[OT] NJ Town to Fine Drivers for Using GPS App Shortcuts

Post by BTR1701
NJ town to start fining people $200 for using GPS apps to cut through the
city.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/?replytocom=542880#respond

Can't see this as new intrusion, as 'No Thru Traffic' signs are common.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Rhino

2018-01-08 21:50:27 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more. So you aren't being fined for using the app, you're
being fined for driving on Leonia's lesser streets. It's interesting
that the Supreme Court has already ruled that it's okay for a city to
limit access to its streets as long as emergency vehicles are blocked,
e.g. Police, fire, paramedics.

This may make for an interesting legal battle if anyone contests their
ticket....

--
Rhino

BTR1701

2018-01-09 02:43:29 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.

Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.

This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.

It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.

I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

moviePig

2018-01-09 15:04:08 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

BTR1701

2018-01-09 15:43:01 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

moviePig

2018-01-09 16:04:21 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

So, there's this NH law:

"Many people are unaware that they can automatically lose their
driver's license for not only testing over the legal blood alcohol
content (BAC) limit, but for refusing to take the breathalyzer test if
they are arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI)."

Seems to me that anyone seen exiting the forbidden Leonia streets during
rush hour qualifies as a high-probability suspect of the commuter crime.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

BTR1701

2018-01-09 18:15:55 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

"Many people are unaware that they can automatically lose their
driver's license for not only testing over the legal blood alcohol
content (BAC) limit, but for refusing to take the breathalyzer test if
they are arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI)."

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

moviePig

2018-01-09 20:34:10 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

Is there some reason that a BAC is less 'personal' than that other data?

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

BTR1701

2018-01-09 21:53:12 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

Is there some reason that a BAC is less 'personal' than that other data?

Because it's not testimonial information.

Same reason courts have found that requiring people to provide fingerprints
doesn't violate the 5th Amendment (even if the fingerprints will
incriminate) but requiring them to tell the government details of their
lives does.

moviePig

2018-01-09 22:24:18 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

Which brings us back to people not having to justify or provide
information about where they're going and what they're doing upon demand
by the government.

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

Is there some reason that a BAC is less 'personal' than that other data?

Because it's not testimonial information.
Same reason courts have found that requiring people to provide fingerprints
doesn't violate the 5th Amendment (even if the fingerprints will
incriminate) but requiring them to tell the government details of their
lives does.

I can't find 'testimonial information' as a legal thing, and don't know
what it means. Meanwhile, I see little difference between naming my
friends and disclosing my drinking habits -- whereas fingerprints, DNA,
etc. are ID-purposed, like "name, rank, & serial-number".

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

The Horny Goat

2018-01-10 17:40:50 UTC

Post by moviePig
"Many people are unaware that they can automatically lose their
driver's license for not only testing over the legal blood alcohol
content (BAC) limit, but for refusing to take the breathalyzer test if
they are arrested on suspicion of driving while intoxicated (DWI)."

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

Well you're required to show your driver's licence and/or vehicle
registration papers to any police officer who thinks he/she has cause
but certainly none of the other stuff can be done without a warrant.

In our jurisdiction "refusal to blow" has been a separate offence from
DUI for 30+ years and the penalties are identical.

BTR1701

2018-01-11 04:43:54 UTC

Nothing about a BAC test requires me to divulge details of my personal
life-- friends, intimate relationships, activities, or schedules-- to the
government.

Well you're required to show your driver's licence and/or vehicle
registration papers to any police officer who thinks he/she has cause

True enough, but that's a bargain struck with the acceptance of the
license in the first place. That bargain did not include a
responsibility on my part to offer up any additional personal details of
my life on demand of the police.

The Horny Goat

2018-01-12 08:53:24 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
Well you're required to show your driver's licence and/or vehicle
registration papers to any police officer who thinks he/she has cause

typiclly in our jurisdiction at least in the big city they keep a
judge on a warrant hotline - it's not 24x7 but close. It is said
warrants are seldom ever denied but then cops are trained not to ask
for questionable warrants. (Judges have a way of making them sorry
they asked if they do!) Crooks out in the sticks have it easier :)

BTR1701

2018-01-12 15:45:46 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
Well you're required to show your driver's licence and/or vehicle
registration papers to any police officer who thinks he/she has cause

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police. That
pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk to anyone from
the government. Even judges.

moviePig

2018-01-12 15:54:49 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
Well you're required to show your driver's licence and/or vehicle
registration papers to any police officer who thinks he/she has cause

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police. That
pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk to anyone from
the government. Even judges.

...unless they give you immunity.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

The Horny Goat

2018-01-13 06:42:37 UTC

Post by The Horny Goat
typiclly in our jurisdiction at least in the big city they keep a
judge on a warrant hotline - it's not 24x7 but close. It is said
warrants are seldom ever denied but then cops are trained not to ask
for questionable warrants.

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police. That
pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk to anyone from
the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

BTR1701

2018-01-13 08:12:48 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.

Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

b***@gmail.com

2018-01-13 08:47:55 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.

You forgot to mention 'under oath'

FPP

2018-01-13 08:49:19 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.

And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.

I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

You're not wrong... just a tad naive for someone who claims to see the
system from the inside.

--
"I call my own shots, largely based on an accumulation of data, and
everyone knows it. Some FAKE NEWS media, in order to marginalize, lies!"
-2017
"WAR IS PEACE." "FREEDOM IS SLAVERY." "IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!" -1984
Eric Arthur Blair

trotsky

2018-01-13 11:52:10 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.
Thanny, not so much.

BTR1701

2018-01-13 17:45:04 UTC

Post by trotsky

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

trotsky

2018-01-13 20:01:05 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite? And have you ever seen the original Law and Order, particularly
before Sam Waterston came on board?

BTR1701

2018-01-13 22:01:15 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite?

I advised on a CSI:MIAMI episode and every time I pointed out something
they were doing wrong, the director would say, "Okay, but it works
better the way we want to do it."

Post by trotsky
And have you ever seen the original Law and Order, particularly
before Sam Waterston came on board?

Yeah, and they had the cops and witnesses that were testifying in the
case watching the proceedings from the gallery then, just like they do
now.

And trials that started mere days after the crime was committed.

And objections that went without rulings.

And cops that didn't load their guns until they were about to hit a door.

And... and... and... the list goes on and on.

anim8rfsk

2018-01-13 23:22:21 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite?

I advised on a CSI:MIAMI episode and every time I pointed out something
they were doing wrong, the director would say, "Okay, but it works
better the way we want to do it."

I was advising a science shoot and the director says "you're just
confusing us, we know what we're doing"

You know what? They didn't.

And he didn't recall saying that to me, or me saying *anything* on set
at all.

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

Dimensional Traveler

2018-01-14 02:01:24 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite?

I advised on a CSI:MIAMI episode and every time I pointed out something
they were doing wrong, the director would say, "Okay, but it works
better the way we want to do it."

I was advising a science shoot and the director says "you're just
confusing us, we know what we're doing"
You know what? They didn't.
And he didn't recall saying that to me, or me saying *anything* on set
at all.

Did you say something?

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

trotsky

2018-01-14 10:18:26 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite?

I advised on a CSI:MIAMI episode and every time I pointed out something
they were doing wrong, the director would say, "Okay, but it works
better the way we want to do it."

a) I don't believe you, and b) even if I did I have told you umpteen
times that a representative sampling of one isn't statistically
significant. If you had three or four examples you might be able to
make a point.

Post by trotsky
And have you ever seen the original Law and Order, particularly
before Sam Waterston came on board?

Yeah, and they had the cops and witnesses that were testifying in the
case watching the proceedings from the gallery then, just like they do
now.

And that detracted from the procedural aspect of the show how, exactly?
Hint: IT FUCKING DOESN'T. The premise is the cops do the investigating
and hand the case to the D.A.'s office for prosecuting. Sometimes the
D.A. goes back to the cops for help and sometimes they do further
investigating themselves. Lastly, there is usually a trial but not
always. That's the premise. If you have any comments on how the show
deviates from real life vis a vis this premise I really don't give a
fuck if I hear them. You're two for two in sounding stupid.

Post by BTR1701
And trials that started mere days after the crime was committed.
And objections that went without rulings.
And cops that didn't load their guns until they were about to hit a door.
And... and... and... the list goes on and on.

Good, that's sounds nearly legit. You haven't been a municipal cop
though, right? So how do you know what they do?

trotsky

2018-01-14 10:18:26 UTC

A judge can't issue a warrant forcing me to talk to the police.
That pesky 5th Amendment gives me the right to refuse to talk
to anyone from the government. Even judges.

No but a warrant can lead to a search which leads to "interesting"
questions or an arrest

In order to get a warrant, the cop would have to be able to show
probable cause that (1) a crime had been committed, and (2) evidence or
fruits of the crime are present in my car.
Since the only thing he's got me on is driving through the city, there's
nothing in the car that would be evidence of that crime, and he can't go
on a fishing expedition for anything else.

This a TV group, so, presumably you've watched some TV.
And if you've ever watched a show with cops and lawyers in it, you might
have run across a few scenario's where such a thing doesn't always
adhere to your high standards of the Law.
I know TV is fiction, and all... but if you think every cop sticks to
the letter of the law, you've been watching TOO MUCH TV.

Good shows hire consultants to get the facts to be relatively accurate.

And then immediately ignore the what consultants say in favor of 'drama'.

Cite?

I advised on a CSI:MIAMI episode and every time I pointed out something
they were doing wrong, the director would say, "Okay, but it works
better the way we want to do it."

Post by trotsky
And have you ever seen the original Law and Order, particularly
before Sam Waterston came on board?

Yeah, and they had the cops and witnesses that were testifying in the
case watching the proceedings from the gallery then, just like they do
now.

Good, that's sounds nearly legit. You haven't been a municipal cop
though, right? So how do you know what they do?

David Johnston

2018-01-09 23:58:19 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

moviePig

2018-01-10 03:51:26 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them as a
thruway.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

BTR1701

2018-01-10 04:28:33 UTC

Post by BTR1701
NJ town to start fining people $200 for using GPS apps to cut
through the city.

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers...

All of which come with likely police stops and demands to justify their
presence on a public road or be fined.

I wonder how intrusive the cops plan on being. If a driver claims to be
coming from a home in one of the neighborhoods are the cops going to go
knock on the door to verify the information?

David Johnston

2018-01-10 06:30:46 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them as a
thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's the same as just
passing through. I don't know what you mean by "hunt scavengers", but
I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't think that was legitimate business.

moviePig

2018-01-10 14:34:23 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them as
a thruway.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)

Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as sight-seeing, but
both are different from daily commuting or other work-related travel.
And I'm assuming that, inasmuch as the latter traffic has become an
issue, the cops' hit rate on suspected offenders -- e.g., a long line
of cars at a residential stop sign at 5pm -- should be quite high.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

David Johnston

2018-01-10 16:48:50 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them as
a thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's the same as
just passing through. I don't know what you mean by "hunt
scavengers", but I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't think that was
legitimate business.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)
Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as sight-seeing, but
both are different from daily commuting or other work-related travel.

And neither of them are going to be an acceptable answer to "Do you have
a legitimate reason for driving here?"

Post by moviePig
And I'm assuming that, inasmuch as the latter traffic has become an
issue, the cops' hit rate on suspected offenders -- e.g., a long line
of cars at a residential stop sign at 5pm -- should be quite high.

Yes, it's true that the cops doubtless only patrol for people driving
through during rush hours.

moviePig

2018-01-10 17:09:39 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them
as a thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's the same as
just passing through. I don't know what you mean by "hunt
scavengers", but I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't think that was
legitimate business.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)
Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as sight-seeing,
but both are different from daily commuting or other work-related travel.

And neither of them are going to be an acceptable answer to "Do you have
a legitimate reason for driving here?"

Yes, it's true that the cops doubtless only patrol for people driving
through during rush hours.

Again assuming the vast majority of stoppees are in fact guilty, I'd
guess that an actual "sightseer" would usually have pretty good backup,
say, an out-of-town driver's license or the name of the sought "sight".

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

David Johnston

2018-01-10 17:21:02 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them
as a thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's the same as
just passing through. I don't know what you mean by "hunt
scavengers", but I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't think that was
legitimate business.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)
Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as sight-seeing,
but both are different from daily commuting or other work-related travel.

And neither of them are going to be an acceptable answer to "Do you
have a legitimate reason for driving here?"

Post by moviePig
And I'm assuming that, inasmuch as the latter traffic has become an
issue, the cops' hit rate on suspected offenders -- e.g., a long
line of cars at a residential stop sign at 5pm -- should be quite high.

Yes, it's true that the cops doubtless only patrol for people driving
through during rush hours.

So basically the only acceptable answer would be "I am going to this
address to visit these people who live there." With a possible
allowance for "Can you give me directions to...?"

moviePig

2018-01-10 18:56:38 UTC

Post by BTR1701
NJ town to start fining people $200 for using GPS apps to cut
through the
city.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-apps/
?replytocom=542880#respond

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a
neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very
enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything but use them
as a thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's the same as
just passing through. I don't know what you mean by "hunt
scavengers", but I'm pretty sure the cops wouldn't think that was
legitimate business.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)
Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as sight-seeing,
but both are different from daily commuting or other work-related travel.

And neither of them are going to be an acceptable answer to "Do you
have a legitimate reason for driving here?"

Post by moviePig
And I'm assuming that, inasmuch as the latter traffic has become an
issue, the cops' hit rate on suspected offenders -- e.g., a long
line of cars at a residential stop sign at 5pm -- should be quite high.

Yes, it's true that the cops doubtless only patrol for people driving
through during rush hours.

Again assuming the vast majority of stoppees are in fact guilty, I'd
guess that an actual "sightseer" would usually have pretty good
backup, say, an out-of-town driver's license or the name of the sought
"sight".

So basically the only acceptable answer would be "I am going to this
address to visit these people who live there." With a possible
allowance for "Can you give me directions to...?"

Both seem advisable, and maybe even an "Am I in Trenton?"...

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

Nyssa

2018-01-10 20:54:58 UTC

Post by BTR1701
NJ town to start fining people $200 for using
GPS apps to cut through the
city.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2018/01/05/leonia-streets-off-navigational-

apps/

Post by BTR1701
?replytocom=542880#respond

Except that once you know a shortcut through
Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually
punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a
ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the
residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through
a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they
don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For
example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for
being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or
where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the
government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people
who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be
very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to
her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action
filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to
strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason
the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and
maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute
on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

Sight-see, visit friends, hunt scavengers... anything
but use them as a thruway.

No, you'd get a ticket for sight-seeing because that's
the same as just passing through. I don't know what
you mean by "hunt scavengers", but I'm pretty sure the
cops wouldn't think that was legitimate business.

(You never heard of a 'scavenger hunt'?)
Yes, 'just passing through' is effectively the same as
sight-seeing, but both are different from daily
commuting or other work-related travel.

And neither of them are going to be an acceptable answer
to "Do you have a legitimate reason for driving here?"

Post by moviePig
And I'm assuming that, inasmuch as the latter traffic
has become an issue, the cops' hit rate on suspected
offenders -- e.g., a long line of cars at a
residential stop sign at 5pm -- should be quite high.

Yes, it's true that the cops doubtless only patrol for
people driving through during rush hours.

Again assuming the vast majority of stoppees are in fact
guilty, I'd guess that an actual "sightseer" would
usually have pretty good backup, say, an out-of-town
driver's license or the name of the sought "sight".

So basically the only acceptable answer would be "I am
going to this
address to visit these people who live there." With a
possible allowance for "Can you give me directions to...?"

Or how about "I'm thinking of moving to a new area, and
I've been looking around to see what neighborhood might
suit me."

There are plenty of valid reasons for being in a neighborhood
that you don't live or work in. I should need to justify
my being anywhere except if it's a secure area such as
a military base or something similar.

Nyssa, who has gotten lost a few times and has ended up
in an area by accident or mistake too

Dimensional Traveler

2018-01-10 05:20:11 UTC

Except that once you know a shortcut through Leonia, you won't need the
GPS app any more.

According to the article, they're not actually punishing the use of the
app. You don't have to be using an app to get a ticket.
Basically, the city is issuing stickers to all the residents, which they
display on their cars, and anyone driving through a neighborhood without
a sticker can be pulled over and cited if they don't provide a 'valid
reason' for being there.
This implicates various constitutional issues. For example, I don't have
to provide a police officer my justification for being on a public road.
I don't have to tell him where I'm driving to or where I'm coming from
or why I am where I am. It's frankly none of the government's business.
It also would seem to be problematic for people who have friends and
family come to visit them. I'm not going to be very enthusiastic about
visiting my friend if I know every time I go to her house, I'm going to
have to endure a traffic stop by the cops.
I'd also anticipate some kind of legal action filed against the city by
any one of the various taxpayer watchdog groups to strip the city of any
tax money not collected locally. There's no reason the citizens in the
rest of the state should be paying to pave and maintain the roads in
Leonia if they're not allowed to drive on them.

They *can* drive on them, they just can't commute on them.

In what sense can they drive on them?

It sounds to me like the city wants all the benefits of being a gated
community without the expenses of such, plus a revenue stream.

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

A Friend

2018-01-10 09:52:49 UTC

Post by Dimensional Traveler
It sounds to me like the city wants all the benefits of being a gated
community without the expenses of such, plus a revenue stream.

Nailed it.

Obveeus

2018-01-10 14:05:42 UTC

Post by A Friend

Post by Dimensional Traveler
It sounds to me like the city wants all the benefits of being a gated
community without the expenses of such, plus a revenue stream.

Nailed it.

Most neighborhoods solve this problem with speed bumps or speed humps or
speed tables. Some go so far as to petition the city about the dangers
of the increased side road traffic and convince the city to close one or
more of the neighborhood entrances off so that there is no longer a
throughway.

BTR1701

2018-01-10 15:56:05 UTC

Post by Obveeus

Post by A Friend

Post by Dimensional Traveler
It sounds to me like the city wants all the benefits of being
a gated community without the expenses of such, plus a revenue
stream.

Nailed it.

There is such a street in my neighborhood. It used to open out onto
Pacific Coast Highway. Now the street is a dead-end at both sides of the
intersection with PCH with a curb and some landscaped trees and
shrubbery blocking it off. The residents now have their quiet street
back.

Loading Image...

The drawback for them is that they now have to go way out of their way
to get in and out of their houses.

moviePig

2018-01-10 14:39:45 UTC

Post by A Friend

Post by Dimensional Traveler
It sounds to me like the city wants all the benefits of being a gated
community without the expenses of such, plus a revenue stream.

Nailed it.

Maybe so. I do know of an instance where the "gated community"s
solution was to install enough seriously annoying speed-bumps that
frequent through-traffic was discouraged with extreme prejudice.

--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

h***@bbs.cpcn.com

2018-01-09 20:55:08 UTC