3 ms·

Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, wi

Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, with probable cause, escalate to investigation and/or arrest. Delays of far less than 20 minutes for the purpose of generating probable cause through drug dogs have been found illegal: https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/01/131176P.pdf https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/01/131176P.pdf DUI checkpoints were found by the Supreme Court to be a specific instance of permissible intrusion in service of the public good, as the benefits of the theoretically-impermissible search outweigh the trivial, short-term intrusion: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=1436&context=plr https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=... Both cases clearly indicate that while the trivial, short-term intrusions are normally unacceptable, the public good in each circumstance outweighs the violation of constitutional rights. In the chalking case, the court found no cause sufficient to justify the violation. It seems likely it will be appealed to SCOTUS, which I’m quite looking forward to if they accept it! I encourage you to look up other such cases; I suspect you’ll find that violations of the general principle against any intrusion, regardless of duration, will be carefully scoped to ensure they cannot be generalized.

SilasX 8y ago
>Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, with probable cause, escalate to investigation and/or arrest. Delays of far less than 20 minutes for the purpose of generating probable cause through drug dogs have been found illegal: Yes, I know. I was referring to the valid version of it that references 20 minutes to establish that duration matters in terms of whether the intrusion is justified -- i.e. the charitable interpretation you use to ensure a responsive discussion. >DUI checkpoints were found by the Supreme Court to be a specific instance of permissible intrusion in service of the public good, as the benefits of the theoretically-impermissible search outweigh the trivial, short-term intrusion Yep, exactly the argument I was making here. Again, you're just being pedantic while agreeing with the substance of what I said. That isn't productive.
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  I'm sorry, but I don't understand what issue you have with my initial statement. I looked up the possible meanings of pedantic and received this list from the web: > overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, over-exacting, perfectionist, precisionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finical, finicky Each of those words is positive, if not mandatory, when dealing with the law, with the courts, with court judgements, and with the Constitution. Could you be more precise (pedantic, even!) about why taking a 'fastidious' or 'precise' approach to this discussion of constitutional law is inappropriate here?

SilasX 8y ago

>Traffic stops are not limited to 20 minutes. They are limited to the time reasonably necessary to conclude the traffic stop and either release the driver or, with probable cause, escalate to investigation and/or arrest. Delays of far less than 20 minutes for the purpose of generating probable cause through drug dogs have been found illegal: Yes, I know. I was referring to the valid version of it that references 20 minutes to establish that duration matters in terms of whether the intrusion is justified -- i.e. the charitable interpretation you use to ensure a responsive discussion. >DUI checkpoints were found by the Supreme Court to be a specific instance of permissible intrusion in service of the public good, as the benefits of the theoretically-impermissible search outweigh the trivial, short-term intrusion Yep, exactly the argument I was making here. Again, you're just being pedantic while agreeing with the substance of what I said. That isn't productive.

floatingatoll 8y ago
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what issue you have with my initial statement. I looked up the possible meanings of pedantic and received this list from the web: > overscrupulous, scrupulous, precise, exact, over-exacting, perfectionist, precisionist, punctilious, meticulous, fussy, fastidious, finical, finicky Each of those words is positive, if not mandatory, when dealing with the law, with the courts, with court judgements, and with the Constitution. Could you be more precise (pedantic, even!) about why taking a 'fastidious' or 'precise' approach to this discussion of constitutional law is inappropriate here?