• Welcome to SVTPerformance!

Anyone ever file a complaint after being pulled over without suspected Probable Cause?

Discussion in 'Road Side Pub' started by RedRocketMike, Sep 16, 2019.

  1. cidsamuth

    cidsamuth Liberty Biberty Established Member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia
    It's funny how few people actually realize that a short detainment . . . which is what a traffic stop is . . . requires only reasonable suspicion and not probable cause.

    Years ago, I had a DUI arrest that ended with a criminal conviction with no issues. When it went to a subsequent administrative hearing to see if the guy would lose his license, it was thrown out because they ruled I didn't have probable cause to make the stop. Point being, even the DMV bureaucrat types, who are not law judges, had a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
     
  2. jmsa540

    jmsa540 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,359
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Benning, GA
    Cbj, are you speaking of terry frisk when youre talking about reasomable suspicion?

    Also, can you initiate a traffic stop on someone with only reasonable suspicion?
    Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  3. jmsa540

    jmsa540 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,359
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Benning, GA
    What did you stop the dui arrest for in the first place?
    Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  4. jmsa540

    jmsa540 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,359
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Benning, GA
    Cbj, sorry for the quote feature


    My question about the parking lot would be what would cause the lone car to be lead up to the officer having reasonable suspicion?
    Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  5. cidsamuth

    cidsamuth Liberty Biberty Established Member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia
    The Terry Frisk is specific to searching for a weapon within the immediate reach.

    Yes, you can make a traffic stop based only on reasonable suspicion, although I suppose it is possible that individual jurisdictions might require higher.
     
    _Snake_ and jmsa540 like this.
  6. jmsa540

    jmsa540 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,359
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Benning, GA
    Ty
    Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
  7. cbj5259

    cbj5259 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,285
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Location:
    PA
    Terry V. Ohio is it's own rabbit hole...it requires reasonable suspicion but also other factors as well such as, but not limited to: high crime area, previous knowledge of the offender having weapons, a bulge indicative of a concealed weapon, presence of contributing hand in hand crimes (ie where there are drugs there are usually guns) etc. Furthermore the search is not as thorough as a search incident to arrest. It is strictly for identifying and securing a potential weapon. It is not intended to be a doorway to find other illegal activit, although that sometimes happens.

    As far as traffic stops go...yes, reasonable suspicion is the minimum standard an officer needs to make a stop. Probable cause is the standard that is used to make an arrest or in the case of a traffic offense, issue a summons.
    Reasonable suspicion requires articulation. Time of day, high crime area, previous criminal activity, etc. An officer would not have reasonable suspicion to stop a car parked in a shopping center parking lot during the day. The businesses are open to the public at that time. At night the businesses are closed, the shopping centers are still considered private property and the police in almost every jurisdiction have been tasked with keeping trespassers off those properties through ordinance.
    I dont believe any agency can legislate when an officer may or may not use reasonable suspicion to do their job as it is a constitutional standard. I've never heard of that ever. The agency would get challenged in every arrest they made if they were stupid enough to actually make that a written policy.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
     
    _Snake_ and jmsa540 like this.
  8. jmsa540

    jmsa540 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    3,359
    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    Location:
    Fort Benning, GA
    Ty
    Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
     
    cbj5259 likes this.
  9. KingBlack

    KingBlack I'm more stupid than I post Established Member

    Messages:
    6,235
    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Location:
    myrtle beach
    ahh ok...saying stay on topic makes me a troll...got it
     
  10. Twisted2v

    Twisted2v Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    705
    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    I don't see any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do this. It happened to me one night, passed him doing the speed limit (no stupid stuff before), and he turned right and floored it, just to ride one foot off my bumper with left lane wide open.

    Another night I must have been tailgated for a mile at 25mph.
     
  11. RedRocketMike

    RedRocketMike A Member Well Known Established Member

    Messages:
    6,647
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2007
    Location:
    PA
    Coming home tonight I encountered state police. He was behind me for a while then cruised by. A van ahead of me was doing about 10-15 over the speed limit and was out of sight before he moved on from checking me. I was curious to see if he would pass me up for the van. Not complaining. If I didn't know the headlights/behavior I wouldn't have even known what was behind me until he passed. A very normal encounter.

    Maybe the dent UBER/LYFT is putting into the number of drunk drivers around here, they're getting more aggressive about finding people to stop, or it's a temporary focus.
     
  12. lOOKnGO

    lOOKnGO Keep'um smiling Established Member

    Messages:
    4,655
    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2009
    Location:
    White Post, Va
    An overwhelming majority of certain crimes happen at night. Vandalism. Theft, DUI, Arson, Physical altercations.

    The world is not your playground. The roads aren't yours nor random closed commercial parking lots. The lights are not on for your convenience, but to deter actions listed above. As a teen and a young adult, I was pulled over countless times. To the point of almost losing my license twice!

    I work all hours of the day and night. I've seen a lot in many places. Frankly, I wish police could do more to keep vagrants off the streets and out of fast food joints at night.

    Always be respectful or just normal and The LEO will proceed to the next task at hand. Act like a troll and see how it works for you.
     
    Smooth likes this.
  13. coposrv

    coposrv Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    4,956
    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2007
    Location:
    boston
    **** 12


    Sent from my iPhone using svtperformance.com
     
  14. cidsamuth

    cidsamuth Liberty Biberty Established Member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia
    I'm not a constitutional law scholar, but I believe the reasonable suspicion standard is one set up to do exactly what the Constitution does: Protect the individual from the Government, not vice-versa. As such, the standard represents the minimum, and I believe jurisdictions can require higher of their Governmental entities, whether by local law or policy.

    As a parallel example: Freedom of speech protects you against actions by the Government, not actions by a private entity. So, by virtue of the Constitution, Walmart could fire an employee simply for stating he supports X candidate. However, local or state laws likely provide protection to the employee above and beyond the Constitution that would prohibit Walmart from doing such things.
     
  15. cbj5259

    cbj5259 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,285
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Location:
    PA
    An agency can set up any standard they want as long as it falls within constitutional standards...the question is why they would? The quagmire this would open up with conducting arrests would be utterly untenable. Since reasonable suspicion inherently leads to probable cause with regard to many arrests...an agency would be opening up their officers to 1983 Monell claims with virtually every traffic stop or arrest. I'm not saying it's not possible that some agency somewhere hasn't or wouldnt do that...but it would literally be one of the dumbest things they could do. In 20+ years of doing this and helping literally dozens of agencies gain accreditation, I have never heard of an agency not accepting the minimum standard for detention as adjudicated by SCOTUS.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
  16. cidsamuth

    cidsamuth Liberty Biberty Established Member

    Messages:
    796
    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2010
    Location:
    Virginia
    You don't think some of these smaller departments in yuppie towns in the People's Republic of California don't hold themselves to higher, anti-police standards?

    I could also see individual jurisdictions setting up laws, or perhaps lower court judges establishing precedent, that holds departments to higher standards than the Constitution (ala the Supreme Court) requires.
     
  17. musclefan21

    musclefan21 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    10,875
    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2007
    Location:
    USA
    Based on the OPs statement.. bingo! there are cops with attitude issues so are there citizens.

    I don’t see any valid complaint in this thread even based on the OPs side of story. Also, there isn’t any rule that the officer has to light you up as soon as he gets behind you. He can determine when and where. There is a lot of stuff that happens behind the scenes average person just doesn’t know and I sincerely recommend ride alongs to people to better understand some of the stuff officers do.

    You are absolutely entitled to file a complain of you are unhappy about your circumstances and I would encourage you to do so if you truly believe a wrong doing was a factor.

    Lastly, although I am not a fan of being rude to people and believe that doesn’t serve anyone well, it is very counterproductive for the law enforcement professional and the citizens, but being rude alone isn’t a violation per se (as long as the officer doesn’t lose his cool and start cussing or calling names, etc.)

    I am a State Trooper and have been pulled over by local guys under similar circumstances numerous times in my person vehicle for absolutely the pettiest things. my car is all factory with no modifications, but I have an insider knowledge, so it never bothered me. I understood what they were doing. And yes, even us LE officials don’t like being pulled over, nobody does, so I can understand the irritation, but is this complaint worthy? that is upto the individual perception.
     
    shurur and 03Sssnake like this.
  18. o2gt

    o2gt Active Member Established Member

    Messages:
    970
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    Location:
    Texas
    I understand what your saying and to some respect it does happen. I would think you would see more policy set by powers within a jurisdiction not laws for example will a city/ county prosecute certain crimes as a policy. the law might direct them to but they decide not to. A judge can make a call however they want.
     
    cidsamuth likes this.
  19. cbj5259

    cbj5259 Well-Known Member Established Member

    Messages:
    1,285
    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2008
    Location:
    PA
    Here's the issue...most states train their officers to latest legal standards. Training is conducted statewide with a statewide mandatory curriculum. I'm employed in PA and the MPOETC is the training commission that trains all municipal police officers in this commonwealth. A few years ago when reasonable suspicion was upheld by SCOTUS as the minimum standard for an involuntary police detention, it was taught to every police officer in the commonwealth as a requirement of the legal update training that we all receive every year. I think you are missing my point about agencies unwittingly opening their officers up to Monell lawsuits...I'll provide an example:

    Officer A observes a vehicle swerving within its lane of travel, constantly hard braking and at points rapidly accelerating. All of these behaviors the officer recognizes through his training and experience as indicators of a vehicle being operated by a DUI driver. No violation has yet occurred as the vehicle was not speeding, had not left its lane, etc...but reasonable suspicion exists based on the totality of the circumstances for a traffic stop. As a result if the stop, the officer establishes that the driver is in fact intoxicated and established probable cause for an arrest. The driver is processed, eventually arraigned and later found guilty at trial for DUI. A good arrest from start to finish...however for some unbeknownst reason Officer A's agency has a policy of only allowing its offers to make arrests in cases where probable cause was the originating and determining factor for the original detention. So the person who was arrested, and found guilty in court may now turn around and sue the officer and his agency under a 1983 Monell suit for the officer violating his own department policy to effect an arrest even though the arrest was 100% lawful. If the agency just accepted the standard that 99.999% (dare I say 100%) of all departments adhere to there would be no claim at all. That's why i can never imagine an agency anywhere ever doing this...even in yuppieville.

    Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
     
    cidsamuth likes this.

Share This Page