Reason # 568 not that trust the government

[TheEschaton]

UCs get a special dispensation (to use language you would understand) to do what they do.

Namely, it's not murder if it's justified. Like all illegal acts, sometimes there is a justification for it.

However, I'm pretty sure there's quite a few 4th Amendment issues with creating PC. But for the action of the cops, there'd be no PC to pull the guy over.

-TheE-

[TheEschaton]

As far as I'm concerned they got drugs off the street. If the cops want to stop me for no reason but to look for drugs and stuff, go ahead. I have nothing to hide.

I'm glad to see the Army brainwashing program is still in full effect.

I have nothing illegal in my car. However, I'd be right pissed if a cop broke one of my headlights, so he could pull me over for only having one headlight working, so he could search my car for drugs.

the best part of this article is how the law enforcement agent is questioning the AUSA's knowledge of the law. You cannot manufacture PC any more than you can plant evidence. Like someone said in the comments, I believe, the seized dope is "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which is basically a legal analogy which says if the first act which directly leads to all the outcomes, is wrong/illegal/violative of rights, then those outcomes are also illegal, and not to be held against a defendant in a court of law. Even the most conservative of Supreme Courts (IE, this one) has upheld that.


-TheE-

[Gelston]

Marine Corps brainwashing program.

[Gelston]

And perhaps it does go from my military background, where our stuff is subject to search with very little reason at just about anytime. I guess I'm just used to it.

[Latrinsorm]

I have nothing illegal in my car. However, I'd be right pissed if a cop broke one of my headlights, so he could pull me over for only having one headlight working, so he could search my car for drugs.

the best part of this article is how the law enforcement agent is questioning the AUSA's knowledge of the law. You cannot manufacture PC any more than you can plant evidence. Like someone said in the comments, I believe, the seized dope is "the fruit of the poisoned tree", which is basically a legal analogy which says if the first act which directly leads to all the outcomes, is wrong/illegal/violative of rights, then those outcomes are also illegal, and not to be held against a defendant in a court of law. Even the most conservative of Supreme Courts (IE, this one) has upheld that.

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

[Sean]

While I'll admit to not knowing the fine points of how UC work or the legal technicalities I'd assume that you have to choose to engage in an activity with a UC they don't force you into being in violation of the law whereas a police officer removing your plates to puts you in direct violation of the law. Granted in former the individual would still end up violating the law if they engaged someone thats not a cop and got their drugs, or assassin, or whatever. I'd still argue it isn't the same thing.

[Warriorbird]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

Or farming out torture or secret prisons or revealing the names of undercover agents whose husbands say things the administration disagrees with?

One likes to think the government plays by the rules. It isn't really true. Some instances just offend some people more than others.

[Trinitis]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

I'd say its very different. A sting operation has rules and guidelines they must follow. This story is a law enforcement official(s) who is breaking all views of personal boundaries by not only messing with your personal belongings, but STEALING them off your car.

Now, I guess one could argue that the plates are state property, and I'm not fully sure if that is true or not, but any person caught removing the plates off someone car without permission would be arrested.

[Skirmisher]

Again, how is this at all worse than selling drugs directly to a person and then arresting him or her, or pretending to be an assassin for hire, or <insert sting operation here>?

It would be like removing the inspection sticker on my fire extinguishers and then citing me for not having had them inspected.

As irksome as it may be, those empowered to enforce the law also do have to follow it.

Or the whole system breaks down and its the wild west with whomever has the most guns is "right".

[Latrinsorm]

As far as I could tell, he's not being charged with not having plates; that would obviously be inappropriate. The discussion is over whether this is an acceptable means of producing probable cause.

The reason I don't follow Sean's argument is that from what I could tell of the scenario, the driver is provided with the car (which also refutes Trinitis' points). The car already has illegal drugs of some kind in it in plain view, so he must know he's getting involved in illegal activities. That the license plate was removed is no different than there being drugs in the car; they were both engineered by police or those under influence of the police.