# Legal question about detainment by law enforcement **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [August 26, 2018, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300 "2018-08-26T14:03:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Slash1972](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/slash1972/32/6461_2.png) [@Slash1972](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Slash1972)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/61 "2018-08-28T20:15:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > If my question were, “How does a computer know in what sequence to reassemble TCP packets?” then sure – especially if you had already told me that TCP packets are sequenced and acknowledged, and I had rejected that claim for some unknown reason and insisted that TCP and UDP were handled similarly. I doubt it. If you had a question that could be answered by listing the fields in a TCP packet, then a simple wiki search could answer it for you. You wouldn’t need the expertise of computer experts here on this message board to tell you “Look at the wiki article for TCP” Further, a straight listing of the fields of a TCP packet does not actually answer the question of “How does a computer know in what sequence to reassemble TCP packets?”. It requires some more information that isn’t contained in a simple listing of the fields. Similar to, I suspect, why a straight listing of “the attenuation factors in Brown v Illinois” wouldn’t help a layman understand the legalities of those factors without an actual lawyer to explain them. Hopefully, one on this message board that DOES understand it enough to explain how those factors are utilized would answer the question beyond “Why don’t you list them out and see what it gets you?” ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/62 "2018-08-28T20:19:13Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It is fruit of the poison tree. The only reason the officer was able to see inside my car window was the fact of his illegal stop. Same as if he later got a warrant to search my car based upon his illegal view. I understood you the first time. My cites are specific to the hypothetical we’re discussing and show why the body is not fruit of the poison tree and why the plain view doctrine does not apply. > [@](#): > > Change the facts a little. Say the windows were tinted and the officer could not get a good view, so he takes his baton and breaks the back window giving him an unobstructed view. Would you still say plain view? > > What if he smashed the front door of my house and saw a pile of cocaine on the kitchen table? Plain view? > > What if he forced me at gunpoint to empty the contents of my glovebox on the ground in front of him? Would you argue that he has a right to stand there and a right to look at the ground, so plain view? How about we look at the hypothetical as it is and look at what the plain view doctrine says regarding “trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy” and if the officer waits to get a warrant to investigate the body? You didn’t address that and want to instead create additional hypotheticals. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/63 "2018-08-28T20:32:07Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Correct. And I think when you look at it from a personal privacy perspective it makes sense. > > … > > However, the big difference between the two cases was that in the hypo, the driver had every right to his privacy, and in the second, the man had no right because of a previous determination of probable cause unrelated to the officer’s illegal conduct. An unlawful stop does not infringe on one’s right to privacy. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/64 "2018-08-28T20:37:00Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Thank you. I see not only the legal problems with such stops, but others as well. It is a danger for civilians and police alike to pull over to the side of the road in a non-emergency. Police have been hit, and sometimes killed while trying to cite drivers. What if the mother doesn’t want her kids to have ice cream for any number of reasons-how is she supposed to say no when he starts handing it out to her kids? I wonder about the videos that aren’t shown involving the businesswoman who is supposed to get to work on time, and instead is pissed about having to spend ten to fifteen minutes for the cop’s “Ain’t I a nice guy!” You Tube viddy. Agreed. However, I believe that is why the legal aspect is important. It is one thing if I am standing on the street corner and ask you if you would like a free ice cream cone for the kids. You can tell me to piss off and keep walking. It is not optional to stop when the police turn on their lights. They have used the coercive power of government (in a free society nonetheless) to force you to listen to the “joke” they are playing on you. I tell people this and they poo-poo and say that they are giving things out so people should not be unhappy about it. Well, again, maybe I had a cold beer in the console. It’s not right, but I shouldn’t have been stopped without suspicion. Further, maybe I make a good income and whatever I am doing or wherever I am going at that moment is worth more than a $10 Starbucks gift certificate. What if I hate Starbucks? What if I just found out that my wife was cheating on me and wanted to go for a drive to clear my head? Now, I’m being pulled over and think I’m getting a ticket for something, adding to my stress, but haha, it is all in good fun, here’s a $20 Target gift card. Thanks, pal, I’ll use that to buy a pillow to sleep on my buddy’s couch. I don’t think I would get upset about being pulled over for this, but I damned well understand why some people would. And those people have a right to go about their day without a forced encounter with a government official. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/65 "2018-08-28T20:42:50Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > How about we look at the hypothetical as it is and look at what the plain view doctrine says regarding “trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy” and if the officer waits to get a warrant to investigate the body? You didn’t address that and want to instead create additional hypotheticals. Okay. Fair enough. He infringed on my right to privacy because I was legally driving down the road, breaking no laws that he observed or had a reasonable articulable suspicion that I was breaking. I had an absolute right to continue driving down the road unimpeded. However, he illegally used the power that he was clothed in by the government to force me to stop along side the road so he could walk up to my window and then, and only then, observe evidence of a crime. He did not have a legal right to force me to be where I was to allow him such an observation. > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > An unlawful stop does not infringe on one’s right to privacy. Of course it does. I am amazed by this statement. Please explain. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/66 "2018-08-28T20:46:00Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > By the same token, if the stop is illegal, the dead body is NOT being viewed by an officer legally in a position to view the body, and the plain view doctrine is not triggered. Except of course as even SCOTUS admitted, there are literally thousands of little things you can be cited or pulled over for. So the cop would have to be SUPER stupid to admit he pulled the car over for a illegal reason. He could simply say they were speeding or weaving or failed to signal a turn, etc. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/67 "2018-08-28T20:51:17Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > However, he illegally used the power that he was clothed in by the government to force me to stop along side the road so he could walk up to my window and then, and only then, observe evidence of a crime. He did not have a legal right to force me to be where I was to allow him such an observation. That’s correct. And I posted several cites why in this case it doesn’t matter. > [@](#): > > Of course it does. I am amazed by this statement. Please explain. Well, the burden of proof is actually on you. You have to show what rights of privacy entail to claim it’s been violated. But I’ll post what I’ve found: > [@](#): > > Constitutional rights > The right to privacy often means the right to personal autonomy, or the right to choose whether or not to engage in certain acts or have certain experiences. Several amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been used in varying degrees of success in determining a right to personal autonomy: > > The First Amendment protects the privacy of beliefs > The Third Amendment protects the privacy of the home against the use of it for housing soldiers > The Fourth Amendment protects privacy against unreasonable searches > The Fifth Amendment protects against self-incrimination, which in turn protects the privacy of personal information > The Ninth Amendment says that the “enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people.” This has been interpreted as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments. > > The right to privacy is most often cited in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, which states: > > _No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._ > > However, the protections have been narrowly defined and usually only pertain to family, marriage, motherhood, procreation and child rearing. > **[Right to Privacy: Constitutional Rights & Privacy Laws](https://www.livescience.com/37398-right-to-privacy.html)** > > While not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, the right to privacy has been narrowly defined by case law and various statutes. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/68 "2018-08-28T20:55:34Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except of course as even SCOTUS admitted, there are literally thousands of little things you can be cited or pulled over for. So the cop would have to be SUPER stupid to admit he pulled the car over for a illegal reason. He could simply say they were speeding or weaving or failed to signal a turn, etc. If you watch the video linked above, the officer does not do that. He states that he pulled the driver over because he was obeying all traffic laws and wanted to thank him for being a good driver. The entire Fourth Amendment jurisprudence and indeed our freedom would be in jeopardy if police officers would simply lie with impunity. In my experience, there are very, very few officers that do this. The ones I work with (against) are honest almost to a fault. If they screwed up, they will tell me that and then tell the prosecutor to dismiss the case. I have won more cases in this informal stage than I have by a formal suppression hearing. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/69 "2018-08-28T21:04:53Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That’s correct. And I posted several cites why in this case it doesn’t matter. > > Well, the burden of proof is actually on you. You have to show what rights of privacy entail to claim it’s been violated. But I’ll post what I’ve found: 1. Respectfully, you have not. The cases you cited describe the attenuation doctrine that **Bricker** more fully discussed. In the hypo, there is nothing about the discovery of the body that is close to being attenuated. It is a direct and clear result of the illegal stop. 2. You cite correctly said that the Fourth Amendment protects against illegal searches, but failed to mention that it protects against illegal seizures. If I am pulled over, me and my car are seized by the government. I am not free to leave. I am not free to get out of the car and stretch my legs. Privacy, at its core, is the right to be left alone. The government is not honoring that by illegally stopping me. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/70 "2018-08-28T21:27:06Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 1. Respectfully, you have not. The cases you cited describe the attenuation doctrine that **Bricker** more fully discussed. In the hypo, there is nothing about the discovery of the body that is close to being attenuated. It is a direct and clear result of the illegal stop. I have. I cited for you not only the Attenuation Doctrine, but also the Independent Source Doctrine: \*Evidence initially obtained during an unlawful search or seizure may later be admissible if the evidence is later obtained through a constitutionally valid search or seizure. \* You clamed: > [@](#): > > Under your theory, there would never be an illegal search because once the cops find the incriminating evidence, the search is good. And I countered with a cite: \*A simple example helps to explain both the practical operation, and the controversial nature, of the exclusionary rule. Suppose the police stop a driver for speeding, and in the course of issuing the citation they discover cocaine in the glove compartment of the car. If the defendant did not consent to the search, and if the police did not have probable cause to believe illegal drugs could be found in the glove compartment, the search would be illegal under the Fourth Amendment. … Note also that the rule does not automatically result in acquittal. Suppose the police found cocaine in both the glove compartment and the trunk, and the court ruled that the cocaine in the trunk was seized illegally but that the search of the glove compartment was legal. The suppression of the cocaine from the trunk would not protect the defendant from being convicted for possessing the cocaine in the glove compartment.\* You said: > [@](#): > > Because the plain view doctrine requires that the officer be in a position which he has a legal right to be in. The stop of the vehicle in this hypothetical was illegal. The officer should not have been in a position to be able to look through the car windows. And I cited the three conditions that must be satisfied for the plain view doctrine to be used to convict one of a crime: \ ***The contraband must be in plain view.** The term ‘plain view’ means out in the open, or otherwise easily observable. Therefore, only objects visible from the officer’s point of view may be seized under the plain view doctrine. For example, if an officer observes contraband sitting on the stoop of a porch, objects concealed in a kitchen cabinet are (likely) not in the officer’s ‘plain view’. **The officer must have a legal right to be where he is when he sees the contraband.** This means that the officer can’t trespass or otherwise illegally infringe on your right to privacy in order to spot the contraband, or get a better vantage point in order to discover contraband. **The ‘incriminating’ character of the contraband must be ‘readily apparent’ to the officer.** Only objects that are clearly indicative of criminal activity fall under the plain view doctrine. The officer may rely on his experience in determining whether the object is contraband. For example, an empty two-liter soda bottle with residue at the bottom may seem innocent to the untrained eye, but an experienced narcotics officer may recognize the bottle as evidence of methamphetamine production.\* I then reminded you that even though the stop was unlawful, the officer wasn’t trespassing or otherwise illegally infringing on a right to privacy and that the plain view doctrine may be irrelevant if after witnessing the body the officer gets a warrant. You claimed a right to privacy would be violated; I posted a cite of what rights to privacy entail. You literally have not responded to any of those points. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/71 "2018-08-28T21:27:43Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > So let’s suppose the officer witnesses the body and gets a warrant. The plain view doctrine is now irrelevant. If the police car had pulled alongside the other car at a stoplight, for example, and observed the dead body, then they would have a valid reason to stop the car. Or if another motorist had done so, and called in to 911. That, too, gives them a valid reason to stop the car. But without a valid reason to stop the car in the first place, they can’t legally observe the dead body. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/72 "2018-08-28T21:36:14Z")
> [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](#): > > But without a valid reason to stop the car in the first place, they can’t legally observe the dead body. I think I may have answered to this already…once or twice. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/73 "2018-08-28T21:51:27Z")
What independent source? The only source is the invalid stop! > **[Independent source doctrine](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_source_doctrine)** > > In US law, the independent source doctrine is an exception to the exclusionary rule. The doctrine applies to evidence initially discovered during, or as a consequence of, an unlawful search, but later obtained independently from activities untainted by the initial illegality. > > The United States Supreme Court, in Nix v. Williams, provided the policy rationale for admitting tainted evidence: The independent source doctrine teaches us that the interest of society in deterring unlawful conduct and... Note that the independent source must be untainted by the original illegal stop. The two cases in that Wikipedia article are right on point. Further, you misunderstand the plain view doctrine. An officer may not take an illegal action to bring an item into his plain view as your cites clearly indicate. I know you didn’t like my hypos, but your position would allow officers to commit illegal acts (artificially limited by you to no trespass or destruction of property) to bring items into plain view. They could illegally stop a vehicle and then illegally demand that the driver place all items inside the vehicle on the curb. Then you would argue that now that the officer was legally in public and that the items were in plain view, they would be admissible. It simply does not work that way. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/74 "2018-08-28T22:03:18Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Further, you misunderstand the plain view doctrine. An officer may not take an illegal action to bring an item into his plain view as your cites clearly indicate. Of course officers can’t take illegal actions. If that’s what you think I claimed, it’s you who is misunderstanding. > [@](#): > > Then you would argue that now that the officer was legally in public and that the items were in plain view, they would be admissible. It simply does not work that way. Demanding “it simply doesn’t work that way” isn’t compelling me to accept your statements. My cites are so far convincing me that my position is correct. You haven’t addressed all of them. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/75 "2018-08-28T22:07:40Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > … An officer may not take an illegal action to bring an item into his plain view as your cites clearly indicate… OK, so Jesse Pinkman, as coached by Walter White, tells Officer Schrader from inside his crack-manufacturing van: **Pinkman** : Go get a warrant. **Shrader** (_peels back tattered duct tape barely covering bullet holes_): Yeah, fat chance. I got probable cause right here, and I’m coming in. **Pinkman** : You didn’t see those holes when you got here. Illegal. Go get a warrant. Exit Schrader. Hollywood got it right, for once? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/76 "2018-08-28T22:13:23Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Of course officers can’t take illegal actions. If that’s what you think I claimed, it’s you who is misunderstanding. We agree that the stop is illegal, yes? The officer is committing an illegal act in order to bring the items in the car into plain view. What am I missing? > [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Demanding “it simply doesn’t work that way” isn’t compelling me to accept your statements. My cites are so far convincing me that my position is correct. You haven’t addressed all of them. What in particular have I not addressed? Are you seriously suggesting that when an officer demands that the driver place the contents of his glove box on the sidewalk that the search will be upheld and the evidence admissible? ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/77 "2018-08-28T22:19:25Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > OK, so Jesse Pinkman, as coached by Walter White, tells Officer Schrader from inside his crack-manufacturing van: > > **Pinkman** : Go get a warrant. > **Shrader** (_peels back tattered duct tape barely covering bullet holes_): Yeah, fat chance. I got probable cause right here, and I’m coming in. > **Pinkman** : You didn’t see those holes when you got here. Illegal. Go get a warrant. > > Exit Schrader. > > Hollywood got it right, for once? > **[OSJCL\_V13N1\_191.pdf](https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/75405/OSJCL_V13N1_191.pdf)** ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/78 "2018-08-28T22:24:20Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > We agree that the stop is illegal, yes? The officer is committing an illegal act in order to bring the items in the car into plain view. What am I missing? Seriously? I broke everything down into one post. See post 70. I’ve made my position very clear. We’re going in circles now. > [@](#): > > What in particular have I not addressed? Several portions of post 70. > [@](#): > > Are you seriously suggesting that when an officer demands that the driver place the contents of his glove box on the sidewalk that the search will be upheld and the evidence admissible Quote what I wrote that has you thinking I suggested that and I’ll explain it. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/79 "2018-08-28T22:37:47Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Further, you misunderstand the plain view doctrine. An officer may not take an illegal action to bring an item into his plain view as your cites clearly indicate. In your hypothetical, the officer did not take an illegal action “to” bring an item into view. 1. The officer may not have even realized it was an unlawful stop. 2. The purpose was of getting into the view of the backseat was not to find anything incriminating. See again the three conditions which I copied and pasted that must be satisfied for the plain view doctrine to be used to convict one of a crime. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2018, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300/80 "2018-08-28T22:38:12Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Except of course as even SCOTUS admitted, there are literally thousands of little things you can be cited or pulled over for. So the cop would have to be SUPER stupid to admit he pulled the car over for a illegal reason. He could simply say they were speeding or weaving or failed to signal a turn, etc. Yet in the very case that gave rise to this discussion, Utah v. Strieff, the officer admitted that he did not know what time Strieff entered the drug house, did not know how long Strieff had been in the drug house, and therefore could not conclude that Strieff was only a short-time visitor, so he did not in fact have reasonable, articulable suspicion to detain Strieff. He did not, as you theorize, falsely claim Strieff was speeding or failed to signal a turn. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/legal-question-about-detainment-by-law-enforcement/820300.md?page=5)