I guess I could have accomplished the same results by running from the cops.

Are you saying you're open to the possibility?

 

Exactly. OP is an old ass harmless white man who probably walks with a limp, what police officer is going to view that as a threat? The police probably felt sorry for him because he reminded him of his grandfather and let the old man off with a “Have a nice day.”

Now let it be a middle aged black man in relatively good shape who hops out of the car without being told to, and I bet the officer would’ve immediately drawn his weapon. Might’ve even put him in cuffs.

 

Last time I got pulled over was closing in on five years ago. Cop said I didn’t come to a complete stop at a stop sign. Who knows I was the only car on the road(or so I thought). The kid came out of his car shaking and with his gun drawn. I kept my hands at ten and two. Never understood why. My guess is he was green and the guys were probably telling him horror stories.

 

If there was data to back it up

 

We have the Standord study that analyzed 95,000,000 traffic stop records, filed by officers with 21 state patrol agencies and 35 municipal police forces.

Here is a different study that analyzed 20,000,000 traffic stops.

Racial disparities revealed in massive traffic stop dataset

The book takes a deep dive into the official data behind 14 years of traffic stops that occurred through 2016 in the state of North Carolina. The legislature there mandated the collection of routine traffic stop statistics — including race, age and gender of drivers and outcomes of the stops — in an effort to confirm or refute widespread opinion about disparate treatment of drivers based on race. The book’s findings are especially relevant in light of ongoing civil unrest over negative police interactions with African Americans.

“The first is that ‘driving while black’ is very much a thing; it’s everywhere and it’s not just a North Carolina or a Southern problem but across the United States,” Shoub says. “The second thing is that it appears to be more systemic than a few ‘bad apple’ officers engaged in racial profiling.”

Significant findings from Shoub’s and her colleagues’ analysis of the North Carolina dataset include:

• Blacks were 63 percent more likely to be stopped even though, as a whole, they drive 16 percent less. Taking into account less time on the road, blacks were about 95 percent more likely to be stopped.
• Blacks were 115 percent more likely than whites to be searched in a traffic stop (5.05 percent for blacks, 2.35 percent for whites).
• Contraband was more likely to be found in searches of white drivers.

“So, black drivers were stopped disproportionately more than white drivers compared to the local population and were at least twice as likely to be searched, but they were slightly less likely to get a ticket,” Shoub says. “That correlates with the idea that black drivers were stopped on the pretext of having done something wrong, and when the officer doesn’t see in the car what he thought he might, he tells them to go on their way.”

 

Sounds like he was a nervous wreck. Now imagine if you had brazenly opened your car door to approach him…

 

This guy didn't either. I'm generally pro law enforcement but you forfeit some recourse when you give permission to search. In some cases the cops were within the law to search and seize assets like this video above which is mind boggling that laws like this exist.

There is also the risk of a crooked cop or simply one with an ego that is looking to prove a point.



Scum of the earth right there and that guy shouldn't see another day of freedom in his life.

I do believe crooked cops like this one are more of the exception but that doesn't matter when you fall victim to his corruption.

Basically, Respectfully decline searches if they have no probable cause.

 

Well you did. You jumped out of your car to hide the fact that you weren't wearing a seatbelt.

The "nothing to hide" argument is a vapid one, used by police to coerce people to give up their rights or offered by those who think that police should have a right to violate others constitutional protections.

 

Nope I am so pale I glow in the dark. The guy had no business walking around with a gun.

 

I don’t get what you accomplished by getting out of the car because you hadn’t been wearing a seatbelt. If the officer had not seen you driving without a seatbelt, then he could not cite you for that. You have no obligation to have your seatbelt on while the car is parked at the side of the road.

If the cop had seen you driving without your seatbelt, then getting out of the car would not prevent him from writing a ticket.

 

Here is an egregious case from a few years back. The guy pulled over happens to be a small-time filmmaker, and he made this short film about it.

He was pulled over on the pretext that he swerved in his lane. On the pretext that the passenger looked “nervous,” the officer ran his drug dog around the car. However, the dog did not perform as normal drug dogs. It was hopping all around and the officer kept encouraging the dog to “find it, find it.”

The officer then claimed that the dog alerted at the front of the car, out of camera view, and use that to justify a search. He then claimed to find “marijuana shake” in the carpet under the seat, which was bogus.

After a long fight, the filmmaker and his friend settled for $100,000 from the city.



Article:
Insurance company settles “Breakfast in Collinsville” suit brought against the City – The Metro Independent

One question I have is does the passenger in a vehicle have to produce identification, if asked?

 

The real pretext was that we have a drug sniffing-dog and we want to use it.

Most of the time passengers do not have to produce ID when the driver is detained in a traffic stop. Where it might be different is if the police can articulate reasonable suspicion about a passenger having committed a crime.

 

But that's not going to stop them from "We have to know who we are talking to," or "By law, you have to produce ID when asked my the police," or "By law, anyone that we make contact with has to provide identification."

It's like crack to these guys.

 

Was it you who posted that YouTube vid of the Orlando cop who got pulled over on the way to work and the cop pulling him over asked for his ID and dude just said "no" and got back in his car? That was funny as shit, but well played by the Orlando cop. I don't always agree with your positions, but on this, I'm with you 100%. Everybody should know their rights when approached or detained by police.

 

Yep, that was me.

I just watched the video @phatGator provided. I post similar ones to that pretty frequently and get met with "just a few bad apples." It's systemic, and happens everyday across the county. In that video, after all the rights violations, false indication by the k9, the lie about the weed shake, the Department stonewalled his information requests. The officer had already been fired by another dept for lying to a judge in a federal drug case. Other departments hire these pieces of crap. These are not one-offs.

But yes, everyone should have a basic understanding of their rights. However, I disagree with it being well played by the Orlando cop (the speeding one). He was required to provide ID.

 

this proves the old adage about it takes one to know one.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...arch-of-star-trek-fan-brings-100k-settlement/

Collinsville lies along what local defense attorneys call a “forfeiture corridor,” or a sector along an interstate, interstates 55 and 70 in this case, where police regularly look for motorists who fit some profile of a drug courier. Police can then seize cars, cash and other belongings on the flimsiest of evidence, after which the owner must go to court to win it back. Huff and his friend were returning from a Star Trek convention in St. Louis when Reichert pulled them over.


Huff’s lawsuit revealed a number of abuses, including an incredible admission from Reichert that he would sometimes wipe marijuana on cars parked in motel parking lots in order to test his drug dog. He’d do this without the owners’ permission. This is significant, because a drug dog’s “alert” is sufficient probable cause for a search. Drug dogs often have poor performance records. Some studies and surveys (including one I did of a K9 unit with the Illinois State Police) have shown that in some jurisdictions, police find measurable quantities of drugs in fewer than half the searches conducted because of an alert. Police will justify those figures by explaining that drug dogs often alert to “residue” or olfactory remnants of where drugs once were. By that logic, Reichert was essentially wiping probable cause on those motorists’ cars or wiping away their Fourth Amendment rights — take your pick.

---------

After seeing the victim shake hands with the officer and seeming like the stop was over, only for the officer to switch gears immediately reminded of the Kansas Two-Step that the Kansas State Police do that was recently ruled unconstitutional. That is brought up in this article. Also, more into the Civil asset forfeiture in the area. The link has a lot of info.

In his interview with HuffPost, Huff asks, "If he thought Jon was nervous, and that might indicate drug activity, why did he wait so long to bring it up? And why did he wait until he had basically told me I could go?"

All the departments around here are bad when it comes to these searches, but he's really the poster boy," says Rekowski, the public defender. Another defense attorney, who didn't wish to be quoted by name, went further: "The guy is a menace to society."

In a 2005 case, U.S. v. Zambrana, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan overturned a federal drug conviction because he didn't find Reichert's testimony credible.

In that case too, Reichert's stated reason for pulling Zambrana over was that Zambrana crossed over a lane divider. According to Reagan's opinion, Reichert also stated that the motorist appeared "nervous," like Huff, and again nearly let the driver go (he told Zambrano he was "free to leave.") Then, again nearly as an afterthought, Reichert started in with the "rolling no" questions. Reichert described Zambrano's refusal to consent to a search as "suspicious."


(In before Bluke's "Come on, man" rating)

 

so are you suggesting when a black man runs a stop light he should be ignored, but if a white woman is speeding she should get a ticket? Do the statistics show which drivers were actually committing infractions and which weren’t?

 

The only comment I made was that it's hard to ignore that race plays a factor in police stops. The rest are quotes from two large studies.

You're free to draw your own conclusions from the data provided.