traffic stop question


PDA






Ukraine Train
May 25, 2005, 01:54 PM
According to my friend if you're asked to step out of your car during the course of a traffic stop like for a sobriety test for instance, but are not being placed under arrest, you are not required to comply with the request. Sounds like BS to me but I thought I'd check.

If you enjoyed reading about "traffic stop question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
M109A6 Paladin
May 25, 2005, 02:25 PM
Not sure, but if you give it a try don't forget to send your address so we can send you cigarettes. :(

bakert
May 25, 2005, 02:31 PM
I don't know the law but think I would get out if asked by a person I was certain was an officer. Since in the past we have had bogus cops stop people around Louisville, I think you can ask for a uniformed officer or marked car to be sure. Sounds like one of those "I heard, he said" kind of things.
Baker

Igloodude
May 25, 2005, 02:36 PM
Since they don't necessarily know if they're going to arrest you until you pass or fail the sobriety test, it sounds like BS to me. Similar to the technicality whereby you don't actually have to pay income tax. :scrutiny:

Graystar
May 25, 2005, 02:37 PM
Depends on the law in your state. Some states have laws requiring that you provide a minimun of information such as your name.

If you such law exist, you won't be charged with any crime (yet), but you will be taken to the police station for questioning. That's why all the cop shows use the line "we can talk here or we can talk at the station...your choice."

dolanp
May 25, 2005, 03:02 PM
Well if you are dead set not to take a sobriety test they can't really force it on you per se... but refusing to take a test is usually a separate crime that results in suspension of your license.

captain obvious
May 25, 2005, 03:05 PM
I had always believed that it was refusal of the roadside sobriety test carried no penalty, but refusal of the breathylizer violated implied consent (in VA/WV, anyway). Need to check again - remember I am neither a lawyer nor do I play one on television.

TheFederalistWeasel
May 25, 2005, 03:27 PM
In Georgia, you must under state law provide a valid DL issued by a US State, or a valid military ID if you are operating a military vehicle while in the official course of your military duties.

You must also comply with any reasonable request from the officer during the course of the traffic stop and stepping out of the vehicle is reasonable. Consenting to a search is not, there for you can refuse the officer permission to search if you so choose.

You do not have to submit to any roadside sobriety tests while roadside, but if you refuse to take the state required intox chemical test your license will be automatically suspended for 6 months to a year.

Passengers of a motor vehicle in Georgia do not have to produce ID to an officer on a traffic stop as well, but this is a touchy subject with a lot of cops I know. They think they have a right to demand ID from everyone including the dog.

How I would handle it as a passenger if a cop is asking for my ID during a traffic stop where I was just a passenger. I would ask the cop if I had to show my ID to him/her if they say yes then I would present it to them, If charges befell me for some reason or another my lawyer would have little trouble getting them tossed once the judge saw the tape or heard from the other witnesses in the car where the officer told me that I must present ID as a passenger.

jnojr
May 25, 2005, 03:34 PM
I saw someone post that they would take the keys out of the ignition, drop them on the floor of the car, lock the doors, get out, and close the door They then said there was a hidden spare to get back in the car later.

If I was a police officer, and someone did that, my suspicions would be aroused (if they weren't already). I'm thinking, at the least, you'd spend a lot more time standing there with me. I'd call for a dog. And anything I found, you'd get written up for... no warnings.

Basically, the side of the road isn't the place to "fight your battle", as you will lose. If the police want you out of the car, you're coming, one way or another. If they want to search your car without a warrant or grounds, they're going to do it. This is why we have courts... so you don't have to die in a gunbattle to defend your rights.

Vernal45
May 25, 2005, 03:39 PM
Basically, the side of the road isn't the place to "fight your battle", as you will lose. If the police want you out of the car, you're coming, one way or another. If they want to search your car without a warrant or grounds, they're going to do it. This is why we have courts... so you don't have to die in a gunbattle to defend your rights.


NO, this is why we have a problem. :banghead:

Sungun09
May 25, 2005, 04:33 PM
DO NOT "blow" in illinois. Better a suspended license than DUI.

Secondly, if asked, exit the car and then LOCK IT. Decline a request to allow a cop to look in the vehicle using definitive language, for instance, whatever the cop says, you respond explicitly, "I do not give consent to search my vehicle". Watch out for word games.....

You can't stop a cop from taking your keys but that would result in an illegal search and evidence found would generally be dismissed.

TheFederalistWeasel
May 25, 2005, 05:01 PM
First off remember 99% of these stops are video and audio taped, so starting a confrontation on the roadside is not good.

Having said that I personally want you to stay in the car on a stop, because of several reasons, two of which are,

First I have broad control over you area of limited movement, I can take advantage of several techniques that we regularly train on which are designed to make you maneuver in odd ways to communicate with me, and I have unlimited movement outside the vehicle. For you to get to me you have to get out of the car, which takes an action and buys me some time.

Second, you are in a comfort zone and therefore more relaxed during what may be an upsetting situation for you.

I have placed people in cuffs for jumping out of the car and acting odd, but usually they immediately became verbally combative right off the bat sending up my red flag and the situation went down hill from there.

But in the end it’s all about you and I firmly believe unless I’m doing positive speed enforcement (and have a predetermined threshold for a ticket on a stop) or click-it-or-ticket, you are going to decide whether I issue a ticket or not.

If I stop you for a minor stop sign violation such as a rolling stop, or a right turn on red where prohibited, hey it’s a warning unless you demand otherwise.

Tail light out, courtesy stop to let you know of the defective equipment unless you demand otherwise.

General goofiness such as a teenager acting stupid behind the wheel trying to impress his equally stupid friends or scared girlfriend it’s a warning unless you demand otherwise.

I stop folks all the time for 87, 88, 90 and even last night one for 97 in a 65 mph zone.

I stroke’em but if attitude is polite, not friendly mind you just humanly polite as it should be, I’ll scratch the ticket for 79 in a 65 or 89 in a 70 just to save you the points towards a suspension and your insurance agent stroking and bending you over his desk.

As the told us in verbal judo,

“Let attitude float like boat down stream”.


;)

Steve in PA
May 25, 2005, 05:33 PM
"According to my friend if you're asked to step out of your car during the course of a traffic stop like for a sobriety test for instance, but are not being placed under arrest, you are not required to comply with the request."

So how does your friend know he's not going to be arrested either before or after the FST???????

Courts have also ruled that a LEO can ask the driver or anyone else inside the vehicle to step outside of the vehicle.

Pennsylvania v. Mimms
Supreme Court of the United States
434 U.S. 106, 98 S.Ct 330 (1977)

Question: May the police order the driver of an automobile out of the car during a vehihcle stop for a traffic violation in the absence of suspicion of a criminal activity or a reasonable belief that the driver poses a threat to police safety?

Answer: "Once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, a police officer may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment"

"Rather than conversing while standing exposed to moving traffic, the officer may prefer to ask the driver of the vehicle to step out of the car and off onto the shoulder of the road where the inquiry may be pursued with greater safety to both."

O.F.Fascist
May 25, 2005, 05:45 PM
According to my friend if you're asked to step out of your car during the course of a traffic stop like for a sobriety test for instance, but are not being placed under arrest, you are not required to comply with the request. Sounds like BS to me but I thought I'd check.

I'm pretty sure it depends on the state and its laws.

FWIW I've been told that in Texas if you are asked to perform a field sobriety test. You know the walk along a straight line, hop up and down on one leg while recieting the alphabet backwards that you dont have to. Its sort of 5th amendment stuff to not incriminate yourself and you dont have to answer any of the officer's questions other than giving them your driver's liscense if you are driving.

That being said if you are asked blow into a breathalizer and you dont thats one of the things I think you can loose your driver's liscense for.

Jeff White
May 25, 2005, 06:21 PM
Ah the THR legal defense team rides again :rolleyes: .

Several years back a defense attorney in North Central Illinois was giving his clients cards to hand the officer through a small opening in the window. The idea was that the suspected DUI driver wasn't going to even let the officer get a whiff of his breath. IIRC this didn't work very well. Drivers were arrested for Obstruction of Justice for impeding the investigation into the DUI by refusing to have any contact with the officers. Most were arrested for DUI anyway and were convicted on the dash cam footage of their driving.

No, there is no requirement to submit to SFSTs. However in most cases you'll just be arrested for DUI on the spot. I have a case pending right now where a man ran his brother's truck into a ditch at about 1am. He got out of the truck and ran for the garage. As I was investigating the truck in the ditch, door open, lights on, ignition off, keys missing, he staggered out of the garage. I asked him why he ran from for the garage after he put the truck in the ditch, he denied drivng the truck. I told him I saw him get out of the truck and run into the garage, he still denied drivng and stated that it was his brother's truck and he (the brother) must have parked it in the ditch. I asked where his brother was and he said at home, I should call him and ask him why he parked the truck there. He refused to take SFSTs and denied that he was driving all the way to the jail. Refused to take the breathalyzer test.

He's currently serving his mandatory suspension for being arrested for DUI, his suspension for refusal to take the breathalyzer test is pending, and I have no doubt that my testimony, that of the other officers and the wreaker driver as well as the videotape of his conduct in the jail, that we'll convict him for DUI when the case comes up.

Jeff

Archie
May 25, 2005, 06:40 PM
Most states have what is called "implied consent". It means, when you apply for a driver's license, you have already consented to be field tested for DUI if a police officer has reason to suspect you may be 'impaired'. This has nothing to do with any crime, it's part of the license agreement between the driver and the state. Driving an automobile is not a constitutionally protected right; even if folks think it should be.

Cops in general do not stop people randomly for DUI checks. Cops stop people because their driving shows some degree of 'impairment'. Weaving across the lines, sloppy turns, sloppy stops and starts at signs and lights, and those kind of things. If you sneezed and crowded the centerline and a cop stops you, he's interested if you're drunk. Respond accordingly.

DO NOT "blow" in illinois. Better a suspended license than DUI.That's probably good advice if you're drunk. However, may I suggest if you're drinking, take a cab home instead of endangering yourself and everyone else on the road?

The reason for searching a car is much like checking for DUI. I've been stopped and ticketed (always for speed) serveral times. I've never been DUI checked and never had my car searched; or even asked to search. Maybe it's just my charming physiognomy.

Basically, the side of the road isn't the place to "fight your battle", as you will lose. If the police want you out of the car, you're coming, one way or another. If they want to search your car without a warrant or grounds, they're going to do it.Police can search your car under certain conditions. The Supreme Court has held that due to the mobile nature of automobiles, warrentless searches are far more reasonable for an auto than a home or business.
I'll quibble about "... search your car without ... grounds..." Cops in general are not going to waste their time on a groundless search. However, the cop must be able to explain in court why he searched a car without a warrant; he doesn't have to convince the driver.

I would also echo the several comments made about attitude. A belligerent and uncooperative attitude is simply going to focus attention on the driver as having something to hide.

TheFederalistWeasel
May 25, 2005, 06:47 PM
To quote a Superior Court Judge I had a case in front of once, when finding a guy guilty of felony obstruction and simple battery of a law enforcement officer.

“The law gives you all the rope you need, it’s up to you whether you will make yourself a safety net or a noose.”

It all stemmed from a traffic stop where the guy decided to act like a jackass and believed he knew more about the law than I did.

He was one of these fella’s who felt it was his God given right to use his cellphone to call his attorney at 3 AM in the morning after I stopped him for speeding, evidentially to ask his lawyer how he should proceed.

He would not even acknowledge my presence after the initial contact and me asking him for a D/L, he blew up at me and kept yelling that he was not doing anything until he spoke with a lawyer, and then proceeded to use his cellphone.

I tried to communicate with him several times until he told me to “shut the F#@%K up he was talking to his lawyer”.

We I at that point called for backup, backup arrived in the form of two city officers and a State Trooper and we explained to him how this was going to go down if he did not exit the vehicle.

He was still steadily running his mouth on the phone, so we proceeded to remove him from the car.

Not unexpectedly he began to resist and ended up smacking another officer before we subdued him and took him to jail for,

Speeding

Obstruction of an officer 3 counts misdemeanor

Obstruction of an officer Felony 1 count

Simple Battery of an officer 1 count

The funniest thing out of all of this was the reaction of the judge when he watched this stop from my in car video unit and the other 3 units which arrived at my call for assistance.

The defendant was attempting to tell the judge what we were doing wrong and how the law works when the judge more or less cut him off and said I really don’t believe what I’m hearing after just watching such a display of willful disregard to reasonable commands of an officer on a lawful traffic stop and you rather unreasonable and downright stupid behavior, the law gives you all the rope you need, it’s up to you whether you will make yourself a safety net or a noose, you sir chose to hang yourself. If you had just complied with the request for ID all you would have was a speeding ticket.

The judge gave him 12 months in the county jail 5 years on probation and 500 hours of community service


Oh yeah, the phone call...

He was on the phone with his sister, he admited that in court and he showed up in court w/o a lawyer.

Flyboy
May 25, 2005, 08:08 PM
He's currently serving his mandatory suspension for being arrested for DUI
Please tell me I misunderstood that. Just getting arrested is a mandatory suspension?

TheFederalistWeasel
May 25, 2005, 09:37 PM
In Georgia once arrested for DUI, a form called an ALS (Administrative License Suspension) form is filled out.

You have 10 days from the date of the offense to request in writing an ALS hearing in front of a Judge or, yes your license is automatically suspended for a minimum period of 180 days.

If you request the hearing the ALS board will send you a hearing application return form which authorizes you to operate a motor vehicle on the roads of the state for 180 days, until the hearing or until the judge suspends your license or returns them to you.

R.H. Lee
May 25, 2005, 09:44 PM
Easy no hassle solution:
Don't drink and drive.

El Tejon
May 25, 2005, 09:58 PM
UT, if the po-po want you out of the car, get out of the car. Eddie Haskell up or you'll end up with TFW's arrestee. Operative word is cool, just like El Tejon--smile and nod, use your Jedi mindtrick.

FSTs. Depending on state law, may be required may not be. Why someone would willing help convict themselves, I do not understand, but I see it everyday. :uhoh:

Jeff, my line from my prosecutor daze was, "that car didn't get here by skyhook." Juries always loved it.

Flyboy, like TFW sez, way it usually works, once a OWI/DUI is filed (charges brought by prosecution), an administrative license suspension is activated upon the finding of probable cause by the court (close eyes, stamp order). Here that suspension is 180 days.

O.F.Fascist
May 25, 2005, 11:45 PM
The reason for searching a car is much like checking for DUI. I've been stopped and ticketed (always for speed) serveral times. I've never been DUI checked and never had my car searched; or even asked to search. Maybe it's just my charming physiognomy

LoL I've been pulled over for speeding 3 times so far. 1 I paid, 1 I won at trial, and 1 I'm going to be working on shortly.

This latest one was when I was coming back from Big Bend this past weekend with some friends. Anywas tickets says I was going 79, which OMG I must be a total monster going 9 miles over the speed limit.

Anywas the officer asked if we had our camping gear in the trunk which I answered yes to, but she didnt ask to search. In fact the only time that anyone has asked to search my vehicle happened on said same trip.

We went though like something like 6 BP checkpoints all of them went fairly easily "are you US citizens," "Yes," "okay drive safely."

Maybe about an hour after I got my ticket and on the other side of Del Rio we come to the last BP checkpoint that we will see on our journey back home to Corpus.

Unlike all the other checkpoints this guy asks "where are you coming from," "how long were you there," "where are you going" to which I answer "home,""no, what city" my friend answers "Corpus,""where do you work" I say "Walgreens,""all of you work for Walgreens", then my friends say where they work at. Then he asks "may I see inside your trunk. I say "no." He responds "no?," I reply "no, sir." He then stands where with a deer in the headlights look for like 5-10 seconds. He walks around to the back of the car and I think he knocks on the trunk presumable to see if the nonexistant illegals I must be carrying respond. Takes his time to walk all the way around the car and back to my window and then he asks if we all are US citizens, we answer yes and then he says we can go.

Anyways I usually dont mind answering some questions but if I had to deal with ????ers like that often I definately would become a whole lot less cooperative. I feel sorry for people who live near the border.

MikeIsaj
May 26, 2005, 01:11 AM
unless you demand otherwise.

These are important words on this subject. Many times people get the tickets they demand. When someone makes it clear they are going to be trouble, you don't give them ammo. When I know my actions are going to be scrutinized, I make sure I do everything by the book. The saying is; "Don't make me do my job. You won't like it when I do my job."

There are those cops who are power hungry jerks. Most cops though are a reflection of you. Polite, courteous, non-threatening behavior will generally be returned to you. On the other hand if the cop is being a jerk, he may just be a reflection.

Old Fud
May 26, 2005, 02:31 AM
I'm speaking from memory, but it's consistent memory.
Every drivers training manual I've ever read in at least 4 states has reminded me firmly that having a drivers license is a Privilege granted by the state, is NOT a right, and the state will make the rules about whether I may be granted or deprived of that privilege.

Then it goes on to state that permission to conduct DUI tests is part of the contract that granted me the privilege and if I should renig, then I WILL lose my license immediately.

At this point I don't recall what is said in the book, but I am living under the firm impression that the consequences of refusing the field test are an inevitable trip to the station/hospital where a test of some kind WILL be administered without my permission, and some kind of citation (with automatic "guilty" attached) will be issued.

But everything goes back to the idea that you gave permission when you applied for the license.

Fud.

Johnnybgood
May 26, 2005, 12:18 PM
They can (and most likley will) revoke your FOID card which means you can not own any firearms. So either Don't Drink and Drive or suffer.

Kalrog
May 26, 2005, 01:16 PM
You have 10 days from the date of the offense to request in writing an ALS hearing in front of a Judge or, yes your license is automatically suspended for a minimum period of 180 days.

It is things like this that scare me.

Once convicted, I have no problem with loss of license (and much more). But to be punished for the accusation really rubs me the wrong way.

Jeff White
May 26, 2005, 03:31 PM
Kalrog said;
Once convicted, I have no problem with loss of license (and much more). But to be punished for the accusation really rubs me the wrong way.

Contact your local chapter of MADD and complain. They are the people pushing this kind of legislation. It's hard for an elected official to come out for drunk driving so the zealots who seem to have turned the organization into a temperance movement have a lot of pull in the state houses. Here is how Illinois justifies the Statutory Summary Suspension:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?DocName=062500050HCh%2E+6+Art%2E+II&ActID=1815&ChapAct=625%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B5%2F&ChapterID=49&ChapterName=VEHICLES&SectionID=59442&SeqStart=70400&SeqEnd=72300&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code%2E
(Text of Section from P.A. 93‑955)
Sec. 6‑206. Discretionary authority to suspend or revoke license or permit; Right to a hearing.
(a) The Secretary of State is authorized to suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any person without preliminary hearing upon a showing of the person's records or other sufficient evidence that the person:
1. Has committed an offense for which mandatory revocation of a driver's license or permit is required upon conviction;

Note that the Secretary of State only has to receive information that driver has committed an offense, not that the driver has in fact been convicted.

Johnnybgood said;
They can (and most likley will) revoke your FOID card which means you can not own any firearms. So either Don't Drink and Drive or suffer.

Not true. Here is the relevant section of the FOID law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1657&ChapAct=430%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B65%2F&ChapterID=39&ChapterName=PUBLIC+SAFETY&ActName=Firearm+Owners+Identification+Card+Act%2E
(430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑8)
Sec. 8. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:
(a) A person under 21 years of age who has been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;
(b) A person under 21 years of age who does not have the written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card;
(c) A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) A person addicted to narcotics;
(e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years;
(f) A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;
For the purposes of this Section, "mental condition" means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior.
(g) A person who is mentally retarded;
(h) A person who intentionally makes a false statement in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application;
(i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(i‑5) An alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non‑immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i‑5) does not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non‑immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(j) A person who is subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
(k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(l) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed on or after January 1, 1998;
(m) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before January 1, 1998;
(n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;
(o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5‑520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or
(p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
(Source: P.A. 92‑854, eff. 12‑5‑02; 93‑367, eff. 1‑1‑04.)

(430 ILCS 65/8.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑8.1)

I don't see DUI on the list of reasons they can revoke a FOID for. If it's felony DUI, it falls under the felony conviction part, but other then that, a DUI conviction won't cost you your FOID card.

Jeff

thereisnospoon
May 26, 2005, 03:50 PM
Why would anyone live in a State where you had to have a "card" to buy a firearm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Sorry, OT

Anyway, This thread makes me fear for the next generation. If you read the posts here by LEOs and others the mindset is simple....COMPLY or ELSE!

That scares the @#$% out of me! :cuss: :cuss: :mad: :mad: :mad:

MechAg94
May 26, 2005, 04:36 PM
Politeness is what the LEO's asked for. I don't see a problem with that. Most of the stories of people getting arrested or assaulted by police were people who asked for it. Being polite and courteous should be normal behavior, especially to people carrying a gun. In this day and age, drinking and driving is done at your own risk.

Jammer Six
May 26, 2005, 08:52 PM
Courts are what separate us from police states.

Those of you who choose to fight your battles with the police on the side of the road rather than fighting them with the people of your state in a court of law will, sooner or later, be separated from me and my descendents by Darwin.

If a cop wants you out of your car, even if he's dead wrong, you're getting out of your car.

If it's a mistake, it'll be fixed later, when the odds are all in your favor. On the side of the road, there are no odds. It's a done deal. You're getting out of your car.

That's the way those of us who support the police want it. We don't want debates, weinie measuring or other tactical contests on the side of the road, we want the police to execute their duties, and enforce the laws that our representatives have written, as they are written. If it weren't that way, the alternative is that no reasonable person would be a police officer, and we'd have a police force made up of morons. We don't want that. We want good men and women as police officers.

We also don't want bad guys driving away simply because they were able to out-debate an officer on a traffic stop, so the system has been set up so that it's not a contest. On the street, you're going to loose, and the police are going to win.

"You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

In a courtroom, the situation is reversed, and you have all the advantages.

If individual officers make mistakes in the execution of those directives, you will be given the benefit of every doubt, and you will be given every chance to right each wrong.

Later. In a court of law, with lawyers. Not on the side of the road, and never with police officers.

Get out of the car.

sctman800
May 27, 2005, 04:46 AM
Been there done that, NEVER AGAIN!!!!! Had a DUI back in 1993, ended up with the usual loss of licence, fines etc. Also 2 years court supervision and altho there was no mention of giving up my FOID card, which I kept and still have, I was told by the judge I couldn't possess any firearms. I didn't have much in the way of guns then so just moved them out and then back in 2 years later. I haven't had a drink now for over 12 years, I figure they can't bust you for something you don't do. If I am ever stopped again I WILL be sober, I will not take a FST but will have no problem with the breath or whatever test they want to give me. Then when I am found to be clean and sober I will be talking to a lawyer. Jim.

38SnubFan
May 27, 2005, 05:26 AM
Easy no hassle solution: 'Nuff Said!

Steve and Weasel, my thanks to both of you for providing your insight and showing the view from the other side of the Thin Blue Line.

Everyone has pretty much summed it up. The side of the road is not the place to argue. Be courteous, be professional, and be compliant with the officer, even if he's wrong. Like everyone else said, your attorney and the courts can handle that later. If the officer IS just being a jerk, you can always call the PD during regular business hours and file a complaint with his superiors. Trust me - they WILL be heard and handled if your complaint is valid.

I've only ever had one experience of my vehicle being searched, while driving in NJ. This was years ago, about 1994 or 1995 IIRC. I was leaving a friend's home in Mays Landing at about 10:30 PM. When I started the truck and turned on the headlights, the driver's-side headlamp had burned out. I basically already knew at that point that somewhere along the drive home I was going to be TSed. I also had replaced the transmission recently and the new tranny (out of a truck a year newer than mine) had thrown the speedo off by about 10 MPH. Sure enough, 15 minutes down the road and NJ State Police stop me. He advised me I was radared at 59 in a 50 and clocked (Certified Speedometer) at 60. He stated NJ allows 10 miles over, so he wasn't going to write me a ticket. He wrote me a Warning Card for the headlmap, understanding I was unable to replace it at that hour. Well, sure enough, another 15 minutes or less and I get pulled over again, for the headlamp. This time there were two officers who approached. I handed him my DL and vehicle info, along with the Warning Card. He saw a black box on the seat between me and my buddy and asked if it was a radar detector (illegal in NJ). I showed him it was a CB Radio by the attached mic, when my buddy tells the cop, sarcastically but rudely, "I've yet to see a radar detector with a microphone!" The officer asks us if he can "look around". I tell him I have nothing to hide and my buddy and I step out. He checks behind the seat and underneath, the glove box, the bed, and underneath the truck. He put everything back the way he found it, thanked me for my time, and explained to me that US 40 is a popular route for drug transporters between Philadelphia and Atlantic City. Once I understood why I was pulled over twice in 15 minutes about a headlamp, I was more "at ease". He even radioed ahead to other units west of us that I would be coming through the whole way to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and that we were already TSed twice and "clear to pass". Thus, I showed him respect, and he showed me respect.

I'll admit that there are "prick cops" out there, who truly have nothing better to do than harass everyone they stop and/or approach. However, you can bet that in proportion, there are an extreme amount of "prick citizens" to every "prick cop". Also, cops are humans, and plenty of them work long hours, get tired, and get cranky just like the rest of us "Working-Class Joes". Sometimes, that Thin Blue Line can get very tiring - and very frustrating - to walk every day.

-38SnubFan

armedcitizen
May 27, 2005, 11:32 AM
I've been driving for 25+ years now so I've had a few opportunities to interact with LEO in several states. I have never been treated in a less than professional manner. I've never gotten a ticket I didn't deserve and I've not been given some tickets that I did deserve. If an officer wants me out of the car, I'm out of the car.

Now, having said all of that, if you want to delve into what your "rights" are, as opposed to using common sense, go to the ACLU website. At one point, they had a "Cop Stop" card that you could print off that tells you exactly what you are required to do.

thorn726
May 27, 2005, 03:23 PM
why is this even a thread-
You must also comply with any reasonable request from the officer during the course of the traffic stop and stepping out of the vehicle is reasonable.

i think Fedweasels description is pretty widely the way it goes.

El Rojo
May 28, 2005, 11:59 AM
In this day and age, drinking and driving is done at your own risk.Not really, it is at the risk of everyone you run into that night. Don't drink and drive idiots.

You know I have been pulled over 4 times. 2 of the 4 the officers were at the window for no more than 30 seconds. The other two times I received a warning. I think the only reason I got out of those tickets is because I knew the law better than the officers and my quick wit and superior attitude intimidated those officers to go pick on someone else. Also I never rolled down the window more than an inch and I slipped them my cell phone with my lawyer on the other line and my DL. They immediately dropped the cell phone and license and ran back to their cars and rolled code three to another call. Right. I am the biggest, baddest, meanest Law and Order watching, self proclaimed lawyer that ever lived and no cop wants to stop and mess with me.

Wait, no, that wasn't it. I always have my license and registration ready, my hands on 10 and 2, window down, car off, and I talk politely to the officer. Imagine that.

Would I consent to a search? Probably not. If they ask if I am carrying, I have to say yes and I will produce my CCW license. Now the question is, if I didn't have a CCW, I am pretty sure the law says they can assertain if I am carrying illegally or not, meaning loaded weapon in the car. Now that I have my CCW, do they still need to get a hold of my weapon? Afterall, of course it is loaded, but I can carry loaded. Can they argue that they need to take control of my weapon for officer safety? Does that give them a right to search my vehicle? Anyone familiar with PRK or maybe your own states law care to comment? Keep in mind we are not a mandatory "inform the officer you are carrying" state.

(the one time I was pulled over while I was carrying, I didn't tell him, but finding out later from his partner who is a friend, he assumed I was because of my hands on ten and two and my knowing the drill, he thought I was LEO. My friend stayed back at the cruiser and the guy at the window didn't ask him before he came forward. Can they get me for impersonating an officer? :scrutiny: ).

bearmgc
May 28, 2005, 12:53 PM
This may sound hokey, but, OK. Politeness is a form of respect. Police Officers have a tough and dangerous job. If I am stopped for any reason by a bonafide law officer, being polite and doing nothing to create a tense situation is my first and only response. Since I don't drink, DUI stuff is a nonissue. Hint: guns and alcohol don't mix, make a choice. One time I was driving home from work and totally exhausted from the job. I was pulled over for weaving on the road. The police officer informed me of his observation and asked me some questions. He then told me to be careful and go home and get some sleep. I was grateful for his vigilance. I don't think I could do his job, but I sure am thankful, he can.

If you enjoyed reading about "traffic stop question" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!