So I have been having this conversation.

(CNN) -- Arizona lawman Joe Arpaio has required prison inmates to wear pink underwear and saved taxpayers money by removing salt and pepper from prisons. He has, at times, forbidden convicted murderer Jodi Arias from speaking to the press.

The stern Maricopa County Sheriff has said the federal government will not stop him from running his office as he sees fit. But on Friday it did.

A judge ruled Friday that Arpaio's routine handling of people of Latino descent is not tough enforcement of immigration laws but instead amounts to racial and ethnic profiling.

Some of those profiled sued Arpaio, and Judge Murray Snow found their complaints to be legitimate.The Court's first major decision on the constitutionality of pretextual traffic stops was in the 1996 court case Whren v. U.S. The Justices were presented with the question of whether or not a vehicle search is constitutional if it wouldn't have taken place unless the police had sought an unrelated excuse for the search. The Court decided that any traffic violation by a driver was a sufficient reason for a stop, regardless of the officer's true intentions or motivations. With traffic laws as confusing as they are, this decision allows police to stop almost any driver and can subject him or her to a plain-view search at the whim of the police officer.


Which me and some liberals have been going back and forth. So then I found this little gem.





Later Court decisions only reinforced the justices' initial ruling:

Ohio v. Robinette -- the Court found that an officer is not obligated to tell a driver that he or she can refuse an officer's request for a search.

Maryland v. Wilson - granted police the power to order passengers out of stopped cars, regardless of whether or not there is reason to think they are dangerous.

Skycastle wrote:

More BS from a stinking leftist judge. Any enforcement of immigration laws will APPEAR racist, because the vast majority of violators are Mexican. I fully support Sheriff Arpaio.

"Ohio v. Robinette -- the Court found that an officer is not obligated to
tell a driver that he or she can refuse an officer's request for a search."

This I find disgusting. Cops should always tell drivers that they have a right to withhold permission to have their cars searched. It stinks that they want to use the ignorance of drivers to violate their rights - this is a sign of tyranny.

I have said this you are driving on the states roads if they want to search your vehicle they can. Here in WV if they pull you over they do not need a warrant. You are on there roads. The only time they need a warrant is if the vehicle is on private property.

I agree with Skycastle on this one. And while the law is currently on the side of the police on this issue, I strongly disagree with being guilty until proven innocent. I mean we argue about a police state, but forgive the state their trespasses. Quite literally.

Skycastle wrote:

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I have said this you are driving on the states roads if they want to search your vehicle they can. Here in WV if they pull you over they do not need a warrant. You are on there roads. The only time they need a warrant is if the vehicle is on private property.

I dunno about that, POV. Just being "on the roads" shouldn't give government the right to violate our privacy or property without sufficient justification. That's tyranny, and we should not easily accept it. The right to travel has been a fundamental right of Americans since our nation was founded, and it's only because of massive public apathy and ignorance that we allowed government to turn this right into a mere "privilege."

Even in Maine the game warden can search your vehicle. It has happened many times to friends of mine while growing up.

ilaugh wrote:

I agree with Skycastle on this one. And while the law is currently on the side of the police on this issue, I strongly disagree with being guilty until proven innocent. I mean we argue about a police state, but forgive the state their trespasses. Quite literally.

I understand that trust me. But reality is reality. Just watch cops or watch some shows on Sturgis. You see the cops search people all the time.

Pissedoffvulcan wrote:

I have said this you are driving on the states roads if they want to search your vehicle they can. Here in WV if they pull you over they do not need a warrant. You are on there roads. The only time they need a warrant is if the vehicle is on private property.

Two words: Justifiable Cause

Works in all 50 states and its territories. This is why criminals get so scared when they get pulled over. Sadly enough, its also how so many cops get murdered.

When you get pulled over, in addition to watching you and your passengers, the officer is also looking for any visible reason to search the vehicle. Open containers, drug paraphernalia, weapons, etc. This is called the "field search". Anything found is grounds to arrest you. They impound the vehicle and get a warrant to search it thoroughly.