Answering LE's 'questions' at a traffic stop

Status
Not open for further replies.
"I went to CA for my wife's dad's funeral and got stopped for 52 in a 35.

I asked to see the radar gun and it said what he said.

When I got back to NE I entered a plea of not guilty by declaration and paid the $136 bail, which is also the amount of the fine.

I fought the cite on two fronts:

a. I was driving under the basic speed law pursuant to CA statute and my speed was safe for conditions.

b. A motion to dismiss based on the fact that the officer was on church property when he scanned me in violation of the Separation Clause.

All I got back in the mail was a letter that stated that I had been found not guilty by declaration and that the bail in the amount of $136 had been ordered returned.

They did not tell me on what aspect of the challenge I won but I tend to believe that the reason they took so long to get back to me was because they were passing my motion to dismiss around the office for a good laugh.

You can win if you try. You will always lose if you expend no effort. That's what they want. Pay us the money and then suffer higher (mandatory) insurance fees for the next three years."

First of all, most state V & T laws that establish a state speed limit state "unless otherwise posted". It was a 35 zone. It doesn't matter if the rest of the state is posted for 55, you were in a 35 zone.
The fact that the officer was sitting in a church parking lot has no bearing on the validity of your ticket.
They didn't tell you how or why you won, and it probably ahd nothing to do with your "defense".
Next time, slow it down.
 
Hey carpetbagger........

You know nothing about me. I'm a LEO and have a CCW......my wife has a CCW........most of my family has CCW's..........I've taken my children shooting when they were old enough to hold .22's. I still take my son every chance I get.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Steve in PA,
Hate t break this to ya, but criminals & mentally disturbed people already have access to guns. Like most prohibitions, prior restraint based gun control laws merely burden those without harmful intent.

But the bottom line is that these laws conflict with many state constitutions & the federal constitution. You want to have a prior restraint gun control law? Fine. Just alter the applicable constitutions first so it can be legitimate according to our laws.

As for te blame, the people bear the brunt of it as they allowed these laws to be passed. But the legislators deserve blame for voting for these laws, cops get blame because they enforce them, & judges get blame because they uphold them. Since this thread is concerned with cops though, they're getting the brunt of it right now, but they are by no means alone in the responsibility.

As to how prior restraint based gun control laws pertain to this thread, didn't you ask me what Rights a cop would violate by enforcing the law?

The bottom line is this: cops usually swear an oath to uphold the constitutions & laws that are applicable to their jurisdiction. But in practice they usually just enforce the laws even if they're in conflict with said constitutions. Cops should refuse to enforce any law that is in conflict with th constitution. Fpr example that means prior rstraint based gun control laws should not be enforced at all.

In Denver, Co. they had a prohibition on open carry until last year when a state pre-empton law was passed. (Denver's fighting it btw but that's another story). People would be arrested for openly carrying a firearm within the city limits, whether in their vehicle or on their person. This despite the U.S. constitution & the Colorado constitution both asserting that the Right to keep & bear arms was to be respected. So an upstanding member of the community faced arrest by cops who chose to ignore their duty to uphold the constitution & merely follow whatever orders were given. The city council that passed it, the judges that upheld it & the people who tolerated it were also to blame, but the cops were the ones to enforce it. They acted like common thugs for the city council when it came to that issue. & it might be unfair since others were responible for passing & upholding the law, but the cops were the ones to enforce it.

Now if they just flatly refused to make arrests based on this prior restraint gun prohibition then the whole thing would have collapsed. As a union they threatened recently to decrease the number of traffic tickets they wrote because they were unhappy with the administration. So since they can use this vital revenue raising tactic to protest what they feel was unjust treatment, I see no reason whatsoever why they couldn't have banded together & refused to enforce a gun control law that conflicted with the state & federal constitution.

But they didn't. They blindly enforced the law like good little robots, despite it causing them to violate the oath the took.

But that's just one example of how officers enforcing the law without regard to the constitution(s) can violate the people's Rights.

see most cops will say that they'd never enforce a gun confiscation law, but the fact is that they enforce laws that are just as conflicting with our Rights. Cops in NYC, Chicago, & D.C. regularly arrest people whose only crime was exercising their Rights. Same in Mass., N.J., & California - they enforce laws on the books that at best chill our enjoyment of Rights & at worst attempt to stomp out those Rights altogether.

Like I said, cops are by no means alone in the blame. But they are the ones who actually impose these laws on the public.

Finally, I have a rather strict definition of "pro-gun". If I interpret your last post correctly that you are okay with some prior restraint based gun control laws, then you wouldn't meet my definition of "pro-gun". You'd be anti-gun with the degree to which you are anti -gun still left open to debate. But that's just me. In any event I contend that if you do support prior restraint gun control laws you are not as "pro-gun as anyone", since I know a lot of people (including myself) who would like to see all prior restraint gun control laws wiped off the books. I will grant that you may be more in favor of the Right to Arms than many around you, but that's a little different than being pro-gun or equally pro-gun as anyone else.

Does all that answer your question about how cops can violate Rights by enforcing the law as it exists?
 
So, according to some people.......being "pro-gun", means not wanting any gun laws, is that it?

And if a person thinks there should be some kind of law, then they fall into the "anti-gun" section?

One or the other? No middle ground? I know alot of people too that are "pro-gun" and still think there should be some kind of law governing the carrying of a weapon. And no, they are not LEOs.

LEOs as a whole don't have the option to pick and choose which laws they want to enforce. Not going to happen. Individually they may use discretion in the current situation they are involved in.

Here's an example. The town I work in has an ordinance that says no one, except a LEO may fire his weapon within the boundries of the borough. There is one area that gets alot of shooters. Well, not alot, but a frequent amount. Its in a old strip mine area of the town. Several times I have stopped and checked on the shooters, and nothing has happend. I tell them about the ordinance and to use their heads (be safe).

A few times I've had to chase them because the mayor or council person called and said persons were shooting up there. Could I have arrested them? Yes, but I chose to act differently.

Thats a bit different that carrying openly, which you can do in PA, except in Philadelphia, which bans open carry. Your town enacts a law forbiding something and you don't like it, then get the law repealed.

No one's Rights are being violated by a LEO enforcing a law. If that was so, then they'd be sued everytime they arrest anyone, for anything (not just gun laws).
 
Seriously, HRG, chill the f out. A cop or any human being should be able to ask you a question even given some odd history without you getting your panties all up in a bunch.
 
But what is the explanation for the Blazer guy? Officer discretion? According to all of the officers out there that day, everyone was supposed to get a ticket.
Click to expand...

Why didn't you ask the cop who wrote your ticket? You already had the ticket, what else was there to lose? Maybe then, you could have fought it on "selective enforcement" maybe?
 
Steve in Pa,
Actually what I was saying was that being pro-gun means not approving of any prior restraint based gun control laws. Gun laws are necessary in certain circumstances, such as ones that prohibit firing in a crowded neighborhood. But laws that merely punsh people for possession are not. As a policy they fail & as a matter of our Rights they intrude.

But there is a middle ground. Unfortunately the middle ground tends to favor the anti side rather than the pro, so I view it accordingly. If you're okay with forcing people to pay money & grovel for permission to carry a weapon for defense, then you may consider yourself to be in the middle or even leaning pro-gun, but to those that actually understand the situation you're helping the anti's more than the pro's.

& as I stated, LEO's have the duty to uphold the constitutions that are applicable to them. That would mean refusing en masse to enforce a law that conflicts with said constitution(s). If cops can band together & threaten to write less traffic tickets because they have issues with the administration, or strike because they have issues with pay & benefits, then I see no compelling reason why they can't refuse to enforce laws that conflict with the constitution.

"No one's Rights are being violated by a LEO enforcing a law. If that was so, then they'd be sued everytime they arrest anyone, for anything (not just gun laws)."

Huh? You're trying to tell me that if you arrested me for having a post ban assault weapon that you wouldn't be violating my Rights? Or that if you arrested me for having a firearm in my car my Rights would be intact? Or that if I had a gun in my home sans permit that your arrest of me would not violate my Rights?

As has probably been said way too much, what part of "...shall not be infringed." do you not get?

Every time someone is arrested for merely possessing or owning a firearm without displaying any harmful intent then that person's Right to Arms has been violated in contradiction to the constitutional guarantee(s) that are suppossed to prevent this.

See the problem is the application of the system we have - it makes it extremely easy for Rights violating laws to get enacted, enforced & upheld while making it extremely difficult to get those laws repealed. & cops such as yourself are a big part of the problem. You refuse to see any wrong in enforcing the law, even if that law violates the Rights of the people. You even presume that since it's a law that it cannot violate anyone's Rights. What you are doing is saying tha the state is correct in all things otherwise they wouldn't do it. & again, you're part of the problem.

So explain to me why exactly you could not refuse to enforce a law that you thought conflicted with the constitutional guarantee(s) of a person's Rights. Tell me why you cannot refuse to bust someone for owning a post ban assault weapon or carrying w/o a permit or carrying at all in a town that prohibits it.
 
Steve, after reading a lot of your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you were the guy my father warned me about. My fatherS, I should say.

Founding Fathers.

You are the guy who has waaaay to much trust in government, and waaay to much love of laws, and very little appreciation of what it means to lose your freedom, and how very easy it is to lose it.


You need to do some history homework.


A LOT of it.


I used to think the leftists were the ones who were leading us to a police state. Well, they are, but not as fast as the blind Law 'n Order types.


Oh, one other thing.


What part of "infringed" don't you understand?
 
Steve in PA .... a tad off topic (and I am now purely observing the rest of this!) .......
That's a bit different than carrying openly, which you can do in PA
Click to expand...
Please clarify for me .. I thought when this cropped up not so long ago on a thread .. someone came back on it and said there was NO open carry in PA ..... which is what I had generally understood. Would much appreciate absolute clarification if at all possible. Thx.
 
RESPONSIBILITY

Main Entry: re·spon·si·bil·i·ty
Pronunciation: ri-"spän(t)-s&-'bi-l&-tE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 1786
1 : the quality or state of being responsible : as a : moral, legal, or mental accountability b : RELIABILITY, TRUSTWORTHINESS
2 : something for which one is responsible : BURDEN

One thing about threads like this that just jumps right out at me. We all talk about being responsible gun owners and that one of the biggest problems in society today is that people don't take responsibility for their own actions.
Then we have threads that say, "If pulled over for speeding, driving drunk, hauling dope (and you were), don't say anything, don't own up to it, screw "the man/system" etc.
I say, what ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? (please deal with the simple statement just presented, not some apples/oranges "yeah but, etc")


JMHO
 
Thee Bad One,
Honestly, if it onvoles a crime against another person, then yes - people should admit what they've done & accept the responsibility for their actions.

But in the current legal climate the majority of laws do not deal with things that directly & immediately threaten anyone else or ourselves. They tend to deal with the crime being not doing what the law said rather than taking an action that endangers someone else.

For example, say I've had 2 beers in the last hour. the last one was consumed about 40 minutes ago. In my judgement I'm fine to drive as well as the judgement of those with me. But I could blow a .08 & be subject to a drunk driving charge. Let's assume my metabolism is such that 2 oe even 3 beers wouldn't impair my ability to safely operate a vehicle (if I wait 40 minuts or so after the last one) but it would cause me to blow a .08 or .09. Since I would be violating the law should I turn myself in?

Same thing with possessing a firearm. My state requires a permit & fee before I can exercise that Right w/o fear of arrest. But let's say I cannot afford the fee & thus cannot get a permit. But I routinely travel in a bad part of town so I carry anyway. Again, should I confess my "crime" to the first cop I have contact with?

But yes, if I were driving wrecklessly or threatening peopel with a firearm then I should turn myself in. However most peopel that do such thngs don't feel they should accept responsibility for their actions.

Ultimately we should not answer any questios at a traffic stop or other LEo contact because to do so could land us in trouble for things we shouldn't be in trouble for. It's an unfortunate consequence but a system designed to protect the innocent will invariably protect the guilty to a degree. & the reverse is also true; a system designed to catch the guilty will be more burdensome on the innocent than the guilty.

So yes, if you were speeding you should fess up to it, & if you were riving drunk or engaging in any other action that would endanger someone else. But the proper place to do it is in front of the judge, not in front of the cop. That's not so much to avoid your responsibility as to avoid taking responsibility for anything you did that wasn't wrong per se but still a violation of the law.

For example if I did a rolling stop through a stop sign I wouldn't say a word to the cop. That's because while there he could take what I say (potentially, depending on exactly what was said) as an excuse to search me &/or my car & find the gun I carry for protection contrary to the local laws. In front of the judge it'd be proper to fess up to what you did that was wrong.

Of course your initial question would be grounds for the whole "should drugs really be illegal?" argument but I think you get the gist of it; if you wish to be honorable then own up to the judge anything you're done that immediately & directly endangers anyone else or their property. If you break the "law" in a way that does not endanger anyone else or their property then fight it as best you can.
 
If some of you are going to make the "pro gun" label so restrictive that it only applies to people who will support ZERO gun laws, then you are being unrealistic. There are many of us who support the use and possession of firearms by law abiding people but who recognize that there need to be restrictions in place to deal with the criminal use and possession of firearms. Supporting those measures does not make us "anti gun" in any sense of the term.
 
Questions such as where are you going and where are you coming from are attempting to establish a reason why you might have done what you were observed doing, your knowledge of the offense you were observed doing, and help the officer decide which of the possible outcomes is warranted.
Click to expand...
Some police are better at doing this inoffensively than others.
"Sir, is there a good reason you were exceeding the speed limit? An emergency I should know about? Did you know that the speed limit dropped suddenly back there?"
is much better than:
"Sir, where do you think you're going? Where were you tonight? Why are you out this late? You new here, or what? What are you hiding? Didja think I wouldn't see you speeding back there?"

One contact I go away feeling that the officer seriously cares about my well being and is willing to be reasonable if I have a valid reason for committing an infraction. The other, I feel I'm being interrogated. You may consider either to be equally valid, but if you decide to use the latter method, you're more likely to engender negative feelings toward police, and threads such as this one.

Steve,
I'm as pro-gun as anyone......but there needs to be something out there to prevent persons deemed a danger to themselves or others from having guns.
Click to expand...
If someone is dangerous and untrustworthy with guns, they're likely dangerous and untrustworthy with a billion other common items (cars, sticks, knives, chemicals, matches, hammers, gasoline, etc, etc, etc, ad infinitum) and should probably not be free in the general population, right?
Don't blame the LEO for enforcing the law, blame the people you voted into office.
Click to expand...
Steve, no offense intended, but there is no more extreme tacit approval for a law than enforcing it. I believe that those who supported and took part in the passing of a given bad law should be blamed first - no doubt about it - but I can't see how someone could enforce a law that they considered was immoral and live with themselves, so I assume that the police who enforce laws must consider them to be moral. Am I wrong?


TBO,
I say, what ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions? (please deal with the simple statement just presented, not some apples/oranges "yeah but, etc")
Click to expand...
Agreed. If someone violates a moral law, they should fess up to it. In fact, someone with sufficient depth of faith should fess up to breaking immoral laws too.
That said, would you agree that a LEO should take responsibility for the laws he enforces and not just brush it off as "your fault because you let 'em pass it"? Or should he pass the buck and say "It isn't my fault, 'The SYSTEM' is making me enforce 'em."? Just a question.


tcsd1236,
There are many of us who support the use and possession of firearms by law abiding people but who recognize that there need to be restrictions in place to deal with the criminal use and possession of firearms.
Click to expand...
2 questions ...
1. What is "criminal possession"?
2. Who has advocated that "criminal use" (I assume you mean assault, murder, intimidation, etc. with a firearm) be legal?
 
I’m not sure how it is on other departments but patrol officers on mine don’t have time to make too many stops. In a month I may write 5 tickets and that’s if I had a busy traffic month. Normally I am handling calls for service and patrolling neighborhoods as time permits. I’ve been a LEO for 20 years now and one thing I hate more then anything is going to I/A and explain rude behavior, or the alleged rude behavior on my part so I don’t do it. The stomach pains of heading downtown to justify something I shouldn’t have done is enough for most of us to not be rude.

I have to say most of the stories I hear about cops I am skeptical about. It seems like at every social gathering I have been to when someone finds out I’m a cop I hear the bad ticket story. I’m not saying anybody is not telling the truth but after a while it gets to the point where you kinda raise an eyebrow when you hear them. Also with the brutality thing that somebody keeps harping on about the township where he does EMS. Maybe there but in large agencies if you are abusing people you are going to find your ??? in the jail with the people you arrest. We do police ourselves and we have to. Not only is it the right thing to do but there are so many watchdog groups that are waiting for a reason to jump and bring public opinion against us.

When I make a stop I never ask if they know why I stopped them, I never pass judgment and I never lecture. I know how much I hate to be lectured to and most people do know why they were stopped and knew what they did was wrong so why lecture. They way I look at it is that more then likely they will be fined and possibly have their insurance premium raised. I don’t think anyone runs a red light just to make me mad so I don’t get mad. Also the sooner we part company the better for both of us. I have work to do and they have someplace to go.

Normally I start by introducing myself and telling them why I stopped them and ask if they had any legal justification for the reason for the stop. If not, I ask for license, registration and proof of insurance. As far as interrogating what the heck to I have to ask. It’s not like someone is going to tell me “why yes officer I do have a pound of coke in the trunkâ€. If I need to search a car before I ask I will build my PC through my observations like something I see sticking out from under a seat IE bag of dope, gun maybe someone’s hand….Whatever. Also if I don’t have a reason to search I’m not asking because most of the time there are calls stacking up and somebody needs me somewhere.
 
If one cannot be trusted with deadly weapons in society, they should be removed from society until they can be trusted (or permanently, but that's another discussion).

However, very few people agree with me. Until/unless things change, a prohibition on mentally unstable persons and persons convicted of violent felonies on having weapons sounds pretty reasonable.

Back on topic - as for answering an Officer's questions at a traffic stop, you are required to identify yourself and give your address. You do not have to give an explanation of your actions, but it might be a good idea. Depends on what your actions are :), and what your relationship with the local cops/politics are like.

You must follow lawful commands, both for self preservation and as a matter of law - bear in mind that you/your vehicle may be similar to a suspect/vehicle. If the cop tells you to show your hands, roll down windows, turn off the car, throw the keys out, step out of the vehicle, etc., just DO IT, and work it out later. If your rights are really violated there are thousands of lawyers in line to sue the city.

Please cut us cops a break - we're doing the best we can, amid a LOT of hostility, controversy, and danger.
 
Morgan,
Therein lies the problem: what most cops think are lawful commands are not necessarily lawful, or not constitutional.

For example, if during a traffic stop a cop asks you to step out of the car so he can search for weapons do you really think that's a "lawful command"? After all most state constitutions & the federal constitution acknowledge our Right to keep & bear arms & for the life of me I cannot see how it is lawful to inconvenience someone in order to search for what he/she lawfully possesses.

"If the cop tells you to show your hands, roll down windows, turn off the car, throw the keys out, step out of the vehicle, etc., just DO IT, and work it out later. If your rights are really violated there are thousands of lawyers in line to sue the city."

In a word - nope.

In many words - the goal is not to sue a cop after he violates your Rights. The goal is to not have your Rights violated in the first place. Obeying any & every "command" by a public servant is a good way to not achieve that goal. If you (as a cop) want me to step outside my vehicle in the course of a traffic stop, you best have a very damn good reason for it & you shouldn't be surprised if your idea of a good reason is inadequate.
Throw my keys out the window? uh-huh. Right after I put sugar in my gas tank on some stranger's "command".

See cops are taught that they must assume command in every LEO-civilian encounter. & hey - if you run across someone firing indiscriminantly in a crowd, feel free to take command if a citizen hasn't already. But in any petty encounter (such as a traffic stop or a DUI checkpoint, a cop should ask, not command. & compliance shouldn't be justification for violence initiated by the cop.

But I digress. My point is that Rights should be exercised & protected BEFORE they're trampled on - not after. It's like rape - once it happens no amount of lawyering is gonna make it all better. The most you can hope for is to keep it from happening to the next person.

& unless you want to bring out the anarchist in me, use a word other than "command" next time. It brings back all those "issues with authority" I have. :cool:

tcsd1236,
Supporting any prior restraint based gun control law makes you anti-gun.

Here's a story that I hope will illustrate the issue:

A man walks up to a woman in a bar. he asks her if she'd sleep with him for $1,000,000. She says yep she would. He then asks if she'd sleep with him for $5. She looks offended & replies, "What kind of girl do you think I am?!?!?". He answers. "Ma'am, we've already established that; now we're bartering".

Now keep in mind I didn't say any gun laws. Laws that prohibit firing a weapon in a public place, or across the road & others similar in nature are not undesirable (within reason). But any law that makes the mere possession or the carrying of a firearm or the ownership of a certain type of firearm a crime is unacceptable. & the big kicker is that aside from being violative of our Rights, they're generally ineffective at controlling crime. They're great at burdening those with no harmful intent & chilling the exercise of a Right. But as far as crime control goes, they simply don't work.
 
Publicola:
"But in any petty encounter (such as a traffic stop or a DUI checkpoint, a cop should ask, not command. & compliance shouldn't be justification for violence initiated by the cop."

Therein lies one of the problems with citizens not understanding the situation at a traffic stop.

Your trivialization of traffic stops underscores the dangers LE face at traffic stops. One of the two biggest killers of LE's is the traffic stop. I would not think that your comment of a traffic stop denotes your understanding of this real threat to LE's when you state a traffic stop is a "petty encounter".

And if I ask you to step out of the vehicle, you better step out of the vehicle and do it with an attitude that you are willing to cooperate with my request and not posturing "you" don't think I have the right to ask such of you.

First, because I do have the right to get you out of the car, whether you think I do or not. And if something leads me to believe there may be weapons in the vehicle, the courts have granted me the right to get you to alight from the vehicle so you do not have immediate access to those weapons. I have the right to protect myself from you. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant, what is important is that I have the right to go home at the end of the shift and not take a bullet because I might "offend" someone like you by being prudent and asking you to alight from the vehicle.

I'm not concerned with your sense of fair play, or your theories abotu what is lawful or right. I'm concerned with going home at the end of the tour. If that means getting you out of the car, oh well, thats what it is going to be.

Is it an inconvenience for you? Probably. It's an inconvenience for me as well. I have an obligation to protect myself and the general public. I will err on the side of caution. I will do these things as "I" deem necessary on the roads, and not based on your thoughts on the subject at the time of the stop.

If you are having a problem with the way you are treated on the streets at stops, take it up with command. In the meantime, I'll do whatever my "senses" tell me is prudent at the time of the action. Your attitude will go a long way toward how I react to the stop anyway. I'll feed off your actions.

Your actions can be abrasive, and I'll escalate my own safety accordingly. Your actions can be complacent and non argumentative, and I'll feed off those as well.

It doesn't matter what you "feel" I've done to you, it matters what I think I need to do to protect myself during the stop. If the actions taken can not be articuladed as reasonable, you'll have your day in front of the judge. In the meantime, I've made it home to my family at the end of the shift.

Some seem to think I do not have the right to take measures to protect myself during a stop. They are wrong, I do and I will, whatever that takes. If you disagree with my actions, take it up with the judge.

Brownie
 
Publicola:
By making your definition of "pro-gun" so unneccesarily narrow, you are cutting out probably the vast majority of gun owners, most who recognize that some degree of gun control is needed in a modern, industrailized high population density society.

Cordex: Criminal possession is that possession which does not abide by to the laws on the books for lawfully possessing that item, and its use and posession while committing criminal acts.

As to the comment about officers asking people to get out of a car to search the car, that IS a legal request and has been cleared by the Courts, as long as the request is done in a certain way and under certain circumstances. Simply because you may disagree with the Court ruling does not make the search unlawful.
 
Cordex: Criminal possession is that possession which does not abide by to the laws on the books for lawfully possessing that item, and its use and posession while committing criminal acts.
Click to expand...
That's what I was afraid of.
I think we can all agree that murder, assault, intimidation, etc. are all crimes that should be punished, but by your definition, you suggest that the NFA 34, GCA 68, AWB 94, and all manner of restrictions on citizens carrying, buying, owning, modifying, or selling arms is acceptable. In fact, you put yourself in a position to defend anything that is on the books now or in the future as valid restrictions. I will not blindly champion whatever "the books" say, because the law may well be wrong (today, or a decade from now) on an issue.

I propose that the laws against possession of firearms wherein no one is hurt, threatened, or otherwise harmed are wrong. Therefore, I cannot agree with your definition of "criminal possession" as a valid offense.

One day, owning any handgun, rifle or shotgun might be "criminal possession". Will you defend it then?
 
I'll disagree fellas. Maryland courts have held that UNLESS WE ARE UNDER ARREST, we don not have to exit the vehicle for a moving violation traffic stop. Unless an officer sees a gun, or illegal drugs in plain view, we can sit pretty and smile or frown all we want.

In Maryland, a suspect doesn't even have to take a roadside sobriety test. An officer can ask you to take one, but you have the right to say no. This will of course, cause more trouble than it's worth, as an officer will probably assume you've been drinking and haul you to the nearest station for the breathalyzer or blood test, which you do have to take or you'll temporarily lose your license.

The point of this thread isn't about LEO's safety, it's about what citizens' can say no to.

If an LEO can't do the job without trampling on the rights of the citizens, then they shouldn't be doing the job. Scared? Find a safer job.

I make way more money now in a much safer field than I ever could have if I would've stayed in LE. (yeah, yeah.....I know it's not about the money, right? LEO's LOVE their work so much that it's worth the crappy pay, crappy hours, dismal conditions, and horribly dangerous situations that make them super paranoid so they can go home to the family) If your family is more important, find a new job. Weather bothers you? Find a new job. Hate the 4 to 12 shift? Guess what? There's plenty of 8 to 5 jobs.

Just because an LEO hates the conditions under which they have to work doesn't give them the RIGHT to take away a citizen's RIGHT to privacy.

And as far as your arrogance in "inconveniencing" citizens.....and you yourself being "inconvenienced" by doing your job, well......does picking up your paycheck inconvenience you too?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
QUOTE
I'm not concerned with your sense of fair play, or your theories abotu what is lawful or right. I'm concerned with going home at the end of the tour. If that means getting you out of the car, oh well, thats what it is going to be.

Is it an inconvenience for you? Probably. It's an inconvenience for me as well. I have an obligation to protect myself and the general public. I will err on the side of caution. I will do these things as "I" deem necessary on the roads, and not based on your thoughts on the subject at the time of the stop.

If you are having a problem with the way you are treated on the streets at stops, take it up with command. In the meantime, I'll do whatever my "senses" tell me is prudent at the time of the action. Your attitude will go a long way toward how I react to the stop anyway. I'll feed off your actions.

Your actions can be abrasive, and I'll escalate my own safety accordingly. Your actions can be complacent and non argumentative, and I'll feed off those as well.

It doesn't matter what you "feel" I've done to you, it matters what I think I need to do to protect myself during the stop. If the actions taken can not be articuladed as reasonable, you'll have your day in front of the judge. In the meantime, I've made it home to my family at the end of the shift.

Some seem to think I do not have the right to take measures to protect myself during a stop. They are wrong, I do and I will, whatever that takes. If you disagree with my actions, take it up with the judge
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That whole post reeks of the arrogance that turns people off and makes them NOT care about your safety.

Now, with the rant mode off, I'll add that since becoming an adult, any traffic stop that I've been involved in (mostly a passenger, my wife is the leadfoot;) , have been positive and respectful of my privacy. Never asked for MY I.D., never badgered us about anything. Day or night, sunny, rainy, whatever. And I live in The Baltimore/Washington area which has some of the highest crime rates anywhere. Most LEO's around here have EARNED the right to be paranoid (maybe that's a strong word....overly cautious, perhaps?), but still seem to keep things polite and professional, especially the State Troopers. So I'll certainly be extra polite knowing the conditions under which they serve us.

FWIW
 
Cordex:
You have to work to get the laws you object to overturned. You cannot expect officers to pick and choose which laws to enforce based on their personal preferences. I think the '94 law was misguided, but I don't enforce Federal law, so that ones not an issue. We have a state law that mirrors the Federal law, and yes, we would arrest people under that.Has it happened? No. Buta s long as its on the books, it will be enforced .

I don't have a problem with the 1968 and 1934 laws in particular, especiallya s the 1934 law deals with FA weaponry. I think that that part of the gun community needs strict overwatch, and I have no problem with the current procedures. If anything, the 1986 law banning further production of non-LEO/military FA receivers is the one that needs to get overturned.
 
Spot77:

Don't forget the furtive movements on the occupants part as well, which may make the LE suspicous and ask the occupant to alight.

I don't need to see contraband to get you out of the vehicle. I do need an articulable reason to do so. You have rights, and so do I.

What many fail to realize is the LE who stops you doesn;t know who you are, what your background is. You do, they don't. We are not hired to be clairvoyant nor is it a prerequisite for the job.

And you alluding to my being paranoid and finding a different job, please, you know as well I do that an officer faces grave dangers at traffic stops. From your post, I'm supposed to suck it up and wait for you to attrempt to take me out before developing a posture thats defensive?

Hardly, the stats show us traffic stops are dangerous. I'll take the necessary precautions granted me by laws, past through prior history of the dangers involved to officers in such encounters.

It's called prudence in the face of potential lethal danger.

Brownie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
2 case scenarios for LE
2
Replies
45
Views
2K
win71
win71
J
  • Locked
Whats with an LEO asking how much cash you are carrying during a traffic stop?
2 3 4 5
Replies
121
Views
6K
XavierBreath
XavierBreath
A
  • Locked
Lying to LE
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
rbernie
rbernie
J
  • Locked
Louisiana Traffic Stop abilities
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
Art Eatman
A
L
  • Locked
Traffic stop legality question
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
NavyLCDR
N
Back
Top