until you start hearing stories it is hard to believe. All of my runins with police have been pleasant. I have been lucky in that sense. I do believe there are cops out there with a chip on their shoulder who want nothing more than to flaunt their power. But there are also good cops out there who let people get out of tickets they deserve. So it goes both ways. Growing up in SoCal, everyone knew that you did not want to speed through San Dimas, as the cops there were real A-holes. However, Laverne Cops were cool. Again

 

9Eleven's post linking to the recent Supreme Courts decision helps to clarify things:

"Supreme Court Limits Warrantless Vehicle Searches"

Justice Stevens summed it up this way, "Countless individuals guilty of nothing more serious than a traffic violation have had their constitutional right to the security of their private effects violated as a result."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_189654.html

 

OMG, this is absolute classic, movie type stuff. I would hate it but the story is just great.

 

Only problem being, of course, they generally don't need a warrant. (See Automobile Exception to the Warrant Requirement and Container Doctrine)

 

 

Does your state provide additional protections not found in the US Constiution?

 

My experience with the law may not be as extensive as some others' here, but there's still som BS that has gone on.

I've been pulled over SEVERAL times. I'm 21. I've driven like a d*ck on several occasions. I got pulled over 5 times or so before I had any points on my license. One time I was pulled over, as soon as the cop came to my window, my cell phone went off. Lucky for me that day, my ring tone was the theme from "Beverly Hills Cop." He heard that, laughed and we started talking about random ****, didn't even ask for my license or registration. I admitted I was speeding. Not because I felt like driving like a dick, but because I simply was not paying attention and was listening to my music pretty loud, and I told him that. He then realized I was just a normal kid with nothing to hide. He then let me on my way, and I laughed the whole way home.

I've been arrested on the side of the road before as well. I was speeding, 80mph in a 55mph zone. I admitted it to the cop. He went and checked my license. It was suspended. Not because I did anything horribly wrong, I simply forgot my court date and didn't go. Then there was the kicker: I switched insurance companies. The old insurance company called DMV, telling them that I didn't have insurance on my vehicle. In NY, if you have no insurance, you can not register a car, and get your registration suspended. At the time I was pulled over, I had insurance with the new company, and my registration shouldn't be suspended. I was then put in handcuffs and forced to sit on the hood of the car I've had for 6 days. Luckily, he let me call my mom and have her come drive the car home. I ended up getting stuck with the driving on a suspended license ticket (which is actually an "aggravated unlicensed operation" in the 3rd degree.. A misdemeanor.) and a failure to obey a traffic control device ticket (2 points). This was all of my fault.. I didn't have my affairs in order, and I was speeding.

Then here's the BS stop..
I was driving home from Lebanon Valley Dragway. I was super excited cuz I ran my best time ever in my silver Subaru, but I set the cruise control at 70mph (five mph over speed limit). I got my thrills at the track. I see a trooper sitting in his car at a u-turn and then a silver Acura RL goes blowing by me at I'd say 100mph. Like I was standing still. I see the cop pulling out and say to my friend "that RL is fu**ed." The lights turn on and I expect him to pass me.. Nope. He gets right on my a*s and pulls me over. He comes to the car, hand on his gun, other holding his flashlight.
"Why the hell were you going that fast?"
"I'm sorry officer, but I didn't know 70mph was worthy of such a question..."
"I clocked you at 97."
"I believe you pulled over the wrong car, sir. I was going 70mph. Perhaps you meant to pull over the silver Acura that flew past me as we passed you?"
"Oh, you're gonna try and pull that $hit now? Give me you license, registration,and insurance card."
He then walks back to his car. 5min later, he comes back with a ticket.
"I see you seem to have a lot of run ins with the law. License suspension, several tickets, parking violations.. This ticket is for 97mph in a 65mph zone. At this speed, I should arrest you, take you in, and impound your car. I'll cut you a break though."
"Oh thank you officer, I appreciate it so much. Enjoy your night."

Total crap. I then go to my lawyer's office the next day, and explain everything to him. He says he will do his best. Because I admitted I was going 70mph, they could give me a ticket for 5mph over the limit, which is 3 points. The only deal he could get was "failure to obey a traffic control device" which is 2 points.

I've never had any of my cars searched, now have I ever been patted down. Sorry that my post seems more like a "post your cop story", but it shows the different types of cops out there. There's the nice ones, the law-abiding ones, and the arrogant ones. Most cops don't know the law, they only know protocol.

 

I am often surprised by what people think are their rights. Then again, I've spent years of my life and hundreds of thousands of dollars to understand those rights, so a more complete statement is that I am often surprised by the indignant certainty by which uninformed people profess their illusory legal rights.

Ignorance can be bliss. Until you learn that your lawyer is not actually capable of Jedi mind tricks and will actually need to argue well settled law too.

 

Ok.

 

Very interesting thread.
For what it's worth.....below is a couple comments made in past mails from NMO (National Motorist Association). They are an interesting group with opins and advice on many issues. Their site http://www.motorists.org/

Miranda Warning For Traffic Offenses
It would be the rare person that hasn't heard some version of the Miranda warning "‐‐‐anything you say say be used against you in a court of law‐‐‐".
The issue for motorists is...when is a police officer required to give a driver a Miranda warning if that driver is stopped for a traffic violation. The short answer: only after you have been officially arrested and taken into custody.
Anytime, up the moment of arrest, is fair game and anything you say can still be used against you in court, even though you were not read your Miranda rights. This is why we recommend that you say nothing that in any way will come back to haunt you in court, before or after you are arrested, and even if you are not arrested.
You can be polite, provide your license and other required documents, but you are not required to discuss the event for which you were stopped nor any other matter related to your actions or motives.
And, as noted in past articles, you are not required to take field sobriety tests or permit the search of your vehicle (unless the officer has probable cause to do so).

Supreme Court Decision Protects Motorists
In an incredibly rare decision the US Supreme Court actually protected motorists' rights.
It has become standard operating procedure for the police to search the vehicle of any person they have arrested. Not openly mentioned is the police finding an excuse to arrest someone if they want to search that person's car and they don't have probable cause to do so.
The Court ruled that if the arrested driver is under control (e.g. locked in patrol car) and of no danger to the officer(s) the officers must have a warrant to search the car, or clear indications of evidence of a crime in the vehicle.
For decades, the right to privacy of persons and their possessions in a vehicle has been systematically eroded to the point of near invisibility. In many states common traffic violations are categorized as "crimes" and the driver is subject to arrest. Once arrested the driver had no legal standing to prevent the search of his or her car.
This new ruling should put a crimp in the practice of warrantless searches of private vehicles. For the complete text of the decision see:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/08pdf/07‐542.pdf

 

+1

As a criminal trial lawyer with 20 years experience and over 115 jury trials taken to verdict as lead counsel, including numerous death penalty cases handled with never a client going to death row, I've been following this thread with amusement. First, I come to this forum to get away from work and the slime infested crap clusterf**k otherwise known as the justice system. That's why I haven't piped in till now. But I think there needs to be some balance brought back to the conversation.

I like cops. When I'm in trouble (street trouble), or my wife or children need help and I'm not around, I depend on the police to step in and handle things. I also know that police officers risk their lives in many situations so I can go home and sleep at night. If you guys knew the psychopathic f**ks I represent every day, you would agree with me.

That being said, there are rules which must be followed, especially by the police, because rules are the only thing that separate cops from the armed thugs they are sworn to protect us from. The problem is there are rules and there is real life. Everyone experiences this phenomenon on a daily basis. There's a textbook way of doing things at work and then there's your way of doing things. Same thing applies to cops. Most of what I've been reading on this thread has placed too much emphasis on what lawyers call "hornbook" law rather than realizing that the day to day actions of a police officer are a delicate balancing act between what the law says he should do and what the day to day job has taught him to do. Most cops know that no matter how bad they violate U.S. Supreme Court precedent, it's a long way from the street to a court ruling which throws out evidence or dismisses a case because that cop violated the law. In fact, I would say that from my experience, less than 0.5% of state court felony cases which make it from a street arrest to a court room decision are decided in favor of the defendant. In Federal Court that % drops to almost 0%. So, in other words, cops have a license to F**k with you in thousands of different ways, and when it's your word against the cop's word, that assh**e judge who puts "TOUGH ON CRIME" and "ENDORSED BY OUR POLICE" on his campaign flyer, well, you know who he's going with. (Now, I'm not talking about little misdemeanor/ticket crap, where no one gives a damn what happens. I'm taking about murder, sex assault, kiddy diddling, grandmother in a trailer burned to death cases, like the ones in my file cabinet. And those are the cases where these legal issues you guys have been talking about reach the boiling point.

So, what actually happens is that, the courtroom, that's my territory, and if a cop finds himself on the wrong side of my case, he better get ready for a courtroom *****-slap. On the other hand, the street, well that's the cop's territory, and when that 25 year old State Trooper who makes in a year what I might make in a week tells me to jump, I ask politely, "how high, officer?"

 

I like it. Good post.

Sadly, the poster you mistakenly gave a +1 to did not separate the law from my beliefs/advice. I don't consent to any search. I just realize how relatively easy it is for them to conduct search and, as your numbers show, they're almost always upheld.

 

My +1 was was not really directed at you-I know that posts or responses to posts don't define anyone. I don't know you, but I always assume that fellow 6 speeders are much more dynamic and complicated individuals than a years worth of posts can even attempt to define. I was only agreeing with the sentiment that as a lawyer, the "nothing to hide" rationale should never be a trigger to permission to search. I'm sure that you, from that fact that your posts clearly show a well grounded knowledge of these issues, would also agree. And this is basic stuff, so whether you practice criminal or not really has nothing to do with it.

The sad thing is that I'm on 6 speed writing law posts when I would much rather be concentrating on my next mod for my larger than life GT2.

 

Gabriel, This was my point thru-out this whole string of threads, and although we'd prefer to read about your next mod, we certainly appreciate your perspective on this and other legal topics.

Mike

 

Mike,

No doubt you are on the ball about this topic as well as all of the other stuff you contribute to this forum. As far as I'm concerned you are clearly one of the guru's of 6 speed.

Anyway, how's the old frame holding up? Really sorry to hear about your accident. Although I'm not an ambulance chaser, my experience with these cases is that unfortunately the type of injury commonly suffered in rear end type collisions don't really develop until a few days after the incident. I hope this is not the case for you, but if it is, definitely get treated because it will make a difference.

Hey, look at the bright side, at least you weren't driving your TT.