Things that draw attention....or should

[Roadie]

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.

 

[mammynun]

I am sorry, but to me that reads like you skirted legality to get what you wanted.

I think he played the game by the rules that society has defined. If you, I, or anyone dislikes the rules we need to vote different "rule enacters" into office.

 

[mercop]

Yep, your right. I did get what I wanted, bad guys off the street. BTW, I never lost a case, not one, and I was involved in some pretty major ones. This is why everyone should try to go on a few ridealongs. Nobody ever tells a fireman how he should have put out a fire.- George

 

[mammynun]

Yep, your right. I did get what I wanted, bad guys off the street. BTW, I never lost a case, not one, and I was involved in some pretty major ones. This is why everyone should try to go on a few ridealongs. Nobody ever tells a fireman how he should have put out a fire.- George

+1

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Yep, your right. I did get what I wanted, bad guys off the street.

Okay, so let me get this straight. A person that earns very little money and can't afford car insurance, loses his license as a result but still drives to work to feed his children. He is a "BAD GUY" that needs to be removed from the street? Sorry, I don't buy it and it's not at all about getting "bad guys" off the street, it's about money. The "good guy" that needs a break falls through your cracks and gets labeled a "bad guy". Maybe we need police reform and auto insurance reform instead of this crap they're cramming down our throats. For example, under the new "health care" bill, if you choose to pay your own expenses instead of buying their insurance, you are a "bad guy" and will have a lien placed on your house, if you still don't comply a warrant will be issued so that a guy like mercop can trick you into pulling over just because he feels like it and discover a warrant, arrest you and call you a "bad guy".

 

[Denny347]

Okay, so let me get this straight. A person that earns very little money and can't afford car insurance, loses his license as a result but still drives to work to feed his children. He is a "BAD GUY" that needs to be removed from the street? Sorry, I don't buy it and it's not at all about getting "bad guys" off the street, it's about money. The "good guy" that needs a break falls through your cracks and gets labeled a "bad guy". Maybe we need police reform and auto insurance reform instead of this crap they're cramming down our throats. For example, under the new "health care" bill, if you choose to pay your own expenses instead of buying their insurance, you are a "bad guy" and will have a lien placed on your house, if you still don't comply a warrant will be issued so that a guy like mercop can trick you into pulling over just because he feels like it and discover a warrant, arrest you and call you a "bad guy".

Okok, maybe not a "bad guy" but rather a "law breaker". Mercop NEVER said anything about pulling someone over for looking suspicious. Someone catches your eye, you keep an eye open and see if they do something that you can stop them for. Lots of people catch my eye every day. I keep watching them and if they do nothing wrong...they'll never know I was watching them. If they do something else, I'll stop them. Some average people get breaks from me. However, many times it is when you are nice to someone that you get complained on and in trouble for stuff you never did but they accuse you of. You give a person a break and don't arrest them. For some reason they get this hair up their rear to call in a BS complaint. When you are nice, you are more likely to get hurt or in trouble. It is easier to treat EVERYONE professionally but if they should go to jail...they go...no breaks.

 

[andrewheath]

How would one go about setting a ride along?

 

[Turn Key]

Okok, maybe not a "bad guy" but rather a "law breaker".

When you are nice, you are more likely to get hurt or in trouble. It is easier to treat EVERYONE professionally but if they should go to jail...they go...no breaks.

Good reply to the "law breaker"...


TK

 

[ThrottleJockey]

Okok, maybe not a "bad guy" but rather a "law breaker".

Cool, that proves my point. It's not at all about protecting the public or keeping the streets safe, but all about revenue. It just so happens that the lobbyists that push for legislation are the ones receiving the benefits and not the public. No amount of voting will ever change that.

 

[mercop]

ThrottleJockey, kinda trolling arn't you? What do you do for a living?

How old are you? Tell us about some of your interactions with the police? Kinda get the feelings you don't like cops.

I always used discretion and helped out lots of people based on the totality of the circumstances. Where I worked (RT 40 between Baltimore and Philadelphia) is notorious for drug trafficking. And remember that driving is a privilege and not a right.- George

 

[ThrottleJockey]

ThrottleJockey, kinda trolling arn't you? What do you do for a living?

No, not trolling. Just trying to open some eyes about the fatal flaws in our legal system and how it gives too much power to too many control freaks. I'm not going to say all LEOs are bad, and in reality you were probably a good one, but I have had entirely too many encounters with the BAD ones. I am an owner operator (long haul truck driver). I am also disgusted with the way we are treated by law enforcement. We are less than second class citizens. While we flip the bill for over 70% of all highway funds enforcement still sees us a the golden goose cash cow. Example, a speeding fine for a car may be $140, while for us it can be as much as $3500 therefore we get pulled over out of a crowd that is traveling the same speed. That's not even to mention the fact that nearly 76% of all accidents involving 18 wheelers are the fault of a 4 wheeler and the way those retarded idiots drive around us. Add to that the fact released by the FDOT that states more than 3/4 of the motoring public doesn't have the skills, experience or ability to safely use our interstate system....Yet they go about there business while enforcement seeks bigger $$$$ tickets.

And remember that driving is a privilege and not a right.- George

Sure it was in the days of horse and buggy, but now we live in a much more complex society where it has actually become a necessity of life and should thus be protected by a constitutional amendment in my opinion. Can we all possibly live within walking distance from work? Can we use horses? Can you bike 30 miles to work or to the store? I know the answer is more nannyness, public transportation right? Well there don't happen to be busses and trains within 20 miles of my house....


Sorry if I have seemed harsh on this subject, it just struck a nerve. When I was younger ( I'm 38 now) I had some pretty bad experiences with traffic enforcement. I actually spent a year, a full YEAR of my friggin life in one of the 10 worst county jails in the country for driving to work on a suspended license, literally watching murders, rapists, child molesters and drug dealers come and go through a revolving effin door pretty much as they pleased. But never mind them, there is more revenue in the damned traffic enforcement.

 

[AuntieBellum]

No, my SUV obviously belongs to a man because of a sticker I have on it, not because it is a truck. Her saturn is obviously a womans car because of the crap she has on the window, not because it is a small car.

K, now I'm wondering what this "obvious" sticker is and what obvious "crap" your wife has in her window. I'm curious what I can do to be sure that's it's clear a woman drives my 4x4 SUV (which, btw, kicks a** in the snow and ice and could probably drove over my hubby's Saturn!!!).

And some part of me wants you to say it's an NRA sticker on your SUV.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

And some part of me wants you to say it's an NRA sticker on your SUV.

No, lol. My wife wanted that sticker on her car but I said no as it would make us targets for theft. The saturn has those stupid flower stickers in the window, you know, the white ones that are just the outline...Here is my sticker

 

[darrent]

Profiling is a valuable tool when it is used correctly. For example, if you see a car with the Grateful Dead Dancing Bears (or one of the other multitude of "signs" - just an example), then there is a chance you could recover narcotics from this vehicle. Stopping a car for this reason alone is not valid. Stopping the car for a license plate light being out - valid. The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the use of pretextual stops of minor traffic violations to investigate other suspicious activity. However, I imagine that if this gets abused, it could go away like other "tools" in the past. There is strong opposition to this ruling. IMO, it would be prudent to occasionally stop other motorist who commit the minor infraction that do not match the profile.

 

[darrent]

Yep, your right. I did get what I wanted, bad guys off the street. BTW, I never lost a case, not one, and I was involved in some pretty major ones. This is why everyone should try to go on a few ridealongs. Nobody ever tells a fireman how he should have put out a fire.- George

I always advised the riders to become a fireman instead of a LEO. Everyone loves firemen. They generally make the same pay and many have successful side businesses (from that 24 on 48 off hours thing). I bet firemen don't have people calling them pork products as they drive down the street. They get dogs also - right

A friend of mine, fellow officer, use to ask people what they did for a living. After they answered, he asked how they would feel if he came into their business and told them how to do their job. That always seemed to get the point across. Well, except for those *******es that sound like Donnie Baker quoting state law, but you can't help/fix stupid.

 

[ThrottleJockey]

The Supreme Court has already weighed in on the use of pretextual stops of minor traffic violations to investigate other suspicious activity.

Hmmmm, having a sticker that represents a band is "suspicious activity" now? Maybe I could get on board if you actually SAW a joint being passed.....

However, I imagine that if this gets abused, it could go away like other "tools" in the past.

IF???? Come on. It was obviously already being abused or it never would have been brought to the attention of the SCOTUS.

 

[darrent]

Well, SCOTUS didn't find it abuse (here's the abstract for your review):
The 1996 U.S. Supreme Court decision Whren v. United States widened police officer discretion in making traffic stops. Prior to Whren, officers needed to be able to articulate “probable cause” about suspicion of drug activity if they made a traffic stop. Whren permits officers to make a pretextual stop, perhaps based on a very minor traffic infraction, that puts them in a position to better discern whether drug activity is taking place or not. As even the most cautious motorist regularly commits violations of heavily regulated traffic codes, officers can “legally” make a traffic stop on virtually every driver of whom they are even remotely suspicious.

Where I see the potential for abuse is when it is documented that an officer only stops vehicles that match a particular profile (e.g. enforcement not being uniformly applied). To my knowledge, this situation has not been to the Supreme Court, but I'm not an attorney. I only play one online So, what Mercop does is completely valid under existing case law and Indiana Code.

Being a former LEO, I found through experience that if I stopped a vehicle for an infraction and certain "signs" were present, I would investigate further. That would generally be talking to the driver followed up by calling for a dog (if narcotics was suspected). The dancing bears sticker was just an example of a sign (don't miss the forest because of a tree). I think every car I stopped that had those bears had either narcotics or paraphernalia. Throttle, maybe your experiences are different.

As for pretextual traffic stops, they are clearly a valuable tool. It's simple. If you don't want to be stopped, then make sure your vehicle equipment is in working order and you follow traffic laws (then you can't be stopped).

 

[ThrottleJockey]

(then you can't be stopped)

Absolutely not true. Perhaps not "legally", but as we all know the guy with the gun and the badge does whatever he pleases and no LEO has ever lied or even stretched the truth to his favor in court. In fact from my experiences as a youth, (sheriffs explorer in Monroe co) it is a standard practice to find the reason for the stop even after the stop has been made. Also, in this country there is not a single car on the road that hasn't got a reason for a stop. Not even the brand new, just off the showroom floor ones.

 

[darrent]

Absolutely not true. Perhaps not "legally", but as we all know the guy with the gun and the badge does whatever he pleases and no LEO has ever lied or even stretched the truth to his favor in court. In fact from my experiences as a youth, (sheriffs explorer in Monroe co) it is a standard practice to find the reason for the stop even after the stop has been made. Also, in this country there is not a single car on the road that hasn't got a reason for a stop. Not even the brand new, just off the showroom floor ones.

Maybe if you rode in the front seat of the squad car you would gain a different perspective.

 

[darrent]

I think he played the game by the rules that society has defined. If you, I, or anyone dislikes the rules we need to vote different "rule enacters" into office.

Unfortunately, many "laws" are decided/created from the bench by people appointed for life...