Rep Power: 0

but i just got a warning. i think it was more of a check to see if i was drunk because he pulled me over after i passed someone in a legal passing zone. he asked what my hurry was and i told him i just didnt want to be behind someone going 35 in a 45 zone. he checked my stuff and came back and told me that he was giving me a warning, and that was it, only took about 5 minutes. one thing i noticed is that when h walked up he looked at the front of my car for a second, i thought he was looking at my cleared headlights with orange 7440 bulbs (which stay off unless the turn signal is on) but he didnt say anything about it

 
Rep Power: 0

dude thats cool man yea cops around here dont really care what u do to your car, as long as your driving safe it doesnt matter to them

 
Rep Power: 0

I got pulled over tonight by a diicckheaded west shore cop tonight in the pouring rain for doing 35 in a 25. Then after wasting my time he decides to say "Dont let it happen again" as 20 other cars fly by doing at least 50. my respect for them has dropped drastically [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-puke.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

Sucks, at least you didn't get a ticket.

 
Rep Power: 0

wow Neo in the rain you got pulled over? Most people I have heard say that most cops don't want to get out in the rain so that is best time to speed? Guess there wrong. Yeah glad you ended up with a warning last time I got pulled over it was a fix it ticket for my charcoal plate cover and he didn't even care about my dark tint weird or my anti-photo plate cover.

Nick

 
Rep Power: 0

well when its pouring down rain you shouldnt be speeding anyways [IMG]i/expressions/face-icon-small-tongue.gif[/IMG]

 
Rep Power: 0

it was raining here too

 
Rep Power: 0

I wouldn't have stopped someone for doing 10 over even in the rain, although when I have had to stop people for speeding in the rain, I have written summonses. As you all know, I am not a big summons writer, I still have the same summons book from the end of February (books contain 25 summonses) whereas all the other guys on my squad use about 1 book per month. Rain makes the road slick and increases the chances for an accident.

Neo, I'm sorry you felt the cop was wasting your time, however if you were traveling at that speed, the officer did have the write to stop you and verify your information. I wouldn't have made the stop, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't have the right to.

Someone else mentioned the dark plate covers...those are one of my pet peeves and I usually will write for that. I'm not so concerned with the clear ones, but if I have to get a plate fast, the cover makes it that much harder, so I write for dark plate covers.

 
Rep Power: 0

so clear plastic plates are ok?
how bout exhuast? mine rumbles pretty hard in the 2.5-3k section but once it goes under 2k its not really loud?

 
Rep Power: 0

sucks... at least u didnt get a ticket. so u know your insurance wont raise!!!

 
Rep Power: 0

Well I don't really care about clear plastic covers for license plates providing that I can completely read the plate without a problem. But that's just me, most officers will write summonses for that. I find noisy exhausts very annoying, but I have only written one summons my entire career for that.

 
Rep Power: 0

Hey Qcksilvr how much is the fine out in NY that you give for the charcoal plate covers? Just curious

Nick

 
Rep Power: 0

I got a verbal warning "It's unusual to see a black car travel twenty feet at night without its lights on" he was cool though didnt ask to search my car. Can a cop basically tell u to get out/search your car and you have to do it??

 
Rep Power: 0

<< I got a verbal warning "It's unusual to see a black car travel twenty feet at night without its lights on" he was cool though didnt ask to search my car. Can a cop basically tell u to get out/search your car and you have to do it?? >>



Not without probable cause. It make me mad to see these ppl. on Cops getting busted with like 200lbs of weed just becaue they consented to a search Oh well, I guess if you're stupid you don't deserve to be a criminal.

If you don't know your rights with the police, check this out ACLU Card Print it out and carry it in your wallet. I'd memorize it though since a cop will probably think you are a smart *** if you start reading a card when he pulls you over, not to mention fumbling for something might make him a little jumpy.

 
Rep Power: 0

AntiRicest, to answer your direct question, no. BUT do keep in mind that if an officer REALLY WANTS to search a car, they can and will. For example, in New York State, I am entitled to require any motorist to take a breathalizer and/or perform FSTs (Field Sobriety Tests) for *ANY* traffic violation. I do not even have to detect the odor of alcohol, or have probable cause to believe the operator is intoxicated. Should the operator refuse, they are arrested for refusal to submit to a breath test as per New York State Vehicle and Traffic Law, and I may then search the vehicle as I have effected a lawful arrest. Any lawful arrest which is effected in the proximity of a vehicle which the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe that the individual was operating/was a passenger in entitles the officer to perform a search. Also, if I see anything in a vehicle which is in plain view that the passenger/operator should not have, I may perform a search (under 21 with alcohol in the vehicle, etc). These are just a couple of the many examples--I can assure you that it will not work in anyones favor to play Mr. ACLU with a police officer. That simply raises suspicions which can be construed as the individual having something to hide which can result in a search based upon the "totality of circumstances." The court *will always* believe the officer and support his or her probable cause. My advice to everyone is to simply not carry anything incriminating in your vehicle, as the police are given much leeway when searching a vehicle. A home on the other hand is completely different...

Nick, all equipment violations in New York State are $55.

 
Rep Power: 0

<< AntiRicest, to answer your direct question, no. BUT do keep in mind that if an officer REALLY WANTS to search a car, they can and will. These are just a couple of the many examples--I can assure you that it will not work in anyones favor to play Mr. ACLU with a police officer. That simply raises suspicions which can be construed as the individual having something to hide which can result in a search based upon the "totality of circumstances." The court *will always* believe the officer and support his or her probable cause. My advice to everyone is to simply not carry anything incriminating in your vehicle, as the police are given much leeway when searching a vehicle. A home on the other hand is completely different... >>



See, and no offense to the cops that do their job correctly, but this is the kinda crap that makes people hate the police. Their word is taken above that of a normal citizen when they can and do lie in order to make a case/arrest. Technically failure to search is not considered enough to perform a search as per a SC ruling that I can't recall at this moment, however, it would be easy for the cop to say 'I smell weed' and bam, he can conduct a search to which you would have to prove otherwise. (major run-on) I respect your posts/job QSilver, but to say don't pull that ACLU crap is bogus. The ACLU by definition strives to protect what little rights we have under the Constitution/current laws. I'm all for those that are criminals being caught, but nothing is worth losing our basic rights as American citizens for. I hate to say it, but it seems like today the only way you will get fair treatment from a cop is to get the encounter on video tape. Even though dash-cams usually increase the number of tickets a cop writes(can't be so nice), they do help the citizen just as much, if not more than the officer.

The police are human and respond to emotions just like everybody else, but we must consider the power that we afford them to do their job. Behavior that would be okay for the general public is not okay for an officer of the law simply because it's a given that they have more influence and power. As for being afraid to use your rights...As long as you don't touch or threaten the officer I'd take my chances. A good lawyer can get this type of totalitly crap thrown out in a court and invalidate any statements made by officers who disregard the law when conducting their investigation. If you are poor however and can't afford a good lawyer, you're kinda f u cked (but don't get me started).

I respect cops, but they aren't god.

 
Rep Power: 0

Ok, I may be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am.... A cop once told me that he/she may, once a vehicle is pulled over, search the car, but only as far as the driver can reach. So, the trunk (in most cases) would be out of the question, but under the driver's seat is within reach. I have never actually heard of this happen to anyone I know (myself included), but is the true?

 
Rep Power: 0

cops should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a traffic violation occurred, since you are innocent until proven guilty in this country, but somehow that currently doesnt apply to traffic incidents. the courts are the ONLY thing in this country that dont understand that some cops will and do lie. cops should be recorded at ALL times while on duty. they should have an audio recorder on their belt and a camera in their hats to see everything they see, and a camera on their radar guns that show exactly what the radar hit and the exact speed it was clocked at. this would make it very easy for them to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that traffic violations occurred, as long as they actually happened. Without the camera, the tickets should be immediately throw out, because without that proof there is always a reasonable doubt

 
Rep Power: 0

<< Ok, I may be wrong on this, and please correct me if I am.... A cop once told me that he/she may, once a vehicle is pulled over, search the car, but only as far as the driver can reach. So, the trunk (in most cases) would be out of the question, but under the driver's seat is within reach. I have never actually heard of this happen to anyone I know (myself included), but is the true? >>



Nope. The only time this is true (I think QS said it as well) is if an arrest is made. The cop is then allowed to search the vehicle (for weapons presumably) but not the trunk. If the cop has probable cause (smells pot, sees a roach in ashtray, etc...) he can search the entire vehicle.

Many times the cops will try to trick you into searching the vehicle by saying things like 'do you mind if I look around' or something even sneakier. If something is said that sounds like him searching, you should respond that you don't give consent to a search of the vehicle in a nice tone.

Generally your best bet is to keep your mouth closed if you have something to hide. Anwser any questions as briefly as possible, and don't respond to any questions you feel might incriminate yourself. Don't be rude or uncompliant, but don't let them bully you into giving up your rights. You won't be able to stop him if he really wants to (he has a gun), but by saying this you can hopefully use it in court if the officer is honest about what you said to him (which is hopefully the case).

Edit: I fogot to mention that he can 'search' the car by poking his snout in and looking around with his flashlight, but can't touch anything or open anything that is closed. It's unlikely that he could see anything under the seat doing this as well.

 
Rep Power: 0

The cameras are a good idea, yet the cop wouldn't be able to be "lenient" (not sure if spelled right).

Honestly my experience w/ cops haven't been so nice, but once they see you are no threat they are nice to you. Example:

When I was 16 I drove w/out a license for about a 1 year (my parents were asses) Anyways, I got pulled over once for driving over 25 in a residential zone past 12 at night. The cops (in a patrol car) made me get out of the car at gun point, and walk backwards blahblahblah they asked me for a license and I got yelled by them majorly. My responses were "Yes Sir, No sir, Yes Sir, no Sir". They later searched my car, found nothing and let me go.

A few months later I let my friend drive w/out a license past 12 at night once again and he got pulled over by the beach for running a stop sign. I told the officers it was my car, they ran everyone's name in the computer and they told ME to drive even if I had no license. THose cops were totally cool with us, no gun point, no yelling all they said was: "We don't wanna catch kids like you (no trouble). What we don't want to see is Kids drinking, drugs, weapons". Needless to say they ALSO Searched the car.

Then I finally got caught driving my friend's car @ 55 on a 35 by a bike cop and he ticketed me for driving w/out a license and speeding which is a misdemeanor, but I was underage so it's cleared now.



Moral of the stories: Cops are as-sholes because they HAVE TO GENERALIZE people. All you gotta do is keep everything out of your car. Bike Cops will summons you for anything they can get you, but the patrol cars are more into drugs/etc etc.

My 2 cents about Cops

AND BY THE WAY, Quicksilver I don't post much but I read a lot and I ALWAYS look forward for your opinion. It is always stated professionally from a cop's point of view. Your opinion is always apreciated in this end. Thanks

 
Rep Power: 0

i didnt mean change the way things are done now for the cameras, they should just be used if the ticket goes to court so there is no question about what really happened. they would also help keep police brutality down and help to punish the cops that are guilty of it. there was a big thing about police brutality in philly a year or two ago, but that was only because it was captured on tape by someone near-by

 
Rep Power: 0

w/out a doubt I know there is police brutality. In fact, many people believe the new series "The Shield" there are many officers like him. In case you don't know the series, it airs on FX on Tuesday nights @ 10:00 and deals with crooked cops who keep a percentage of confiscated drugs for them.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is true or not, 90% of the cops I have dealt with have been nothing but nice, and polite. The camera's ideas can be used for the cop's own protection. They could even be transmitted back to the station live and monitored every cop's activities in case he/she is in danger, the possiblities would be endless. HOWEVER The point is, I'm a network engineer and I would HATE to have a camera on me the 40 hours/week. Not because I slack off but because I might want to fart in the middle of my shift dang it!. Now imagine being a cop, that is their job I'm sure they would hate to have a camera on them.

 
Rep Power: 0

I paid about $1,200 of my very own money for a portable camera and wireless recorder that tapes onto my belt so that I will never have any problems during stops. I can't always call for the assistance unless the person is getting irate with me, so the camera was a good investment. DxMan, I am just stating that the police will not appreciate someone telling the officer how to do his/her job according to what the ACLU says. We don't intend to be god, I don't make bogus stops, and I certainly don't perform bogus searches. It is department policy to request an additional unit for a search so that there is an offical witness, and I always make sure I have the camera on. Most of the people on this forum know that I'll only issue summonses if someone gives me a reason to--I enjoy giving people breaks because 95% of the population are honest, hardworking individuals that make mistakes just like anyone of us. What I will not tolerate is disrespectful individuals, people who think they can transport drugs in their car (please don't get me started on drugs) and get away with it, et. cetera. All I ask for is for a little respect, and if I get that, I will be respectful in return and will probably not think anything of anything. Honesty is the best policy when dealing with the police, before I get out of my car during a stop, I have already run the registration, determined if the registered owner has ever been arrested/has any warrants--it is not in anyones interests to attempt to play games with the police officer. Unfortunately, as is the case with any other profession, there are "10% of bad apples" in this job--and often those are the officers that the general public hears about.

In the example that was provided about someone getting busted on COPS with 200 lbs of weed in their vehicle, the person should not have been carrying that in their car in the first place. You assume the risk of getting searched by carrying something of that nature.

There is no reason to have to prove that a traffic violation occured beyond a reasonable doubt. A traffic violation is NOT A CRIME and therefore is not dictated by criminal procedure rules. However, the only proof that is necessary is the officer observing the violation or having reasonable suspicion to believe that the offense occured. No reasonable doubt required.

DxMan makes some good points, anyway and seems to be accurate in his understanding of the law. I would only recommend to everyone that a little politeness can get you a long way, in addition to not carrying what you shouldn't in your car.

 
Rep Power: 0

QckSilvr, I in no way meant to imply that you were among the 'bad apples', as you so elegantly put it. I do respect the police and everything they have to go through. I too look foward to your responses, as you anwser clearly and I like your writing style.

Unfortunalty I think the 10% figure may be a tad too small. Just as the job attracts people who like to help others, I think it also attracts those that might be on an extended power trip. From your posts, you appear to be the former, but I'm sure you know some that are of the latter variety. I also think that mouthing off to a cop will get you into more problems, but I have delt with a few cops who seem rude and disrespectful to me simply because I am not one of them.

I think we should all push for legislation to increase the pay of officers (I'm sure QS will agree to this), and also increase the job requirements, training, and possibly periodic testing similar to the secret shoppers they send into stores to test employees. This would improve the overall situation by improving the pool of candidates and eliminate those officers that are in it for the wrong reasons.

 
Rep Power: 0

I completely agree with everything you said...

 
Rep Power: 0

I love the "Secret shoppers" idea. They could have different types of shoppers. The honest citizen who has nothing, then there's the rude shopper who uses the ACLU on the officer. I guess it would be to see how well the officer controls the situation.

 
Rep Power: 0

that sounds like a great idea