South Carolina court rules driving 55 supicious

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: OilNerd

Sorry, have to "nit pick" again. I'd say the operative word was "any" [reason], which simply isn't correct.

Nit Pick all you want but an officer can find 'something' with respect to your driving or your car (in short [any reason]....If you doubt that and have an officer you can talk on the QT, ask him.. Otherwise I have some beach front property for you.

OK..now you can get the last word in. I'm done.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
If you are questioning the right of police to stop a vehicle. They can stop anytime for any reason. Your Constitutional rights don't apply. Driving is a privilege mot a "Right". Don't like it? Don't drive.

BTW once you are stopped your normal civil rights are still intact.
I hate that "Driving is a Privilege" BOLOGNA. Too many laws - especially traffic laws and enforcement. OTOH Thank the officer for pulling over idiots not keeping up with traffic on interstates and major work commute roads. Too many morons driving in a vegatative state on my route.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: OilNerd

Sorry, have to "nit pick" again. I'd say the operative word was "any" [reason], which simply isn't correct.

Nit Pick all you want but an officer can find 'something' with respect to your driving or your car (in short [any reason]....If you doubt that and have an officer you can talk on the QT, ask him.. Otherwise I have some beach front property for you.

OK..now you can get the last word in. I'm done.


Not sure why you're so touchy about this. I'm just trying to keep the facts straight.

Sure an officer can "manufacture" probable cause for a stop. Still, the probable cause for the stop is reviewable in court.

That said, the way you stated it, you made it sound like one could legally be stopped at any time for any reason, which is not supported by law. Bad hair day? Not probable cause. Wife was cold last night? Not probable cause. Etc.
 
Originally Posted By: Vikas
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3614.asp

South Carolina: Lower Court Rules Driving 55 Suspicious
South Carolina lower court rules driving near speed limit justifies stop, but appeals court finds being near marijuana is not possession.

Judge Aphrodite K. KondurosSpartanburg County Circuit Court Judge Roger L. Couch ruled that driving just 5 MPH under the speed limit, not in the fast lane, is suspicious enough to justify a traffic stop. South Carolina's second highest court on October 5 examined the case, but sidestepped the speed issue to decide whether a man could be convicted of marijuana possession simply because he was in a car that contained the drug.


So, I just read the actual court transcript. The appeals court didn't even rule on the legality of the stop, since they reviewed the possession issue first and found for the defendant. I'm sure this will come up on Davy's appeal, and I imagine he'll win.
 
Funny thing is, I drive 55 most of the time, even though posted 65 on the interstate. Here, around Plattsburgh, the left lane is almost always open and the NYS troopers usually blow on right by me at 75 or so. A couple have pulled in behind me, presumably to run plate checks, but quickly became bored driving at 55 and zoomed onward.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Vikas
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3614.asp

South Carolina: Lower Court Rules Driving 55 Suspicious
South Carolina lower court rules driving near speed limit justifies stop, but appeals court finds being near marijuana is not possession.

Judge Aphrodite K. KondurosSpartanburg County Circuit Court Judge Roger L. Couch ruled that driving just 5 MPH under the speed limit, not in the fast lane, is suspicious enough to justify a traffic stop. South Carolina's second highest court on October 5 examined the case, but sidestepped the speed issue to decide whether a man could be convicted of marijuana possession simply because he was in a car that contained the drug.


So, I just read the actual court transcript. The appeals court didn't even rule on the legality of the stop, since they reviewed the possession issue first and found for the defendant. I'm sure this will come up on Davy's appeal, and I imagine he'll win.


I'm sure OP did not read what he posted.

Title: "South Carolina court rules driving 55 supicious[sic]"
Article: "South Carolina's second highest court on October 5 examined the case, but sidestepped the speed issue ..."

This is when you go:
Facepalm-1.jpeg
 
Originally Posted By: ARCOgraphite
Originally Posted By: Al
If you are questioning the right of police to stop a vehicle. They can stop anytime for any reason. Your Constitutional rights don't apply. Driving is a privilege mot a "Right". Don't like it? Don't drive.

BTW once you are stopped your normal civil rights are still intact.
I hate that "Driving is a Privilege" BOLOGNA. Too many laws - especially traffic laws and enforcement. OTOH Thank the officer for pulling over idiots not keeping up with traffic on interstates and major work commute roads. Too many morons driving in a vegatative state on my route.


I hate that "driving is a privilege" too. Driving has certain responsibilities and obligations, e.g, license, insurance, registration,equipment operating properly, and driving laws, but even pedestrian and bicycles have some traffic rules on public streets. But a few rules don't make it a privilege. As long as you are operating within the rules how is driving a privilege anymore than walking riding a bicycle or a horse down a public thoroughfare? Maybe it's because being issued a licenses isn't a guaranteed rightif you can't meet the minimum standards and you need a licenses to drive. I still think "privilege" is not the right wording. It suggested the gov can arbitrary grant or not you the right to drive. More like the public is giving gov the privilege to issue drivers licenses.
 
well, I don't blame the OP--it's the newspaper article title that is really misleading.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: Vikas
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3614.asp

South Carolina: Lower Court Rules Driving 55 Suspicious
South Carolina lower court rules driving near speed limit justifies stop, but appeals court finds being near marijuana is not possession.

Judge Aphrodite K. KondurosSpartanburg County Circuit Court Judge Roger L. Couch ruled that driving just 5 MPH under the speed limit, not in the fast lane, is suspicious enough to justify a traffic stop. South Carolina's second highest court on October 5 examined the case, but sidestepped the speed issue to decide whether a man could be convicted of marijuana possession simply because he was in a car that contained the drug.


So, I just read the actual court transcript. The appeals court didn't even rule on the legality of the stop, since they reviewed the possession issue first and found for the defendant. I'm sure this will come up on Davy's appeal, and I imagine he'll win.


Not a lawyer but I don't see how "suspicios" amounts to probable cause. I could see driving 5 under the speed limit being somewhat suspicious or curious, but suspicious and curious could be a lot of other things too that aren't under probable cause. Unless there is a minimum speed posted and you are driving under that, you should be able to drive slower without being stopped. There's other reasons for driving slightly slower. Maybe you are trying to conserve fuel, maybe your speedometer falls within the margin of error etc. This was a bad ruling by the lower court.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
I realize this will be an unpopular thing to say, but I'm going to bet there was another reason that he was deemed 'suspicious'. Just sayin'...

It is hilarious to me that the cop's justification was that "everyone was going 70-75" in a 60mph zone. You'd think his job would be to pull some of those folks over? That said, I don't believe the cop--since I've never in my life seen people driving 15 mph over the speed limit with a cop in plain view?


I have. I will agree it is bold, but if it is flow of traffic it is a big MAYBE.

Best example is "Cruise set at 80 on a 65MPH Road." That is like THE FASTEST you can expect to be going without them coming out after you... but i wouldnt try this anymore. Younger days.
smile.gif


Most people set it at 75. The 80MPH people.. are bold. Used to be one.
 
I drive this road twice a week between Atlanta and Charlotte. The entire section around Greenville/Spartanburg is a police nest just waiting to rob the motorists. And NOBODY is blowing through there at 75 MPH. This whole situation is a made-up scam by the crooked cops and their support flunkies.
 
While I'm not on the interstate often, I do travel four lane highways several times a week. I see a few 5-10 mph slower drivers every so often.
That said, smaller size tires and/or worn down tires could easily give you a 5-8 mph faster speedometer reading than a new car might.

I think the 'average' speedo exaggeration is about 5-7%.

One size over on tires usually puts your speedometer spot on.
 
Originally Posted By: FowVay
I drive this road twice a week between Atlanta and Charlotte. The entire section around Greenville/Spartanburg is a police nest just waiting to rob the motorists. And NOBODY is blowing through there at 75 MPH. This whole situation is a made-up scam by the crooked cops and their support flunkies.


I was just thinking that. I've only been through SC a couple times and I noticed a lot of speed traps and not too many speeders. I wan't sure if it was currently that way.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD
well, I don't blame the OP--it's the newspaper article title that is really misleading.


I'm not blaming the OP either. But when you decide to quote a crackpot website, you should do some due diligence and spot the sloppy journalism/obvious lies before stirring up the pot.

I'm sure the OP now is sitting back and laughing at all of us.
 
When a cop pull you over they'd want something to meet the quota. The traffic court is now a system to extract tax dollar out of drivers because of budget problem everywhere. Regardless of what you did they'll give you ticket that is cheaper to pay than fight, and options to waive traffic record by using traffic school and high fee is another evidence that it is nothing but money. I'd rather having to deal with higher reasonable tax where it belongs (fuel, sales, property, etc) than these shenanigans.

The guy being in a car with pot belonging to someone else being found? Glad he wasn't convicted.
 
Originally Posted By: PandaBear
When a cop pull you over they'd want something to meet the quota. The traffic court is now a system to extract tax dollar out of drivers because of budget problem everywhere. Regardless of what you did they'll give you ticket that is cheaper to pay than fight, and options to waive traffic record by using traffic school and

And yet I have been stopped 4 times in my 50 years of driving) guilty every single time.

Once not having my license..no fine.

Once for going through a Stop and again had no license on me...No fine

Once for Speeding..Got a ticket for "Disobeying a lawful posted sign. No speeding ticket small fine, not reported to insurance.

Going 51 in a 35. Got written up for going 44.

I seem to be on of those rare breed on here that thinks (for the most part)..Cops are not Franksteins swooping down on poor motorists from their Black Helicopters.
 
Originally Posted By: JOD


In this instance, the court deemed "probable cause" as traveling 5mph under the speed limit, with the justification being that everyone else was breaking the law.


From what I've gleaned over the years, probable cause is ANYTHING a police officer wants it to be in order to justify his/her actions. I bet in the case at hand, they used 5 mph under the speed limit to justify pulling over a vehicle that had a Rastafarian lookin dude in the car with the hope of finding a crime.
 
Originally Posted By: Al

Nit Pick all you want but an officer can find 'something' with respect to your driving or your car (in short [any reason]....


You seem to be OK with that. Sorry, it's that kind of bowing down that leads to the ever increasing police state and further trashing of the constitution.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
I seem to be on of those rare breed on here that thinks (for the most part)..Cops are not Franksteins swooping down on poor motorists from their Black Helicopters.



I think you are extrapolating your personal experience to represent the experience of others. From my own experience, I could see where both behaviors could be true, depending on the location and situation. As an engineer, I would think you would have some perspective on the dangers of extrapolating from just one data point.
 
Originally Posted By: Drew99GT

You seem to be OK with that. Sorry, it's that kind of bowing down that leads to the ever increasing police state and further trashing of the constitution.

I'm not "bowing down" I'm being a realist. I know what happens. If I get stopped for what I perceive to be no reason..I co-operate fully. (Won't allow a search though;without a warrant). I'll complain later to the officer's Lieutenant. I have done this within the last year over another matter.

Originally Posted By: TooManyWheels
As an engineer, I would think you would have some perspective on the dangers of extrapolating from just one data point.


Actually its 4 data points and I do apply them to my learning curve. Feel free to not applying them to yourself
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top