Just want to say that I agree with the sentiment… having spent a (mostly) crime free year living in Choteau Montana after graduating High School, I had several run ins with the local cops.
Since I was new, and from out of town, I got harassed. The scenario described above would have been quite possible, if the town were just a little bit bigger.
FWIW, everything the officer did, with the exception of the question of religion, seems to have fallen under her (?) discretion. Yes, the question about religion was indeed inappropriate, however as far as breaking the law, i doubt it, because (seemingly) no action was taken on the basis of an answer. If he’d have answered, “pagan” and THEN been arrested, there might be a case, albeit a civil one.
Also, I’ve got the same inclination spooje does. This seems like a real left-field question on a traffic stop, and I’m sure none of the cops I know, small town or otherwise, would ask a potentially damaging question like that.
You’re right; you don’t. A drug dealer, with or without big bucks, would register his car in a family member’s name. That way, he could be authorized to drive it, but it wouldn’t be one of his financial assets.
If there was no indication that the auto was uninsured, and the officer impounded it anyway, I’d say that there’s grounds for some sort of redress.
Doesn’t make much difference who the car’s registered to.
The property doesn’t have to belong to the drug dealer for it to be siezed. IIRC, it only has to be “involved” in a investigation- charges don’t have to be filed against the drug dealer for the property to be seized. The property itself is charged witha crime. The property, however, isn’t entitled to the several COnstitutional protections that citizens and nationals are. You have to prove the “innocence” of your property to have it reurned. If you can’t do this, the property can be auctioned off with proceeds going to the police dept taht seized the property to begin with.
This law is a legacy from the Clinton years.
Also IIRC, there’s a relevant court case pending in NJ(?) where a mother’s car was seized when the police found pot on her kid while he was driving the car.
A question:
You mention that this is an hour and a half from New York City… I’ve had, and in fact am currently fighting, serious problems with petty cops in an area of New York State just an hour and a half from NYC. (Sullivan County.)
That wouldn’t happen to be the same place as these troubles, would it?
Bri
So—what religion is he?
I’m an agnostic and I can’t imagine that I’d get all bent out of shape if some cop asked me. Being an amateur, part time criminal and general scofflaw, I could think of much worse questions that an officer could interrogate me about.
If I felt like telling the truth, I’d probably say that “I’m not much of a church-goer.” If I felt like lying—not an unheard of situation with the cops, or anyone else for that matter—I’d say I was Catholic. Only half a lie—EX-Catholic.
So the OP implies that the kid might have thought he’d get in some kind of trouble if he answered the truth. At least that’s how later posters have interpreted it.
So—what religion is he, if any?
How about you be specific about where you are and not imply that the entire South does that. Here in New Orleans the questions go:
If you answer no to #2, people will keep asking you if you want something to drink until you say yes. Very odd. I can’t remember the last time someone asked me about my religion, no matter which part of the South I’ve been in.
Thanks for the info. But, what if the car’s not involved in the crime? Like, if he’s arrested at his home or on foot? Does it still count as one of his assets?
I’ve lived in Georgia, North Carolina, and Alabama, and encountered the religion question in all three states (though to be fair, AL and GA are way ahead of NC on this). When we lived in GA, Mr. Kitty had an in-home business… almost every customer started small talk with the “who are your family” and “what religion are you” (or, alternately, “what church do you attend?”), which made for some very tense moments since these were customers and we had to be polite. And my SIL’s family, who reside primarily in the very-very-low-income areas around New Orleans/Baton Rouge, also display this behavior. I was tempted to wear a signboard to the wedding to keep from having to repeat “I was raised Catholic” over and over and over.
::shrug:: I guess you’ve just been lucky.
Me too. When I moved from Chicago to Mississippi, the lady at the frigging bank asked me which church I went to, while I was opening a new account. Pissed me off it did. I told her we had just moved here and hadn’t chosen yet, but if I had it to do over again, I think I’d tell her Church of Satan and pick a new bank.
A 19-year-old who just got Mom’s car towed might possibly color things in his favor, even a nice kid (I know I would have). Most patrol cars have camera’s in them and all traffic stops are taped. If its a small town they might not have camera’s but it would be quite easy for Joey to check. (lets not forget he is an adult and any complaints that might be made have to be made by him and not his parents). In NY cops just have to type the license plate into their computers and it tells them if the car is insured. An abstract of the registrations history would show if it was entered as uninsured and when. It is unlikely that the officer was lying about this because she would know how easy it would be to check.
The information comes from the insurance company and the DMV. Is it so hard to believe that they couldn’t have made a mistake? When was the last time you were at the DMV?
There are constantly cases like this. In order for a car to be seized and forfeited it must be used in the commision of a crime, not a motor vehicle violation. The exception in NY is for DWI convictions. A car cannot be forfeited and auctioned if the vehicle does not belong to the person who committed the crime. The exception is if it can be proven that the vehicle belonged to someone else in name only. This is usually done by going over the persons driving record and showing multiple violations as the driver. Even then it is difficult to prove. There is always a forfeiture hearing and a judge must make decision, it is not left up to the police.
Just adding that the last part of the above post applies specifically to New Jersey. The laws in your state may vary.
according to this http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-179es.html
I talked to Joey. He says that the cop asked him for his license and registration, looked at them, and then asked what religion he was. Absent an explanation from the cop herself, we are still mystified as to what it had to do with the traffic stop. We (by which I mean myself and Joey’s mom) speculate that the cop may have intended to make some comment about being in church rather than driving around on Good Friday afternoon.
Most of the locals here – the old-timers, anyway - tend to fall neatly into one ethnic/religious category (Polish or Irish Catholic, Dutch Reformed). (This is Orange County, btw.) In my experience, some of these folks are a bit insular w/r/t their dealings outside their own group. As someone of German heritage I get a pass from most people, but my boss – who is from southern Italian stock – does get treated differently from time to time. I think it’s possible that the officer got confused looking at the car registration, since Joey’s mom has a first name that sounds like it belongs to one ethnic group and a married name that could belong to another.
As for the insurance – it turns out that there was a period of a couple days during the insurance company switch when the car was not covered (a mistake on the agent’s part). NYS takes any such lapse seriously, and those days need to be paid for (administrative penalty of $8/day). However, Joey’s parents are currently trying to find out whether the officer still had grounds to impound the car, since it was in fact properly insured at the time of the traffic stop, and the cop had no evidence in hand that the car was driven during the days when coverage was not in effect.
If the cop thought she was in the right to impound the vehicle, she should also have confiscated Joey’s license, as driving an uninsured vehicle is grounds for immediate license suspension. But Joey still has his license, and he says she didn’t hesitate to give it back to him even as she said the car was going to be towed. So, the possibilities currently are:
She had grounds to impound the vehicle, but was incompetent enough not to also confiscate Joey’s license.
She knew that the car was currently insured, and knew that she couldn’t take his license, but saw the two-day lapse in insurance several weeks back and figured she would at least make life difficult for him.
No comment yet from the police about the complaint, but the assistant to the town supervisor was not happy to hear about the incident and promised that it would be investigated.
SimonX, that’s an interesting link you have to forfeiture policies in various places. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me that people can lose property because of how they look, and without being proven guilty of anything. There was an interesting program some years back (60 Minutes, maybe?) about this same sort of policy but in Louisiana, where a good case could be made that sheriffs in one particular parish were targeting out-of-state people and migrant workers in bogus traffic stops because it would be harder for those people to fight for the return of their property. I think that sucks. :mad:
Dear god, what this nation won’t do to persue a failed war on drugs.
There are an awful lot of assumptions going on here without any facts. Maybe what the NY DMV says will clear it up a little.
Some how that does not sound right to me. I would like to see that law. I’ve been looking but I have not found it. From my experience the police can not suspend a license. DMV can for administrative reasons and a judge can due to a violation of the law. The immediate license suspension would come after a conviction. After reading the above link in appears that NY is much harder on the registered owner and that Mom has more to worry about than Joey. This bill seems to place the blame on the owner so there would be no reason to seize the license of the driver. If there are other laws that pertain I would like to see them. If happened in Jersey I could give you the answer but NY might be much different.
The NY plate inquiries I have seen only state “insurance valid” or “uninsured vehicle”. It does not go into details. The most likely scenerio IMHO is that the coverage lapsed when the companies were switched. A notice went to DMV. The vehicle record was ammended to reflect no insurance and then it was never updated. With the DMV record saying that the car was uninsured there would have been more than enough probable cause to issue the ticket and tow the car. The forfeiture hijack above does not have anything to do with this case. The car was towed for no insurance. It should have been returned after proof of insurance was produced.
I too am baffled by the religion question unless it was just making conversation on Good Friday. If there was any proof that the actions of the officer were as a result of the driver’s religion, Joey would have a hell of a lawsuit. A check of the tape from the car stop would clear up most questions. Some departments may let the complainant view the tape. Sometimes you would need a lawyer to get them to do it. As I stated earlier, if it is a small town they may not have cameras.
Sounds like the kind of banter Vic and Shane would have…
You’re right about the process, that the cop could not immediately confiscate the license; seems something got lost in the translation between Joey’s mom’s lawyer and what she told me. My bad for posting without checking it. However, the (non-owner) driver of an uninsured vehicle can indeed find themselves in trouble:
NY CLS Vehicle & Traffic Sec. 318 (2004). (Sorry, the text of the code is from Lexis and I can’t post a direct link.)
So then, I guess the question is: What constitutes proof of insurance? Joey had the current card in hand. A phone call to the insurance company would have verified the coverage immediately, but Joey was allowed no phone calls. Is one just SOOL and stuck with the tow + storage charge until an administrator gets involved? That doesn’t seem right to me, as it allows the town to pocket money for what turns out to be a bogus issue that could have been resolved sooner.
AFAIK there is no tape of the encounter. I still think it’s weird that a cop during a traffic stop would strike up a conversation about anything unrelated to it. I’ve been the one in the driver’s seat on a few occasions over the years :o , mostly in small towns, and I’ve never dealt with an officer who wasn’t completely serious and on point about the stop.
Its pretty standard procedure to strike up a conversation after you initially determine no immediate threat. You ask questions that require more than a one word explaination in order to see if the driver is DWI or overly nervous about something. I would stick to “where are you coming from?” and similar questions. I don’t think I would mention religion :rolleyes: .
In New Jersey having the card is considered proof of insurance. A cop probably won’t dig any further than that. If he does he better be able to articulate why to a judge. Sometimes bogus looking cards are presented and phone calls are usually made.
In NY you also have to carry an insurance card and you can be cited for no insurance if you don’t have one. However, in NY the insurance companies report to DMV when a car is unregistered. If the car comes up as uninsured on the DMV database you can also be cited for no insurance. No phone call will be made and you will get stuck with the tow charge. Written proof from the insurance company is usually required to prove otherwise, a phone conversation won’t do.
Most smaller towns I know use private towing services. The tow truck driver will pocket the money not the town. Depends on the town.
You stated they have a lawyer, he will find out for sure soon enough when he asks for discovery. The lawyer will also easily be able to get a copy of the DMV record at the time of the stop. This will show what the status of the vehicle was at the time. If DMV said it was uninsured then the cop acted in good faith with the information available and this will go no further. Then its DMV or the insurance companies fault. I doubt they will get any satisfaction from either of them.
It is possible that the cop did nothing wrong in the eyes of the law. She stopped Joey for the second time for the same violation. DMV records said the vehicle was uninsured. As to anything else, its not against the law to be an asshole. If it didn’t rise to the level of harrassment then they are throwing money at the lawyer for nothing. Let us know if there is an update.