law enforcement fails to uphold a state law?
440517
Ok ok...restate the question.  I'm a little slow right now.  What are you asking?
10927
Corruption is the problem.  Be careful handing out cash.  If the cop is honest, you could be charged with bribing a law enforcement officer.
1181459
You've written an awful lot of stuff here just to ask if the cops can pull someone over for "no reason."\n\nDoubtful.  \n\nIf the state you're writing about has a law that allows police to stop vehicles to check for current insurance (and for no other reason), then I would have to say the police can do that.  \n\nIf there's no such law in your state that allows that, it's going to be every bit as impossible to give you a good answer as Van Winkle says (and his was generally a very good answer).  You don't have anywhere near all the facts, so there's no way you can present them to anyone to get a decent answer.  \n\nAs for all the other stuff you wrote, did you have a question about it?  I see plenty of answers, but you never asked any questions.\n\nDon't get overly excited when you read people's answers here talking about search and seizure issues because based on what you wrote here, I doubt there are any.  \n\nPost more if you want to know more.\n\nEDIT 6.11.06:\n\nWow!\n\nOkay, let's see what we can do here.\n\nNeed to know what state you're in.  Sorry I didn't mention that before, I should have.  States have different laws, and the very best answer will come to you from someone who knows that State's law on these issues.  However, these are mostly constitutional questions, so I can probably give you some decent answers (because the Constitution applies in all states).\n\n1.  Generally, yes.  If it's stolen, it's contraband, and nobody has the right to possess contraband.  It would be like trying to argue that the police couldn't take your heroin without a warrant or consent...they can, because it's contraband.  NOTE: this is only as to the seizure of the item, not the search.  \n\n2.  Almost impossible to answer.  Really, none of these questions are all that "answerable," without knowing exactly what the facts were.  There are times when the police can enter uninvited and without a warrant, and there are times they cannot.  I wish I could go into this more with you, but you're talking about hours and hours of search and seizure law here, to be able to cover all the possibilities.\n\n3.  Your family can always file a complaint with the officer's employer.  I have no idea what the outcome of that could be, of course.\n\n4.  I don't know how you know "for sure" some of the property wasn't stolen, so it's difficult to address this.  Assuming you really do know the status of the property you're referring to, you should contact the law enforcement agency that seized the property and give them a statement as to the status of the property.  Do not waste your time by telling them things like, "it's my brother's, and my brother would never steal anything" or, "the neighbor gave it to my brother last year and my neighbor wouldn't have stolen it" because you just don't know those things to be 100% factual.  Perfectly innocent people can sometimes trade or give away stolen property without knowing it, but it doesn't mean the property isn't every bit as stolen.\n\nYou've repeatedly said that you stay out of the drama (wise decision, by the way), so I'm guessing that you really don't have all the facts.  If you weren't there at the time all this happened, you really aren't in a good position to know all the intimate details for certain, and it's the details that can really make a difference.  \n\nI don't know for sure that it's working, but if you'd like you're welcome to click on my avatar-thingy up there and contact me for some more discussion on this issue.  It's probably about to be beaten to death here, and I admire the reasonable tone of your questions.
1066902
Sure they do. If you break the law you don't want to hear others don't like your bad ways. And now they are getting tough on law breakers--they are being run out of town.
72820
According to the Constitution the Federal Government can't enforce seatbelt laws.  They get around it by spending bills, demanding that states create certain laws under the theory it falls under interstate trade clause of the Constitution, which is a complete missinterpetation, but that's the way it's done.
333057
What a load of crap, answ3r3r.  If the Feds won't enforce the laws, and if the lack of enforcement places an unfunded burden on the states, they are well within their rights to take action.  This is a federal system of government, where the states cede limited power to the central government...in the absence of action, they are obligated to protect their citizens.  I'd suggest doing a little reading on your part, starting with the 10th Amendment of the Consitution.
1180966
I can't imagine that any state legislature would create that type of law, but then again, their are some pretty strange laws out there.  I would guess that the answer is no.
814584
When could they ever control the people, law enforcement for the most part is just as corrupt as the government.  Now they are coming over here and trying to do the same thing.  They are destroying our benifits programs that we worked so hard to create.  They are bending laws and trying to take some of them out of effect or twisting them to their own advantage.  they must be stopped before it's too late.
633506
What's the point in having a law if you don't intend to enforce it?  Of course it can be enforced - it's a matter of getting sufficient resources and having the WILL to enforce it!  Which seems to be sadly lacking ... until election time ...
325406
I do, I had to follow them when I entered the US.  I can not understand why everyone is up in arms about enforcing a law?  That is like the cops stopping to pull over people for speeding?
93235
Please note -- the greater majority of crimes are local crimes, not federal crimes.  It's not the duty of the federal government to make sure that state and local laws are enforced.
210707
failure of meeting the policy objectives
290917
The agency gets its power by a delegation of authority from the legislature.  If the legislature doesn't agree with the rules being adopted or the policing of those rules they can strip the authority with additional legislation.  They can even disband the agency if they want to.  It's a game of hard ball though, and not easily carried out.
67038
Not all of the state statutes are written the same way. Definitions differ as to what is and isn't sodomy. What is and isn't consent. What private means. Just to give some examples. It is likely that the state statutes will have to be challenged one by one and tested against the standard in Lawrence v. Texas. There is statutory law and case law and they are not treated the same by enforcement agencies.\n\nAlso, in many states the time and effort to get the law off the books, especially if there is likely to be controversy is just not worth it. It is easier simply to tell law enforcement not to enforce and prosecutors not to prosecute.
679147
No.  If they were going to do the right thing, they would allow law enforcement to enforce the laws already on the books.  This is an election year, so the issue once again comes up.
683734
Think for a minute: If the police HAD to enforce every law, you would never get a warning on a speeding ticket, you would get the big, fat ticket for everything wrong on your car. Kids who get in silly fights would always be arrested instead of just counseled or just have their parents take care of it. If you stumbled outside a bar with an open container, you would be fined instead of asked to poor it out or go back inside. Get the picture? Not only would their be no 2nd chances, their would be no 1st chances.\n\nTheir is an aspect to the law called "spirit of the law". In short, it means that every situation presented to a police officer should be evaluated by the officer, not given some standardized reaction.
1026319
The military is not allowed to step in and deal with law enforcement unless Martial Law is declared.  It is called the Posse Comitatus Act .  It can only be done if the Pres deems it in the very best interest of the people.\n\nThere are a number of situations in which the Act does not apply. These include:\n\nNational Guard units while under the authority of the governor of a state; \nTroops when used pursuant to the Federal authority to quell domestic violence as was the case during the 1992 Los Angeles riots; \nTroops used under the order of the President of the United States pursuant to the Insurrection Act \nIn December 1981 additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies—including the Coast Guard—especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, aircraft, intelligence, tech aid, surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETS) serve aboard Navy vessels and perform the actual boardings of interdicted suspect drug smuggling vessels and, if needed, arrest their crews. \nUnder 18 U.S.C. § 831, the Attorney General may request that the Secretary of Defense provide emergency assistance if civilian law enforcement is inadequate to address certain types of threat involving the release of nuclear materials, such as potential use of a Nuclear or Radiological weapon. Such assistance may be by any personnel under the authority of the Department of Defense, provided such assistance does not adversely affect U.S. military preparedness. \nThe United States Coast Guard is not affected by the act during peacetime.