You can say no to anything. If an Officer asks you to do something that you don’t want to do (let him search your car, identify yourself, stop and talk to him, etc.) you can always say no. Just be polite and respectful, and explain why you don’t want to do it.
In some cases, of course, you have no right to refuse. That varies by jurisdiction and by circumstance, so there is no definitive answer.
When you say “No”, the Officer’s reaction should tell you how to proceed. If he demands that you comply, ask him to explain the law that requires you to do so. Again, be polite and let him know that you just want to understand your rights. I’ve been known to spend 10 minutes explaining constitutional law to a person on the side of the street.
Obviously, some cops will get angry if you question them, and you take a risk that they will punish you in some way for this. You have to decide for yourself if it is worth it to you. Personally, I think more people should stand up for their rights.
One important note: Never lie. It is far better to refuse to speak at all than to tell a lie to a cop. That is a crime in most states (if not all) and will just make things much worse for you.
I wouldn’t refuse to answer - that never looks good. I would ask the examiner to rephrase or clarify the question, so that you’re sure what he or she is asking.
**
Again, explain this to the examiner. When I took my polygraph exam, I was given all of the questions that he was going to be asking (it’s all part of the process, to get you thinking and worrying about any problem questions). If you see one that you don’t think can be answered as a Yes/No, explain this to the examiner. He should clarify things so that it can be answered truthfully as a Yes/No question.
I read through this entire thread and I don’t think I saw this asked.
What about the Dukes of Hazzard scenario where they just have to race over the county line to escape Roscoe and Enus? If a city cop is chasing me can I try to run to the city limit line, or county line for the sheriff’s deputy?
Not that I would ever try but I was fascinated with TDoH when I was a young’un.
Meaning they can still chase you if they get permission from the next authorities. If they can’t get permission, those who keep going would still have to deal with the next authorities anyway.
I guess it may work in some states, but I doubt it. It certainly doesn’t work in Washington. Once in pursuit, we can follow a suspect anywhere, even across state lines (that’s because of agreements with each of our neighboring states). And we don’t need to seek permission from the next jurisdiction (though we would certainly advise them and expect them to join the chase).
Never. In fact, I’ve really never had someone come up with a really good line on a traffic stop. A few argue, but most just admit their mistake.
If someone were to try that line, and it were a minor offense, I would probably let them off with a warning. I would appreciate the levity and the balls to try it.
Here in Wisconsin, the current seat belt law requires use in the front seat. An officer can cite you for this, but only if he/she has stopped you for some other violation. Legislation is now being considered to allow stops just for failure to use a seatbelt–as long as the officer has “probable cause.”
So, my questions:
If someone is pulled over, how do you determine that they did or didn’t have their seat belt on when the car was moving? Can you actually tell if they put it on quickly? Or if they might have unfastened it to reach their purse?
If someone is driving along, what would be probable cause to stop them just for seatbelt use issues? I’ve been trying to see into cars to determine belt use, and my eyes aren’t good enough.
Thanks in advance.
as_u_wish (a compulsive seat belt wearer, whose mom even installed seat belts in her boyfriend’s middle front seat back in 1964 when they weren’t standard)
It is difficult to tell if you’re following a car, but most stops for this are going to be when we see you from the side or the front. There’s no way to tell if they have a belt on if the car is old enough to just have lap belts, but most cars on the road today have shoulder belts.
One thing that always amuses me is when I pull up to an intersection in my patrol car. I can look around the intersection and see all of the other drivers trying to subtlely slip their belts on when they see me. It’s always good for a chuckle.
**
Washington’s seatbelt law became a “primary offense” (meaning that we can stop someone just for not wearing the seatbelt) only two years ago. All I have to articulate is that I could see that the shoulder belt was hanging down to the side, not across the person’s chest. And again, a good one is if I can see the person putting on the belt after they see me.
Also, here everyone must wear a seatbelt (front or back seat). If the person without a seatbelt is over 16 years old, they get the ticket. If that person is under 16, the driver gets the ticket.
Personally, I don’t enforce the seatbelt laws (I will, however, ALWAYS write someone for not having small children in the proper carseat/booster seat). I believe 100% in the use of seatbelts (I’ve seen plenty of accidents to prove that they save lives), but I think it is up to the individual.
Thanks Badge for this entertaining and informative thread.
In regard to seatbelts: I can’t imagine not buckling up everytime I get into a car. I liken it to a welder wearing a mask, simple common sense.
You have said that you don’t enforce the seat belt laws, that you view it as individual choice. I understand that in most cases. But suppose I am in a collision and I need to control the car after impact. Wouldn’t wearing a seatbelt give me a better chance of doing so by keeping me in or close to the driving position? Wouldn’t that be enough reason to fully support the seat belt laws?
Yepper sure will.
Race drivers do this sometimes.
Hollywood stunt drivers do this a lot .
Very few people who have been in a collision that was severe nuff to knock them away from the driving position that even if they are belted in and not harmed, will have the presence of mind to still keep driving the car.
You may be this kind of person and you wear a seat belt. This is good.
It is not about what is possible.
All safety laws will maybe save somebody sometime.
Societies ability to legislate my safety is good up to a point.
But where is the line? Where you want it or where I want it.
Helmets
Mountain climbing
Swimming without a life jacket
Hiking without a guide
Paths without a guard rail
Ladders ( all )
Stoves
25 MPH speed limit
All kinds of things that could save a life…
Best auto safety rule would be a mandatory driving test on the road with a certified driving instructor and witnesses and if the driver can’t pass, they drive no more forever.
No exceptions to taking the test Bi-annually. Do more to improve driving safety along with a 25 MPH speed limit. Seatbelts and helmets, no exception. For a fact. Wanna vote for it?
Is there a limit to legislated safety or is it all ‘worth it’?
FWIW, burning sunflower seeds smell like burning marijuana (for a few seconds–they then smell like barbecued chicken). Not really relevant, but there you go.
How often do you deal with possible criminals who are strung-out or wired or stoned or whatnot–like, in an arrest situation? How do you deal with them?
Also, do the police [generally] have their own paramedics? When I call 911 to report that a friend is, say, overdosing on Tylenol (I had to make such a call recently), who comes to the person’s house–cops, firefighters or a special paramedic force?
Also, your previous posts make it sound like you’re not a traffic cop but you still do some traffic duty. Is this an impromptu sort of thing–see somebody going too fast/slow and pull them over, as part of your duty as a cop and whatnot–or do you actually get orders to handle traffic duty every once in a while? How much power do non-traffic cops have to write traffic citations, and vice versa? Is there some kind of “duty sharing”?
Something else I’ve been wondering: In your opinion, is illegal drug use/trade bigger in the city or in suburban/rural areas? Logical arguments could seemingly be made for both.
Lastly, how much are police officers held responsible to follow the rules of the road while driving in a non-pursuit situation? I’ve seen cops weave in and out of traffic or go right over a center divider on a major road.
I agree, wakimika. If you’re a buckled up driver, you at least have some chance of retaining control over the car. (Also, if your passengers are buckled up, they won’t fly into you while you’re trying to control the car.) I’ve always thought that wearing seat belts at least has the very real potential of protecting the people around you as well as protecting you.
[/slight hijack]
I haven’t chimed in yet, Badge, so first I’ll say: awesome thread. My question: say you enter a town, and at the beginning of that town is a speed limit sign of 60 (no houses out that far, but they’ve annexed it anyway). On the same post is a sign that says, “25 MPH except where posted.” How far do you have to go after seeing your last speed limit sign before it’s considered “not posted”? Or is it only 25 mph on little side streets? (I’m not asking about the main street that you come in on, because it has speed limit signs all down it, but about the other streets.)
I’m really not exactly sure what point you are making, GusNSpot.
I’m not advocating that all humans wear protective padding and never engage in any dangerous activities whatsoever. My point was only about the usefulness of seat belts in the aftermath of a collision. But let’s look at your list, for the sake of argument:
Helmets: I assume you mean motorcycle riders forced by law to wear helmets? Individual choice, I guess. But if it is statiscally proven that helmets save taxpayers from paying for under-insured (and by that I mean that taxpayers must bear any of the cost for medical bills for riders suffering head injuries as a result of an accident) riders, then, yes, I am in favor of helmet laws. Otherwise, pay a premium and ride free, I don’t care.
Mountain Climbing: Again, if taxpayers don’t have to bear a financial burden if you fall and die or suffer injury, climb away.
Swimming without a life jacket: Same again, you die, you pay, no one else.
I deal with them all the time. The worst are the ones on methamphetamine (AKA speed or crank) - they can be extremely paranoid, psychotic and violent. The easiest are people who are stoned on pot - it’s only difficult to get them to pay attention.
You learn to deal with each one differently. It takes some skill to realize what approach will have the best success.
**
No, I’ve never heard of that. There are some small towns where the cops are the paramedics, but it’s rare. If you call about an OD, you should get a response from the cops and whoever handles medical calls (here, our fire department provides the paramedics and ambulance service. In some places, the ambulance is a private service separate from the fire department).
**
I’m in a small town, so I handle any law enforcement related duties that come along. While working patrol, I handled whatever traffic stops I feel like handling. It’s a matter of discretion - some of our officers really like to concentrate on traffic and write 10 times the tickets that I do.
**
I believe that it’s more of a problem in big cities just because of the availability. It’s just easier to go down the street and pick up some stuff.
Not enough, in my opinion. In most states, we are exempt from the traffic laws, whether we have the lights on or not. However, I think it’s terrible to disregard the laws unless it’s really necessary. I don’t know how some cops can enforce laws that they don’t obey themselves.
As long as you’re on the same street, the speed limit stays the same until you see a new sign. If you get off that street, then the speed is whatever is posted or 25mph if not posted.