DOT right to search without prob. cause??

The simple fact that you indicate someone wanting to keep something safe is a "deceptive practice" is a perfect example of what's wrong with the police force in the country. Oh no, tinted windows, he must be hiding something! Uh-oh, a locked glove box! Nevermind the fact that some people live in their truck and carry quite a bit of cash on them. When fuel prices were up, it wasn't uncommon to see someone pull out $500 plus at the counter. And it likely wasn't the only time they'd fuel on that trip.

 

Hello Aftershock sitting in Walnut Carl's JR next to the 60 yu gonna buy me lunch?

 

I understand this and agree. However this also meets the apples and oranges theory. You must admit that these loads carry documentation to the effect that simplistically, no person is to remove the seal under penalty of the U.S. Government. There is usually a phone number to call for verification as well.

 

No kiddin"?
I was at that very Carl's Jr during the fires last Saturday when the 60 was plugged solid.
On Fairview street, I think.

I had to use the facilities, .......... BADLY!
I decided to take surface streets from there to avoid the traffic, and soon learned that that street took me right back INTO the fire burnin' in Brea canyon.
OOppps!
U-turn time.

Kinda like outta the pan and INTO the fire.

The next morning, I learned that the area WAS burned.
I finally took Pathfinder, and that path proved to be more congested than Highway 60.
I was a sittin' duck for a few hours.

And it ONLY took me 4 1/2 hours to go from Corona to Whittier.
A new record.

 

I disagree with you on making the drivers remove the seal or be arrested for refusing to remove the seal.

We as drivers must get the companies permission to break the seal it may be on the trailer that we are pulling and we have control and coustody of it.

If the driver removes the seal the driver could be held responsible to buy that load because the reciver can refuse the load for not having the correct seal on the trailer.

 

That's fine but when an officer tells you to remove it you'd better get on the phone to corporate headquarters.

 

How so?

I ain't admittin' nuthin'.
I have the right to remain silent.

YuP.
There were phone numbers that could be called 24/7/365 by ANYone thinking of or wanting to break those seals. SOMEtimes, officers did call those numbers, and to my knowledge, they were told EVERY time that if the seal was presently intact,
LEAVE IT ALONE --- DO NOT BREAK IT.
No reason to.
If it was sealed after being loaded (usually NOT in the presence of the driver who usually wasn't allowed to be on the dock during loading), and the driver was shown the seal numbers matched the paperwork AFTER pulling away from the dock, and the seal is/was, in fact, still intact when an officer pulled the driver over ---- what could a driver have done to alter that load if the seal is still intact when an officer inspects it?

Yet a few of our drivers HAVE had officers call that number for PERMISSION to break a seal that isn't to be broken, and pout when they were told NOT to. Even went so far as to find SOMEthing to write the driver up for.

One such incident involved a shipment that was listed on the paperwork as
One Steel Desk With Locked Drawers ---
on a 48' trailer.
The officer said he wanted to inspect for fire ants, and demanded that the driver break the seal.
The driver refused.
The officer called the phone number on the paperwork, was told DON'T, and he told the government voice on the other end that he was gonna break it anyway because it was "suspicious".
The government voice said wait 15 minutes.
Within 10 minutes the FBI arrived and 'splained thangs to the officer.

Now I realize that incidents such as I've illustrated aren't all that common, and that many, if not MOST officers aren't prone to pushing their authority beyond it's bounds. But I think it IS possible that an officer could intimidate a driver into doing something that the driver will come to regret, while the officer skates.

I reckon this is what you were tellin' us about the competence of the different state's agencies?

 

Because an enforcement officer has the right to inspect the cargo for not only security reasons but also to see if the cargo is properly secured under the 393 rules. Or what if you had a pre-loaded trailer with cocaine on it & a dog smelled it? You can document & confirm the trailer was pre-loaded thereby relieving you if responsibility, but that drug detection dog created a reasonable suspicion. that happens all the time in the border crossing states i.e. MI, TX, MN, ND, MT, AZ, NM etc.

 

Try keeping your drivers license after refusing a BAC or drug test.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/implied+consent

 

At least the raucous laughter would cease.