I’ve been pulled over a few times here in Missouri, and every time the cop has opened the interaction with “I’m Officer Soandso with the This Jurisdiction Police Department, the reason I pulled you over is [whatever]. License, registration and proof of insurance please.” What I don’t know is if I’ve only encountered exceptionally courteous police departments in this state or if it’s a matter of law here in Missouri. YouTube is certainly filled to the brim with officers demanding ID and then promising to tell the perp the reason for the stop after the cop has gotten the paperwork.
Can any Doper lawyers in the 50 states speak to your own laws on this matter? And here in Missouri, if any Show Me State law Dopers are about, does MO law require cops to state the reason first?
ETA: non US Dopers are, of course, encouraged to talk about your country’s laws on the matter too.
A police officer or deputy sheriff is legally required to have a specific reason to pull you over; either having witnessed a violation or having probable cause that you have or are currently committing a crime. Stating that reason up front establishes the legitimacy for the stop and their justification for detaining you and requesting your identification. If an officer stops you on the road (or walking on the sidewalk) and demands your identification beyond stating your name without any justification you are under no obligation to either provide identification or remain on scene.
First of all, a law enforcement officer (LEO) must have a reasonable articulable suspicion (RAS) you have committed a crime in order to detain you. They can’t detain you based on a “hunch,” feeling, general suspicion, or because a nosybody made a phone call; there must be objective indicators you might be committing a crime that are reasonable and articulable.
Secondly, if you are detained, the LEO is not required to tell you what their RAS is for detaining you. You can always ask. But they’re not required to tell you. However, if it ends up in court, the LEO will be required to tell the judge…
It may vary considerably by juristiction, but in most US States cops are not required to tell you anything as long as they have met the requirements for a stop. Obviously you will learn all that eventually, and if the reason for stopping you was invalid there will be consequences for the case.
While reading this, I happen to have the following video on screen that covers this exact point for Arizona. It’s the first case covered in the video.
Another thing to keep in mind is that a detention and an arrest are two different things, and the law addresses each differently. As I explained in my previous post, the LEO only needs RAS that you’ve committed a crime in order to detain you, which is a pretty low bar. To arrest you, the LEO needs probably cause (PC) that you’ve committed a crime, which is a higher bar.
If it’s not already obvious, the LEO will try their hardest to find PC in order to arrest you if you are detained. So they will perform an “investigation.” If they find PC, you are arrested. I they do not find PC, you are let go. At least that’s the way its supposed to work, in theory.
Many times the LEO will bypass the detention step and go immediately to arrest. When you are pulled over in your car for exceeding the speed limit, for example, I am pretty sure it is not a detention, but an arrest, since the LEO’s radar (or whatever) provides PC that you’ve committed a crime.
It might be not a law, but a departmental policy. If a case goes to court, then it’s quite plausible that the defendant might argue that, at the time of the start of the encounter, the officer did not yet have a reasonable articulable suspicion, and just made something up during the encounter. Even if the police can counter that claim, it’d be annoying to have to do so, and the judge or jury might still agree with the claim. By stating the reason right up front, they remove that possible defense.
A Terry stop in the United States allows the police to briefly detain a person based on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity.[1][2] Reasonable suspicion is a lower standard than probable cause which is needed for arrest. When police stop and search a pedestrian, this is commonly known as a stop and frisk. When police stop an automobile, this is known as a traffic stop. If the police stop a motor vehicle on minor infringements in order to investigate other suspected criminal activity, this is known as a pretextual stop. Additional rules apply to stops that occur on a bus.
I can’t recall them ever doing anything like a Terry stop on the show, for what it’s worth. The formula tended not to drift anywhere near where one might be necessary to move the plot along.
And the cynic will say that this gives the LEO time to figure out what the reasonable articulable suspicion was, based on information obtained after the detention (I.e. a cop detains a person due to profiling and then searches them, finding drugs. The cop then later says that he could smell the odor of the drugs before he conducted the search)
Just to add another wrinkle, detention is not the same as custody. Detention means you are not free to leave; custody means that you are being restrained (as by being handcuffed).
Meaning, you can be detained without being cuffed, and you can be cuffed without being arrested.
At least where I’ve lived, speeding is not a crime, but a civil infraction (unless you are going way over the speed limit). So you aren’t arrested when pulled over; you are being detained, however.
(And, if while you are detained for a civil traffic investigation, the cop develops suspicion of a crime, you can then be detained further while that crime is investigated)
Christina Formella was a Dower’s Grove, IL (suburban Chicago) teacher arrested for sex with her student a few months ago, going viral for all the wrong reasons but the body cam footage of when they pulled her over (they were obviously looking for her & he knew her name before she handed over her license) the did not tell her why she was going downtown. It’s possible he stated such before the footage begins but it doesn’t appear so from what I see.
My wife had a friend whose husband was a Haitian and an MD. He drove a Caddy because he felt his patients trusted him more if he displayed signs of affluence. Needless to say, he was regularly stopped for DWB. Of course, the cops would never admit that.
Canadian viewpoint here, cops do not need a reason to stop you. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and confirming that you are properly licensed, insured, and not intoxicated is part of their job. They can demand a roadside breath sample without the fake “smelling alcohol when the window was rolled down” bit.
This has gone to the Supreme Court of Canada and ruled constitutional.
Terry vs Ohio is one of the most well known bits of caselaw in the U.S. It’s not like police weren’t doing temporary detentions before 1968 but the Terry laid out what was permissible and what wasn’t. There have been other decisions that came down since that made adjustments but always with Terry as the foundation. In common parlance and cop jargon traffic stops aren’t called Terry Stops but the authority to conduct them has a foundation in Terry.
To answer the OP, I don’t know any law that requires stating the reason for the stop before asking for ID. There are laws that state while driving you must present ID when pulled over.
It’s possible that individual departments might require officers to basically read a script during a stop. I don’t know of any. Most officers have their own style and use what works for them. Generally I asked for ID before discussing the stop. I wanted to be able to ID the driver before anything else happened. If they asked before they handed anything over I would play it by ear going off the vibe of the driver. Regardless I would always assure them I wasn’t keeping anything a secret and I would give them time to discuss it with me as soon as I had their credentials. It seemed to work for me. Most people just want to know they will be heard.
The times I’ve been stopped, the cop would ask, “Do you know why I stopped you?” This is a trap, of course; you might volunteer information that in essence, admits to a crime (e.g., “Is it the cocaine in my trunk?”).
I think, though, that they asked for license and registration first. But my answer was “No, officer. Why?”
I’ve said it before but no one seems to believe me. In 25 years I’ve never once saw the answer to that question used against anyone in court. It’s just not that important. Answer or don’t no one cares. It’s just a conversation starter. If you were speeding it doesn’t matter what you say.
Of course there are possible exceptions. If you answer “It’s probably because of the dead body in the trunk” and you have a dead body in your trunk it might be used against you.
