questions I have asked, or answered any of the FACTS that I have used to PROVE you WRONG. So avoid the facts, avoid the issues, keep thinking what you want, keep thinking the world is out to get you and that no-one can be trusted. It must really suck to be you. Oh yeah, and by the way, I don't think anyone else on here really cares what you say, I am the only one still entertaining your ridiculous comments, and I am having quit a ball proving you wrong, time and time again.

It's idiots like YOU that abuse RADAR! The radar
reform act WAS implemented to the State in 1972!
It has restrictions on population vs. radar use.
It also requires officers to be "certified" in the
use of radar and other restrictions. For somebody
calling themselves "know the Facts", you don't know sh*t! Nuff Said, OM

Lately having been busier than a pit bull in a room full of fire plugs, I have had to suspend for longer than I wanted the tutelage of my pupil, "Know the Facts." I intend to continue his schooling, but I'm going to veer off into a diversion after events that transpired earlier today.

I was fortunate enough just this morning to find myself in a business meeting with one of our fine state legislators from southwest Mississippi. During a break in the meeting, I asked the legislator whether I might get an answer to a question regarding the most recent legislative session. I asked the legislator to remember back to the bill that would've given radar to sheriffs. "It failed," was the legislator's answer.

"I know," I said, "but I've been in a discussion with an acquaintance of mine about it, and a division has come up as to whether sheriffs in Mississippi at one time had the use of radar and had it taken away from them for abusing the radar or whether they didn't have use of it. Do you know this to be true?"

And the legislator confirmed that it had been true, that radar had been abused by SO's in previous years and that authority for them to use it had been revoked by the legislature.

"Do you remember when that was?" I asked.

"Oh, God," the legislator said, "It was after radar first came out. I think it was sometime in the Sixties."

Personally, I believe radar was first used in the Forties, although it may or may not have been used in the Sixties in Mississippi. But I wasn't about to contradict the mother lode while I was still doing some information mining.

"Well, I know you don't represent me," I told the legislator, "But I hope you'll do me a favor and be sure that it doesn't pass if it comes up again."

The legislator kind of laughed and said, "Don't worry. It *will* come up again, but it'll never pass."

And from there, the legislator and I and a few others at the table got in on the conversation, speculating what kind of highway nightmare we'd all wake up in if your local sheriff got his hands on a radar gun again.

And with my next post, we'll return to our regularly scheduled lectures.

Anon wrote:

Your car should be inspected.
Your car should be tagged.
You should use your seat belt.
You should obey the speed limit.
You should not be driving while impaired.
You should not be running red lights.
You should not be driving recklessly.
People who break these laws are probably the same ones breaking into your homes, destroying or stealing your property, and defiling your person or the person of your loved ones.
Bring on the radar! The sooner the better.

So because I sometimes run red lights and go 10 miles over the 30 year old speed limit on my way to work then that means I break into houses and "defile"(your word, not mine) family members?

What are you smoking? Because it sounds like good shit.

I don't think our Highways, Roads, and Streets need any further taxation. Already we generate too much tax revenue from our poor drivers. It is darn near un-affordable to drive a car these days. It's bad enough that we have the highest Car Tag costs, now some gung-ho deputies want to play chase or have an excuse to. I vote NO on any radar changes, the State boys are really the ONLY ones that should have it. I vote to pass a bill requiring that Municipalities drop radar as a source of income. DonB

I can't understand "why" the ignorant b*stards that are pushing this law can't understand the word NO! We don't want this law! It has been voted down at least 10 times and will continue to be voted down. Get out of your imaginary cops/robbers world and choke on reality. WE DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE RADAR IN COUNTY VEHICLES, PERIOD, GOT IT! QUIT WASTING OUR GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TRYING TO PASS YOUR BS LAW!