Actually, I really think that if neither of them are breaking the law he ought to go look for somebody that is. Do you consider “following people around until they do something wrong” to be a legitimate police activity?
I’m thinking this hypothetical cop should focus on the car that is breaking laws rather than the one that is more/less expensive, no?
I spoke with an attorney from CA who is a friend the other day, and brought this up. From what I recall, the police are not allowed to pull you over for something they suspect. You must break a rule in order for them to do so.
They need probable cause that you have committed or are currently committing a crime. They don’t need to know that you have committed or are currently committing a crime.
Of course, that doesn’t mean they can just follow you around all day because you look shifty.
When I was dating Pepper Mill, I left her house late one night, and soon there was a police car on my tail. It followed me all the ay back to where I was staying – a distance of 40 miles.
Maybe it was the out-of-state plates and the fact that I was drivin around late.
Maybe they were bored out of their minds late at night
And the honest people that cops happen to think look like “surly” “teenage thugs” deserve to be harassed because?
I went through a long hair phase. If there was the slightest possibility of being pulled over that really attracted the cop’s attention. I used to listen to a lot of techno on my car stereo. They’d occasionally ask to search for drugs.
I don’t even drink. I’ve never been drunk. Let alone do drugs.
Yet I was harassed. Did I deserved to be singled out/harassed because I had non mainstream choices in hair and music?
If the cop doesn’t have anything else to do, then following vehicles that he thinks look suspicious to see what they’re up to is fine with me. He’d be doing precisely what you suggest - looking for people who are breaking the law by focusing his attention on people whom he judges most likely to break the law.
Argue all you want, but people with more money are statistically less likely to be involved in the type of crimes that ordinary police care about.
Well, maybe not deserved, but what do you expect? If you look like a stoner, people are going to think you’re a stoner, no matter how innocent and sweet and perfect you really are.
I mean, come on. Let’s say you’re a cop. On average, you find drugs in 5% of all cars. However, you gradually come to realize you find drugs in 25% of all cars driven by long-haired teenagers blasting techno music. Is it unreasonable to be more suspicious of and pay more attention to cars driven by long-haired teenagers blasting techno music?
I mean, hell, I drive a bright red sports car. If I’m driving through some fun, winding country road on a sunny Saturday afternoon, and a cop sees my car and a van with handicapped plates being driven by a senior citizen, is it unreasonable for him to assume I’m more likely to be speeding? I don’t think so.
If we are to go by statistics, it’s worth mentioning that if the vehicle is not currently breaking a law, then the probability that it is currently engaged in the type of crime that ordinary police care about is zero.
Of course, one could argue that having a police car following someone makes them less likely to commit a crime. Except that by following one vehicle, they are most likely ignoring several others, which fairly well nullifies their “preventative” measures.
And, what everyone else said about profiling being unfair.
…before the thief steals the $50,000 car.
No, that’s not unreasonable. I certainly do think that it’s unreasonable, however, to tail a car simply because it looks like that car might eventually speed or because its driver looks like he might indulge in some marijuana. Go look for somebody who is intoxicated or otherwise driving recklessly if you’re a cop with nothing better to do.
Let’s say you gradually come to realize that 25% of the people convicted of drug related crimes are black. Is it unreasonable to be more suspicious of and pay more attention to black people?
That seems perfectly valid…until you extend the logic to include “Looking poor”, “Looking lost”, “Looking non white” or some other such thing.
And this is why I drive a 2007 Camry V-6.
It’s within a tenth of a second of a Subaru WRX to 60, faster in the quarter mile, stock.
It’s not quite stock anymore, but you can’t tell by looking.
-
Vehicles don’t break laws, people do (unless the vehicle is not road-safe for some reason)
-
A lot of times it’s not immediately apparent what crime someone in a vehicle may be engaged in or has engaged in but a cop ends up pulling someone over for something rather mild but which is technically a legal issue, like say an “improper lane change”. Except in the dullest of towns the cop probably has no interest in the improper lane change, but when he pulls the person over on that pretext he finds out that they have a warrant for grand larceny and unlawful defenestration in 12 states, 6 keys of coke, and a dead body in the trunk. Many, many more serious crimes are revealed through minor traffic stops.
I’m not necessarily defending Absolute nor profiling but I do want to play devil’s advocate because it is a little ridiculous to expect cops never to watch or pull anyone over unless they are rolling around with guns blazing out the windows or running down pedestrians like a maniac.
Following you is not harassment (IMHO). It makes me nervous as well (mainly trying to remember if I have any old parking tickets outstanding). I use my cruise control to nail the right speed, and do complete stops, signals, etc. It is a nice little exercise, just like taking the driving test. I had it happen to me last week.
Pulling you over because “you fit the description of a call that came in” IS harassment.
We drive cars into the ground in our household. My wife was driving my old truck (now gone to truck heaven (aka Mexico through a donation), was followed through the nice neighborhood, then pulled over. Both cops got out, hands on their guns (still holstered), and slowly approached our beater. When they got close, they spotted three middle aged women in the truck and noticably relaxed.
“Do you know your tags expire in 3 days?”
Yeah, right.
This seems a bit needlessly nitpicky to me, but ok - please feel free to substitute “person” for “vehicle” in my above post.
Agreed, that would be bad as well. My issue is mainly with the idea of choosing which cars to follow based on the type of car or how the driver looks…
I saw that happen one time on I-43 just outside Milwaukee during my former daily commute. Except the guy being tailed switched lanes several times to let the cop past. Every time, the cop continued to hug the guy’s bumper.
Eventually, the guy changed lanes without signaling and on came the blue lights. Dickhead.
-Joe
How do you know that? Just cause it makes “sense” doesn’t mean it true. More importantly, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when cops only pull over those more “likely” to commit a crime.
And the heap of stories in this thread show this makes many innocent saps both very nervous/stressed out, and takes their attention off the road. Creating a traffic hazard.
Including dealers on the black market? Isn’t being poor bad enough without the cops looking for reasons to drain your meager earnings with tickets?
Equal treatment under the law? Unless liking techno, and long hair were a crime of some sort.
Well I am pretty perfect so I’ll give you this.
So that means it’s okay to harass the 75% majority of law abiding people who have long hair and like techno?
So that gives the cop license to pull that red car over for the stupidest reasons? Follow them all over creation making the driver a nervous wreck? I don’t think so either.
Driving in the vicinity of someone for a while is not harrassment. Tailing someone from very close for an extended time is.
Pulling someone over for a violation is not harrassment. Following someone around until they commit a violation, probably because they were nervous because you were behind them, is.