30 Strippers Sue City

This is a case that could be messy. But when you apply for a license... in some states. They as if you have tattoos or scars or other permenant marks on your body. So them asking for tattoos and taking pictures of them isn't 100% out of line. But making them stand around nude or not letting them cover up is out of line.

But this will be interesting to see how it plays out. Especaily how things are going with the SD PD.

Well, if the lawyer is good, he could argue it was a violation of the 4th amendment to ask them that. There was no probable cause to do that. I think the city will lose that case big time. All they had to do was show their license.

(The license requirements in CA have turned into a revenue source to CA governments anyway, nothing to protect the consumer!)

Of course, if they were illegal aliens, the city wouldn't have done that... seems being a citizen is a detriment these days.

I agree 100% with what you are saying it violated their 4th amendment rights. But was just stating the fact that if they did show license and on file it says a dancer has a tattoo. They could take a picture of it to get it on record. Because just listing a description on an application doesn't give the great image as a picture.

Like I said before this wasn't 100% legit. But I could see where law enforcement using a "law" type thing to do this. Which doesn't make it right.

I hope the girls take that city for millions. From my limited experience, San Diego seems to be one of those cities that devotes insane resources to making sure that the men of the community can't enjoy any naked entertainment. I went to cheetahs once. They had some cute girls, and they were fully nude. However, the law is so strict that they couldn't make any money and I had no incentive to spend any. All the girls could offer were fully dressed, almost no contact lap dances. The next time I'm there I am going to seriously consider a trip across the border.

^^^^You could not be more wrong about Cheetahs. Be a regular and boobies come out, thongs get pushed down, plenty of touching, they will grind you off if you want. And they make money.

Hey Bull, the SD police could care less about Cheetahs. Some of them are custies. It's orders from the mayor.

Stupid cops. How arrogant that they thought they'd get away with it.

"The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for "emotional distress and pain.""

This is what it's really all about folks. I know most guys here are ass kissers for strippers, but the clowns who hope they take the city for millions are just insane. NOBODY knows the fact surrounding the case yet, so to presume that the strippers are right is absolutely ridiculous. Which isn't to say the the cops were squeaky clean, but I think it's safe to say that, as with most things, money is probably at the bottom of all of this.

"Emotional distress and pain" because someone took fotos of you in the outfits you wear every day for work? Really?

^^^its called punitive damages, you retard. Defined as a punishment to reform or deter the stupid cops and anyone else thinking of doing something similar. Most of it goes to the lawyers anyway. Go change your grumpy old man diaper, jerkoffson.

I know some really good LEOs, professional and respectful. But way too many cops are arrogant jerks on power trips. Sounds like those SD cops were the later.

As for all the legal discussions above, they are beginning to bore me. I'd rather go look at some titties, so I'm out of here. Look for the review later.

@sclvr5005 ”So just ignore him like everyone else here does.”

www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=29864#com…

hey spidey, do you or do you not have jerikson40 on ignore like everyone else? or is this just a man crush? . homosexuality is nothing to be afraid of little buddy. go ahead and let it all out

"hey spidey, do you or do you not have jerikson40 on ignore like everyone else? or is this just a man crush?"

I totally agree on this ignore thing. If someone is a total moron who never has anything useful to say and just spouts stupid one-liners and calls everyone faggots, or is part of this childish "alias" nonsense, then absolutely put them on ignore.

However, if someone has intelligent things to say, and you just disagree, then you might consider putting on your "big boy" pants and manning up a bit. Learn to consider the input of those you disagree with. It's what grownups do.

Jerkoffson - I might consider that you actually have something of value to contribute to this board, but everything that you post here is mired in whiney pissy negativity. Just once I'd like to see you actually LIKE or AGREE with something. You tout your opinions as if they are scripture and then pat yourself on the back for your oh-so-thought- provoking and awe inspiring vent-fest. Sorry-its all nothing but bullshit.

Jerikson has a lot of quality reviews, some of his opinions really make you think. I would say he's a pretty good TUSCL contributor.

A good move is to ask the officer if you are under arrest. If he says no, then you just leave. They cannot stop you even if it's a legal routine inspection.

This tactic also works if you're pulled over at some check point. If you weren't speeding and there's no warrants out on you, the officer cannot hold you against your will. If they try, you will win your lawsuit every time.

Not necessarily Rockstar666, there is the common law practice of "Detention" - where, the officer will need to have a probable cause for an arrest.

Though not fully explained, it is mentioned here http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/am… (Note that stop and frisk is now unconstitutional.)

Hence, if there is a reason for an investigation, you can be detained. (The reasoning to get to such a point is still troubling and legally debated. For example, a broken back light certainly is a reason to pull ya over, then the smell of a drug causes more problems,etc.)

I don't think there is any legislation for drunk checks for everyone, but the executive branch type say "Well, technically we can stop all drivers because we give permission to drivers to drive" while the ACLU types say "Um, no, you can't just stop someone for no reason." The legislature chickens out in writing specific reasoning for a car check point, leaving it to the judicial branch to sort out it seems.

@deogol: Yes, probable cause is the key. In the SD case, they said this was a routine check for dancer cards. They specifically said they were not investigating criminal activity. No probable cause, so I think the city will lose...or more likely settle out of court on the advice of their lawyers.

As for driving, it's the same. Unless the officer clocked you over the speed limit, or claims you were weaving etc. they cannot stop you randomly. Once they do, and if they find you are drunk or have drugs, they will arrest you of course, but a good lawyer will have the case thrown out. You're still out a ton of money and have the hassle though.

"@deogol: Yes, probable cause is the key. In the SD case, they said this was a routine check for dancer cards. They specifically said they were not investigating criminal activity. No probable cause, so I think the city will lose...or more likely settle out of court on the advice of their lawyers."

The probable cause was to check for licensing. So a dancer could not just say. You arresting me and leaving. A dancer needed to show proof of licensing. Then with the licensing if they have tattoo's. Those can be documented.

Again I am not saying what the cops did was correct in anyway shape or form. But they did have probable cause to do so. So this will be very interesting how it all plays out.