[andyt]

You must have the charm. Most cops would just bluster thru and tell you to fight it in court.

[BartSimpson]

My favorite tale of a police stop fail came from a friend who is a retired CHP captain.

One of his patrolmen stopped a Jaguar for speeding and, for whatever reason, he got on the loudspeaker and asked the driver and passenger to step out of the car. That done he walked up on the left side of the vehicle and asked the man for the registration and DL and then wrote the ticket and had the man sign it.

The man fought it in court and won.

Because the Jaguar in question was right-hand drive and the Chippie had written up the passenger.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

True. But a court can later rule the stop as unreasonable or as 'profiling' and dismiss any charges that came about because of the stop.

The court can do anything, really.

If the officer says he stopped the driver to check his paperwork and due to seeing something in the vehicle, opted for a reasonable search or found the driver has outstanding warrants, etc, the stop is completely valid.

[DrCaleb]

andyt andyt:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

But you have to live long enough to go to court. Like the woman who started this whole conversation; was her life worth putting out her cigarette for? Yea, the cop didn't have the right to ask her to, but then again he did have the right to arrest her for that traffic violation.

In Canada, police can pull you over for whatever reason, but they don't have the right to search your car without probable cause. Now, the likelihood is that you won't be arrested or killed by a Canadian cop for refusing an illegal request - but is it worth the hassle if they have a burr up their ass that day? The article give a list of what's acceptable and what's not. I'd just be polite and stick to what's acceptable. That way, everyone goes home.

I don't believe he has the right to arrest her for that traffic violation. Stop her and cite her is about it, assuming everything else is in order.

$1:

Failure to use a turn signal is technically an arrestable offense in Texas, though it rarely happens, according to Andrea Roth, an expert in criminal procedure who works as an assistant law professor at the University of California, Berkeley. Rebecca Robertson, the legal and policy director for A.C.L.U. in Texas, said, “The initial stop should not have resulted in an arrest.” Trooper Encinia could have just handed Ms. Bland a ticket through the window and let her drive away, she said.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015 ... .html?_r=1

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If the officer says he stopped the driver to check his paperwork and due to seeing something in the vehicle, opted for a reasonable search or found the driver has outstanding warrants, etc, the stop is completely valid.

By definition that's not a reasonable search, it's a fishing expedition.

[BeaverFever]

uwish uwish:

martin14 martin14:

Dayseed and I got into it a few years ago over a case where 2 guys were hauling A LOT of coke.

Cop in Ontario saw them driving down the road, saw no plate in front, swung around
and pulled them over.
When he admitted in court that he saw an Alberta plate on the back of the SUV,
but pulled them over anyway. Then a few questions, looked in the windows found the coke.

The boys walked because the judge said that when the cop saw the Alberta plate,
his REASON for pulling them over stopped, because everyone knows Alberta only issues
one plate.

And as far as I know, the cops HAVE to have a reason to pull you over,
unless it's a check for drunk drivers, where they stop everyone.

bingo! we have a winner, thats why it's called 'reasonable grounds' in the US probable cause....

But it's easy for cops to invent a reason. They can say you changed lanes without signalling or swerved or whatever. It's their word against yours and they get the benefit of the doubt. The cop in the above case was stupid because he admitted on the stand that he knew Alberta doesn't issue a front plate but stopped them anyway.

[OnTheIce]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If the officer says he stopped the driver to check his paperwork and due to seeing something in the vehicle, opted for a reasonable search or found the driver has outstanding warrants, etc, the stop is completely valid.

By definition that's not a reasonable search, it's a fishing expedition.

Sure it is.

If an officer pulls over a driver to check paperwork and notices a bag of coke or a weapon on the back seat, there's nothing illegal about it.

[BartSimpson]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

If the officer says he stopped the driver to check his paperwork and due to seeing something in the vehicle, opted for a reasonable search or found the driver has outstanding warrants, etc, the stop is completely valid.

By definition that's not a reasonable search, it's a fishing expedition.

Sure it is.

If an officer pulls over a driver to check paperwork and notices a bag of coke or a weapon on the back seat, there's nothing illegal about it.

Because that's not a search and I imagine you already knew that.

[OnTheIce]

The officer can only opt for a search if he has a reason or probable cause. The officer could only commence a reasonable search if it's warranted.

[BartSimpson]

From today's "The Onion":

$1:

Good afternoon, sir. Go ahead and roll your window all the way down for me. My name is Officer Daniel McEwen from the Greene County Police Department. Now, do you know why I’m pulling you over today, being overly aggressive, and charging you with a felony count of assaulting a police officer?

I’m going to need to see your driver’s license, vehicle registration, and proof of insurance. Thank you, sir. Now, just sit tight in your car while I take a look here and grow increasingly hostile. I’m just going to start addressing you in an unmistakably threatening tone that is specifically meant to intimidate and provoke, and then drastically escalate the situation so that it quickly gets out of hand.


Are you aware of the speed limit on this road, sir? It’s 35. I had you clocked at 52 miles per hour, which is why I had to stop you and exhibit a nakedly confrontational, antagonistic, and condescending attitude, practically daring you to challenge my authority in any way whatsoever. You can’t be driving that fast around here, so I’m going to have to write you a ticket and then violently place you under arrest the moment you do or say anything that isn’t in complete and utter compliance—or which could even be remotely construed as noncompliant—with every single instruction I give to you.


Do you understand all that, sir?


If you have any questions about this ticket, I’d be happy to wildly overreact to anything you say that shows the slightest hint of resentment, annoyance, or resistance. Really, while you have me here, I can easily interpret any snide remark or frustrated comment as a potential threat to my safety—even so much as an angry look—and respond in a disproportionately combative way by erupting in unwarranted rage, taking out either my 50,000-volt Taser or my handgun, and pointing it directly at you through the driver’s side window.


Now, I have to head back to my patrol car real quick, so please bear with me here for a few minutes. Then you can be on your way to jail in no time as soon as I come back and forcibly remove you from your vehicle, slam you into the asphalt, cuff you, and jam my knee into your back as I radio in that I need backup right away because you’re resisting arrest—all the while both outright ignoring your vocalized concerns for your safety and directing my own petty, barbed insults at you. Just so we’re on the same page here, you’ll be getting three points on your license for speeding and also assault charges that carry a minimum sentence of one year in prison, but you’ll be assumed guilty of both while I automatically receive the benefit of the doubt despite any and all evidence to the contrary.


You know what, why don’t you step out of the car, sir? And put that goddamn cell phone away.

[martin14]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

But it's easy for cops to invent a reason. They can say you changed lanes without signalling or swerved or whatever. It's their word against yours and they get the benefit of the doubt. The cop in the above case was stupid because he admitted on the stand that he knew Alberta doesn't issue a front plate but stopped them anyway.

Of course, but then they have to 'invent' something.

That guy was probably the only really honest cop in Ontario, and as they say,

'No good deed goes unpunished'.


Bet he'll never make that 'mistake' again.