I was stopped and locked up for no reason for an afternoon in, you guessed it, Wisconsin.
It happens.
No, I got pulled over once because I slowed down briefly to look at a traffic stop (which was not illegal under the circumstances). I was pulled over two minutes later and the cop (the one who was the backup on the original stop) told me that “I appeared to be weaving.” Of course I hadn’t been and I was almost certainly pulled over because the police took offense to me having interest in their business.
You’re missing the point. Had he arrested you that’s what he would have put on his report. Whether it’s true or not is a different matter but weaving is RS for a stop. “They weren’t breaking the law” isn’t.
I know it’s hard to believe but sometimes people do things while driving that are readily apparent to someone observing them but they have no idea they did it. When pulled over they honestly believe they did nothing wrong even though it was obvious that they did. Not you of course.
Hugo or spider?
I recall once when I was pulled over - it was 1:30 AM and I was driving a car that belonged to a DUI guy. They followed us for a while, then when I turned down another street to try to get rid of them, they pulled us over. Since I didn’t drink, I was the designated driver.
“Why isn’t he getting out?” The owner’s brother.
“Because he’s passed out.” the idiot barfed all over the front seat, I had to scrunch against the door to avoid sitting in the puddle. The cop smelled the mess and decided not to force the issue.
Then one guy started some backtalk (another idiot) and they demanded ID. He said he didn’t have to produce any (Canada) and the cop said he did. He asked why, and the RCMP officer said “Vagrancy act”. The vagrancy act at that time had been declared unconstitutional almost a decade before. (Basically, they could arrest you if you could not prove an id, home and job and/or reasonable explanation what you were doing there - typically used to arrest street hookers and bums when the whim suited them)
Now Canada’s finest knew damn well their pretext was invalid. Some police, like other people, just like to do “make shit up” when required. At least when I pointed out this was not the law, they backed down instead of doubling down.
So I assume in many jurisdictions, the police can ask for license and registration, but do the passengers have to identify themselves? IIRC, the “produce ID” rule for general public only applies if the person is reasonably suspected to be involved in a crime.
AFAIK, in every state and province (and every western country) you MUST pull over when signalled by the police. That’d different than a private citizen trying to flag you down.
I assume the “license doesn’t match car” thing won’t work nowadays, when the computer can tell exactly what the police read. I assume even an honest typo will fail the reasonable suspicion test, so weaving it is.
In the US most if not all produce ID laws have been struck down. You are required to have ID when you are driving. Passengers are not required and do not have to produce IDs. If they are just sitting there you can ask them to identify themselves but they are not obligated to. If they are suspects of some other activity it may reach a point where they will be obligated to identify themselves but they don’t have to produce ID or are required to carry it. That is true also if the passenger is being cited for a seatbelt violation. He is required to identify himself but he is not required to present ID.
I know you are suggesting this because you are assuming illegal activity by the police but now that it is computerized it is more likely that there will be a discrepancy which will lead to a stop with reasonable suspicion. I have seen vehicles issued plates that are one number off from their registration. The plate comes back not on file. Vehicle color and makes are often wrong. If there is a discrepancy between what your computer is saying and the vehicle in front of you then it gets pulled off in case someone threw a different plate on a stolen car.
Hmmm… IIRC my registration says things like plate number, vehicle make and model and colour (with a “u”) and VIN number, plus my name and address. The same database the cops use produces this paper to keep in the car and to use for insurance. If it’s wrong, a whole slew of people in the sequence are idiots and can’t read, including the car owner… Or else the computer system is totally screwed and good luck with any tickets issued to the completely wrong license plate.
(Although I did read about the kids who took a picture of their teacher’s license plate, printed out a life-size colour copy and stuck it on the back of their car, then proceeded to drive through numerous red light cameras…)
A number of years a ago, I had a job that required me to work late, and my girl friend lived about 200 miles away, so I’d be driving the same minor two lane, winding roads at 2 to 4 am on a Friday night.
I got pulled over three times a six week or so time period, and every time the police said virtually the same identical thing: “I’ve observed you cross the middle lines three times.”
The last time I was pulled over I mentioned that to him and told him I was very careful and I hadn’t done that, and asked if it was just standard line to use.
He just smiled and told me to have a nice night.
Made it clear to me they can always think of some reason to pull you over. And might have a standard canned reason that passes muster.
Well, most people will be committing any number of minor infractions all the time without knowing it. In Florida, it’s illegal to hang anything from the rear-view mirror while the vehicle is in motion. Fuzzy dice, parking pass, whatever. You can’t even hang a disabled placard there while operating the vehicle. So a Florida police officer can pull over 35% of the vehicles on the road based on that alone.
ETA: to address the OP, pkbites has it exactly right. Whether evidence discovered as a result of a “have a gift card!” stop is admissible will depend on whether a seizure has occurred. Without getting into details, the test for a seizure is generally whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave (since if you can leave you’re clearly not being detained). So if the cop pulls you over and tells you to wait you might well have been detained even if it transpires that he was just going to fill out your gift card tag.
Hmmm. I might disagree there. California v. Hodari D. A seizure occurs either by a physical touching, or both a show of authority and submission to that authority.
Police turn on flashing lights: show of authority
Pulling over to the side of the road: submission to that authority
I believe that in every traffic stop, once the driver stops, a seizure has occurred. I mean, pulling over is not optional when the police light you up. There is no thought that you are able to go about your business.
The police can and will do whatever it takes to make contact with as many as they can. Sure , maybe the peace officer is a good person however is at the mercy of the powers that be to collect revenue.
A cop pulling someone over in the name of “Holiday Good Will” is dirty pool. And I would take that to court to cease that. if enough people went to court to stop those kind of pulls, pretty sure that would stop. Any time a cop makes contact here that cop is required to file a report.
pkbites, I applaud your ethics and I wish all police officers were as decent and fastidious as you. You are a credit to your profession. But I suspect you are either naive or in denial if you doubt that at least some police officers who pulled over a car to award a good driving gift certificate would, if they saw guns or drugs in the car, immediately reframe the reason for their stop. All of a sudden, when they called that in, they would say that they saw the car weaving across the lanes, failing to signal, or following too closely. Then they would get their arrest and the defense counsel is never going to hear about the gift certificate.
I suspect that if the police in the city have such a bad relationship with the public that they try to improving their image by bribing random drivers with gift certificates, that police force probably has more than its fair share of dishonest officers who wouldn’t hesitate to fudge the reason they pulled over little Miss Safedriver Heroin Dealer.
The thing is, these gift certificate programs are rather publicized.
Also, what are officers calling in to dispatch when they make the stop? Is there a code for the gift stop? We don’t generally say what the stop is for to a dispatcher just that we’re making a stop, plate and location. But sometimes other squads will swing by the area in case we call for back up they’ll be closer to respond. In a gift card stop they might not want to tie up more than one squad doing it so they may have a special call out code. If they do, how could they refute that in court? Dispatch transmissions are recorded.
I reiterate that these stops are illegal. But I’d sure like to talk to the heads of these agencies to get the full story. I can’t believe they didn’t run this past their DA or city attorney or something.
BTW, I shot off an email to my states Attorney Generals office. The Assistant AG routinely takes questions like this from police officers. But it takes him months and months to get back to you.
Are police allowed to pull people over to warn them of a hazard ahead, or some potentially dangerous fault on their vehicle?
If the police are genuinely trying to help does it make any difference?
A road hazard is generally dealt with by blocking off the road with a squad until proper baracades and signage arrives, not by doing traffic stops. What the hell good would it do to pull one car over to warn them while others drove past?
A fault on a vehicle is an equipment violation, a citable offense in most places and reasonable suspicion to make a lawful traffic stop.
With the exception of good faith stops where the officer reasonably believes he is within his authority, no.
And again, irrelevent. This though process some of you have that these departments are making illegal traffic stops to hand out gift cards and then change their story when they find something wrong is bizarre. Do you have any idea how quickly and huge that would blow up in their face? SCOTUS would tear them a new asshole if it even went that far.
The funny thing here is that I agree with just about everything you said. The stops are illegal. Any appellate court would dismiss the evidence gained from the stop if it went that far. I’m not suggesting that police departments are starting these programs just to create excuses to pull over drivers who aren’t doing anything wrong. It would be a waste of resources to fish among the largely law-abiding to see if there are violations. I think the departments are probably (generally) trying to improve officer relations in the town by doing something nice for good drivers instead of just punishing bad drivers.
We just seem to disagree about the likely result if an officer pulled over a good driver and found drugs or guns in the car. I think the driver would be arrested on the spot and convicted because the officer would never admit that he pulled the car over for a safe driving gift certificate. You seem to think the arresting officer would either smile and wave the driver by because the stop was illegal, or perhaps, that the officer would arrest the suspect but the charges would be dismissed because of the illegal stop. Well, I say the court will find it’s an illegal stop only if the officer admits sufficient facts for it to be found an illegal stop. And I think there are at least some cops who would lie to get that arrest.
You acknowledge one fact that’s critical to my assessment of what would likely happen–you don’t have to call in the reason for a stop before you stop someone or speak to them. That’s consistent with the police procedure in the one jurisdiction where I’ve listened to police recordings. They didn’t explain the result of the stop over the radio (it sounds like you do it after the stop is over). This means once the cop stops our heroin dealer, he has all the time he needs to invent a reason for the stop.
You say that the programs are well-publicized, but from what I can tell, the publicity doesn’t say “Officer Friendly will be handing out gift certificates to good drivers during these hours. He won’t be handing out any other tickets or arresting anyone for any other offense during this time.” Officer Friendly continues to do his job, cite bad drivers, arrest law breakers even while he chooses to sometimes pull over good drivers to give out the gift certificates. The defense counsel only knows it was a safe driver stop if Officer Friendly calls it in before the stop (and the defense counsel gets the recording) or if the Officer Friendly admits it. You seem to believe every police officer in the country would freely admit it. I disagree. Frankly, I doubt most police officers would admit it was a safe driving stop if they could otherwise protect their guns and drugs arrest. I don’t doubt that you would, but, again, you seem smart and fastidious enough to realize the stops are illegal and you would never be the guy pulling people over to hand out gift certificates.
You note that police officers may want to call in the safe driver stop ahead of time to make sure that no other officers informally commit themselves as back-up. (As I noted, my limited experience was in a jurisdiction that did not call in the reason for a stop.) Calling in the stop ahead of time is a good idea, but I doubt many jurisdictions require it. If the arresting officer thinks the stop is safe, he can just waive off any back-up that arrives on the scene. I’ve seen this happen several times myself.
Police pull over, humiliate and terrify drivers, film it, publish “prank”–Arrest a Santa! These officers are currently employed, as are their captains.
Notably missing from the discussion here is a discussion of remedies.
Is it a violation of the 4th Amendment for an officer to turn on his lights, and pull you over, just to hand out a gift card? Probably yes.
What, then, would the remedy be?
In many places, there is no state remedy for a violation of your constitutional rights. And while 42 USC 1983 would probably apply, if you were to sue the local police for having violated your constitutional rights in this circumstance, I’m thinking that damages might be a bit hard to establish.
Obviously, if the office spots something illegal as a result of the stop, that’s going to create some issues, since the law on using the fruits of an illegal seizure generally precludes introduction into evidence of such fruits.
But the reason they “get away” with doing this is because no one complains or files suit. If they did, then the practice would likely have to stop, and everyone would grumble about stupid liberal BS, without really understanding the underlying legal issues.
Several recent court cases (I read on “Techdirt.com”) have determined that the police who over-do a stop without cause are certainly going to have any evidence tossed in court.
An officer who delayed a ticket wring (valid stop) excessively long so a canine could arrive, but without valid cause, or with bogus cause, had the evidence of the search tossed. Basically, the judge said the stop could only last as long as it normally takes to write the ticket. Any longer was an illegal stop.
In another case, the officer stopped the driver long enough another police officer arrived, began to question the driver, and got permission to search the vehicle. The evidence was tossed because the consent was “forced” due to the perceived imbalance in power between civilian and police. (Also comments about “indicators” - a car too clean was an indicator, a car too messy was an indicator, an air freshener could be hiding drug smells so was an indicator, too fast to answer or too slow to answer, even just driving from out of state… Basically, whatever excuse the police wanted indicated a reasonable suspicion.)
If there’s no search, or no evidence found despite an illegal search, I suppose what you could do is make a complaint so it’s on the record. This weakens the police department’s case in future criminal cases where they claim to have reasonable grounds if a litany of complaints appear to show they are in a habit of “making shit up” and stopping people for no good reason.