Hoi Polloi wrote:I also believe it's ridiculous when we have so many laws of such obscurity that all involved recognize that you're going to break a law every couple minutes or whatever the crazy statistic is. And even then, the police need to be able to pull you over for something suspicious but not illegal as a pretense for getting you on something illegal from that massive book not even they can fully remember/understand.
I don't have a problem with the officers; I have a problem with the idea that we need more laws and more ways to catch people. If we're having to catch a decent number of people out on warrants, of drug dealers, etc by stopping them for a suspiciously wide right turn after leaving a known crack house, we've got a larger societal problem that needs to be addressed directly.
This is a great and important point. It seems there are so many tedious laws that no one can know them all - which is basically the point. It gives LE the means to reach the ends of catching the really bad guys. But it's a system ripe for abuse.
As for GigAg's statement that you shouldn't question police work until you understand police work, there's some truth to both sides. Certainly WE - collectively - are the "bosses" of the police, the government etc. But just like you wouldn't tell a Marine how to flank the enemy or tell a civil engineer how to design a load-bearing structure, police work is a highly specialized endeavor that requires specific training - not all of which is well known (or should be) to the general public. If you don't like the law or police tactics, your route to change both is via your elected officials. There's no point in belly aching at police who are - apparently; I'm no expert - working within the law and accepted professional norms.
Anyway, a lot of interesting and worthwhile points in this thread. I too felt at first the OP was close to "bashing" the RRPD. But, while he has some strong opinions, after reading responses I don't think this was his intention. Certainly he needs to take responsibility for an expired inspection sticker, but he does have the right to question tactics of the police as relates to asking for SS# and the unmarked car and he made some interesting points, especially as relates to the danger of "is this really a cop?" questions from a truly unmarked police car (not even the black-on-black markings). At the end of the day though, the pragmatist in me says chalk this one up under the heading "no harm, no foul" and move on. As far as I understand it, police in an unmarked car still have the authority to make traffic stops. If you're not sure they're really police, then call 911 to confirm or pull over in a well-lit area with plenty of witnesses (busy parking lot, etc.)
) is that as municipal/county/state budgets are in deficit that more and more citations will be handed out, some deservedly, maybe some not...but in the end, it's about revenue. I would make a guess that issuing citations is one of the easiest ways to increase revenue...raising taxes isn't popular with the voters, but you can set out the motor jocks/MRGTUs (Mobile Revenue Generating Traffic Units) and get that $$$ flowing in. 
