Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-23-2011, 18:08   #1
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Trucker Wins Lawsuit Against Minnesota Highway Patrol Roadside Inspections

I just learned about this case that was decided several months ago.

The lawsuit was filed by Stephen House, a commercial trucker who was illegally detained at a roadside inspection in 2008. The Minnesota State Patrol was engaged in a fishing expedition that invovled a "survey." Administrators of the "survey" not only failed to declare its purpose, but they were misleading in the entire process.

The "voluntary survey" also asked intrusive questions, such as,

--What is your neck size?
--Do you take prescription drugs?
--Do you have Playboy magazines in the cab?
--How many times do you go to the bathroom at night?


House filed suit after inspectors determined he was impaired and determined that he should be forced off the road for 10 hours.

House and the Independent Driver Association were victorious in US District when the court ruled that police overstepped their authority by subjecting House to an unreasonable search and seizure when they expanded their scope of questioning. The court also ruled that inspectors were purposefully misleading in their questioning.

The relief to which House is entitled from the State of Minnesota is currently being discussed.


The trucking industry has been subject to a much lower expectation of privacy than automobile motorists, but this victory by House and the IDA is no less noteworthy. It put a halt to the arbritary and standardless technique used by authorities in Minnesota.
The legal doubletalk that muddles these 4th amendment issues is no less dismaying, but at least it puts government on notice that some citizens are taking a stand against indiscretion and intrusiveness.


Read the court decision here: http://courtops.org/wp-content/uploa...1135093901.pdf
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 05:56   #2
goldenlight
Senior Member
 
goldenlight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 5,832
good!!
__________________
Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress... but then I repeat myself.
-Mark Twain
goldenlight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 06:10   #3
Mister_Beefy
Legal & Proper
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldenlight View Post
good!!


heh

score one for the good guys.
Mister_Beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 06:23   #4
Peace Frog
...............
 
Peace Frog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 3,899
Man that's good news.
I spent almost 24 years trucking.Been through a lot of inspections.Most times never had any issues but I've had a few that made me a little upset.Always keep my mouth shut though because I always carried no matter the state.
Peace Frog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 06:56   #5
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,465
They need to put the genius administrator that put the "survey" into practice back in a toll booth.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 07:47   #6
fnfalman
Chicks Dig It
 
fnfalman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: California & New Mexico, US
Posts: 58,197


"What's my neck size?" How the hell does that help with determining whether or not a driver is competent? Hell, I don't know what my neck size is. My tailor does, but I sure as hell don't.
__________________
Can you dig it?
fnfalman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 08:04   #7
larry_minn
Silver Membership
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 18,226
Good. I drove truck for a short time. Most times I didn't even have to stop. My logbook was not even opened. (and I made sure to have the correct one) I do recall the gent who was going to find "Something" and I wish I could have burned out a tail light so he would have been happy/left me alone. It was actually a bad thing to have all lights working, brakes properly set, weight correct,etc.
It was if he had made a bet. "I will find something on the next truck across the scale"
He got paid by the hr (if he was working or not) I got paid by the mile. When I am not moving I got nothing.
larry_minn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 08:16   #8
Mister_Beefy
Legal & Proper
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
They need to put the genius administrator that put the "survey" into practice back in a toll booth.

heh, once again it's the administrator's fault, and not any officer.

ok, that's fine. aside from that I think we're in agreement on this.

However I think public officials that violate civil liberties deserve a much harsher punishment then a demotion at work.
Mister_Beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 09:29   #9
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,465
Quote:
heh, once again it's the administrator's fault, and not any officer.
And gee whiz look the court agrees with me!

All claims against the individual officers were dismissed with prejudice.

I am guessing you didn't bother to actually read the court decision.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 11:44   #10
Black Smoke Trail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 875
The court decision is a limited positive victory for the 4th amendment.

Hopefully we will see more decisions of this nature as well as civil litigation along with strong lobbying of state and federal law makers to pass and impliment legislation to strip limited immunity from law enforcement officers and their leadership who are proven to be in violation of departmental policy, violation of constitutional/naturalborn rights, or have committed a crime.

Once the threat of criminal prosecution, police retiremnt funds, personal assets, and even departmental budgets are opened up to civil litigation and forfeiture, these types of abuses will be few and far in between.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, Life Member NSSA, NSCA, NAHC, DAV
Black Smoke Trail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:09   #11
Mister_Beefy
Legal & Proper
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
And gee whiz look the court agrees with me!

All claims against the individual officers were dismissed with prejudice.

I am guessing you didn't bother to actually read the court decision.

well, as you are so sanctimoniously fond of pointing out, I really don't care.

I hope all the police that conducted these ILLEGAL stops get lots of bad... what did that other guy call it... oh yea.... gimmie a K.....
Mister_Beefy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:18   #12
coastal4974
Senior Member
 
coastal4974's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 3,817
Gubmint workers should be required to supply their own insurance for this. It’s great that this guy won but it sucks that the tax payers have to foot the bill as the party responsible goes to Dunkin Donuts.
__________________
The politicians added another $4.8 billion to our debt today.
coastal4974 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:22   #13
Mushinto
Master Member
 
Mushinto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Melbourne, Florida, USA
Posts: 12,168
Anyone in LE for any length of time has seen this kind of stupidity from publicity-hungry CEOs.

Nice to see justice served.
__________________
ML

Everyone you meet is fighting a battle you know nothing about. Be kind, always.
Mushinto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:23   #14
Black Smoke Trail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by coastal4974 View Post
Gubmint workers should be required to supply their own insurance for this. It’s great that this guy won but it sucks that the tax payers have to foot the bill as the party responsible goes to Dunkin Donuts.
In a sense the tax payers are responsible as I see it. Take a look at my signature quote.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, Life Member NSSA, NSCA, NAHC, DAV
Black Smoke Trail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:29   #15
Naelbis
Senior Member
 
Naelbis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: ND
Posts: 3,022
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Smoke Trail View Post
The court decision is a limited positive victory for the 4th amendment.

Hopefully we will see more decisions of this nature as well as civil litigation along with strong lobbying of state and federal law makers to pass and impliment legislation to strip limited immunity from law enforcement officers and their leadership who are proven to be in violation of departmental policy, violation of constitutional/naturalborn rights, or have committed a crime.

Once the threat of criminal prosecution, police retiremnt funds, personal assets, and even departmental budgets are opened up to civil litigation and forfeiture, these types of abuses will be few and far in between.
Actually you will just end up with no one willing to do the job other than the truely crazy or desperate. Officers already live with the fear of some loser sueing them every day, all because we work in an evironment where we have to make split second decisions without being able to stop and ponder all the potential ramifications.
Naelbis is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:39   #16
Black Smoke Trail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naelbis View Post
Actually you will just end up with no one willing to do the job other than the truely crazy or desperate. Officers already live with the fear of some loser sueing them every day, all because we work in an evironment where we have to make split second decisions without being able to stop and ponder all the potential ramifications.
It is quite apparent these officers were not doing their job anyway. Your statement:

Quote:
Officers already live with the fear of some loser sueing them every day
is not an accurate representation. Law Enforcement officers as well as public prosecutors, judges and other public officials are covered by limited immunity which which makes it extremely difficult if not nearly impossible to sue or criminally prosecute.
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, Life Member NSSA, NSCA, NAHC, DAV
Black Smoke Trail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 12:46   #17
Dragoon44
Lifetime Membership
Unfair Facist
 
Dragoon44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 24,465
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mister_Beefy View Post
well, as you are so sanctimoniously fond of pointing out, I really don't care.

I hope all the police that conducted these ILLEGAL stops get lots of bad... what did that other guy call it... oh yea.... gimmie a K.....
I know, but I don't mind pointing out the differences between the real world and the imaginary one in your head.
__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.
Dragoon44 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 13:07   #18
Black Smoke Trail
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naelbis View Post
Actually you will just end up with no one willing to do the job other than the truely crazy or desperate. Officers already live with the fear of some loser sueing them every day, all because we work in an evironment where we have to make split second decisions without being able to stop and ponder all the potential ramifications.
Not to belabor the point but add to the potential ramifications you mentioned which I believe is a very valid point that must be addressed as well.

One of the primary issues in addressing abuses of law enforcement and other public officials is the very valid fear on the part of those few who DO police up their own ranks. In many if not nearly all instances when an officer steps forward to report or address corruption or abuse, they are literally placing their very life in danger as well as their careers on the line. Prosecution of officers who are proven to know of such abuses or crimes committed but fail to step up could be prosecuted under misprison of felony statutes. This might encourage more to step forward and take responsibility for their postion and authority by removing as much incentive as possible to keep their mouth shut and maintain the status quo.

Here is an example of GROSS criminal and professional misconduct on the part of police and public prosecutor that the above provisions would although not perfect, address.

http://www.newschannel5.com/category...ing-for-profit
__________________
NRA Benefactor Life Member, Life Member NSSA, NSCA, NAHC, DAV
Black Smoke Trail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 13:20   #19
banjobob
Senior Member
 
banjobob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,089
Quote:
Originally Posted by fnfalman View Post
"What's my neck size?" How the hell does that help with determining whether or not a driver is competent? Hell, I don't know what my neck size is. My tailor does, but I sure as hell don't.
Possibly determining possible risk for sleep apnea. There is some correlation between neck size and Sleep apnea, but this sounds pretty far fetched.
banjobob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2011, 17:16   #20
Mister_Beefy
Legal & Proper
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 2,422
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragoon44 View Post
I know, but I don't mind pointing out the differences between the real world and the imaginary one in your head.

ah, a world where bad cops are held accountable for their actions.... I dare to dream!
Mister_Beefy is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:50.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 992
295 Members
697 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31