Jwando bill- no more motor consent police searches

[Anonymous]

I don't see huge disparities by race in who consents


From marylands race base traffic stop data dashboard for 2022

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

I have no issue with someone searching my car. I have nothing to hide.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Here you go folks - the activists actually want people to be able to drive around with illegal guns.

No gun is illegal. Just like no human being is illegal.

See how that works?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

The same way they can tell which cars are stolen and which are not.

But.. I guess it's a little more complicated for guns. A legal gun is illegal to possess for convicted felons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

You put this well. Our civil liberties balance our individual and collective rights. It's not just me, me, me. If I walk up and kick you, that's not freedom of expression. It's assault. We need to stop going overboard to protect the individuals violating collective rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

Good points.

And let’s be frank: someone who is too dumb to understand the 4th Amendment and exercise their rights is also way more likely to be the idiot that shoots up a party because someone “disrespected” him. Dumb people are dumbs in lots of areas of their life.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

You put this well. Our civil liberties balance our individual and collective rights. It's not just me, me, me. If I walk up and kick you, that's not freedom of expression. It's assault. We need to stop going overboard to protect the individuals violating collective rights.

Yes but bear in mind that this isn’t at all about a principled balance between individual and collective rights. What people like Jawando believe, it seems to me, goes something like this: the level of crime that would be acceptable to the (largely white) middle class is objectively, unreasonably low; the human cost of law enforcement is too high and falls disproportionally on Black communities; once a crime has been committed, the impact the crime had on the victim, however regrettable, is a sunk cost irrelevant to future decisions; incarceration does not deter because crime is really a function of low impulse control. Given these premises, his policies are quite rational: reduce incarceration as much as possible, but never admit that is what you are doing because it is politically untenable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

Not even a tiny fraction of these searches turn up any such thing. You have no real world experience about any of this. You are using a red herring to distract from reality.

so if they don’t turn anything up, nbd. this is ONLY an issue because the searches result in finding contraband and result in arrests. 4th amendment protections already exist. this is a proposal quite transparently intended to result in fewer arrests for actually illegal things like guns.

Wow. Then why not allow unmitigated searches of anyone anywhere for any reason?

You clearly do not understand the how and why the 4th amendment was created in the first place.

Using your logic we should just allow the state to search our homes every Tuesday just because why not? “If you don’t have anything to hide then what are you worried about”? SMH

this isn’t 4th amendment. It goes beyond the 4th amendment. Which in these days of accelerating gun violence seems extremely irresponsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

You could teach a civics course in high school to explain the rights of individuals living in America.

This is yet another crazy pro-criminal bill. It’s true that no one should ever voluntarily consent to a search; I’ve told all my friends and family this. But, many criminals are, let’s be frank, kind of dumb. If a criminal makes a bad decision, such as consenting to a search, that allows them to be caught, this is a good thing. The only conceivable reason for this bill is to protect criminals who are too dumb to protect themselves. I guess we see what constituency the government is really concerned with.

A common scenario is probably an “innocent” (or less guilty) driver consenting to the search when they know their passenger has a gun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

I fail to see how a “weapon” (however you interpret the term) is of any danger to anyone simply being transported in a car.

I’m not speaking of a weapon being brandished or held or about to be used/being used - I just mean the stereotypical example of a gun or knife or baseball bat or golf club in the car. Those items don’t present a danger to anyone simply being in the car and transported around. There is no criminal intent there.

Police shouldn’t be able to search cars thinking they’ll turn up something that wasn’t being used nefariously to begin with.

Cops don't take legally transported weapons. They take the illegal ones. And those are absolutely on their way to hurt someone. https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-suspects-commit-armed-robbery-at-ethiopian-restaurant-in-silver-spring

How is a cop supposed to know which gun is “legal” and which is “illegal”?

State law. For example:

Nobody under 21 can have one at all. They are a prohibited person.

No one convicted of a crime of violence.

No one convicted of certain felonies.

No one who has a protective order lodged against them.

No one who is a fugitive from justice.

No one who is under 30 and who had a juvenile delinquency for a qualifying crime.

So let's say cops in Silver Spring pull over a 20 year old for rolling through a red light, and that 20 year old is on probation for armed robbery. There is a good chance the police may ask to search his car.

If they want to search, they have to ask, because it's not related to the traffic infraction. But it's also not random. In this example, the request to search is prompted by the driver's criminal history. Which police have almost as soon as they pull you over.

Most of those disqualifiers seem like they deliberately target POC to make it difficult or impossible for them to have a gun. Doesn’t that seem a tad…..oh, I dunno…….RACIST, to you?

Because it screams it to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody should ever consent to a voluntary search. No lawyer would ever advise you to waive your rights in this way. The only people "voluntarily" giving up their rights are people who are uneducated and are being manipulated to act against their own self interest in some way. This is not how police departments should operate. Cops shouldn't be dishonest and tricking ordinary citizens into waiving essential right that protect them from the state.

Zero sympathy if the “ordinary citizen” has an illegal weapon in the car.

Not even a tiny fraction of these searches turn up any such thing. You have no real world experience about any of this. You are using a red herring to distract from reality.

so if they don’t turn anything up, nbd. this is ONLY an issue because the searches result in finding contraband and result in arrests. 4th amendment protections already exist. this is a proposal quite transparently intended to result in fewer arrests for actually illegal things like guns.

Wow. Then why not allow unmitigated searches of anyone anywhere for any reason?

You clearly do not understand the how and why the 4th amendment was created in the first place.

Using your logic we should just allow the state to search our homes every Tuesday just because why not? “If you don’t have anything to hide then what are you worried about”? SMH

DP here. Illegal searches are challenged by the defendant and thrown out of court. We already have such protectinons. Why do we need a county law on this?

Because we are talking about consent searches and not illegal searches. The practices of the county police are clearly under the purview of the county level elected leaders.

People who consent to a search need to be protected from.. their own decisions?

Because the assumption must be that they are stupid. And the worst case scenario is that something illegal is found. The entire discussion is representative of elite stupidity. [Member of what some would call the elite.]