We went from traffic stops to Nazi SS. The supreme court has held that it is lawful to use an articulitable law to stop a vehicle that drew your attention by doing something that in and of itself was not illegal. You need to know the laws of the game, and most good guys and bad guys do not.
Example- just like someone who hunts may have favorite stands I had them for stalking bad guys. In the one location I used I would see a car that I "liked" and pull behind it. I tried to conduct my stop on a specific bridge that was an overpass. The reason was that lots of people run and on this bridge there was nowhere to go. If they were "dirty" they would pull to the Exxon at the bottom of the bridge or the WaWa about a block away. Experience taught me that about 90%+ of the time they would be at least suspend, and usually wanted on warrants or worse.
The reason the stopped so fast is that they wanted to separate themselves from the vehicle either because it was stolen, or they were suspended. I would park my car and engage them in a conversation outside the store. It would go something like this-
"Hi, my name is Officer Matheis, you may have noticed me following you, we have a lot of illegal activity in this area and I was wondering if you had any identification" About 90% of the time they would say "I don't have any". I would say "no worries, would you give me your name and date of birth". They would usually like with a fake name and or fake date of birth. After a few minutes they would come clean and I would find out they were suspended, and or wanted. If they were either, I had to impound the car, and when you impound the vehicle you have to inventory it. This is where I would get my dope and guns.
The first few times in my career it went to court and the attorney (who always think they are smarter than the police, but have no real idea how 4th amendment actually applies to the street) would say I had no probable cause for the stop. Then the assistant states attorney who loved me would say "I agree, that is why there was no stop" "the officer never turned his lights on, never told the defendant that he could not leave, never blocked his way" Then the attorney will say "he had no right to ask my client for his drivers license without having probable cause for the stop" The ASA would say "I agree, that is why he asked him for identification, and not his drivers license" Then the ASA would get a poopy face and submit. See the thing is that the criminals and cops are playing the game, the lawyers only get the highlight reals.
During 1000's of stops I only ever had one person tell me "fu" and refuse to talk to me. He did and I we parted our ways, no hard feelings.
This his how police work is done. During the course of your day you are around all kinds of people with open warrants, who are suspended, who are missing persons. Who have extensive criminal records. Police see the world though a different lens than the rest of the citizenry does.
I am not the type to stick up for a cop because he is a cop, I am also not the type to bash him because he is a cop. Like in a court case I need the totality of circumstances to make a decision. I suggest everyone use the same standard.- George
I am sorry, but to me that reads like you skirted legality to get what you wanted.