Dude, stop lying. The initial reason why they're going to pull him over was because of his tags, but he broke another law by not stopping, which escalated the response. This whole idea they had guns drawn simply because he didn't have tags it's b******* and you know it.
He had tags. He just bought the car and had a temporary one in his rear window
It wasn't some high speed chase. You're allowed to travel to the nearest well lit area when getting pulled over. At least that's what a cop told me a long time ago. It's meant to ensure the safety of all involved
I've been pulled over before and instead of stopping right where I saw the cop's lights on, I drove until I could turn in to a spot that wasn't blocking traffic anywhere
If I'm pulled over on a highway and there's nowhere to go, then maybe I'll just pull over as a mode of practicality, but if I know there's a gas station ahead, I'd much rather be there and would definitely continue on to it. Highways are dangerous. I know someone who went to help a stranded motorist change a tire and he got hit by a car. He's now paralyzed...Getting off the highway is safer for for everyone
The cop said he was detained. He doesn't have to give a reason for the detainment?
depends on the jurisdictions, but mostly no. the officer just needs to have a "reasonable articulable suspicion". but the officer normally doesn't have to articulate that to you right away.
detention is a specific term that's just for cursory holding and questioning based on reasonable suspicion. it also can last a "reasonable" amount of time, whatever that is interpreted to mean. "arrests" generally then trigger the 4th amendment protections.
Quote:
a police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures
to my knowledge, if the police are arguing that they "reasonably suspected" the vehicle had no tags and they were "investigating" that, then they could hold unless,
Quote:
"it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete the mission of issuing a ticket for the violation."
quote blocks are from Rodriguez v. United States(2015) which originally was about a potentially unrelated dog sniff on a traffic violation, but would seem to apply to all extended detentions for matters unrelated to the initial reasonable suspicion for the stop.
One of my dear friends was arrested for the following reason: she was driving to work in the middle of the day. She got pulled over for briefly dipping into a bike lane: the officer had her step out of the car . after examining her listened/ registration searched her pockets and found 4 pills. She explained that these were adderall prescribed by her doctor. He explained he had no way of knowing that. She got booked for drug possession. The crime lab fee is 500 dollars. They made her pay for each pill to be analyzed so that was 2000 dollars and the lawyer hired a doctor to help with her legal case in court. She didn’t get convicted of anything but there was an arrest, and about 10k in legal fees over her prescribed medication.
The bar for being arrested is very very low and not the same as the bar for a conviction.
depends on the jurisdictions, but mostly no. the officer just needs to have a "reasonable articulable suspicion". but the officer normally doesn't have to articulate that to you right away.
detention is a specific term that's just for cursory holding and questioning based on reasonable suspicion. it also can last a "reasonable" amount of time, whatever that is interpreted to mean. "arrests" generally then trigger the 4th amendment protections.
to my knowledge, if the police are arguing that they "reasonably suspected" the vehicle had no tags and they were "investigating" that, then they could hold unless,
quote blocks are from Rodriguez v. United States(2015) which originally was about a potentially unrelated dog sniff on a traffic violation, but would seem to apply to all extended detentions for matters unrelated to the initial reasonable suspicion for the stop.
Thanks Slighted, always appreciate your posts on these questions.
I get that, but if your response is to drive for a mile and a half...
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozen
My question is the same also if it was a marked police cruiser you need to pull over. If he drove for a mile and a half he is now a fleeing suspect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
I think the process is to remove the person from the vehicle, and I think that's standard process for most police forces, when it's becomes a felony stop.
Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
Dude, stop lying. The initial reason why they're going to pull him over was because of his tags, but he broke another law by not stopping, which escalated the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lozen
Well technically he did not comply as he was involved in a low speed police chase.
You guys really need to knock off this nonsense. It wasn't a police chase, and this never needed to be treated as a felony stop. And if you don't believe me, you should listen to one of the cops involved:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobo Fett
Quote:
Still, the cops claimed in a report Nazario was “eluding police,” had a dark window tint, and lacked plates, so officers treated the incident as a “felony traffic stop,” or a traffic stop they believed to be risky. One of the officers admitted later that they knew why Nazario had pulled into the BP—it happened all the time, and was a maneuver often used by people of color, according to the lawsuit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nutella virus
In this article (at the bottom) one of the cops says he understands why the lt was looking for a well lit place to pull over "I get it, the media spewing race relations between law enforcement and minorities, I get it"
They knew very ****ing well why he proceeded to the gas station before stopping. So given that they knew, it should be no different than if he had pulled over on the highway immediately. With him pulled over, they should be able to clearly see his temporary plate. That leaves them with tinted windows. So, this is a felony stop now...why, exactly?
If the cops aren't approaching with guns drawn, screaming at him, none of this **** happens. And there was no reason they needed to be.
And as has been posted before, their own police department seems to agree this was not handled properly, as they fired Gutierrez, and it sounds like that happened quite some time ago.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5 south
My issue is that once they have moved to pepper spray there was clearly a huge opening there to just talk to the guy and explain what he was pulled over for and start from there but this guy was so pissed off that a citizen dare disobey him that he had to keep shouting and I don't understand why ihiv cannot concede this point. It was a mistake by the cop, whether the LT is ****ing with him or not, it's his job to stay professional and in control.
The aclu has a lot of very good state by state information about what you can and can’t do during a stop. I’d recommend reading up a bit on the state you live in regardless of what you think of aclu’s politics.
One of my dear friends was arrested for the following reason: she was driving to work in the middle of the day. She got pulled over for briefly dipping into a bike lane: the officer had her step out of the car . after examining her listened/ registration searched her pockets and found 4 pills. She explained that these were adderall prescribed by her doctor. He explained he had no way of knowing that. She got booked for drug possession. The crime lab fee is 500 dollars. They made her pay for each pill to be analyzed so that was 2000 dollars and the lawyer hired a doctor to help with her legal case in court. She didn’t get convicted of anything but there was an arrest, and about 10k in legal fees over her prescribed medication.
The bar for being arrested is very very low and not the same as the bar for a conviction.
That's ****ed up. You aren't supposed to have to pay to prove you are innocent.
That's ****ed up. You aren't supposed to have to pay to prove you are innocent.
Yeah I know it makes me upset just thinking about it. Cops are not usually monsters so they don’t use the full legal powers that they have at all times, but the powers that they do have on paper are vast. And this was a white suburban girl! Like I said, cops are not monsters most of the time but basically anyone can be arrested at anytime. Some rogue cop could in theory come out to your house and arrest you for Robbing a bank with little to no evidence.
It should be said that in this case it likely would not have played out that way if the officer did not notice she had a previous conviction for pot possession.
But yes In many jurisdictions you pay crime lab fees and all kind of fees. Like jail fees are very common.
Edit: if you do ever get a possession charge even if it’s a pot posession charge where it was a misdemeanor and all you had to do was take a class and a small fine, make sure your car is clean at all times because from then on every time, for the rest of your life that you get pulled over you’re someone with a drug history.
my office used to do charging decisions in the break room while we were eating lunch..
literally deciding whether or not to charge people with life changing felonies while one hand is in a bag of potato chips..
in fact we were required to keep all the charging documents in the break room, a room with no computer access and only old statute books, and not take them back to our offices(i consistently broke this rule) because some ada's would lose the packets and forget to bring them back to turn in.
Do you know why they paid a doctor for this case? If those pills were from a prescription why not just show that?
A prescription from a doctor is not guaranteed to hold up in court. For example you can get a dui for prescription drugs that you were prescribed by a doctor. It is technically illegal to carry prescription drugs outside of a prescription drug bottle in your car.
Using drugs you are prescribed by a doctor will usually hold up in court. But not always. Many such cases.
That was in response to a particular lockbox post in a particular fashion. I post about criminal justice issues on lots of forums and with 1 or 2 exceptions you all simply don’t know enough about this to really discuss the criminal justice system with me. I have noticed out of 100’s of posts I have made about the failures of our criminal justice system and threads no one wants to discuss the real problems or issues , they just want to talk about specific stops , in this case a pretty boring one. You don’t know what you’re talking about.
"My opinion is this ; as we come together as a country to reimagine policing after the tragic death of George Floyd, the reforms we make need to be consistent with the values that make this country great."
You're entitled to your opinion. You're still blind, full stop.
Not to mention arrogant for assuming you know more than I do about the criminal justice system and that I "don't know what I'm talking about"
The part about reforms we make being consistent with the values that make this country great is a load of bullshit lip service I've been hearing for literally my entire life. It is remarkably tone deaf, not unlike the bullshit IHIV spews every so often. Tone deaf and oblivious
my office used to do charging decisions in the break room while we were eating lunch..
literally deciding whether or not to charge people with life changing felonies while one hand is in a bag of potato chips..
in fact we were required to keep all the charging documents in the break room, a room with no computer access and only old statute books, and not take them back to our offices(i consistently broke this rule) because some ada's would lose the packets and forget to bring them back to turn in.
I love you.my main thought about this traffic stop is that it seemed pretty routine. A lot worse things could’ve happened to this guy. If I went to the suburban city prosecutors office right now I’m sure there’s like 20 cases more interesting/ questionable.
"My opinion is this ; as we come together as a country to reimagine policing after the tragic death of George Floyd, the reforms we make need to be consistent with the values that make this country great."
You're entitled to your opinion. You're still blind, full stop.
Not to mention arrogant for assuming you know more than I do about the criminal justice system and that I "don't know what I'm talking about"
The part about reforms we make being consistent with the values that make this country great is a load of bullshit lip service I've been hearing for literally my entire life. It is remarkably tone deaf, not unlike the bullshit IHIV spews every so often. Tone deaf and oblivious
Popular Forums
Linear Mode
