I don’t mean those unfortunate events that make for front-page news; I mean simple mistakes.
Suppose a police officer observes a car passing by and determines that the driver is not wearing his seatbelt. So, the officer begins a traffic stop. As the stop is taking place, the officer realizes that he has made a mistake and that the driver has not, in fact, committed a traffic offense.
So, the officer has now determined that no offense has taken place. What does he say to the driver? How does this affect probable cause? The officer had no reason to stop the car (even though he thought he did). Suppose that, during the unprovoked traffic stop, the officer does observe an infraction – say evidence of drug use. Is the evidence of illegal activity allowed?
Before you ask: No, I am not in trouble with the law. This query wandered into my mind during a drive on I-10 this afternoon.
No. That would qualify as a mistake that gets on the front page of the papers, which I was excluding in the OP. I am talking about a more simple, less life altering (or ending) mistake. I also mean a situation where the officer himself realizes his mistake. “Sorry sir. I thought you weren’t wearing your seatbelt, but you clearly are wearing it. Have a good, safe day.”
Gotcha. But if there are no repercussions for major mistakes why would there be for simple ones? I guess that’s my question & not yours… It seems that what CateAyo said is a fairly universal standard.
Your own link suggests that the facts of this case are controversial, and one version of them do not make Bell an “innocent” man.
Because this case does not stand for the conclusion you suggest it does, and because it is not an illustration of a general case, I believe it is ill-suited to assist the OP in answering the question posed.
I used to drive a 74 Firebird Formula 400, it was not equipped with shoulder belts, I got pulled over about every 3 months after they passed the law. They would walk up, ask if I know why they pulled me over, I would say no. They would say I was not wearing my seatbelt. I would point out that my lap belt was on, and that my vehicle was never equipped with shoulder belts. Usually I would get on of those “oh, damn” looks, a brief apology and sent on my merry way.
I was pulled over by mistake once. The officer thought I had not given him sufficient clearance while he was ticketing another car, and was probably going to cite me for reckless driving, or some such (he never said). When he realized his error, he let me go with a generic “Drive safe” warning, and did not once comment on the half-dozen firearms laying in plain sight on and against the passenger seat. He had no way to tell if they were loaded (they weren’t) or if I had a permit (I did), and he never asked. I took it as his way of apologizing for stopping me.
'I once pulled out of a side street that was so short it only had one house, I think, but it also had the exit from the carpark of a huge pub. At the main road, I had to give way to a passing cop car, then I made my turn. In my mirror, I saw the cop’s brakelights come on, and he pulled a quick U turn. He must have been delighted that I’d just come out of the pub, and he could smell the kill. He walked up to my window and told me it was “random breath testing”. Random my arse…
Anyway, he asked, “Have you had any alcohol today, sir?” I answered that I hadn’t, and that I’d been to the pub to pick up some booze to take home. I pointed to the sealed bottles in a grocery bag on the passenger seat. So I blew a green light on the breathalyser, and the cop was civil and polite to me, but I could tell he was angry because he’d wasted his time on me. So I got the full licence check, registration check, tyres, the works (I have never had those checked at a stop before). He was determined to get me for something. But he couldn’t.
Not very professional, IMHO. He made a gamble on me and he lost, wasting his time. That should be his problem, not mine.
Years ago a friend of mine moved from Chicago to Evanston. If you live in Chicago your car is required to have a city sticker on the passenger side of their windshield, which must be renewed yearly in July. Evanston, however, requires a city sticker on the driver’s side of the windshield. Right after my friend moved he purchased the required Evanston sticker, but didn’t bother to remove his old Chicago sticker. The day after the Chicago sticker expired, he was driving to work and was pulled over by a Chicago cop who started to write him up for driving with an expired sticker; my friend pointed to his Evanston sticker, then showed his driver’s license to verify that he was now living in Evanston. The cop (obviously annoyed that he had lost out on adding another ticket to his quota) gruffly pointed out that my friend should have removed his Chicago sticker and told him to be on his way.
Every car sold in the US since 1969 has required 3 point seatbelts. I had a POS 71 Trans Am and it had the God awful shoulder belts GM installed in all of it’s cars at that time. A knowledgable officer could have ticketed you for defective equipment. I was once pulled over while driving my 66 GTO which did not come with with shoulder belts, I think the officer realized his mistake just as we came to a stop. He made some small talk about the car and suggested installing shoulder belts to make the car safer. When I pointed out the car had a 4 point restraint system with 3 inch lap belts and was a whole lot better than anything from the factory, he sent me on my way with “Have a good day”. This happened the first day that my state made seatbelt violations a primary offense instead of a secondary offense.
That’s what I got several years ago. My family and I were almost home in NJ after a 7500 mile journey around the U.S. and I turned onto the highway towards Trenton and was still getting up to speed when a state trooper pulled us over.
When I asked him why he pulled us over he asked me “Didn’t you see me on the median a mile back? You were speeding.”
I said “Sorry, but I just got on the highway.”
“But you were speeding.”
“No, I mean we really just got on the highway – on that ramp right over there. We just came off the PA turnpike.”
He knew darned well that he had mistaken us for another car. We couldn’t possibly have passed his car before the ramp and we had our gas receipts and such from PA.
So if I’m following you correctly, you believe that if a cop pulls somebody over in the mistaken belief that they weren’t wearing a seatbelt, you want him convicted of criminal charges.
McNulty: "Baker, Let me let you in on a little secret, The patrolling officer on his beat is the one true dictatorship in America, we can lock a guy up on the humble, lock him up for real, or say fuck it and drink ourselves to death under the expressway and our side partners will cover us, No one - I mean no one - tells us how to waste our shift! "
It’s interesting how some of this conversation morphed into adverse consequences for the officer when he makes a mistake. It’s not that I think that officers shouldn’t suffer consequences for errors, whether inconveniencing a citizen with an unnecessary traffic stop to shooting someone multiple times.
What I was driving at is what happens when an officer stops a citizen due to his mistaking the car for one that committed the infraction, or if the officer thought he observed an infraction that could not have happened. By the anecdotes above, it seems that it depends on the personality or mood of the officer. If he’s the sort who cannot publicly admit an error, the hapless citizen is going to get some sort of warning or run-down until an infraction can be found.
If CateAyo is correct, evidence of an unrelated crime can be admissible if the officer made the initial stop in good faith. What protects citizens from officers stopping people of a certain ethnic group or whatever and coming up with “I thought I saw his seatbelt dangling” excuse?
Per [b[TheLoadedDog**'s anecdote, is it illegal to leave a pub in Australia? I can understand that drunk driving is illegal and worthy of vigorous enforcement, but merely pulling out of a parking lot does not seem that it would rise to the level of probable cause in the US. Now, if you ran over the curb, failed to signal, and hit the mailbox, then maybe the officer would have a cause to stop you. He could even follow you until you weaved around a bit, but it would seem that some shred of evidence of a crime’s being committed would be needed before the stop could be made.
Little Nemo, I think he was mainly wondering if the found evidence of drug use would be admissible in a court of law, when the officer pulled the person over mistakenly.
Not to hijack the thread, but this is the main problem with primary enforcement seat belt laws. It gives a cop a reason to pull over any car on the road.
“Sir, it looked as if you weren’t wearing your safety belt back there. I see you have it on now, but you didn’t before. License, registration, and proof of insurance, please.”
What good is the 4th amendment when a stop like this is allowed?
