My son got pulled over last night

[fastfreddy]

My 18 year old son got pulled over last night. He got stuck out a bit past 12:00 because a friend's mom was late. He had called and told us about his whereabouts and the situation, because he is a good kid and doesn't want to worry his mom.

Anyway, he's on a 35 mph road, behind a police cruiser, going with the flow of a few cars at about 40-45 mph. Officer eventually slows to 10 or 15, lets him go by, then pulls him.

Officer gives him the "do you know you were doing 50? License and reg, sir". Goes back to cruiser to call it in. All OK so far. Another cruiser pulls up. "Step out of the car, sir" "Do you have any guns or knives or drugs?" Thorough body search. "It's OK if we seach your car, isn't it sir?" Well..... what's the problem? "You don't have anything to hide do you, we'll just take a look around the car, OK?" ... as one officer pins his wrists behind his back. Whatever.

Spent 25 minutes tossing the kids car. They found nothing, but did make a wise crack about his Christian praise CD collection.

"Try to be more careful in the future"

No ticket. No probable cause. He didn't just "come from behind a building". He was minding his damn business on his way home. Yeah, it was late but is being off schedule probable cause for abuse?

My son knows his rights, but his assessment was that these "authoritah figures" would conjure a reason to arrest and search subsequent to arrest if he refused. I suspect his judgement was sound on this.

I am spittin' f@#$%in mad.

You might suggest I call the chief. I've called before about police recklessly speeding on the road in front of my office. I got brushed off and it didn't change, even after a cop ran down and killed a pedestrian. It was ruled the pedestrians fault for talking on a cellphone while walking. This is the place where a handicapped guy got a ticket after being rammed by a police cruiser because his electric chair didn't get across the crosswalk before the signal changed. The chief isn't elected, but looks to have been appointed for life.

Comments? Do y'all think this is OK? Do you think it's no big deal? Is this sort of thing supposed to be expected and tolerated?

[Tsm002]

Send them a letter by certified mail.

I know, I know, it won't make anything better...but...at least then you're playing more hardball than just calling.

Try city council or something- has worked for me before.

That really sucks- I mean, damn, just give the kid a speeding ticket if you're going to do it.

[Bruce Allen]

I would still call the Chief, and the Mayor and the City Manager, and write letters to the local news papers.

Along with that call the State Attorney Generals Office and complain also, and be sure to include the previous episode of your son being jailed for 110 days needlessly.

[fastfreddy]

It is well known that my son was abused by authorities. The prosecutor got voted out of office because of it.

I should write the letters but the "history" somehow makes me feel reluctant.

You're right Bruce. While these Bozos should be thanking their lucky stars I'm not suing the whole friggin bunch over the previous incident, here I sit pissed off but thinking I don't want to go up against the assholes AGAIN.

This all goes back to a bunch of "authority figures" pissed off about my kid standing up for his NRA T-shirt.

We're looking to mind our own business here but if the assholes want to pick a fight, I guess we're honor bound to hold up our end.

In my county, the police are a much greater danger to the community than the criminals.

[fastfreddy]

He was doing a bit over 40, same as the cop and everybody else. He was behind the cruiser at that speed for about 3 miles. Yeah, he should have gotten a ticket. Cop didn't do it right. Didn't protect the public.

Calling in backup and leaning hard on him to do a search with NO PROBABLE CAUSE pisses me off something awful. Cop didn't do it right. Abused a peaceable citizen without cause.

The cop had no interest in the speeding..... only the fishing expedition.

Face it, everybody goes a few over. Is it really your opinion that is probable cause for a Terry stop and pressure to search?

[gunplumber]

Well, at least they didn't taze him

[G1user]

Originally posted by gunplumber
Well, at least they didn't taze him

or worse....

[1911guy]

You can call the chief. You might also pee up a stick. It will all run back down on your hand. I told all my kids to present license and registration, give no information other than administrative info, do NOT give consent for any search whatsoever and stand with your back to the car so they don't get behind you. Never had a problem.

[Brett]

Personal experiences create attitudes that run a lot deeper than some second hand story. The cops just lost the respect of a young man for no good reason. It happened to me five times in my life and I remember each one every time I see a police car. I respect good cops for who they are and what they do but I do not respect the uniform at all. The respect must be earned.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
He was doing a bit over 40, same as the cop and everybody else. He was behind the cruiser at that speed for about 3 miles. Yeah, he should have gotten a ticket. Cop didn't do it right. Didn't protect the public.

Calling in backup and leaning hard on him to do a search with NO PROBABLE CAUSE pisses me off something awful. Cop didn't do it right. Abused a peaceable citizen without cause.

The cop had no interest in the speeding..... only the fishing expedition.

Face it, everybody goes a few over. Is it really your opinion that is probable cause for a Terry stop and pressure to search?

Remember cops can always speed, they are above the law.
Be nice if we still had a constitution, but we dont.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by 1911guy
You can call the chief. You might also pee up a stick. It will all run back down on your hand. I told all my kids to present license and registration, give no information other than administrative info, do NOT give consent for any search whatsoever and stand with your back to the car so they don't get behind you. Never had a problem.

ACLU had a video where they roll up the window and lock the car, then pocket the keys when exiting.

[dscottch]

fastfreddy, can I ask which county this was in and what time? I want to see if I can hear the scanner for this.

Scott

[Sailor553]

Next time he'll get that ticket...

[Lewis Wetzel]

Where's Azrial to tell Freddy how effed up you are for questioning the 'authoritah' of the cops?

Cops are always right.

Anyone who uses constitutional protection as a shield is a lying SOB, probably a criminal.....and if you get your ass beat, if you didn't deserve it then, well, hell....you probably needed your ass beat for SOMETHING you did in the past..or will probably do in the future.

STFU.....The police know whats good for you .....and everyone else.

[Bruce Allen]

FF: I was under the impression you son did not give consent to search?

[deerollman]

yes im curious about consent myself.

i'll never consent to search, unless i have something to hide, and its small. if they want to play the "we'll keep you here all night til we get a warrant" game, unless im on my way to the hospital, ill just wait there pisssed and smoking cigarettes till they tear up my car and find nothing. then ill play my game called "call the lawyer".

i havent had this experience yet, hope i never do but thats likely wishful thinking.

if he consented to the search, well...

but ff is right about lack of probable cause.

[vmtz]

All traffic stops are fishing expeditions. Cops are looking for drugs or DWI's. Never say "yes" to a search, You will not stop the officer from doing it.

Enjoy your law and order society, you voted them in.


Fr. Vince

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by vmtz


Enjoy your law and order society, you voted them in.


Fr. Vince

I never heard about anyone getting an easy time in left-leaning states either.

[xcpd69]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL


I never heard about anyone getting an easy time in left-leaning states either.

If anything, it's worse.

[canman]

I don't normally get involved in these he said/she said vs. the cops type threads, but it's late, I'm awake and might as well add my .02 cents. I ain't picking sides here, I wasn't there and I don't know any of the people involved.

First of all, get a firm grasp on the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is needed to search and or sieze (arrest is the siezure of a body) unless there is a warrant, which has a PC declaration, or consent to search. This pretty much comes right from the 4th Amendment. You are protected from unreasonable searches and/or siezures.

What is a car stop? Does there really need to be probable cause. Everyone talks about "PC" for the stop, but is that level of knowledge (suspicion) really needed? After all what is a car stop? It's merely a detention primarily for the purpsose of completing a traffic citation. If a vehicle description is broadcast over the radio for a vehicle just invovled in a bank robbery, and an officer sees a car similar in description several blocks away, which is about the appropriate time/distance from the bank, does the officer have to find some other vehicle code violation to stop that car? NO WAY! That's a "reasonable suspicion" investigative stop. Most vehicle code violations are considered PC, but PC is not needed for a detention, and pretty much all car stops are just that, detentions.

FF- Secondly, "Terry" stop has nothing to do with the car stop. Terry v. Ohio is a landmark court decision that allows officers to "pat search" a person for weapons during a consent contact or detention based on reasonable suspicion only. Normally cops need PC, a higher level of suspicion, to search, but this is an allowable, limited "pat search" based only on reasonable suspicion. There are some other finer elements at play here, but that is basically what came from that case.

As far as the cops searching your son's car...if he did not say "no" then that is consent. If you're capable of understanding the situation, this includes juveniles down to a resonable age (like 15-16 and older), and do not say "no" when the cops ask if they can search then you might has well have said "yes." "I don't know, I don't care and whatever" are still not "no." It sounds like your son had legal "standing" to decline a search, but in some cases there is not even "standing." (Like the driver of a stolen car cannot deny a search of car which does not belong to him/her....that person lacks "standing.") IF your son consented then he consented....PC is irrelevant.

Can someone really give consent when his/her "hands are pinned," or handcuffed, or surrounded by ten cops. That's debatable. I'd call any "consent" that was contemporaneous to any coercion or use of force, no matter how minor, questionable. Not automatically invalid; the cop's just going have to explain the situation well.

As far as calling for back-up...I suspect a back-up unit may have been automaticallly dispatched or the other unit responded on his/her own just given the time of day. Most agencies on the left coast that operate single-officer units tend to have a policy where back-up officers are automatically dispatched or are expected to start heading in the direction of another officer that has made a traffic stop until the primary officer has gone "code 4." Statistically, traffic stops are like the third most hazardous type of call for cops (behind DV and general disturbance calls) as I recall.

VMTZ- "All traffic stops are fishing expeditions" Sorry, man gotta call "bullsh!t" on that one. Most traffic enforcement stops are just that, traffic enforcement stops for the purspose of issuing a traffic citation. Yes, cops should be looking for "drugs and DWI's!" Some stops are "pretext" stops; a stop where there is legitimate cause (VC violation, mechanical, investigative, etc) but the officer is really more interested in WHO is in the car and WHAT he/she may be up to. Supreme Court has upheld this as reasonable. Honestly, this is how good police work is done. Most cops with any street experience are doing what you want them to be doing....looking for that 5% of society that causes 90% of the problems and using tools, like pretext stops, to get "a foot in the door;" so to speak. I think, this is what you want your cops doing. Sometimes things aren't how they may first appear. I have found that words like "please," "sorry," and "thank you" go a long ways to rectify those situations. It's okay for cops to explain to the average citizen why they do what they do. Unfortunately, so much of what people know/think about police is what media has created.

Wetzel- I think your post was sarcasm? I hope it was sarcasm. Cops are not always right. They are merely paid to do a duty that really is the responsibility of any freedom-loving citizen. If your post was not sarcasm.....sorry!

Culver- Cops cannot always speed! State laws and department policies dictate that pretty clearly. They need to set good examples and follow all laws when reasonable. But, do you really want the cop doing 65 in a 65 zone on the freeway? That causes more problems then it fixes...push it up to 68 or 70 and everyone is happy. Is it legal...no. Is it within policy if there are no lights and siren as necessary....no. Is it reasonable and just plain common frickin' sense....Yes.

Brett- Absolutely! Perceptions are based on these three things in this order, personal experiences, experiences related to us by those close to us and the media (all of it, movies, tv, radio, print, etc). Here again I don't know your experiences...are you sure some of the negative feelings weren't precipitated at least in part by you or your attitude at the time. I look back at some of my car stops as a youngster...and you know....I was a bit of an A$$ at times. Every person of any authority in my life gets a basic, perfunctory amount of respect from me. How much you gain or lose after that will be based on experience. Don't paint all cops with the same broad brush.

FF- As far as the comment on the music...who knows. I deal with teen-aged kids quite often and frequently will comment on music, their clothing, their cars or high school sports in an attempt to find some commonality with them and maybe ease the tension of the situation. I don't mean it in a rude or condescending way, but could someone percieve it as maybe "trivializing" the seriousness of the contact....yeah, I guess that's possible, but that's not my reason for mentioning it. It's also not an attempt to get anyone to like me or think I'm "cool." I just try to put things in perspective....most contacts with the cops, for most people, are for some pretty minor sh!t.

Anyways...that's some of my thoughts. Feel free to flame away...I can handle it, and even like the discourse. I love my country, I believe in the Constitution and I understand the constant (and constantly changing) balance officers need to consider. I know what the reasons are that I do my job, and they are the right reasons for me. I don't like the bureaucracy that goes along with it sometimes. I don't like all of the laws I have been tasked to enforce. I occassionally fear the motivations of some of my elected officials. I serve none the less.

Canman

**Oh yeah, please don't criticize my spelling, grammar or punctuation. This is my informal writing. I am punctuating and capitalizing and so on for affect, since you can't hear my tone of voice or see my body language. Ahhh, so much can be lost in written language. (What are you looking at? vs. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT!!)**

[vmtz]

VMTZ- "All traffic stops are fishing expeditions" Sorry, man gotta call "bullsh!t" on that one. Most traffic enforcement stops are just that, traffic enforcement stops for the purspose of issuing a traffic citation. Yes, cops should be looking for "drugs and DWI's!" Some stops are "pretext" stops; a stop where there is legitimate cause (VC violation, mechanical, investigative, etc) but the officer is really more interested in WHO is in the car and WHAT he/she may be up to. Supreme Court has upheld this as reasonable. Honestly, this is how good police work is done. Most cops with any street experience are doing what you want them to be doing....looking for that 5% of society that causes 90% of the problems and using tools, like pretext stops, to get "a foot in the door;" so to speak. I think, this is what you want your cops doing. Sometimes things aren't how they may first appear. I have found that words like "please," "sorry," and "thank you" go a long ways to rectify those situations. It's okay for cops to explain to the average citizen why they do what they do. Unfortunately, so much of what people know/think about police is what media has created.

I deal with this all day long. Drive a rental car and get stopped. Officer asks both occupants where they are going. Why does he or she care? Trying to trip trip them up so he can find an excuse to look in the trunk?

A kid stopped middle of the night and the only person in the vehicle? Why does the cop want to search it? I am pretty sure Freddy Kurger is not hiding under the seat.

Tell a cop "no" and see what response that gets you?

I could go on and on.

Oh, sorry, I forgot to tell you. I know many of the trainers and attorneys who teach cops how to do it and how to build P/C.

Fr. Vince

[Stranger]

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel
Where's Azrial to tell Freddy how effed up you are for questioning the 'authoritah' of the cops?

Cops are always right.


Yuck! I actually had the same thought! :eek:

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by canman
I don't normally get involved in these he said/she said vs. the cops type threads, but it's late, I'm awake and might as well add my .02 cents. I ain't picking sides here, I wasn't there and I don't know any of the people involved.

First of all, get a firm grasp on the difference between probable cause and reasonable suspicion. Probable cause is needed to search and or sieze (arrest is the siezure of a body) unless there is a warrant, which has a PC declaration, or consent to search. This pretty much comes right from the 4th Amendment. You are protected from unreasonable searches and/or siezures.

What is a car stop? Does there really need to be probable cause. Everyone talks about "PC" for the stop, but is that level of knowledge (suspicion) really needed? After all what is a car stop? It's merely a detention primarily for the purpsose of completing a traffic citation. If a vehicle description is broadcast over the radio for a vehicle just invovled in a bank robbery, and an officer sees a car similar in description several blocks away, which is about the appropriate time/distance from the bank, does the officer have to find some other vehicle code violation to stop that car? NO WAY! That's a "reasonable suspicion" investigative stop. Most vehicle code violations are considered PC, but PC is not needed for a detention, and pretty much all car stops are just that, detentions.

FF- Secondly, "Terry" stop has nothing to do with the car stop. Terry v. Ohio is a landmark court decision that allows officers to "pat search" a person for weapons during a consent contact or detention based on reasonable suspicion only. Normally cops need PC, a higher level of suspicion, to search, but this is an allowable, limited "pat search" based only on reasonable suspicion. There are some other finer elements at play here, but that is basically what came from that case.

As far as the cops searching your son's car...if he did not say "no" then that is consent. If you're capable of understanding the situation, this includes juveniles down to a resonable age (like 15-16 and older), and do not say "no" when the cops ask if they can search then you might has well have said "yes." "I don't know, I don't care and whatever" are still not "no." It sounds like your son had legal "standing" to decline a search, but in some cases there is not even "standing." (Like the driver of a stolen car cannot deny a search of car which does not belong to him/her....that person lacks "standing.") IF your son consented then he consented....PC is irrelevant.

Can someone really give consent when his/her "hands are pinned," or handcuffed, or surrounded by ten cops. That's debatable. I'd call any "consent" that was contemporaneous to any coercion or use of force, no matter how minor, questionable. Not automatically invalid; the cop's just going have to explain the situation well.

As far as calling for back-up...I suspect a back-up unit may have been automaticallly dispatched or the other unit responded on his/her own just given the time of day. Most agencies on the left coast that operate single-officer units tend to have a policy where back-up officers are automatically dispatched or are expected to start heading in the direction of another officer that has made a traffic stop until the primary officer has gone "code 4." Statistically, traffic stops are like the third most hazardous type of call for cops (behind DV and general disturbance calls) as I recall.

VMTZ- "All traffic stops are fishing expeditions" Sorry, man gotta call "bullsh!t" on that one. Most traffic enforcement stops are just that, traffic enforcement stops for the purspose of issuing a traffic citation. Yes, cops should be looking for "drugs and DWI's!" Some stops are "pretext" stops; a stop where there is legitimate cause (VC violation, mechanical, investigative, etc) but the officer is really more interested in WHO is in the car and WHAT he/she may be up to. Supreme Court has upheld this as reasonable. Honestly, this is how good police work is done. Most cops with any street experience are doing what you want them to be doing....looking for that 5% of society that causes 90% of the problems and using tools, like pretext stops, to get "a foot in the door;" so to speak. I think, this is what you want your cops doing. Sometimes things aren't how they may first appear. I have found that words like "please," "sorry," and "thank you" go a long ways to rectify those situations. It's okay for cops to explain to the average citizen why they do what they do. Unfortunately, so much of what people know/think about police is what media has created.

Wetzel- I think your post was sarcasm? I hope it was sarcasm. Cops are not always right. They are merely paid to do a duty that really is the responsibility of any freedom-loving citizen. If your post was not sarcasm.....sorry!

Culver- Cops cannot always speed! State laws and department policies dictate that pretty clearly. They need to set good examples and follow all laws when reasonable. But, do you really want the cop doing 65 in a 65 zone on the freeway? That causes more problems then it fixes...push it up to 68 or 70 and everyone is happy. Is it legal...no. Is it within policy if there are no lights and siren as necessary....no. Is it reasonable and just plain common frickin' sense....Yes.

Brett- Absolutely! Perceptions are based on these three things in this order, personal experiences, experiences related to us by those close to us and the media (all of it, movies, tv, radio, print, etc). Here again I don't know your experiences...are you sure some of the negative feelings weren't precipitated at least in part by you or your attitude at the time. I look back at some of my car stops as a youngster...and you know....I was a bit of an A$$ at times. Every person of any authority in my life gets a basic, perfunctory amount of respect from me. How much you gain or lose after that will be based on experience. Don't paint all cops with the same broad brush.

FF- As far as the comment on the music...who knows. I deal with teen-aged kids quite often and frequently will comment on music, their clothing, their cars or high school sports in an attempt to find some commonality with them and maybe ease the tension of the situation. I don't mean it in a rude or condescending way, but could someone percieve it as maybe "trivializing" the seriousness of the contact....yeah, I guess that's possible, but that's not my reason for mentioning it. It's also not an attempt to get anyone to like me or think I'm "cool." I just try to put things in perspective....most contacts with the cops, for most people, are for some pretty minor sh!t.

Anyways...that's some of my thoughts. Feel free to flame away...I can handle it, and even like the discourse. I love my country, I believe in the Constitution and I understand the constant (and constantly changing) balance officers need to consider. I know what the reasons are that I do my job, and they are the right reasons for me. I don't like the bureaucracy that goes along with it sometimes. I don't like all of the laws I have been tasked to enforce. I occassionally fear the motivations of some of my elected officials. I serve none the less.

Canman

**Oh yeah, please don't criticize my spelling, grammar or punctuation. This is my informal writing. I am punctuating and capitalizing and so on for affect, since you can't hear my tone of voice or see my body language. Ahhh, so much can be lost in written language. (What are you looking at? vs. WHAT ARE YOU LOOKIN' AT!!)**

I'm not sure I agree with everything you posted, but you sound like a decent officer and someone we need more of in LE - no bragging, and no particular bias against citizens or in favor of other officers. IOW, a marked contrast to at least one LEO posting here.

[Jaxxas]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL


I'm not sure I agree with everything you posted, but you sound like a decent officer and someone we need more of in LE - no bragging, and no particular bias against citizens or in favor of other officers. IOW, a marked contrast to at least one LEO posting here.


FWIW I agree completely!

[Jaxxas]

Originally posted by vmtz


Tell a cop "no" and see what response that gets you?




Tell them, "No, You won't find any donuts in my car!"

[gunplumber]

And see - thats where the problem comes. Say "no" and now they begin their fishing expedition and their LIES and DECEIT to try to get you to voluntarily give in, or they'll just search it anyway and then lie and say you gave consent.


May we search your vehicle?

NO

Oh - so you got something to hide - what are you hiding? We can get a warrant, it will just keep you sitting here all night . . .. .honest people don't have anything to hide . . . etc etc.

Possible answers. - IGNORE ALL THE VERBAGE.

I said no
I said no, shall we call your supervisor out to explain what it means?
I do not have to justify to you my exercising my 4th amendment rights
What part of no didn't you understand?
My sister is a lawyer and told me to always say no. How about I call her and see if this time she's changed her mind? (and yes, my sister is a lawyer)
Am I under arrest? Am I free to go?
Any other ideas?

The point is, they want to draw you into an argument they have practiced daily for years with the sole purpose of getting you to admit to wrong doing or allow a search for which they have no cause. If they had cause they wouldn't need your permission. So there is NOTHING you can say that will benefit you. The logical response is to say as little as possible.

The challenge is to say as little as possible, but still be reasonable about the event that motivated the cop to pull you over. And sometimes there isn't one. I had a cop on thanksgiving pull me over my license plate light being out. Unfortunately for him, I knew for a fact it was not out 30 minutes before, and thought it odd for it to have suddenly gone out - he wouldn't let me out of the car to inspect it (and no, it wasn't out), and later claimed "well . . . . it looked like it was out . . .. " and finally admitted his orders from the chief were to stop as many cars as possible fishing for drunk drivers.

[dscottch]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL
no bragging, and no particular bias against citizens or in favor of other officers. IOW, a marked contrast to at least one LEO posting here.


Originally posted by jaxxas
FWIW I agree completely!

Please give one example of this statement from any member here. Thank you.

[Jez Cruzen]

About six months ago my 25 yr. old left a restaurant in his car with several friends around 8 PM one evening. Within a quarter mile of the restaruant, he was stopped by a local LEO. The reason given to him for the stop was that he had a cracked tail light. O.K.

In conversation with the officer after presenting the required papers, the tail light seemed forgotten and ubstead turned to him consenting to a car search. My son denied him permission to search the vehicle just as I had instructed.

Within minutes, four additional police cars rolled up. One had a drug dog. While my son was detained and sitting in his vehicle, the drug dog was lead around his vehicle several times in hopes of getting a "hit". No hit occured, and my son and his friends were finally released with a warning to get the light repaired - after holding him for almost an hour FOR A CRACKED TAIL LIGHT!

Now, folks...it matters not what your personal opinion is of law enforcement. That stop was pure bull shit. It wasn't only the reason for the stop, but tieing up limited resources for that long over nothing is at the very least not intellagent use of a city resource.

[vmtz]

Here is my story with an off duty cop.

Off duty (http://www.falfiles.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=234535)

CE only faked the bit about Mike mooning him. I have been in contact with the movie company and they have checked into it, and determined that it was not one of their people.

Vince

[L1A1rocker]

Originally posted by Jez Cruzen
About six months ago my 25 yr. old left a restaurant in his car with several friends around 8 PM one evening. Within a quarter mile of the restaruant, he was stopped by a local LEO. The reason given to him for the stop was that he had a cracked tail light. O.K.

In conversation with the officer after presenting the required papers, the tail light seemed forgotten and ubstead turned to him consenting to a car search. My son denied him permission to search the vehicle just as I had instructed.

Within minutes, four additional police cars rolled up. One had a drug dog. While my son was detained and sitting in his vehicle, the drug dog was lead around his vehicle several times in hopes of getting a "hit". No hit occured, and my son and his friends were finally released with a warning to get the light repaired - after holding him for almost an hour FOR A CRACKED TAIL LIGHT!

Now, folks...it matters not what your personal opinion is of law enforcement. That stop was pure bull shit. It wasn't only the reason for the stop, but tieing up limited resources for that long over nothing is at the very least not intellagent use of a city resource.

Your son has grounds for a suit on that one. Shop it around to see if someone will take it on contengency. Courts have ruled consistantly that 30 minutes is the maximum time for a traffic stop. Anything longer runs into unlawful detention and is considered criminal. It may only be a few dollars in his pocket when all is said and done with the lawyer getting most of the cash but at least the police department gets a good slap on the wrist for it. You may want to look at a web site called copwatch.

[fastfreddy]

My son was pulled over for "speeding", but never given a ticket or even an admonishment to "slow down".

He gave consent, after being frisked, "interviewed", had "no" ignored "a few" times. Finally, while being held with his wrists pinned behind his back and being given endless loop versions of "we're going to search your car, OK? He finally said .....

"Whatever"

then 25 minutes of search.

Yep, it's consent. I thought I put that in the OP. He gave consent. That doesn't leave me any less disturbed by the situation. He felt it reached the point they were going to pretense an arrest so they could "inventory" the car. Remember, the last time he was booked and charged with a crime that never occurred he didn't see daylight for 110 days, so he wasn't liking that idea. He tried to hold out on the consent but he knew there was nothing to find and he was being seriously intimidated.

So, if y'all think that it's just fine and dandy for law enforcement to treat a peaceable citizen this way when he's traveling the same speed as everybody else, and even a police car... (that should be setting an example for others)....then so be it. I think it's wrong.

I've been victimized by crime a few times. The police never solved or even investigated any of them ... did me no good at all. My family has been victimized by government, including police, several times, and they're much worse than the "civilian" criminals. Just my personal experience.

This thing still pisses me off.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by dscottch





Please give one example of this statement from any member here. Thank you.

Do a search by user name, starting with the letter "A," as in "asshole." And, no, I'm not implying anything about you, should you be a cop or the like.

[canman]

L1A1 Rocker- As I recall the Supreme Court has said that a car stop, a detention only, cannot be longer than reasonable. I don't believe they assigned a specific amount of time and when that time limit expires it's hands off for the cops.

The Supreme Court has definitely ruled that if during that reasonable detention a drug sniffing dog can arrive to the scene of the stop and there is a "hit" then that "hit" can, along with other articulable facts, amount to PC for a search. It's a car after all, your expectancy of privacy in your car is lower than on your person or in your home. That's how the Supreme Court has ruled.

That said....I'm not sure I fully agree that an animal with a mind of its own is always the best tool when it comes to using force or intruding into someone's vehicle. I would sure prefer if the dog could talk and tell me, "Hey, I'm smelling dope here" or "I've really got to pee right now" or "I smell a hamburger and I'm really hungry." I've seen these dogs at work. I've seen some pretty impressive stuff, but I've seen some stuff that would make me question the validity of a "hit." It also comes down to the quality of the handler.

Mark- I'm with you "no" means "no." If someone tells me no, I'm not offended, I respect your right to say "no." However, that's why I rarely base my searches on consent. If I have PC, or some other legitimate reason for a search, then I never ask for consent, it "muddies the waters so to speak." You can just hear the lawyer saying, "Officer, isn't it true that you made up a PC for a search after my client told you 'no' to a consent search." That doesn't look good, even if legitimate PC existed. My feeling is if you have PC or some other legitimate reason for a search, then search.

The majority of the searches I do are probation, parole, O.R. searches where the person has specifically waived his/her right to say, "no." Second most often are PC or some other exigent circumstances. Third would be special circumstances, like a vehicle "inventory" when a car is being towed. Last, would be a pure consent search. If I have PC and want to go search your house...I can wait for the warrant, they're not that hard to write.

To say that ALL cops would just LIE and say you gave consent when you in fact have not, I think is an unfair statement. I know of departments where that mentality might be tolerated a little, but, for the most part, the departments I am familiar with would not tolerate that kind of work. Are there differences of opinion as to what really amounts to PC and what does not.....SURE. But, to say that most cops will just blatantly lie to cover-up a known bad search...I don't agree.

Canman

[gunplumber]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
My son was pulled over for "speeding", but never given a ticket or even an admonishment to "slow down".

He gave consent, after being frisked, "interviewed", had "no" ignored "a few" times. Finally, while being held with his wrists pinned behind his back and being given endless loop versions of "we're going to search your car, OK? He finally said .....

"Whatever" . . He tried to hold out on the consent but he knew there was nothing to find and he was being seriously intimidated.


a coerced consent - is that different than a coerced confession? Seems to me, if he was physically restrained, he was under arrest and not free to leave.

[ftierson]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
This thing still pisses me off.

As it would me...

Forrest

[canman]

Mark- I too would question "consent" where any use of force or restraint is involved. But, restraint does not automatically make a detention a de facto arrest. Restraint during detention is allowable, but the officer is going to need to explain why it was necessary in that particular instance.

Based on how FF has related this incident, his claimed previous encounters with LE, I too would be a little "pissed off" and might question the motivation of the officers. BUT, we're only getting one side of the story here, and it's second-hand. I'm not doubting FF, but just pointing out how we are getting our information here.

Canman

[Jaxxas]

Originally posted by canman
Secondly, "Terry" stop has nothing to do with the car stop. Terry v. Ohio is a landmark court decision that allows officers to "pat search" a person for weapons during a consent contact or detention based on reasonable suspicion only.

Doesn't the Terry frisk also allow for a limited search of the vehicle's (assuming a vehicle is involved) cab area, or readily accessible area too?


Originally posted by canman
"Brett- Absolutely! Perceptions are based on these three things in this order, personal experiences, experiences related to us by those close to us and the media (all of it, movies, tv, radio, print, etc). Here again I don't know your experiences...are you sure some of the negative feelings weren't precipitated at least in part by you or your attitude at the time. I look back at some of my car stops as a youngster...and you know....I was a bit of an A$$ at times. Every person of any authority in my life gets a basic, perfunctory amount of respect from me. How much you gain or lose after that will be based on experience. Don't paint all cops with the same broad brush."

Well said. Most everybody is susceptible to copping an attitude at trying times. And for my part I think that every human being is entitled to some basic level of respect. But as soon as they cop an attitude it all goes out the window! Any respect from that point has to be earned the hard way.

I don't know anyone who believes all cops are bad. And while police certainly have a tough row to hoe, with the multitude of cameras and the somewhat overzealous reporting of 'police gone bad' videos, it's not going to get any easier.

[Para Driver]

Freddy, you have two choices:

1) Grin and bear it, and it will continue..
2) Full force no holds bared lawsuit, media blitz, NAACP action, take it to the State Police and STATES Attorney complaint, File suit in a FEDERAL Court for repeated violation of civil liberties.

[dscottch]

Originally posted by SWOHFAL


Do a search by user name, starting with the letter "A," as in "asshole." And, no, I'm not implying anything about you, should you be a cop or the like.

Now see, that is not an answer. I'm not a cop, and "if" all the facts in this scenario is legit, this pisses me off too. But I do search for truth and understanding. You made a statement about a member here (I know who you are talking about) and I'm asking you to back up your statement with a fact. If you can! Now if you cannot, you should state that you were wrong. If you can, I would like to see it. I'm not trying to start anything here, I just want to know if you are right or wrong.

Scott

[Jaxxas]

Originally posted by dscottch





Please give one example of this statement from any member here. Thank you. .



I was just trying to say I agreed with most everything Canman said. I wasn't try to pick on any LEO again.

[Azrial]

Fastfreddy what happened to your son is regrettable. I am sure that he is a good kid. "This" of course is a fishing trip.

The problem is everyone wants to see something done about drugs and crime. No one wants to be inconvenienced in any way, and having cops stop and detain you no matter how quickly is inconvenient, at best.

So, late at night, when criminal activity is at its highest, the police wait until they have legal probable cause to stop your vehicle, make a decision to ticket you or not, then ask for a consent search. If they find nothing they go on to the next. If they do, including warrants, they of course make an arrest.

Legal, yes.
Disturbing, at best, for the driver, sure!

But I do not know what the answer is. No one likes to be caught in these traps, me included, but I fully approve of what the police are trying to accomplish! I live in a very high crime area. I want the city police to do more here, even if it means my family or I will sometimes be stopped.

As to why a "good kid" gets stopped, well we don't want the police doing the “horror of horrors” do we? Profiling!

My suggestion is unfortunately the obvious one. Slow down, no matter how fast others are driving, make sure that you obey the traffic law and make sure that your vehicles are 100% legally compliant with the law. Try to be in by 11:PM if possible. If you are stopped make up your mind ahead of time whether you will cooperate or not, and how far, and stick to it.

Best Wishes.

[gunplumber]

Originally posted by Azrial


My suggestion is unfortunately the obvious one. Slow down, no matter how fast others are driving,

Which fits the profile of a drunk driver - driving slower than flow of traffic, even if it is the speed limit.

[canman]

Jaxxas- "Terry" deals almost exclusively with "pat searches" of people during legal detentions. Warrantless searches of cars is covered more by "Carroll," searches of closed containers in cars is covered by "Ross" and searches in regards to the area over which someone has immediate control, including passenger areas of cars, is probably best covered by "Chimel." To some degree or another all of these may apply during a "car stop."

I know this probably doesn't really clear things up that much. :sad:

Canman

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Para Driver
Freddy, you have two choices:

1) Grin and bear it, and it will continue..
2) Full force no holds bared lawsuit, media blitz, NAACP action, take it to the State Police and STATES Attorney complaint, File suit in a FEDERAL Court for repeated violation of civil liberties.

I know you're right. The NRA t-shirt thing happened in '02. We've been in a pretty constant pissing match with "City Hall" ever since. I'm not proud to say that I'm getting a little tired. We'd rather just mind our own friggin business but it doesn't seem to let up.

We're in a country where you get "payback" for standing up for the Constitution and the community.

[fastfreddy]

Azrial, those are all good practical suggestions. I told the boy he deserved the ticket and that being stuck out when "decent folks" are in bed put him at risk.

Still, it pisses me off.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by gunplumber
Which fits the profile of a drunk driver - driving slower than flow of traffic, even if it is the speed limit.
No one said to drive dangerously under the limit.

No officer that knows what he is doing will try to bring a DUI case to court where the driver obeying the speed limit was the PC for the stop.

How would you suggest he articulate this in court?

"Your Honor everybody speeds on this section of roadway and Mr. Smith was obeying the limit. I clocked him at 45 in a 45 MPH speed zone. In my experience only a less safe driver, possibly under the influence of alcohol, would engage in such behavior, therefore I activated the blue lights on my marked patrol car and ... "

While I don't always agree with you I have respect for your professional opinion in gunsmithing, perhaps you might consider returning the courtesy?

Let's not pull FastFreddie's thread off track. I have ignored the nut's in their effort to do so.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
Azrial, those are all good practical suggestions. I told the boy he deserved the ticket and that being stuck out when "decent folks" are in bed put him at risk.

Still, it pisses me off.
I came up with another idea. Why not quickly request a copy of the video of the stop under open records? That will let you coolly evaluate the stop first hand.

Let me know if you need any help with the open records request, thought I am sure that some of our attorneys here would be a better choice in that area.

Make sure that you only request the segment that documents your son's stop. The rest may be part of an active investigation and therefore not subject to release.

[gunplumber]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Azrial

No one said to drive dangerously under the limit.

neither did I, but nice ploy to deflect the issue.

If traffic flow is 55 and the speed limit is 45, if you are driving 45 you are impeding traffic, and a perfect candidate for a DUI stop.



While I don't always agree with you I have respect for your professional opinion in gunsmithing, perhaps you might consider returning the courtesy?

It is your "professional opinion" and whether it is representative, more moderate, or more aggressive than your associates that is in open dispute.

[gunplumber]

No one said to drive dangerously under the limit.

neither did I, but nice ploy to deflect the issue.

If traffic flow is 55 and the speed limit is 45, if you are driving 45 you are impeding traffic. Whether I agree with it doesn't change the reality of the situation.



While I don't always agree with you I have respect for your professional opinion in gunsmithing, perhaps you might consider returning the courtesy?

It is your "professional opinion" and whether it is representative, more moderate, or more aggressive than your associates that is in open dispute.

[John Culver]

Culver- Cops cannot always speed! State laws and department policies dictate that pretty clearly. They need to set good examples and follow all laws when reasonable. But, do you really want the cop doing 65 in a 65 zone on the freeway? That causes more problems then it fixes...push it up to 68 or 70 and everyone is happy. Is it legal...no. Is it within policy if there are no lights and siren as necessary....no. Is it reasonable and just plain common frickin' sense....Yes.

That would be nice if they DID follow the law, but around here they dont bother.

60 in a 35 to get to the Taco Bell drive thru? No prob.

Running stop signs in a school zone? No Problem

Heck some police chiefs have even said its unreasonable for cops to follow the law (Portland comes to mind)

And cops on freeways are one of the largest causes of traffic jams (since everyone sees them and slams on the brakes)

[Azrial]

Originally posted by gunplumber
If traffic flow is 55 and the speed limit is 45, if you are driving 45 you are impeding traffic. Whether I agree with it doesn't change the reality of the situation.
You are wrong.

Driving within the speed limit(s) is not PC for a stop no matter what the speed of surrounding traffic. You are never legally required to exceed the speed limit.

If you want to debate it start another thread and I will meet you there.

[Lewis Wetzel]

Originally posted by Azrial
Fastfreddy what happened to your son is regrettable. I am sure that he is a good kid. "This" of course is a fishing trip.

The problem is everyone wants to see something done about drugs and crime. No one wants to be inconvenienced in any way, and having cops stop and detain you no matter how quickly is inconvenient, at best.

So, late at night, when criminal activity is at its highest, the police wait until they have legal probable cause to stop your vehicle, make a decision to ticket you or not, then ask for a consent search. If they find nothing they go on to the next. If they do, including warrants, they of course make an arrest.

Legal, yes.
Disturbing, at best, for the driver, sure!

But I do not know what the answer is. No one likes to be caught in these traps, me included, but I fully approve of what the police are trying to accomplish! I live in a very high crime area. I want the city police to do more here, even if it means my family or I will sometimes be stopped.

As to why a "good kid" gets stopped, well we don't want the police doing the “horror of horrors” do we? Profiling!

My suggestion is unfortunately the obvious one. Slow down, no matter how fast others are driving, make sure that you obey the traffic law and make sure that your vehicles are 100% legally compliant with the law. Try to be in by 11:PM if possible. If you are stopped make up your mind ahead of time whether you will cooperate or not, and how far, and stick to it.

Best Wishes.
Typical tap-dancing from the typical ******** ********.......

Mealy-mouthed agreement.....what a slime....

As if deference in the face of overwhelming objection confers respectability....**** ***.......

[gunplumber]

Originally posted by Azrial

You are wrong.

Driving within the speed limit(s) is not PC for a stop no matter what the speed of surrounding traffic. You are never legally required to exceed the speed limit.

Neither is a "ooops didn't notice your license plate light isn't really out . .. . " but it is just this kind of abuse of power under color of law that has sparked this thread.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by gunplumber


Neither is a "ooops didn't notice your license plate light isn't really out . .. . " but it is just this kind of abuse of power under color of law that has sparked this thread.

And the problem is these are far from isolated incidents anymore.

They are becoming the norm, because no one does a damned thing about them.

[Russ]

I think I almost agree with Azrial -- up to a point.

My 21 yo son was stopped a few weeks ago in an eerily similar situation -- pulling out of a convenience store after midnight-- stopped almost immediately (he mentioned that he saw the police cruiser waiting as he got in his car - -when it followed him, he knew he was going to be stopped). It was after midnight, but my son was stone cold sober, not under any influence. Cop pointed the flashlight and asked my son why his eyes were slightly red, but I guess quickly realized he wasn't DUI material. He was charged with an expired registration sticker. And yes, he mentioned that almost immediately a second police cruiser stopped nearby.

Anybody seeing a pattern here, by any chance??

And I was stopped by this same department enroute to visit my kids -- it was dusk and the officer who pulled me over said that I ...sort of, kind of... didn't come to a full three-second stop at a stopsign. He then said his main reason was that my liscence plate was coming up expired (it was not), but then he went back to his car for a while, returned and told me it "must be your lucky night, our computer is down so I can't verify the status of your liscense".

I've said this a million times, this is NOT about one particular police officer, or even one particular police department.

This IS about a nation-wide gradual shrugging-off of the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and siezure.

It is commonly-held among virtually all law enforcement agencies these days that a police officer may convert his "hunch" about someone into a "legal" stop by finding -- at will -- almost ANY pre-text to conduct a traffic stop, and then as others have pointed out, use tried and true tactics to escalate the situation into a search of the driver and his vehicle.

This is just plain wrong, and frightening. What is really jolting is to hear a canman explaining that it is a "legal" process, or Azrial semi-justifying it as a means to detect criminals -- not by their observed behavior, but rather, acting on a "hunch" and then using that unsupported basis to invade someone's privacy.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd prefer to live in a world where the police stop and question and/or search me ONLY if they have some observed or connected basis to believe I have commited the crime for which they are detaining/questioning/searching me about. Stopping someone for going 5-10 mph in order to fish for a DUI or drug, or illegal weapon is NOT RIGHT. It is a violation of the 4th amendment, and it has become so common that a number of people posting to this thread really aren't voicing any objection to it all (and Falfiles would hopefully lend itself to attracting those who value their constitutional rights.

On another more recent occasion -- again enroute to visit my kids, a police SUV pulled out from a side-street as I passed, then sped up to me and maintained distance behind me right up until the last turn-off street before I entered a different township. I am absolutley certain he was running my lisc plate. Do I object to this? Absolutely not -- though I am pretty certain that the only thing that caught his eye is that I drive a small sports car, and thus may have figured in some profile or hunch of his own making. Makes no difference to me, he can run my plate a hundred times for all I care -- so long as he doesn't stop me unless my liscence plate check gives him a reason to suspect that I have committed a crime. .

It is going to progress -- the law enforcement mentality of "searching for a crime" --rather than responding to observed or reported criminal behavior -- is going to get alot worse.

It's very simple -- police should only be stopping people whom they have observed commiting a crime for which they are being detained.

Freddy, if the police that stopped your son routinely pull over ANYONE ANYTIME who goes 5-10mph over the limit, then that's the law, sure. But if they ONLY pull over people going 5-10 mph over the limit when the LEO has a "hunch" that the stop might develop into something more productive, that is flat out, categorically and without qualification of any sort ...wrong; and EVERYONE should speak out against it.

If anyone reading this is a police officer, and you say that this sort of fishing-trip-hummer-bust tactics are wrong, then you (the LEO) sure are "someone I'd like to have out there on the streets".

But if you are saying, "well, it DOES help catch criminals, and it's not a real big imposition" --or-- "well, it IS 'legal' " (to essentially give LEO's almost unlimted authority to stop, question and seach individuals and their vehicles or possessions while in public) -- then no, I'd really rather that your department only employ officers who understand that a fundamental constitutional right no longer exists if it can be danced around for any reason. Unfortunately, in our times these tactics are not only tolerated by the management of LEO agancies, they are being TAUGHT as an effective police strategy,

Russ

[AlaskanMBR]

I'd say I'm sorry officer...:rofl:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Stranger]

Azrial must be out of his mind with rage by now. This thread has become "cop hater" central. All of you should feel ashamed for raising Azrials blood pressure.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Stranger
Azrial must be out of his mind with rage by now. This thread has become "cop hater" central. All of you should feel ashamed for raising Azrials blood pressure.
You are a funny kind of poser! :rofl:

Come on, leave this thread alone. I am open for your attacks in other threads!

[Potshot]

Doesn't a Terry stop require:
1) Dlear and articulable (sp?) reason to believe that citizen is armed;
AND
2) Dangerous
???

FF, if you're a US citizen, you have a great backstory. Maybe you should run for office? I know how some backwater towns can be, but seriously. Kid's answer to searches should ALWAYS be no. They're gonna do what they're gonna do anyway if they're that kind of cops. FYI I think your kid was probably driving safely as the speed limits are typically set at 85% of prevailing traffic speed. In a 35, that's ~41. Speeding in front of the cops is probably not so good though...

While, I'm not hip to fishing expeditions at traffic stops at the last one I was involved in.... a couple of friends and I were guilty as sin of speeding to the airport in the rental car. And yep, you guessed it we were on the way home from a friends cabin where we each had an appropriate amount of personal artillery in the trunk. When asked about guns in the car my friend who was driving said 'oh, yes! we have lots! they're in the trunk'. He said what he had, pointed to the passenger and said what he had, points back to me and said what I had (big smile to cop and thumbs up).... Cop looks at us, and asks WTF we are doing... I pipe up and say 'assassinating watermelons sir'. Cop laughs, says he'll be right back, tells us to SLOW DOWN and lets us go.

If any of you guys were that nice Michigan state trooper :cool: , thanks!

[shlomo]

Originally posted by AlaskanMBR
I'd say I'm sorry officer...:rofl:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Must be RSU, given the content of his little diatribe.

He ever pulls that with a real LEO, he'll be mighty glad he doesn't have a vent window.:wink:

[Para Driver]

It's all about TAXES (writing tickets that generate revenue), and JOB JUSTIFICATION (showing the sheeples that they're fighting crime). There are plenty of towns/counties that are well known as speed traps and ticket machines. Try to avoid them, and if you have to travel through them you better really watch yourself.

FastFreddy, you and your son are 'marked', meaning they're going to nail you any chance they get for even the smallest infraction, imagined or real. It's their way of saying 'remember who's in charge here, it ain't you'...

IF you decide to open up pandora's box, don't do it on the local or county level, you have to go STATE or FEDERAL.

[fastfreddy]

Originally posted by Para Driver


FastFreddy, you and your son are 'marked', meaning they're going to nail you any chance they get for even the smallest infraction, imagined or real. It's their way of saying 'remember who's in charge here, it ain't you'...


Well, they DO have their little fantasies, don't they. However, the county attorney who herded the school board into a position of going the distance over the NRA shirt no longer lives in the county.

The 4 term prosecutor who tried to railroad the "t-shirt kid", complete with police perjury and misleading press conferences, is no longer in elected office and no longer works in the county.

So, I guess THEY are not in charge.

I see that they want to discourage uppity "subjects" we probably won't be left to peaceably enjoy our pursuit of happiness..... so I guess I might as well keep working to straighten out a few things around here.

[Jez Cruzen]

Russ, I think your post is right on.

I don't (or at least didn"t) have a predjudice against LEOs. Maybe because I worked so closely with many of them for over three decades. But I have since become concerned and uneasy over the growing militarization of civilian LE and some of the tactics being employed in their interest in making an arrest and/or, Big Score.

I am the father of three sons, each of which has been pulled at some time, justified or not. If it was justified, then I as a father have no complaints. On the other hand, if its simply a fishing expedition, I DO have a complaint- and have voiced it to the senior LEO on at least two occasions.

I realize the difficulty and danger faced by LEOs everyday. It can be a tough and thankless job. Ten percent of the population provides for 90% of the business - often repeated again and again.

Civilaion LE has enjoyed overwhelming public support, but its slippiing. I think its due to a shift in culture within the LE community towards the militaristic side along with expanding the use of the more heavy-handed tactics out into the law-abiding community rather than limiting themselves to those citizens who may deserve those tactis more. Intimidation often seems to be the new persona, and its pissing people off.

To you LEOs out there, if you think your job is tough and thankless now, wait until you have alienated yourselves with more law-abiding citizens.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by AlaskanMBR
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mi_elVQLeao&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
"Can I have my $50 for standing here and listening to your crap" I may not be a professional actor, but I expect to be paid!?

[FAL freek]

FWIW when I was a teenager had a strangely similar situation around 1 A.M. Went to pick up a friend from work. Driving back to his house, cop followed me for about a mile and a half. In that time I started fiddling with my radio and swerved ever so slightly. Cop proceeds to pull me over. Asks me if I've been drinking, I tell him no. Asks me what I'm doing out and where I've been, I proceed to tell him I was picking a reind up from work and swerved because I was hitting a button on my radio. He proceeds to tell me to get out of the car. I get out he then gives me the entire battery of sobriety tests, the whole time being extremely rude and trying to get me to argue with him. Which as I understand is a classic ploy to get more info about if you've been drinking or are under the influence. Another cop is driving by, he stops. Cop #1 tells cop that just stopped to give me a sobriety test. Within less than a minute cop #2 says I'm alright. The whole time being completely respectful to both. Cop #1 tells me I can go after a few more than unpolite shots. Now keep in mind I was a teenager and could tell that cop #1 was a rookie and cop #2 had some more experience. I asked if I could go cop #1 makes one last parting comment and I drive off.

I bring this up because some hint that it might be a personal vendetta agains the kids dad, or that this is some new harsher tactics. When it happened to me it was 16 years ago when a Democrat was president and short of them physically searching the car (cop #1 did look in the car more than once with his flash light) everything that happened to the kid happened to me. Sounds like SOP to me. And I had a story to go tell my friends.

[gunplumber]

I had two interesting traffic stops. One was for running a vegetation obscured stop sign on a dark night on a completely unlit street. He asked if he could search my vehicle, I said no. He then begins to search as much as he can from outside with his flashlight and notices a hammer on the floor of the passenger side. Asks what it is. "hammer" I reply. Whats it for? Hammering. Hammering what? Nails. (I was leaving my GF house where I was helping her hang pictures - and she (amazing to me) didn't own ANY tools. Acknowledges the stop sign was almost impossible to see, Thank you you can go have a good night (Garden Grove, CA).

The other a cop pulls me over claiming my radio was too loud. Yeah - I was blasting Ofra Haza's Shirley Moledet #2.

Do you have any weapons? Yeah, I have a .22 in my pocket and a CCW. Pulls me out of the car, cuffs me, and proceeds to almost shoot himself because he can't figure out how to clear a NAA .22 (have to remove the cylinder base oin and remove the cylinder). Goes off on how its illegal to have a CCW. After round and round it dawns on me he doesn't understand that by "CCW" I meant "CCW PERMIT!" Considering he was holding it in his hands with my DL and registration, his ignorance was truly baffling.

I was wearing a dress shirt and tie. I was managing a restraunt and going in to work around 10 PM to close out the day.

"Whats with the stealth color of your vehicle? I was driving an Army CUCV/Blazer, OD green.

Is there something unlawful about the color of my vehicle? Silence.

What you have in there?

Stuff.

Can I look? No. What you hiding? Do you have probable cause to believe I have something unlawful in my vehicle?

Backup arrives. Converses with the arresting officer (and I consider being handcuffed and not free to go an "arrest" whatever silly Euphemisms LE invents to pretend its not) I am uncuffed and "allowed" to leave.

Pulled over by a motorcycle officer - speed limit dropped from 50 to 35, I didn't notice. Are you armed (before AZ CCW) yes, Glock 17 in strong side holster. Asks for my gun - I hand it to him (carefully). He notices the night sights and the Federal Hydrashock ammo. "Aren't these "cop-killer bullets" No - I explain the difference between KTW, Cyclone and hollowpoint. He likes my night sights. Hands me HIS gun so I can check it out. You read that right. I give hima business card and a charge for installing night sights. He wishes me a good night with a warning to slow down.

[cpd109]

A good friend of mine, an attorney, told me that he'd taught his boys to never allow a search of their car and specifically to look at the DASHCAM and say "No officer, you may not search my car". Saved his butt to do that because one of them got stopped on a pretext and was asked if he could search the car. He looked at the camera and said that he would not give consent for the officer to search. The officer then searched anyway and found and cited the kid for being in possession of an unopened bottle of liquor. The facts of the case were presented to the judge and the case was dismissed.
By the same token, when I was in college, a professor I that respect a great deal, also now an attorney, taught us that you will only get your rights when the LEO gives them to you. This is especally true in podunk areas where there is little oversight on the LEOs.
Having told these two stories, I want to close with an observation that officers who break the law to make a case are worse than the thugs they arrest because you expect the thugs to break the law- not the cops.

[English Mike]

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel

Typical tap-dancing from the typical ******** ********.......

Mealy-mouthed agreement.....what a slime....

As if deference in the face of overwhelming objection confers respectability....**** ***.......

Clean up your act "Lewis" (I'm aware of your previous existence here) or I'll start being reasonable........:devil:

[Lewis Wetzel]

Originally posted by ENGLISH MIKE


Clean up your act "Lewis" (I'm aware of your previous existence here) or I'll start being reasonable........:devil:

Give it rest, English....

Oops...but then again, on the 'new, improved, FAL FILES, stating truth is uncomfortable....

I don't want to force myself on anybody....do what you will...I've GOT a life away from the internet.........:tongue:

[gunplumber]

Gee English Mike - Is he DARING YOU to ban him? It would be such a shame for you to give him what he's asked for so many times . . ..

[English Mike]

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel




Oops...but then again, on the 'new, improved, FAL FILES, stating truth is uncomfortable....


Wrong answer.

You being a troll & posting poisonous drivel is the point.

If you don't like it, then complain to the management.

[rob080650]

"Neither is a "ooops didn't notice your license plate light isn't really out . .. . " but it is just this kind of abuse of power under color of law that has sparked this thread."

Yep, had this happen to me back in 01 over in the PRI. Just east of the Mississippi.
Best,
Rob

[Lewis Wetzel]

Originally posted by gunplumber
Gee English Mike - Is he DARING YOU to ban him? It would be such a shame for you to give him what he's asked for so many times . . ..

Yes, actually.

That's what the board needs: ban more contributers.

Oh....'poisonous drivel'?

Oh...the horror.........................the horror...............



You ought to spend more time in politics and N&CE...THERE is 'poisonous drivel'.......

As for complaining to management, their rules, their property, their bills....I don't care..it's their store.

The degree of my concern is too small to be measured....:rolleyes:

[English Mike]

Originally posted by Lewis Wetzel
The degree of my concern is too small to be measured....:rolleyes:

Just like your interpersonal skills then.

If you want to post inflammatory comments, then do it in DB where they belong.

[Jailguard]

You know the poping people for the tag light out was one of the things that I hated about doing traffic on the road. I personaly cant stand doing traffic, unless it is to crack down on street racers ( but that is something totaly diffrent). I know that traffic stops are a good way of finding warrents but if I waited long enough most people will break a traffic law. So to make up a reason for a stop was pretty stupid along with nonmoving violations.
I know this is a little off topic but I felt like throwing it out there

[yarro]

Having had a friend complain about a interaction with law enforcement then get 4 moving violations all big points for trumped up stuff like 2 exhibiting speed citations in the month afterwards, I would not bother complaining. He then spent 25k on his lawsuit, which he won, but that did not nulify the 4 moving violations and the fact that the stae took his license for a year anyway. The judgement didn't hardly cover the lost income from not being able to drive and judge's order to have the local PD leace him alone only covered them. He then started getting hassled by the local Highway Patrol and Sherrifs once he got his license back so he ended up moving out of state. Law enforcement sticks together and they will gang up on you if the guys you complain about have friends.

-Yarro

[Stranger]

Originally posted by Azrial

You are wrong.

Driving within the speed limit(s) is not PC for a stop no matter what the speed of surrounding traffic. You are never legally required to exceed the speed limit.

If you want to debate it start another thread and I will meet you there.

Wanna bet? In Texas, the law stipulates that you must drive within 10 mph of everyone or else you are impeding the flow of traffic. Try driving the speed limit on the beltway at rush hour around Dallas/Fort Worth and see if you don't get pulled over for not moving with traffic.

Like Jailguard said, there will always be something a "civilian" does wrong justifying a stop.

(BTW, for someone claiming 20 years as an LEO, you sure seem clueless on a lot of this... )

[fastfreddy]

Being 50 years old, I have have observed during my lifetime a fundamental change. Where the law once existed to protect people, the situation has gradually changed such that the law is now used to get people.

As for Yarro's observations on government retribution, I have been invited several times by public servants to consider moving to another county or state. My response has been "I was thinking about it until you said that... now I will NEVER leave". If you stand up for the Constitution against the government, best to have some Excedrin on hand.

Knowing what I know now, I've considered whether I should've done things differently in holding their totalitarian feet to the fire over the NRA t-shirt and some other stuff. NO WAY. Too many good and brave men have given their very lives to protect the Constitution against self-important pissants for me to consider it an unimportant thing in life. Fugk 'em.

My 80 year old father came up to offer some moral support during my son's trumped up incarceration. He came along as we dealt with the "authoritahs" one time. As we left, this retired career military man who participated in operations Market Garden and Varsity said "I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it. I joined the service because Americans used to know how to deal with people like THAT". Yeah, fugk 'em. I ain't gonna hang my head and fail to stand up. This is still America.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Stranger


Wanna bet? In Texas, the law stipulates that you must drive within 10 mph of everyone else you are impeding the flow of traffic. Try driving the speed limit on the beltway at rush hour around Dallas/Fort Worth and see if you don't get pulled over for not moving with traffic.

Like Jailguard said, there will always be something a "civilian" does wrong justifying a stop.

(BTW, for someone claiming 20 years as an LEO, you sure seem clueless on a lot of this... )

California is the same way.

Speed limit says 65, if you arent pushin 80, you'll have CHP on your ass wanting to search your car.

[fastfreddy]

Sounds like "damned if you do.... and damned if you don't"

Why not just quit all the silly pretending? Be honorable. Be forthright. Pull over any car that catches your eye and just tell the driver to STFU while his car is searched.... then get his papers and interrogate him if ya feel like it. All the little pretenses are an insult to the community and the Constitution.

Be a man. Forget the little "tail light fibs" or the "you were going slightly over the speed limit" bull. If you're going to profile and abuse folks "for good reason", grow a pair and just do it.

Playing all the silly games doesn't make it any more right and doesn't fool anybody.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Stranger
Wanna bet? In Texas, the law stipulates that you must drive within 10 mph of everyone or else you are impeding the flow of traffic.
Interesting, show me please that Texas law that requires you to speed based on others failing to obey the law. I am not an expert of Texas Traffic law and would love to see it...
Originally posted by Stranger Like Jailguard said, there will always be something a "civilian" does wrong justifying a stop.
I should hope. But we recruit out of the same gene pool as everyone else. You are bound to find some cops that will take shortcuts and fail to obey the law they are sworn to uphold. That is not the same thing as condemning a whole profession based on the misdeeds of a few.

Have some cops somewhere, used "failure to speed" as PC for a stop as GP and others suggest, I'm sure! Is it "good" PC, no.
Originally posted by Stranger
(BTW, for someone claiming 20 years as an LEO, you sure seem clueless on a lot of this... )
Only your arrogant ignorance makes it seem so to you. But hey, lets try to keep it civil for a change! :|

[Stranger]

Originally posted by Azrial

Interesting, show me please that Texas law that requires you to speed based on others failing to obey the law. I am not an expert of Texas Traffic law and would love to see it...

I should hope. But we recruit out of the same gene pool as everyone else. You are bound to find some cops that will take shortcuts and fail to obey the law they are sworn to uphold. That is not the same thing as condemning a whole profession based on the misdeeds of a few.

Have some cops somewhere, used "failure to speed" as PC for a stop as GP suggests, I'm sure! Is it good PC, no.

Only your arrogant ignorance makes it seem so to you. But hey, lets try to keep it civil for a change! :|

I don't have the time to quote and requote all your crap for my response. Please bare with me if that is even possible for a simple minded fool such as yourself.

I am not in the least interested in looking up the statute. It exists. You want to prove me wrong then have at it. It's statue 54X or somewhere in there. If DABTL were here he would be able to recite it from memory. JC seems to think a similar law exists in CA. As you have shown before, it is possible for a law to exist that you, oh master of law enforcement, don't know about.

Yes, you recruit out of the same general "gene pool" that produced Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Does that mean we are required to put up with certain LEOs that display the same attitude? While we are on the subject, why are you defending them?

Again I ask, where have I condemned the all LEOs for the bad actions of a few? You are quite silent on that point and yet you keep insisting it is true. Also. who has done that in this thread?

Your ignorance as a "police officer" (if that is true) shows your true colours.

If you are an officer and true to your word, I am guessing you keep it "civil" when it is in your interest. You are constantly trying to keep your miscarriages of justice in civil court rather than have it go to criminal. Good luck with that. Like most things, it will catch up with you eventually (with "20+" years under your belt you are due for it).

[AndyC]

So.......................... how 'bout them Rangers, huh? :biggrin:

[Borsig]

My favorite thing when getting pulled over-

Where are you headed?

Um none of your damed business? This isnt nazi germany and you arent wearing a Gestapo uniform.

Oh wait.....

All the wile Im wearing my very obvious work uniform. Very observant there, fife.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Stranger


I don't have the time to quote and requote all your crap for my response. Please bare with me if that is even possible for a simple minded fool such as yourself.

I am not in the least interested in looking up the statute. It exists. You want to prove me wrong then have at it. It's statue 54X or somewhere in there. If DABTL were here he would be able to recite it from memory. JC seems to think a similar law exists in CA. As you have shown before, it is possible for a law to exist that you, oh master of law enforcement, don't know about.

Yes, you recruit out of the same general "gene pool" that produced Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Does that mean we are required to put up with certain LEOs that display the same attitude? While we are on the subject, why are you defending them?

Again I ask, where have I condemned the all LEOs for the bad actions of a few? You are quite silent on that point and yet you keep insisting it is true. Also. who has done that in this thread?

Your ignorance as a "police officer" (if that is true) shows your true colours.

If you are an officer and true to your word, I am guessing you keep it "civil" when it is in your interest. You are constantly trying to keep your miscarriages of justice in civil court rather than have it go to criminal. Good luck with that. Like most things, it will catch up with you eventually (with "20+" years under your belt you are due for it).

545.363 in texas (though it does have an exception for following the law.)

In Oregon its 811.130 and following the speed limit is NOT an affirmative defense

[Robb 71]

Originally posted by Azrial

Interesting, show me please that Texas law that requires you to speed based on others failing to obey the law. I am not an expert of Texas Traffic law and would love to see it...

<snip>

No expert either but gotta side with Azrial on this.
Unless the 10 mph part comes from somewhere else, I believe the "except... in compliance with the law" part is clear. But enforcement of this law can be abused as in true my example below.

§ 545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator
may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for
safe operation or in compliance with law.

Funning thing, in 1987 I received a citation from FWPD officer A. Martinez for exactly this offense. Another funny thing is the street was deserted at the time and there was absolutely no traffic. Cost me $75 IIRC to a traffic attorney but it was dismissed.

I certainly learned a valuable lesson, well worth the money. The lesson I learned is when an officer wants to find a crime but one does not exist... *he can just make one up on the spot reguardless of the truth.


*Assuming he is one of the debateable percentage of LEOs that should have been filtered out before they got a badge.

Now where Azrial and I don't see eye to eye is that I believe a slight fudge here and there with the law as they see fit is SOP for to many law enforcement officers, and my interpretation of his position is that police misconduct is rare and vigorously handled when it does occur.

[evan price]

Originally posted by canman
Jaxxas- "Terry" deals almost exclusively with "pat searches" of people during legal detentions. Warrantless searches of cars is covered more by "Carroll," searches of closed containers in cars is covered by "Ross" and searches in regards to the area over which someone has immediate control, including passenger areas of cars, is probably best covered by "Chimel." To some degree or another all of these may apply during a "car stop."

I know this probably doesn't really clear things up that much. :sad:

Canman

Actually, Michigan V Long was the decision that allowed police to search a vehicle's "grab areas" for a weapon that might be used by the driver, during a Terry search.

Whren V US set the precedent that the motive for making a stop is UNIMPORTANT as long as RS or PC for a stop exists.

Carroll V US gives precedent for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle or motor home if PC exists and the vehicle is in a public place.

Knowles V Iowa, however, limits officers in that if a suspect is released and a summons is issued in lieu of arrest (even if the charge could be an arrestable offense and a ticket is being issued instead) NO search is justified without extenuating PC.

[canman]

Originally posted by evan price


Actually, Michigan V Long was the decision that allowed police to search a vehicle's "grab areas" for a weapon that might be used by the driver, during a Terry search.

Whren V US set the precedent that the motive for making a stop is UNIMPORTANT as long as RS or PC for a stop exists.

Carroll V US gives precedent for a warrantless search of a motor vehicle or motor home if PC exists and the vehicle is in a public place.

Knowles V Iowa, however, limits officers in that if a suspect is released and a summons is issued in lieu of arrest (even if the charge could be an arrestable offense and a ticket is being issued instead) NO search is justified without extenuating PC.



"Actually" Michigan v. Long (a 1983 case) does deal with searching a passenger compartment for weapons only in places where weapons may reasonably be stored, and that case quoted Terry v. Ohio as a justification on "principle" while acknowledging that "Terry" dealt specifically with the limited search of a person w/o probable cause.

Chimel v. California (a 1969 case) deals with searching the immediate area of control of a suspect being arrested. It is still one of the most quoted cases when it comes to dealing with searching areas of "immediate control" and certainly the "Burger Court" of 1983 was aware of this decision. Burger was Chief Justice from 1969 to 1986.

Whren v. US is the case that allows for "pre-text" stop as long as there is some other PC or RS for the stop.

In my opinion, Chimel is the case that justifies the search of the area of immediate control, including in a vehicle, of someone being arrested. If you're talking about the justification for the limited search of a vehicle passenger compartment for weapons, then I agree that Long is a more specific case dealing with that situation.

That's my opinion.

[Jailguard]

Stranger I never even metioned Civilan in my post as I have been pulled over by officers on fishing expiditions.

One time I was in down town St Petersburg checking on one of my parents rental properties when i was pulled over. Yes it was late and it is in a bad area but still no other reason. I did not Iid myself as LEO as I fealt I had no reason to and I was new to the job and didnt want to make waves. Well I allowed the Officer to search my Bronco knowing full well the only thing in the truck was a box of 45-70 ammo in the back seat. well when the officer found the ammo and looked at the size of the round he almost shit him self.He asked about the the gun that shoots such a large bullet and i explaind what an 1895 marlin was and that they were hand loads that i just picked up, after that he let me go on my way with no more questions. Was it a bad stop? yeah I feal like it was but I had no place to be at the time so I figured what the hell why not let him find that box of ammo. The rifle was at home in the safe any way.

[Stranger]

Originally posted by Jailguard
Stranger I never even metioned Civilan in my post as I have been pulled over by officers on fishing expiditions.


You are correct. My addition was for the benefit of someone else.

[Jimi X.]

fastfreddy, could you post the link to your son's NRA shirt incident?

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Jimi X.
fastfreddy, could you post the link to your son's NRA shirt incident?

It was a bit more then an incident.

Went all the way to the 4th circuit court of apeals

http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel200401080929.asp
(and many other sources)

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Stranger
I am not in the least interested in looking up the statute. It exists. You want to prove me wrong then have at it. It's statue 54X or somewhere in there. If DABTL were here he would be able to recite it from memory. KC seems to think a similar law exists in CA. As you have shown before, it is possible for a law to exist that you, oh master of law enforcement, don't know about.
Sure it's possible, even probable that there are many laws in the US that I do not know about. However I sincerely doubt that you can show me one that authorizes you to speed based on surrounding traffic breaking the posted limit!

What is certain however is that you don't know what you are talking about. What kind of retard posts something and then when others ask him for for conformation whines that he does not know the source?

I will admit that I was sure wrong about one thing, you are no academician! You are always posting some half-baked crap with no proof and a measure of caustic remarks to try and hide your ignorance. Pretty sad really!
Originally posted by Stranger
Yes, you recruit out of the same general "gene pool" that produced Hitler, Pol Pot, and Stalin. Does that mean we are required to put up with certain LEOs that display the same attitude? While we are on the subject, why are you defending them?
Defending who? What bad law enforcement have I defended? This is just another of your lies. If you can't take some bit of overblown media hype about the police, pre-judge them and then use your hyperbole as an "example" to try and blacken a whole profession, you start crying.
Originally posted by Stranger
Your ignorance as a "police officer" (if that is true) shows your true colours. Set your spell check to "US English." :rofl:

Originally posted by Stranger
You are constantly trying to keep your miscarriages of justice in civil court rather than have it go to criminal. Good luck with that. Like most things, it will catch up with you eventually.......
What does this mean? Offer some thread of proof for this silly rant? If not, as I have proved over and over, you are just a pathetic liar. I will tell you this, your buddy Bill had enought sense to back away from these groundless claims about me, you might take a clue from a far smarter man!

[Azrial]

Nice try and debated like a man. But incorrect.

Originally posted by John Culver
545.363 in texas (though it does have an exception for following the law.)
§545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator
may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for
safe operation or in compliance with law.
Originally posted by John Culver
In Oregon its 811.130 and following the speed limit is NOT an affirmative defense
Minimum Speed Limit:
I. No person shall impede the normal and reasonable movement of traffic. '811.130
II. A person, driving at less than the normal speed of traffic, shall drive in the right-hand lane available for traffic or as close as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway. '811.315*

Posted (Minimum) Speed Limit:
* The basic speed rule does not authorize speed limits in excess of the maximum speed limits. '811.108

[Azrial]

Originally posted by John Culver
California is the same way.

Speed limit says 65, if you arent pushin 80, you'll have CHP on your ass wanting to search your car.
I guess that this Californian law authorizing you to speed based on surrounding traffic failing to observe the posted limits has been repealed? :tongue:

I really do give you a lot of credit for trying to find it!

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Robb 71
No expert either but gotta side with Azrial on this.
Unless the 10 mph part comes from somewhere else, I believe the "except... in compliance with the law" part is clear. But enforcement of this law can be abused as in true my example below.
Sorry, I did not see your post when I looked up the law.
Originally posted by Robb 71
Now where Azrial and I don't see eye to eye is that I believe a slight fudge here and there with the law as they see fit is SOP for to many law enforcement officers, and my interpretation of his position is that police misconduct is rare and vigorously handled when it does occur.
Correct, I do not believe that severe misconduct is a prevalent as you appear to believe it to be. Of course I fully agree that it does happen.

As to the amount of punishment it receives, well that varies by many factors. I have seen severe punishment for minor infractions and light punishment for severe offenses.

Frankly I believe that all misconduct of a severe nature should be handled at the state level.

I can say that I have never turned a blind eye to it.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by AndyC
So.......................... how 'bout them Rangers, huh? :biggrin:
Texas? What the hell are they supposed to have done? :D

[Robb 71]

Originally posted by Azrial

Sorry, I did not see your post when I looked up the law.

Correct, I do not believe that severe misconduct is a prevalent as you appear to believe it to be. Of course I fully agree that it does happen.

As to the amount of punishment it receives, well that varies by many factors. I have seen severe punishment for minor infractions and light punishment for severe offenses.
This is my perception also, I think we can agree when bureaucrats and government agencies are involved it's usually a cluster.

Frankly I believe that all misconduct of a severe nature should be handled at the state level.
I agree that an agency investigating itself does not appear impartial.

I can say that I have never turned a blind eye to it.
I am glad you do not allow misconduct to go unnoticed.

I do believe that there are many good cops out there, I just don't believe there are enough resources devoted to rooting out the bad apples and that far too many otherwise good guys do turn a blind eye. In my mind turning the blind eye to minor misconduct of a LEO is more detrimental than the minor misconduct itself.

An interesting quote from a LEO on targeting people who appear to be driving within the speed limit, this could be a thread of its own but seems to go along with the course of discussion.

Chief Deputy Eddie Ingram on how to spot a criminal:
Without giving away his secrets, here's one thing Ingram looks for: If the speed limit is 65 mph, most people will drive 75 mph. But someone wanted by the law will go 65 or less, and avoid eye contact with a cop who pulls up alongside. Ingram calls them "stress-induced indicators."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91582619

[Stranger]

Nice try and debated like a man. But incorrect.

Originally posted by Azrial
§545.363. MINIMUM SPEED REGULATIONS. (a) An operator
may not drive so slowly as to impede the normal and reasonable
movement of traffic, except when reduced speed is necessary for
safe operation or in compliance with law.


Tell that to the people who have been ticketed for going the speed limit when traffic was moving at 80. :rolleyes:

[Azrial]

Originally posted by Stranger
Tell that to the people who have been ticketed for going the speed limit when traffic was moving at 80. :rolleyes:
You tell it to them! You are the only one that can, you made them up, like most of your "facts."

[lutefisk]

I'm a cop and this thread raised my blood pressure.

I take complaints from citizens that are complete bullshit.
I take complaints from citizens that are minimized or incorrectly identify the severity of an officers conduct.

A video system in all of our vehicles makes an investigation much easier. If a line supervisor is not available or is involved, I view the recordings with the complaining party. Most of the time they apologize and realize they are dealing with what was told to them by:(fill in the blank)brother mother, son, daughter, wife, husband blah blah. Some times I suspect domestic harmony is disrupted in their life when the truth is shown to them.

Other instances identified officer safety, officer attitude, officer memory or honesty and civil rights problems. Some of these have been forwarded to the district attorney for prosecution.

Most of the problems with the cops were made when they were emotional, stupid, or simply made a mistake. I do all of those myself...sometimes all in the same day.

We've caught some black hearted or vindictive SOBs, too. The fault of their actions is shared by me and other supervisors who hire them or fail to discover what shit they are dumping on the public.

It is ridiculous for a law enforcement agency not to have audio/video recording devices in their units. It is an unfortunate evolution of where we are today, but it polices us. It is also a near absolute in the successful prosecution of many cases and many don't even go to court when the defense sees their clients on tape(lets make a deal...unfortunately, that is what the criminal justice system is).

In the bad old days, I'm sure that my fear and anger in situations created behavior on my part that would shock me. Then again, backup was often a couple hours out.

No one is perfect. At least some of the cops being complained about have a work ethic. At least some of them are committing criminal or civil rights offenses. Some of you are too.

So, the short winded response to your concern is to determine whether recording devices were present, to arrange to have them preserved and viewed by you with a supervisor, and then to determine a course of action from there. If they are not in use, you should make it an issue, meet with elected officials and insist that they be purchased and installed.
Don't go away, make it happen.

If you were wrong, try to apologize. Most agencies to not prosecute for mistaken false reporting. Be aware that despite what all these knowledgeable constitutional experts on the FAL Files pull out of their (keyboards), state laws show considerable variance, vehicle searches are different than residential searches, and officers do have the right to initiate their own civil action(slander/libel) against those who file false complaints against them.

The cameras help everyone. It's gotten to that point.

PS Video systems do break. Because it's not there can mean just that.
We are too busy at the donut shop to alter those tapes. We leave that to the Feds.

[ar15junkie]

Keep us posted Freddy.

[fastfreddy]

Not much to follow up with. The kid did "consent", even if intimidated into it. All that was lost was a half hour of time and respect for the local yokels. In choosing our battles, this one stacks up as small potatoes.

[DarkEarth]

Tell your kid next time he's told to get out of the car and he knows he is behaving lawfully, he should get out and lock up his car.

If he's got a magnetic spare key holder, he can toss his keys in the front seat and lock it up. When released, he can retrieve the spare.


I had a buddy in Cocoa beach get pulled over about 5 years back, he knew for fact he was "100 % legit" at the time. So he did a little test, he DENIED search. 30 minutes, one drug sniffing dog + backup, with NO alert from the dog, the cop said screw it and started his search of my friends clean car, ILLEGALLY.

Just because he looked like he surfed everyday and drove an old green honda station wagon.


I like the police when they are in a good mood, or when I can help them out. But some of them ruin the image for the good ones.


I was in a car crash once that was not my fault, I was in shock stepping out of my totaled 96 Impala. The sight of the police officer pulling up was like an angel showing up to make everything straight again. I extended my shaking hand and smiled at his arrival to me, the dirty bastard scowled at me as if I was sub human. I lost alot of love that day. And to think I would have pulled over to help that fukface prior to that if he needed it.

[longhair51]

Originally posted by Azrial
What kind of retard posts something and then when others ask him for for conformation whines that he does not know the source?


What kind of "retard" uses the word "retard"?....reminds me of grade school kids.

Don

[Azrial]

Originally posted by longhair51
What kind of "retard" uses the word "retard"?....reminds me of grade school kids. Don
Just trying to keep my response within the comprehension level of its target. I find it particularly irksome that the whole attack was off-topic.

[longhair51]

Ohhhh, well that makes it all good then.

[John Culver]

http://www.komonews.com/news/20656789.html

You WILL get a ticket for doing the speed limit.

Seems Strangers fact was dead on

[gunplumber]

The statute is conflicting

(1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows:

(a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement

The rules governing also set a maximum speed.

So according to this statute you have to stay out of the left lane if you are impeding traffic that is violating the same same statute (excess speed) you are getting ticketed for (impeding)

[Azrial]

There are many vehicles that will be exceeding the speed limit, some legally. The left lane is designed for passing and obstructing the passing lane is the problem here. It is the same in Georgia, slower vehicles keep right.

I have never said that you could not get a ticket for going too slowly. I said that it is not good probable cause to pull someone over based on their adherence to the posted limit, which others routinely disregard.

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Azrial
There are many vehicles that will be exceeding the speed limit, some legally. The left lane is designed for passing and obstructing the passing lane is the problem here. It is the same in Georgia, slower vehicles keep right.

I have never said that you could not get a ticket for going too slowly. I said that it is not good probable cause to pull someone over based on their adherence to the posted limit, which others routinely disregard.

not to mention many states dont HAVE a 'limit' (such as Oregon)

[fastfreddy]

There's too many cops and not enough crime. They have to find something to do. None have any interest in doing anything about the criminal theft from my wife.... it's easier to hassle my non-criminal son. If we cut the force in half, they'd still be cruising around bored looking for some kid to hassle.

[JohnnyV1966]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
There's too many cops and not enough crime. They have to find something to do. None have any interest in doing anything about the criminal theft from my wife.... it's easier to hassle my non-criminal son. If we cut the force in half, they'd still be cruising around bored looking for some kid to hassle.


Some people wonder why cops are not liked. Perhaps its because they are viewed as illegitimate tax collectors. One only needs to examine how many things have been made "Against the law" over the past 30 years. Putting things to the "acid test", how much of these newly created offenses make society significantly safer.


Its all about the money. Whether a local unit of government or the Insurance company, its all about the money.

Shouldn't people be responsible for protecting themselves first. Cops are a reactive force.

[fastfreddy]

The criminals aren't too hard to deal with but I wish I could protect my family from the guys in uniform.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by John Culver
not to mention many states dont HAVE a 'limit' (such as Oregon)
All the more reason that pulling someone over for not "speeding" would be poor PC...

EDITED: To change underlined word to make sense! :D Sorry for the Typo!

[John Culver]

Originally posted by Azrial

All the more reason take pulling someone over for not "speeding" would be poor PC...

Qyuite the opposite, it gives cops alot more lattitude in pulling people over.

'reasonable speed' being based on traffic flow, weather, road conditions, car type, and often the mood of the officer.

[SWOHFAL]

Originally posted by fastfreddy
There's too many cops and not enough crime. They have to find something to do. None have any interest in doing anything about the criminal theft from my wife.... it's easier to hassle my non-criminal son. If we cut the force in half, they'd still be cruising around bored looking for some kid to hassle.

There's plenty of crime, but crime doesn't pay. Hassling motorists, looking for reasons to write citations or fishing for drugs that can initiate property seizure proceedings pays quite well. Here in OH, we've got state troopers writing nearly a million dollars worth of tickets per officer, per year, in some cases, and averaging around a quarter million, from what I can recall in a recent local article here around Cincinnati.

[Azrial]

Originally posted by John Culver
not to mention many states dont HAVE a 'limit' (such as Oregon)
This is just not true John, what is the point of a debate if you just keep posting things that even a minimum of research would prove is not true?

From the DOT website on state speed limits:

A) 65 MPH on rural interstate highways ''811.105(2)(f), 811.112(1) & 811.123(1)(e)
B) 55 MPH on other highways '811.105(2)(g) & 811.123(1)(f)

Read the the whole thing HERE! (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/enforce/speedlaws501/toc/orspeed.pdf)

The law also provides for driving at a speed slower then the speed limit and states that being in the left lane is not justification for speeding despite what others are doing. Read 811.108 which I have already posted.

Originally posted by John Culver
Qyuite the opposite, it gives cops alot more lattitude in pulling people over.

'reasonable speed' being based on traffic flow, weather, road conditions, car type, and often the mood of the officer.
John, it does not work that way, but think what you like.

Since I am also reasonably sure from your past posts that you have never been a police officer a day in your life would it be safe to assume that this whole statement is a huge supposition on your part?