Can police retaliate against a citizen for refusing to answer questions?

[Unregistered]

Umm you are clearly not a cop...Let me ask you this assuming your a Trooper when you ask someone to do SFST you do it to what? Dispel your supession correct. Or if you find drugs and the passenger and the driver both invoke their rights...Well you charge them both because they chose not to talk and they therefore can't dispel your supession. It's actually pretty common practice in law enforcement

Don't know what "supession" is, but you're making a big jump from the other guy's example of someone hanging out somewhere and your example of multiple people in a car with drugs.

[Unregistered]

Don't know what "supession" is, but you're making a big jump from the other guy's example of someone hanging out somewhere and your example of multiple people in a car with drugs.

But just because you dont understand what the other guy was talking about with the L&P statute doesnt mean you can't be arrested for it.

And actually the L&P case is stronger than arresting two people in a car with drugs. Multiple factors such as whos car, where the drugs were found, who would have access to them, are all factors if the case will get filed on. The majority of the time if you hook all people in the car with drugs it rarely will get filed on..

[Unregistered]

News flash: They are not. That bill has died. It had a bunch of hidden costs that few bothered to research, and there was never a bill in the Senate to do it. Look at the votes- 2 nays in the first committee, then 5 in the second one- where there was a lot more discussion and information. I think the sponsor knew it would not pass the final one, so it was never heard.

I agree with the other post here that the replies for the most part have been very intelligent and accurate. That's unusual for this site but good to see.

Ok know-it-all. Clearly you don't understand how language from a "dead" bill is resurrected every year in a different bill and then sent to the other chamber. Don't be foolish enough to call it dead when there's still time on the calendar. Also, if it does die, expect more sheriffs to get on board before the legislature returns in January. It'll be an election year when they care more about their local sheriffs than they do about FHP.

[Unregistered]

Ok know-it-all. Clearly you don't understand how language from a "dead" bill is resurrected every year in a different bill and then sent to the other chamber. Don't be foolish enough to call it dead when there's still time on the calendar. Also, if it does die, expect more sheriffs to get on board before the legislature returns in January. It'll be an election year when they care more about their local sheriffs than they do about FHP.

LOL. Some bills are perpetual zombies- they keep coming back year after year and never have a chance at passing. There are some that unlike this one even have companions in the other chamber. Sure bills that pass the House are sent to the other chamber- where they die in messages. Since 7061 did not pass the House that cannot happen.

This one cannot go anywhere this year for the reasons stated. Counting today the 25th, there are only 9 working days left in session. The only committee meeting this week is Rules & Policy, and the only topic they are taking up is setting the special order calendar.

Right now the legislature is only concerned with the budget, and a $4 billion gap between the chambers. This bill does not save the state any money (read any of the 4 staff analyses, the last one points out it could cost the state ticket revenue), so it is dead.

You should learn more about the legislative process before making uninformed comments. Legislators care about money and votes, not other politicians like sheriffs. Once word got out about the costs that would have to be paid by local taxpayers as well as the other downsides that were pointed out in committee, support for it fell off. The first staff analysis said there was no fiscal impact on local counties (maybe you helped write it so you are defensive). The final (fourth) staff analysis admitted the costs to the local counties were indeterminate. It's not rocket science to figure out that it costs money to pay and equip cops, and when you can't transfer existing equipment you have to buy new stuff.

Here are some reasons why it won't go anywhere this year or next year if a similar bill is filed:
* Nothing can be transferred from the state and cars, guns, radios, etc. are not free (higher cost);
* Higher salaries cost more money (higher cost);
* The sheriffs stated they would not do CMV enforcement, so FHP would have to send in people from surrounding counties (higher cost and reduced service in surrounding counties);
* This would impair disaster response (reduced service); and
* You still have the same or less (if every trooper does not transfer) number of bodies in the county (higher cost with no service improvement).

This bill would have been political poison for anyone associated with it.

[Unregistered]

Based on your attitude and misbelief that there's no way the bill can be attached to a different bill and pass, your diatribes are useless. ANYTHING can and does happen as the session dies down.

[Unregistered]

Based on your attitude and misbelief that there's no way the bill can be attached to a different bill and pass, your diatribes are useless. ANYTHING can and does happen as the session dies down.

It's not a misbelief, it is a fact. Attachment (amendment) is possible only if it is germane (relevant). You make it sound like a bill involving the FHP could be attached to the liquor sales bill. It cannot. To prevent "anything" from happening, the House has rules. You also make it sound like there is this huge push behind 7061. There is not. I spoke to the sponsor carrying it (Gonzalez) and he was not thrilled about it. I got the impression it had been dumped on him.

Rule 12.8 deals with germanity of amendments. Subsection (a)(1):
Neither the House nor any committee or subcommittee shall consider an amendment that relates to a different subject or is intended to accomplish a different purpose than that of the pending question or that, if adopted, would require a title amendment for the bill that is substantially different from the bill's original title or that would unreasonably alter the nature of the bill.

Under 12.8 (b)(3), an amendment is not germane if it substantially expands the scope of the bill. There are several other examples there. Attaching 7061 to any other bill other than perhaps the DHSMV omnibus bill is prohibited. So can it be attached to a DHSMV bill? No.

Under 12.9, an amendment offered on the floor that is substantially the same as a bill that did not favorably pass at least one committee of reference is prohibited (out of order). 7061 did not pass the Judiciary Committee.

Read the House rules:
http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sectio...%20Ed.%202.pdf

[Unregistered]

You're such an ass. My information came from a relative who's been a Senate committee staff director for over 10 years. I guess his experience and knowledge doesn't matter to someone with your vision. It was never said that the language would be put on a bill that wasn't germane. But I'll let you have the last word here because you're not worth my time n your next ignorant response can end this thread.

[Unregistered]

You're such an ass. My information came from a relative who's been a Senate committee staff director for over 10 years. I guess his experience and knowledge doesn't matter to someone with your vision. It was never said that the language would be put on a bill that wasn't germane. But I'll let you have the last word here because you're not worth my time n your next ignorant response can end this thread.

It's been said you know when you've won an argument when the other person stoops to name calling and ignores facts, such as first typing "ANYTHING can and does happen as the session dies down" and then "It was never said that the language would be put on a bill that wasn't germane".

Have a nice day. Instead of calling you a name in return, I'll offer some advice- Try not to let your anger get the better of you. Lower stress leads to a longer life. Another suggestion- channel some of that energy and the legislative connection towards getting better salaries for the FHP.

[Unregistered]

Sorry but I think that other guy got it right. You can never be so naive when it comes to any legislative body. Since you're obviously a researcher just look at what has snuck by legislators in the past. It's a sad process and you can't give it so much validation and believe those guys play by the rules. Your analysis that you win an argument when the other guy thinks you're lame and no longer wants to deal with you is certainly self-serving but nothing more. Unfortunately we can't expect pay raises until we stop destroying each other internally, yourself included. Please do something more positive with your time and give it a rest.

[Unregistered]

Sorry but I think that other guy got it right. You can never be so naive when it comes to any legislative body. Since you're obviously a researcher just look at what has snuck by legislators in the past. It's a sad process and you can't give it so much validation and believe those guys play by the rules. Your analysis that you win an argument when the other guy thinks you're lame and no longer wants to deal with you is certainly self-serving but nothing more. Unfortunately we can't expect pay raises until we stop destroying each other internally, yourself included. Please do something more positive with your time and give it a rest.

Lighten up, Francis. The "analysis" was intended as a humorous truism and nothing more. Consider why it is a truism though. I get tired of wasting time with angry people, which is why I don't visit here often.

The legislature is populated by imperfect people just like everything else. Recently a Senator from Miami is now a former Senator for not following the rules (this took like 4 days), so if a situation gets enough coverage the rules will be enforced or public pressure will force action. Reading this forum, it seems like many people thought once 7061 was filed that was the end of the FHP. There was and is no widespread support for the bill. It's dead. No one knows if it or something similar will be back next year, if so, that's a battle to fight then.

I support the FHP (did you email or call Rep. Gonzalez to talk about 7061?) and was not the one destroying anyone internally. Re-read my advice to the other person, and please take your own advice in that regard.