Rant with questions for LEO's

[BIG ROB]

i read somewhere but i dont remember, in tennessee, the police can not detain you for any length longer than it takes to write a citation. when pulled over, make sure your car is stopped somewhere that you can leave it parked. you can deny the search. the best thing to do is roll the windows up, take the key out, lock the doors and shut them. if they want to search, they will have to get a warrant, and that is where the time limit comes in for the reasonable amount of detainment time.

i will find where i read that and post it. it might have been here on TGO, but i am unsure.

Yeah, that will work;) The best thing to do is be polite and either decline or consent. The choice is yours unless the officer has probable cause or at least reasonable suspicion to "frisk" the area of immediate control of a potential suspect with a weapon. This "frisk" would only be in areas that it would be likely to contain a weapon. In other words, you wouldn't be looking in a cigarette pack for a gun.

The part of the reasonable amount of time and locking the door and such. If I have probable cause to search your vehicle, your locked doors and rolled up windows will only cause them to get broke. They will not prevent a search of the vehicle. Again, the best thing to do is be polite and either comply or consent. Trying to play Johnny Cochran on the side of the road wont help you one bit. That's what you pay lawyers for in court. On the side of the road, the officer is going to run the show.

[DaveTN]

i read somewhere but i dont remember, in tennessee, the police can not detain you for any length longer than it takes to write a citation. when pulled over, make sure your car is stopped somewhere that you can leave it parked. you can deny the search. the best thing to do is roll the windows up, take the key out, lock the doors and shut them. if they want to search, they will have to get a warrant, and that is where the time limit comes in for the reasonable amount of detainment time.

i will find where i read that and post it. it might have been here on TGO, but i am unsure.

So your underage kid is drinking beer in the car.

What he doesn’t know is that the van next to him at the traffic light is a cop watching him drink the beer (or hit the joint or whatever). He also doesn’t know that the cop in the unmarked van has radioed ahead to the marked unit running radar two blocks ahead.

Your kid sees the marked unit in plenty of times and hides whatever it is he is doing. The marked unit falls in on your kid and pulls him over.

In the next few seconds your kid is going to be making some decisions that could impact his future pretty seriously. And you are telling me that your advice to him is to get out of the car, lock the doors, and refuse a request to search?

[Guest Dean_JC78]

I have a real issue with the bully tactics described on this forum used by Officers. There seems to be way too much focus on traffic stops by officers. Honestly, I thought this was a free Country but when you have these ego charged hot shots that can just shread your rights on a whim to bully an innocent person... you know we have a problem. They should be punished but in my opinion the issue is not the cops the our lawmakers that put them into these positions and the "traffic stop" is the most effective way for them to do their job. I get it... but I have serious issues with it.

My personal experiences have all been good though. I have only been pulled over a few times in my 15 years of driving and for the most part the police have been polite. Same deal with my wife. So while I am always hearing horror stories and see the cops waiting on the side of the road and hoping they do not decide to pick on me, I have not had any personal issues.

[cadillacdude1975]

Canine Sniff During a Traffic Stop

Dog Sniff During a Traffic Stop

An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation and then have a drug sniffing dog sniff the outside of the car for drugs. The officer does not need probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion that the car is engaged in dealing in illegal drugs (drug trafficking). For example, if the officer stops a motorist for speeding, the officer may cause a canine sniff for drugs to take place. However, bringing in the dog to sniff around the car cannot extend the length of the stop.

If the officer lacks a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and yet delays the traffic stop to wait for the arrival of the drug dog, the detention is illegal. The detention becomes illegal when it continues past the time needed to complete a lawful traffic stop. If drugs are seized in an illegal detention, the person charged with possession of the drugs can request that the drugs not be allowed as evidence at trial.

It makes sense to retain an attorney if a canine sniff revealed that there were drugs in your vehicle. Your attorney will present your defenses.

[BIG ROB]

Canine Sniff During a Traffic Stop

Dog Sniff During a Traffic Stop

An officer may stop a car for a traffic violation and then have a drug sniffing dog sniff the outside of the car for drugs. The officer does not need probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion that the car is engaged in dealing in illegal drugs (drug trafficking). For example, if the officer stops a motorist for speeding, the officer may cause a canine sniff for drugs to take place. However, bringing in the dog to sniff around the car cannot extend the length of the stop.

If the officer lacks a reasonable suspicion of drug trafficking and yet delays the traffic stop to wait for the arrival of the drug dog, the detention is illegal. The detention becomes illegal when it continues past the time needed to complete a lawful traffic stop. If drugs are seized in an illegal detention, the person charged with possession of the drugs can request that the drugs not be allowed as evidence at trial.

It makes sense to retain an attorney if a canine sniff revealed that there were drugs in your vehicle. Your attorney will present your defenses.

Yep, that is just about right. But it is not all as black and white as this reads. Too many variables that may come in to play for it to be that simple.

[DaveTN]

I have a real issue with the bully tactics described on this forum used by Officers. There seems to be way too much focus on traffic stops by officers. Honestly, I thought this was a free Country but when you have these ego charged hot shots that can just shread your rights on a whim to bully an innocent person... you know we have a problem. They should be punished but in my opinion the issue is not the cops the our lawmakers that put them into these positions and the "traffic stop" is the most effective way for them to do their job. I get it... but I have serious issues with it.

My personal experiences have all been good though. I have only been pulled over a few times in my 15 years of driving and for the most part the police have been polite. Same deal with my wife. So while I am always hearing horror stories and see the cops waiting on the side of the road and hoping they do not decide to pick on me, I have not had any personal issues.

And therein lies the problem. You start your post by saying that you have real problems with this, but then go on to say you have never experienced this or seen it firsthand. You will always hear horror stories; and you will always hear one side of them.

I try to not make judgments without hearing both sides of the story. My experience as a cop tells me that you just can’t do that. People lie and distort the truth when they tell stories about what happened. (Both sides will)

Do not take these statements as my saying there are not bad cops out there; I am the first to say there are. However, if you do run into a bad cop getting in a pissing match with him could very well land you in jail or in the hospital. You wait until the threat is over and then you deal with it. I just don’t see how today’s Police Departments could give you anymore opportunity for recourse than they do.

The majority of people I have talked with that have come to Police HQ to make a complaint on an Officer fall into two categories; traffic offenders and drunks. Traffic Offenders that are upset because they got a ticket they don’t think they deserve. It’s explained to them that is what traffic court is for. A Command Officer would talk to them and even possibly give them a citizen’s complaint package, but that’s all that can be done. Drunks…. Officers have been at their home and they didn’t like how things went down. They are told to come back when they sober up and usually aren’t seen again. Here’s a tip… if you are going to make a complaint on a cop, and want anyone to take you seriously, don’t do it when you are drunk.

You are still in a free country. Some people have problems with the 4th amendment. The word “Unreasonable†was put in there for a reason. Cops are allowed to search and our founding fathers put that word in there on purpose. What the person in the car, the cop, and a judge see as unreasonable may be different; but we have a system in place to deal with that.

If you want a real world view of what happens on the streets see if your department has a ride along program. Or if you have some free time on your hands and you want to play cop; check to see if your department has Auxiliary Police Officers. You get to carry a gun and mix it up just like the real cops…. You just don’t get paid.

Edited April 5, 2009 by DaveTN

[Shug]

I commented in this thread and some of the others because it is a parent questioning something that happened to their kid. I assume they are trying to get information so they can educate their child.

I have seen too many cases of kids going to jail because they acted exactly the way their misinformed parents told them to act when they were stopped.

Guess I got a big debate started, First I want to think all that commented on this thread. And yes I am trying to get up to date information so he and I are not misinformed.

The question was about being searched at a traffic stop. I AM NOT TAKEING UP FOR MY SON OR ANYONE ELSE.

Ya'll say "Probably Cause" gives them the right to search a person. So if they think that they have probably cause to pull you over that automatically gives them the right to search you?

[BIG ROB]

G

Ya'll say "Probably Cause" gives them the right to search a person. So if they think that they have probably cause to pull you over that automatically gives them the right to search you?

The short answer is no. A stop is based on reasonable suspicion or probable cause. An officer must be able to articulate why he stopped you, to a judge if it ever went that far.

In other words if I clock you speeding 75/55. I have the right to stop, search for, and seize the violator. When I say search, at this point, I am looking for the driver. I can write him a ticket or send him on his/her way. I can ask for consent to search for other items that are illegal but short of probable cause, asking is all I can do. Someone brought up a dog going outside the car. You can do that so long as you don't delay the stop any longer than it takes to write a citation, verify information, check for warrants and such. Unless you can articulate reasonable suspicion that something else is going on. The fact that you decline a search is not reasonable suspicion or probable cause of anything what so ever. That is one of those urban legends kinda like driving barefoot being illegal.

An example of a reasonable suspicion stop is a s follows. I am dispatched to an alarm call at the local pharmacy. As I approach, I see a vehicle leaving the parking lot. I turn into the parking lot and see the widow is busted out. I notify other units of the vehicle that left and the broken window. A stop is made on the car to investigate if they had anything to do with it. It would only be reasonable to believe that they had anything to do with it. It would be possible that the car simply pulled into the parking lot looking for a coke machine or something. Then they heard the alarm and got the hell out of dodge. The real culprit could still be inside. We would be derelict in our duty as LE not to at least investigate the possibility of the vehicle and it's occupants.

I really hope this helps.

[DaveTN]

Guess I got a big debate started, First I want to think all that commented on this thread. And yes I am trying to get up to date information so he and I are not misinformed.

The question was about being searched at a traffic stop. I AM NOT TAKEING UP FOR MY SON OR ANYONE ELSE.

Ya'll say "Probably Cause" gives them the right to search a person. So if they think that they have probably cause to pull you over that automatically gives them the right to search you?

If an Officer feels the need to search you he is going to do it. I know that doesn’t sit well with some, but there is nothing in any Federal or State law that keeps an Officer from protecting himself and those around him.

A pat down for weapons is just a given. Probable cause for a search does not require much.

As I have said before I never ask for permission to search a vehicle when I didn’t already have probable cause for a search. I was just making conversation to see what the person says. If it’s a kid with liquor or pot I am also making up my mind whether the stop is going to end with me calling the parents to come pick up the kid and the car, or if it is going to end with me towing the car and arresting the kid on criminal or DUI charges.

That is what you need to be aware of as a parent. As you said you are not taking up for your son; I would guess because you don’t know what happened. Kids… especially teenage boys do stupid things; things that are sometimes illegal. I know I certainly did.

I am not addressing the times when your son is totally innocent. I am addressing the times when the cops have your son dead busted. What he does and what comes out of his mouth will be the deciding factor in what happens to him.

There comes a point in many people’s lives when their future is dependent on the discretion of the cop standing in front of them. I have tried my very best to make my kids understand how to handle that moment. Fortunately they have not been in that situation. Well… my son couldn’t keep his mouth shut and drove away from a traffic stop with three tickets instead of one, and had to pay a much higher rate on his insurance. But that’s okay; it’s part of living and learning and luckily all it did was cost him money.

Don’t worry about starting a big debate. I think it is a public service. You may not like what cops have to say, but I think you deserve to hear it. Information…. That’s what it’s all about. You decide if what you are reading makes sense to you or not.

[E4 No More]

To search anything you have to have two things. One, probably cause. Two, consent from a person in control or with the authority to grant consent. The one exception to a warrant, is if you can articulate exigent circumstances that the evidence of a crime is likely to be destroyed in the time it would take to obtain a warrant. You still have to prove that you had probably cause to justify the search. You simply must prove the exigency as well.

With respect, I think you meant to say that you need to have one of two things; not both. It would be silly to require probable cause and consent.

[Guest mustangdave]

Zealot I am not....I am merely asking questions using my opinion as talking points............If more people were willing to lay down as your comment suggest, why we wouldn't need any form of law to protect ourselves, now would we. Kumbaya!

DaveTN......thanks for playing along. You are one of the few present/former LEO's that will offer up their opinion/advice.

Shadow12.......thanks for your input as well. Knowing you personally, it is a value to me.

Big Rob......Great input. Probably some of the most useful information on this forum.

Boomhower...not saying to "lay down"...the incident scene is not the place to argue what your rights are with the officer...the court room is...and you hire a friggin lawyer to do your arguing for you. Kumbaya back atcha.

[Guest Matchguy]

Big Rob and DaveTN have really nailed it in my opinion. The one area the public never seems to consider when assessing an officer's conduct in performing a search, is the moral and legal liability that attaches to him once he makes a stop. And this is the very sharpest of double-edged swords imaginable. It also accounts for much of the displeasure folks feel when they have to undergo a stop or search. Here's what I mean:

The public firmly expects the cops to catch the badguys and not let a mass murderer go for lack of proper police inquiry during a traffic stop. Unless technology has improved significantly in the 15 years since I retired, we still don't have a device that will read what's in a total stranger's heart and mind, and therefore cops must still use the ancient technique of evaluating evidence and other indicators.

Recently we had a guy hose down a mall up in Omaha with an AK47, and others who have walked into schools with guns blazing and killed large numbers of people, not to mention the ones who walked into their former places of employment or their mother-in-law's houses and killed everyone that couldn't get away fast enough. We know that heavily armed gangs permeate our cities, even extending to the Mexican drug cartels.

Now, in this environment of extremely heavily armed, violent, heartless bloodletting, what would the public say about an officer who had just stopped one of these guys for speeding across town on a city street and let him go without a thorough check merely because he said he was trying to get to his dying mother in law in a hospital (whether an NFL player or not)? What would the public say now? Well, the cops know what the public would say and they aren't about to risk having to live with the knowledge that they bear the guilt for those deaths. So they are going to check until they can walk away with the knowledge that if the guy is on his way to kill someone, there is no way he could have prevented it, that he did his duty to the best of his ability, that he conducted every check demanded of him by law, convention, and established good police practice. And if that detains the citizen for a little too long, then he is more than happy to have some folks bitch about him on an internet gun forum.

You guys are an unusual bunch of good natured, fair minded, guys who have asked some excellent questions here. Most threads like this we see on gun forums are nothing more than cop haters or bruised egos talking. I think because of this alone, the cops, retired cops, and former cops participating in the thread have tried hard to keep their feelings out of it and put you in a cop's shoes for a minute or two to help you better understand why they do what they do. But there is really no way we can actually place you there under the gun we operated under every day during our careers. Hell, I'm still trying to explain it fifteen years after my twenty eight year career ended.

MG

[BIG ROB]

With respect, I think you meant to say that you need to have one of two things; not both. It would be silly to require probable cause and consent.

You are correct, that is what I meant. At times I type faster than I think.

[Guest Ggun]

Big Rob: The license plate light law. ahhhh this is a fabulous topic. I have challenged many, many, many people to show me the TCA that states you must have one. If someone knows it, please pass it on so I stand corrected.

There isn't one. Caselaw has held that the TCA license law, which requires the license to be visible, falls on the driver to make it visible at night, i.e. illumination. Coupled with a LEO's testimony that the license wasn't visible, has been held to support a stop.

See: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HERMAN LEO MATTHEWS

Is this good law, I'm not sure, it's not a SCt ruling.

[Fallguy]

Big Rob: The license plate light law. ahhhh this is a fabulous topic. I have challenged many, many, many people to show me the TCA that states you must have one. If someone knows it, please pass it on so I stand corrected.

There isn't one. Caselaw has held that the TCA license law, which requires the license to be visible, falls on the driver to make it visible at night, i.e. illumination. Coupled with a LEO's testimony that the license wasn't visible, has been held to support a stop.

See: STATE OF TENNESSEE v. HERMAN LEO MATTHEWS

Is this good law, I'm not sure, it's not a SCt ruling.

Good find Ggun. I couldn't find a T.C.A. Specifically about a light for the license plate when I first looked.

55-4-110( does say the license plate shall be "...in a place and position to be clearly visible..."

Also here is a link to the court case above. In this case the officer said he couldn't even tell if the vehicle had a plate.

I found a second case though that said a license plate that "hard to see" is not enough reason. State of TN v. Kevin Hall

So who knows.....

[BIG ROB]

I disagree and in good conscience cannot use that as a stop. I don't think that is the intent of the law. In fact the state has went to lengths to make the plate reflective to be more visible at night. I like to push the envelope and aggressive law enforcement.

Looking at legislative intent below:

Every registration plate shall at all times be securely fastened in a

horizontal position to the vehicle for which it is issued so to prevent

the plate from swinging and at a height of not less that twelve inches

(12") from the ground, measuring from the bottom of such plate, in

a place and position to be clearly visible and shall be maintained free

from foreign materials and in a condition to be clearly legible.

I don't see where illumination is listed anywhere. I think if this case was pressed it would be over turned but what do I know, I am just a dumb cop.

It surprises me that our extremely liberal court of criminal appeals made that decision. That is an interesting case as well. I have not seen it before. Thanks for sharing!!

[Guest JLowe]

This is a couple of incidents that happened to my son a few months back. He has NEVER been any kind of trouble and is always respectful of his elders. I have always taught him to respect the law, but when things like this happen it is hard. The first was in Athens Tn, he was with a friend that was pulled over for having a car that "looked like one they were looking for" The officer told them to get out and put their hands on the car and searched them then searched the car. Told them they could go. { 1 officer}

It happens. I have stopped several "matching description" vehicles over the years. You treat the stop according to the crime that the involved vehicle is wanted for. Once you make the identification of the car and occupants you act accordingly. If it is the wrong persons, you explain and send them on their way. If its the right persons, well that answers itself. Now, if its the wrong car, but matches the description properly and you find a criminal offense while the stop is going on, then you have to and are allowed to continue with the stop normally as if you would any other time.

The second incident happened in Charleston Tn. He was pulled over on the river bridge for a "Tag lumination light" being out. Also told to step out and was searched. Then was told if he gave permission to search the truck he would not get a ticket for the "Tag lumination light" being out. Had to sit on the bridge for a hour. {2 officers & 1 trainee}

Tag lights are required to be operable so that the tag on the vehicle can be read and identified with out other illumination. The "search" was obviously a Terry Frisk, unless the officer removed items from his pockets and went into his pockets without being able to articulate that there was a weapon or something illegal there beofre he went into his pockets as would constitute a search.

Now, I am going to tell you that what the officers did next was illegal as h*ll. They used coercion and duress to get him to allow the "consensual search". They could not tell him to let them search his car or get a ticket. The only time a person can give "consent to search" is when they are of their own free will. That means that if you are detaining them, they are not of their own free will. i.e free to go. Consent given at anytime during the stop is not considered consent at all, especially when they are given the option to allow the officers to search or get a ticket. Personally when I make a Interdiction Stop, I issue what ever citation or warning, make some conversation while doing that to determine whether or not I am going to ask for consent or call for my canine officer and decide whether or not I wll have enough Probable Cause to detain further and get a warrant if they refuse consent (after they are free to go, as I can re-detain them if I see the need). That being said, I would have to be able to articulate to a judge why I needed a search warrant. Now, when are you free to go? When the officer tells you or after the citation is issued, but its probably a good idea to wait for them to tell you they are free to go.

My questions are.

Since when can you be searched for no apparent reason? When there is articulable probable cause that a violent crime has occured and for officer safety (Terry Frisk)

Is a "tag lumination light" being out against the law? Yes.

If you dont follow their orders to do these, is that failure to comply? Yes, to a point. If the orders are unlawful and can endanger your safety, you are allowed to not comply. That being said, on the side of the road, you will lose. Its best to comply and fight it later in court. If the orders are lawful and you don't comply, then your screwed and most likely going to jail.

Hope that helps.

[Fallguy]

Good post JLowe

The only thing I'd ask about is...there doesn't seem to be a law that specifically says a License Plate must be illuminated and/or the Tag light be operable.

Also...there seems to be conflicting case law on it.

In one case the Appellate court said that since the officer couldn't see the tag at all it was enough PC..even if the driver may not have had his lights on and even though he may not have had to have his lights on legally. Also once he was able to see the tag and ran it, it came back to a different vehicle.

In the other case the Appellate court said, a tag that is merely "hard to see" is not enough of a reason to make a stop. But the also said that in their opinon the facts behind the stop were not the same as in the first case.

[DaveTN]

You license plate can be lit up like a Christmas tree and the cop will just have to find something else. If he wants to stop you; you are getting stopped….. legally.

[Guest JLowe]

You license plate can be lit up like a Christmas tree and the cop will just have to find something else. If he wants to stop you; you are getting stopped….. legally.

You are absolutely correct. Since I started working Criminal Interdiction, I almost always notice equipment, moving, or non-moving violations with 80% of the vehicles on the road at any given time. Its the little things that help us do our jobs.

Fallguy,

The only thing I'd ask about is...there doesn't seem to be a law that specifically says a License Plate must be illuminated and/or the Tag light be operable.

TN law states that the tag must be visible. For example, at night you can not see a tag that is not illuminated. There fore if the tag lights are not working, the tag is not visible from a safe distance. The law does not allow for outside illumination, such as my headlights or spot light. It does not specifically state that the tag lights must be working, it just refers to visibility, which are what the tag lights are for, so its given that they must be working to illuminate the tag and make it visible. It goes along the same lines as this, if you have a headlight out, but its daytime and not inclement weather, even though you have them on, I can't stop you until 1 hour before dusk. They are not required during the daytime in calm weather, so it does not matter that 1 of them does not work, it is not a violation at that time until they are required to be on and working.

Don't know if that helps or just confuses more, but there it is.

[Guest SUNTZU]

You are absolutely correct. Since I started working Criminal Interdiction, I almost always notice equipment, moving, or non-moving violations with 80% of the vehicles on the road at any given time. Its the little things that help us do our jobs.

Fallguy,

The only thing I'd ask about is...there doesn't seem to be a law that specifically says a License Plate must be illuminated and/or the Tag light be operable.

TN law states that the tag must be visible. For example, at night you can not see a tag that is not illuminated. There fore if the tag lights are not working, the tag is not visible from a safe distance. The law does not allow for outside illumination, such as my headlights or spot light. It does not specifically state that the tag lights must be working, it just refers to visibility, which are what the tag lights are for, so its given that they must be working to illuminate the tag and make it visible. It goes along the same lines as this, if you have a headlight out, but its daytime and not inclement weather, even though you have them on, I can't stop you until 1 hour before dusk. They are not required during the daytime in calm weather, so it does not matter that 1 of them does not work, it is not a violation at that time until they are required to be on and working.

Don't know if that helps or just confuses more, but there it is.

Wouldn't outside illumination also be the tag lights, or does that mean outside illumination other than the car the tags are on? What do you know, anyways, you're just a Clinton cop. Go get your bullet out, Barney.

It seems to me that if the law says "...in a place and position to be clearly visible...", to be means that it will be clearly visible, like say, once your headlights hit the reflective surface. Those weak taglights barely light up the plate, not to mention that you can't read the plate until you are fairly close anyways.

I haven't read this whole thread, just wanted to post my two cents. The only time I don't like the law about the taglights is if and when I get a ticket for one of them being out. Kinda like click it or ticket, but the children on the schoolbus don't even have the option. Never got that one either.

Oh, and note to self, don't drive through Clinton for awhile.

[Guest slim]

Long story short, last yr. i was stopped for speeding doing 69 in a 50. Get pulled over and asked cop, when informed that had stopped me at a high rate of speed, i simply asked what type of radar he was using, since my detector hadnt gone off?

He said why do you use one, unless you speed, then said he has a type which cant be detected. Yeah right, asks for my licence and he knew i carried as soon as he called in my plate, 2 min. after i stopped there were 2 more plain cars boxing me in on all sides. Aked me about a gun and i told him i carried, Then asked me to step out, while the other 2 watched my every move and they took my gun, after asking where i carried, which was returned at the end of the Ordeal, which took about 2 hrs, he asked me why i needed to carry a gun, he also asked if people at work knew i carried, since i told him that was where i was headed, i told him it was my right! He then asked if they could search my car, i told him Hell NO, They called Rover and he walked around the car a few times, and his handler said he smelled something, then they searched the car and found nothing, but the handler swore somebody had been doing drugs in the vehicle at some point in time!

Which was a lie, the car was bought new 1 yr earlier and i seldom ever drove it, and that week was the 2nd time in 4 month i had driven it.

There is no way in hell Rover could have smelled any type of dope, drugs or anything else, Rover never even sat down, the handler said he doesnt have to. So i guess the Handler Lied and it seems any crooked cop, of which we have plenty in Hamilton county, can simply say the dog sniffed drugs!

Can someone L/E explain, that basically the handler makes the call and not the dog? This whole thing with the illegal search, did and still has me pissed, if it had not been for the fact that at the time i was spending 3 days a week in knox. where my Mom had been for a few month in critical cond. and i was woking 50 hrs. a week in Chatt. and did not feel like worrying about spending time in court, due to Mom's fluctuating condition, i would have taken a Lawyer and paid his $2000. + fee to fight the ticket in court, but didnt have the time.

Had no problem with getting a ticket besides the SOB lying about a non-detectable Radar, and the illegal search!

Highly pissed!

Thank's

[Shug]

All right guys again I want to think all that have responded to this post. and I would like to make a couple more comments. (1) We all know that the tag light was a piss poor reason to pull him over. That still does not give the officer any reason or right to walk up an tell him to get out of the car and frisk him. Then say give concent or get a ticket. (2) When he was with his friend, in his friends car and they were pulled over for a "car matching the discription" then told to step out and both was frisked. The officer never looked at the car. Both of these cases is some "want to be" officer looking for a score. ASS CLOWNS like this is what give good police officers a bad name.... Now I still tell both of my son's to obey the law and to be courteous and respectful to the officers

[Guest JLowe]

Wouldn't outside illumination also be the tag lights, No as they are a part of the vehicle or does that mean outside illumination other than the car the tags are on? Yes, I mean a source other than what is on the car,What do you know, anyways, you're just a Clinton cop. Go get your bullet out, Barney. I don't work for Clinton, just live there and you know that I carry more than 1 bullet as well as more than 1 gun:tough:

It seems to me that if the law says "...in a place and position to be clearly visible...", to be means that it will be clearly visible, like say, once your headlights hit the reflective surface. Those weak taglights barely light up the plate, not to mention that you can't read the plate until you are fairly close anyways. Amazingly enough, they do make the plate legible.

I haven't read this whole thread, just wanted to post my two cents. The only time I don't like the law about the taglights is if and when I get a ticket for one of them being out. Kinda like click it or ticket, but the children on the schoolbus don't even have the option. Never got that one either. I know what your saying, its for the kids and all

Oh, and note to self, don't drive through Clinton for awhile.

I have friends you know:D

[Guest JLowe]

Long story short, last yr. i was stopped for speeding doing 69 in a 50. Get pulled over and asked cop, when informed that had stopped me at a high rate of speed, i simply asked what type of radar he was using, since my detector hadnt gone off?

He said why do you use one, unless you speed, then said he has a type which cant be detected. Yeah right, asks for my licence and he knew i carried as soon as he called in my plate, 2 min. after i stopped there were 2 more plain cars boxing me in on all sides. Aked me about a gun and i told him i carried, Then asked me to step out, while the other 2 watched my every move and they took my gun, after asking where i carried, which was returned at the end of the Ordeal, which took about 2 hrs, he asked me why i needed to carry a gun, he also asked if people at work knew i carried, since i told him that was where i was headed, i told him it was my right! He then asked if they could search my car, i told him Hell NO, They called Rover and he walked around the car a few times, and his handler said he smelled something, then they searched the car and found nothing, but the handler swore somebody had been doing drugs in the vehicle at some point in time!

Which was a lie, the car was bought new 1 yr earlier and i seldom ever drove it, and that week was the 2nd time in 4 month i had driven it.

There is no way in hell Rover could have smelled any type of dope, drugs or anything else, Rover never even sat down, the handler said he doesnt have to. So i guess the Handler Lied and it seems any crooked cop, of which we have plenty in Hamilton county, can simply say the dog sniffed drugs!

Can someone L/E explain, that basically the handler makes the call and not the dog? This whole thing with the illegal search, did and still has me pissed, if it had not been for the fact that at the time i was spending 3 days a week in knox. where my Mom had been for a few month in critical cond. and i was woking 50 hrs. a week in Chatt. and did not feel like worrying about spending time in court, due to Mom's fluctuating condition, i would have taken a Lawyer and paid his $2000. + fee to fight the ticket in court, but didnt have the time.

Had no problem with getting a ticket besides the SOB lying about a non-detectable Radar, and the illegal search!

Highly pissed!

Thank's

Ummm where to begin? Most laser or Lidar detectors have the ability to be turned on only when the officers choses. That means the officer only has to turn it on for a split second to get a reading and does so when he observes a vehicle traveling faster than others or above the speed limit by itself (most guys with any experience can guess with in a couple MPH just by observation alone and use the radar/lidar to confirm). Not all dogs alert the same and it is up to the handler to determine whether or not the dogs behavior changed to constitute an alert. If the dog alerted, then the search was not illegal at all. The only challenges that have been successful have been to the handler, the training of the dog, and the alert to find ratio.