I know TST loves COP MOVIES so here is another debatable one..

[martang]

Originally Posted by Jeffros Spec V

They can look but they aren't allowed to search. If they were walking by and they saw something its legal. If they are walking by and they shine a flash light in your **** and are looking around that is illegal.

If they enter the vehicle yes then it is illegal, but they can look through the windows with a flash light and it is perfectly fine.

[antlip]

Originally Posted by martang

If they enter the vehicle yes then it is illegal, but they can look through the windows with a flash light and it is perfectly fine.

A cop can look into the car. Its called plain view doctrine. If he finds something illegal like a joint in the ashtray while pulling you over for lets say speeding then he can nail you both. Heres a formal explanation.

The plain view doctrine allows an officer to seize without a warrant, evidence and contraband found in plain view during a lawful observation. In order for the officer to seize the item, the officer must have probable cause to believe the item is evidence of a crime or is contraband. The police may not move objects to get a better view. In Arizona v. Hicks 480 U.S. 321 (1987), the officer was found to have acted unlawfully. While investigating a shooting, the officer moved, without probable cause, stereo equipment to record the serial numbers. The plain view doctrine has also been expanded to include the sub doctrines of plain feel, plain smell, and plain hearing.[1] In Horton v. California 496 U.S. 128 (1990), the court eliminated the requirement that the discovery of evidence in plain view be inadvertent. Previously, "inadvertent discovery" was required leading to difficulties in defining "inadvertent discovery." A three-prong test is now used. The test requires the officer to be "engaged in lawful activity at the time," "the object’s incriminating character was immediately apparent and not concealed," and "the officer had lawful access to the object and it was discovered accidentally."[2]

[antlip]

The cop was alone in the situation, had no back up, and should of tried to control the guy before pulling out the tazer. I see it has alittle quick to tazer someone but border line legal.

[wrx_snobordr]

Originally Posted by Jeffros Spec V

This Is On Msnbc Right Now

They said definitely a case. The wife also has a case for punitive damages. I only caught the very last of the discussion though.

Weird, you mean a TV show took a legitimate use of force and made it appear violent and unjust, that never happens! TV never sensationalizes anything and never brings in like minded individual to add "credibility" to their obviously skewed position.

Its called ratings, of course they will have "analysts" on that play to peoples emotions by reinforcing a general fear of authority. It will keep people glued to the TV. I remember not to long ago the same channel had guests on discussing the legality of a law suit by one of the Rutgers girls against Imus. Everyone except one person said the same thing, she will win. Wrong, she dropped the case because it was going to be thrown out.