16 bit files almost unlistenable now...

[gmgraves]

3 minutes ago, lucretius said:

 

What I find odd is that these cops did not have full trust in the orders of their superiors.  

Well, they may have had full trust in their orders, but I think the point here is that they didn't know for sure whether they were on a firm legal footing. To avoid any misunderstanding here, these are always city cops, not CHP. I'ver never heard of the CHP setting up a drunk-driving dragnet. Also, just because I was able to confound some of the cops with my bullshit, doesn't mean that they closed-up shop after I went through the checkpoint. They did not - ever. 

One interesting point about the CHP, is that until fairly recently, they were enjoined by CA law from using radar to catch speeders! It was considered not "sporting". The  Legislature changed that a few years ago, though. IN CA (after the 1960's), money drives politics, not the needs of the people.

[Ralf11]

George it is a crime to give false info to a police officer.  It may be a felony in some states.  You were very lucky.

 

 

Oregon has a statute that a police officer must immediately explain the reason for a traffic stop.  Widely violated by the city cops here.

 

usually, state cops will be better educated and better trained than a city cop or a sheriff's deputy; only an FBI agent will be required to have a law degree...

[Jud]

1 hour ago, Ralf11 said:

only an FBI agent will be required to have a law degree.

 

Between 10 and 20% of FBI agents have either accounting or law degrees.

[gmgraves]

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

George it is a crime to give false info to a police officer.  It may be a felony in some states.  You were very lucky.

Nah, I was fairly safe. There was really no way for the cops to check my bonafides at a street-level drunk check at 10:00PM to 1:00AM on a Friday or Saturday night, especially over the holidays. 

 

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

Oregon has a statute that a police officer must immediately explain the reason for a traffic stop.  Widely violated by the city cops here.

 

In many small towns and cities, the "local cops" are little better trained than Andy and Barney in Mayberry. It doesn't surprise me that such a statute is widely violated

3 hours ago, Ralf11 said:

usually, state cops will be better educated and better trained than a city cop or a sheriff's deputy; only an FBI agent will be required to have a law degree...

Like I said.... But not all FBI agents have law degrees these days, although in the early days, I believe that Hoover required it. 

 

1 hour ago, Jud said:

 

Between 10 and 20% of FBI agents have either accounting or law degrees.

That's my understanding as well.

[esldude]

Do 16 bit cops find people unable to listen to their queries and orders?  Would there be more compliance if cops were all 24 bit?  Have the feds gotten rid of all analog law enforcement at this point in time?

[Ralf11]

There are now 5 ways to become an FBI Agent.  A law degree is still the best one for advancement.  But like other jobs, requirements have gone down, and only 16 bits are required today.

[esldude]

9 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

There are now 5 ways to become an FBI Agent.  A law degree is still the best one for advancement.  But like other jobs, requirements have gone down, and only 16 bits are required today.

Does that mean local cops in small towns are mp3  (AAC if it is a rich small town)?

[Ralf11]

Low Res for sure

[rando]

Back in my day they were made of tinfoil and that's how they came to be known as the fuzz.  Let me tell you, they brought the noise.

[fas42]

Perhaps what is needed is 30 bits, err, pieces of silver to appease them ... .

[PeterSt]

6 hours ago, esldude said:

Does that mean local cops in small towns are mp3  (AAC if it is a rich small town)?

 

Not necessarily. Cops can be streamed as well and as it looks, soon in 24 bits by Qobusters.

In the case that does not work or is undesired, we'd have to live with the QA police.

 

16 bit cops have distorted sirens. Nobody would want that.

[PeterSt]

7 hours ago, fas42 said:

Perhaps what is needed is 30 bits, err, pieces of silver to appease them ... .

 

Only extra shields.

[daverich4]

On 9/9/2018 at 10:46 AM, gmgraves said:

I'm not 100% sure about this (and neither, apparently, are the CA police) but I believe that the CA State Constitution prohibits police from stopping motorists without what they call "probable cause". Now probable cause can be interpreted as anything from the cops searching for a green sedan used in a recent felony (and you happen to be driving a green sedan) to you having a burned-out tail-light. But it is obvious that stopping everybody is not a legitimate probable cause. But the fun I had with them is based on the police themselves not being sure of the law. 

 

George, it took less than a minute with Google to come up with numerous examples showing that you’re not the one to come to seeking legal advice. 

 

https://www.wklaw.com/dui-checkpoints-legal-california/

[firedog]

I have an issue b/c I can't understand any cop who hasn't applied DSP correction before he/she speaks to me. 

[new_media]

On 9/8/2018 at 6:14 PM, gmgraves said:

I now live in a "red" state where the attitude is live and let live and the cops mostly leave motorists alone. 

 

FWIW, the two times I recall having to stop at sobriety checkpoints were in Virginia and Louisiana.

[PeterSt]

25 minutes ago, firedog said:

I have an issue b/c I can't understand any cop who hasn't applied DSP correction before he/she speaks to me. 

 

It really isn't that difficult. Tweak the noise to be 70dB or so down, and their FFT fools them fools.

[gmgraves]

13 minutes ago, daverich4 said:

 

George, it took less than a minute with Google to come up with numerous examples showing that you’re not the one to come to seeking legal advice. 

 

https://www.wklaw.com/dui-checkpoints-legal-california/

That's nice. But I never said anything about the 4th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. My reasoning is based upon the California "probable cause" law. I know that I said that I posed as a California Constitutional law Professor at Stanford, but frankly, I didn't know whether that statute was a CA Constitutional Amendment of just part of the state vehicle code. I was just assuming that those city cops didn't know either (and it looks like they didn't). I do know that the police need probable cause to stop a motorist as covered by VEH 2900.1, Article one. To whit: "The officer may only stop and inspect where said officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle is being operated in violation" (of the Vehicle Code).  To me, road blocks to catch drunk drivers are in clear violation of that rule. The fact that the state waives that rule in this case, just shows me that any authority in this country may change the laws to suit themselves and the people be damned! Now, I have no problem with any crackdown on drunk driving and as I said in an earlier post, I have called-in to authorities when I see a car that is obviously being driven by someone intoxicated. If a cop sees the same activity, to me that constitutes enough probable cause for that officer to stop that car. But road blocks no! A citizen has to stand up for his rights, not meekly submit to authority just because THEY ARE AUTHORITY. Know your rights and stand up for them. Any other course leads a police state, and when you get to that point it's too late.

[gmgraves]

18 minutes ago, new_media said:

 

FWIW, the two times I recall having to stop at sobriety checkpoints were in Virginia and Louisiana.

I've never driven in Louisiana, but I'm originally from Virgina and I recall that the State Troopers there are really strict.

[Ralf11]

Louisiana had a civil forfeiture scam (google for some real scary info) going a few years ago, but got outed for it on some news program.

 

I think it was mostly a way to get $$ off of Texans.

[new_media]

3 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

I think it was mostly a way to get $$ off of Texans.

 

We have casinos for that. (I'm originally from Louisiana.)

[kumakuma]

34 minutes ago, gmgraves said:

That's nice. But I never said anything about the 4th Amendment to the Federal Constitution. My reasoning is based upon the California "probable cause" law. I know that I said that I posed as a California Constitutional law Professor at Stanford, but frankly, I didn't know whether that statute was a CA Constitutional Amendment of just part of the state vehicle code. I was just assuming that those city cops didn't know either (and it looks like they didn't). I do know that the police need probable cause to stop a motorist as covered by VEH 2900.1, Article one. To whit: "The officer may only stop and inspect where said officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle is being operated in violation" (of the Vehicle Code).  To me, road blocks to catch drunk drivers are in clear violation of that rule. The fact that the state waives that rule in this case, just shows me that any authority in this country may change the laws to suit themselves and the people be damned! Now, I have no problem with any crackdown on drunk driving and as I said in an earlier post, I have called-in to authorities when I see a car that is obviously being driven by someone intoxicated. If a cop sees the same activity, to me that constitutes enough probable cause for that officer to stop that car. But road blocks no! A citizen has to stand up for his rights, not meekly submit to authority just because THEY ARE AUTHORITY. Know your rights and stand up for them. Any other course leads a police state, and when you get to that point it's too late.

 

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=VEH&sectionNum=2814.2.

 

 

[esldude]

Well since no one wishes to get on topic.

 

It is established in most states that sobriety checkpoints are okay whether you think them legal or not.  Lots of things are that way.  We don't generally allow every citizen their own interpretation of what is legally allowed.

 

I do wonder about one version I've seen where I live. A disguised sobriety checkpoint. 

 

On a long stretch with no side roads nearby, the police setup a fake wreck scene.  Run a truck off in a ditch, and another car stashed sideways to block a lane.  A wrecker with spotlights aimed to blind oncoming traffic. Have a rollback with flashing yellow lights with cable attached to truck in ditch appearing to be pulling it out. Would appear you have to slow nearly to a stop and weave around the stopped car, wrecker and rollback to continue. They've hidden a police car when you get right to it and have a couple cops standing there between all this so you can't see them until you're between the vehicles.  Where upon he'll ask you to roll down your window.  And speak to you a minute.  If you don't appear intoxicated,  he let's you go thru.  I'm guessing this is to prevent people seeing an obvious sobriety checkpoint and turning around.  

 

I'm no lawyer, but I wouldn't be surprised if that were challenged in court that it might be thrown out.  Then again maybe not. 

[diecaster]

2 hours ago, daverich4 said:

 

George, it took less than a minute with Google to come up with numerous examples showing that you’re not the one to come to seeking legal advice. 

 

https://www.wklaw.com/dui-checkpoints-legal-california/

 

He floats bogus information about a lot of stuff...including LaVar Burton.....

[Ralf11]

2 hours ago, new_media said:

 

We have casinos for that. (I'm originally from Louisiana.)

 

Geaux Tigahs!!

[fas42]

5 hours ago, firedog said:

I have an issue b/c I can't understand any cop who hasn't applied DSP correction before he/she speaks to me. 

 

You mean, Damn Sh!tty Persona ... ?