Wait - you and copwriter are posting contradictory information. According to copwriter, "The objective of traffic law enforcement is to improve highway safety through compliance with traffic laws."

Which is it - a subterfuge to look for "something else" or a desire to improve highway safety?

I would love to see what happens if TSA were to check the ID of someone traveling under the Safe Skies (or what ever the name is) program! :D

So they can't accomplish BOTH at the same time?

The same thing with the TSA. By checking ID's for validity, they theoretically limit the mobility of those who operate under false identity. What seems like a hassle to law-abiding citizens is in reality a great benefit for law enforcement. Try working a case with 20 aliases and you have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that at least 5 are the same individual. Rant over.

BS.

Fishing trips are a waste of resources.

Exactly. Law enforcement is for OUR benefit. :td: Gotta work within the framework of the constitution. Unfortunately, some get creative to try to skirt it.

Right, and you speak from what authority? :rolleyes:

Care to explain how fishing expeditions are constitutional?

We're talking about the TSA here. :eek:

Triple their budget and guarantee it won't go to Kippies Klowns and you might have a point.

What is being done today is a pointless waste of time and money.

Yes.

Like anything else it depends on 1) the situation and 2) the officer.

When I was a local I often stopped people for real violations but believing there was something more to it. As in, maybe I thought the person was drunk but they weren't to the required level of suspicion to pull them over for that but they did just make a turn without using a turn signal, an offense I usually don't get too worked up over. Pull them over, they're drunk and off we go.

On the other hand I did pull people over for unsafe traffic violations then and there with no other thoughts. To me, if it was unsafe it got dealt with (like the kid I started chasing (had to turn around) who was doing 110 or so on a commercial street. He plowed into a yard before I could catch up to him).

Sometimes the small leads to the big and sometimes the small is enough in and of itself. Sometimes the small was the big.

Re-reading that last sentence it may well be a koan but it's the best way I know to explain it. :D

LE works for the benefit of society as a whole.

As long as the requisite level of suspicion exists to warrant the stop, you can fish away legal and happily. Happens all the time. The stop is generally the first thing attacked in court. If that's good it usually goes to the search, if there was one.

More than half of LE work is fishing. You just got to do it the right way.

This is what I was saying. I don't think checking IDs as a rule adds that much to security in and of itself. What I do think is that it gives security folks a good reason to interact with pax, which could present opportunities to ID bad guys. Most of the 9/11 crew were nervous from what I've read. Most people about to do murder will be. It's hard not to be. Talk to those people. Satisfy your curiosity.

But if the people doing the check(s) aren't up to snuff, then all the opportunity in the world is wasted.

That FAM who posted on the blog and was then posted here mentioned something to the same effect. I've adopted his (or her) philosophy on the matter.

If it's done right, yes. However, LE that doesn't follow the law or abuses power doesn't benefit society.

I"m talking about casting wide nets, like TSA is doing. It's one thing to fish for firearms, bombs, etc. They're up front about that. It's the other stuff that gets caught in the net that's beyond the scope of the search I have an issue with.

Hmmm, that may or not be true.

What if a LE used an illegal search but locked up the next Ted Bundy. Or a guy with a "suitcase nuke?" (if such a thing exists in today's technology, but I'm exaggerating to make a point....)

What is the best benefit to society? Tough question....