I'm Pissed - Public Info on Police Checkpoints

[MacLean]

You really didn't confuse the definition of pretext stop Chez.

I really mean it, that is really what our court says. If I see you do something suspicious, and follow you until I get a traffic violation with the intent to stop you when I find it - the stop is no good in Washingon State.

Honest.

Now, you can say - but thats all about what you put in your report.

Mine have always been honest.

[Morris]

Frankly, as a Libertarian, I'm glad that we don't do things like checkpoints. And to that end, it was reported today that Washington is one of 11 states in the union that rank low for DUI enforcement scores because of the lack of checkpoints.

Fine by me although I wish the state had a more vigorous law for repeat offenders. But then again, the booze industry owns the legislative branches in Washington state.

[121Traffic]

Sounds like the WA judges are full of crap. Same with some of our CO judges (gotta love the 9th circus).

GAH! Negative. We're in the 10th circuit here!

Sorry, just thought I'd point that out. Rook.

[IndianaFuzz]

You really didn't confuse the definition of pretext stop Chez.

I really mean it, that is really what our court says. If I see you do something suspicious, and follow you until I get a traffic violation with the intent to stop you when I find it - the stop is no good in Washingon State.

Honest.

Now, you can say - but thats all about what you put in your report.

Mine have always been honest.

Remind me to cross Washington off my list of states to find a new department in! hehehe

[Morris]

Remind me to cross Washington off my list of states to find a new department in! hehehe

That's okay. More OT for me.

[ChesCopPodz]

You really didn't confuse the definition of pretext stop Chez.

I really mean it, that is really what our court says. If I see you do something suspicious, and follow you until I get a traffic violation with the intent to stop you when I find it - the stop is no good in Washingon State.

Honest.

Now, you can say - but thats all about what you put in your report.

Mine have always been honest.

Wow. That is wierd. Oh well, what can you do? We cops don't make the rules, we just play by them.

121traffic- you're correct. I wonder why our city attorney presented that we're 9th??? Hopefully a slip of the tongue on her part. I really hope I don't have an idiot for a city attorney if I get sued.

[CTR man]

Wow. That is wierd. Oh well, what can you do? We cops don't make the rules, we just play by them.

121traffic- you're correct. I wonder why our city attorney presented that we're 9th??? Hopefully a slip of the tongue on her part. I really hope I don't have an idiot for a city attorney if I get sued.

Maybe she thought that she was sitting in California since we are the 9th Jerk-it Court of Schlemiels.

[TXCharlie]

It's my belief also that only "Reasonable Suspicion" is required to make a traffic stop - Me and my alternate FTO were arguing about that this weekend.

That's really no different than seeing a car acting suspiciously (such as circling a block, slowing down to look at open garages) - Don't you have a right to stop them just on suspicion? Then if you see the back seat loaded with possibly stolen items, you have increased the suspicion to a level that allows you to at least conduct a roadside interrogation?

We spotted a car that was slowly weaving inside his lane, at times brushing both the yellow center line and the white line. I told him that I thought we had enough reason to at least stop the car with the pretext of seeing if the driver was having medical problems or whatever - Then if we smelled alcoholic beverage or the guy appeared drunk enough, we'd have enough reason to do a field sobriety test.

My FTO said no - that because the law does not state that weaving in a single lane is illegal (only becomes illegal if they drive in two lanes), we had to wait until he crosses the line so we could say he was not driving in a single lane.

I'm familiar with the law he was citing, but my contention was that we were NOT stopping him for suspicion of crossing the center line - we'd be stopping him to see if he's ok, and on suspicion of DWI or distracted driving. Then if we developed enough suspicion while talking to him to do a SFST, the SFST would supply the PC for a DWI arrest - The PC wouldn't need to be coming from crossing the center line or anything else.

But he still didn't see it that way, and he dinged me for wanting to make an illegal traffic stop. I still think he was wrong, although of course the case for stopping them would be much stronger if we'd observed an actual violation.

It's possible I suppose that the case would be dropped if the court or prosecutor deemed our suspicion unreasonable, and I suppose we might even get sued for violating their civil rights. but I still think we'd be justified in making the stop.

What are your opinions on that? Would the stop have been justified just based on weaving inside their own lane, if it was pronounced and continuing for several minutes, even if the weaving was in no way reckless?

[Xiphos]

It's my belief also that only "Reasonable Suspicion" is required to make a traffic stop - Me and my FTO were arguing about that this weekend.

We spotted a car that was slowly weaving inside his lane, at times brushing both the yellow center line and the white line. I told him that I thought we had enough reason to at least stop the car with the pretext of seeing if the driver was having medical problems or whatever - Then if we smelled alcoholic beverage or the guy appeared drunk enough, we'd have enough reason to do a field sobriety test.

My FTO said no, because the law states that weaving in a single lane is not illegal, that he had to cross the line so we could say he was not driving in a single lane - I'm familiar with the law he was citing, but my contention was that we were NOT stopping him for suspicion of crossing the center line - we'd be stopping him to see if he's ok, and on suspicion of DWI. Then if we developed enough suspicion to do a SFST, the SFST would supply the PC for a DWI arrest - The PC wouldn't need to be coming from crossing the center line.

But he still didn't see it that way, and he dinged me for wanting to make an illegal traffic stop. I still think he was wrong, although of course the case for stopping them would be stronger if we'd observed an actual violation.

In my state Reasonable Suspicion is all that is needed to stop a car. As you should be learning in this thread some states, indeed some regions of the country, have very different standards. You may want to do some legal research into RS for traffic stops in Texas. The next time you are in court, ask one of the prosecutors too. Your FTO may have been correct! He may also have been legally incorrect, however he knew that the prosecutors in that jurisdiction don't like RS stops and decline prosecution on them. You should do some research.

[121Traffic]

It's my belief also that only "Reasonable Suspicion" is required to make a traffic stop - Me and my FTO were arguing about that this weekend.

That's really no different than seeing a car acting suspiciously (such as circling a block, slowing down to look at open garages) - Don't you have a right to stop them just on suspicion? Then if you see the back seat loaded with possibly stolen items, you have increased the suspicion to a level that allows you to at least conduct a roadside interrogation?

We spotted a car that was slowly weaving inside his lane, at times brushing both the yellow center line and the white line. I told him that I thought we had enough reason to at least stop the car with the pretext of seeing if the driver was having medical problems or whatever - Then if we smelled alcoholic beverage or the guy appeared drunk enough, we'd have enough reason to do a field sobriety test.

My FTO said no - that because the law states that weaving in a single lane is not illegal, we had to wait until he crosses the line so we could say he was not driving in a single lane.

I'm familiar with the law he was citing, but my contention was that we were NOT stopping him for suspicion of crossing the center line - we'd be stopping him to see if he's ok, and on suspicion of DWI. Then if we developed enough suspicion while talking to him to do a SFST, the SFST would supply the PC for a DWI arrest - The PC wouldn't need to be coming from crossing the center line or anything else.

But he still didn't see it that way, and he dinged me for wanting to make an illegal traffic stop. I still think he was wrong, although of course the case for stopping them would be much stronger if we'd observed an actual violation.

It's possible I suppose that the case would be dropped if the court or prosecutor deemed our suspicion unreasonable, and I suppose we might even get sued for violating their civil rights. but I still think we'd be justified in aking the stop.

While you are correct in that RS is all that is needed to stop a car, what flies as RS in some courts won't fly in others. It's all up to the judges and the prosecutors....and even the juries who will ultimately be hearing the case. Pretextual PC is ALWAYS better than RS when push comes to shove. If you study your traffic code enough, you will almost always be able to find some violation. If not, then you'll see them another day.

Reasonable suspicion is often a very subjective thing. It all depends on your ability to articulate your suspicion to a common citizen. Just starting off like you are Chuck, I would rather hang my hat on concrete PC violations. No offense, but you won't have the on-the-job experience to back up a lot of RS that seems clear as day to you.

[TXCharlie]

No offense, but you won't have the on-the-job experience to back up a lot of RS that seems clear as day to you.

Touche - I suppose like you say, I shouldn't do that until a few years from now, when I can cite my own personal experience in court. I didn't think of that, I was just thinking about the legal aspects.

Maybe that was where my FTO was coming from.

As luck would have it, I have already signed up for a free DWI refresher class at the Denton County Sheriff's department on Dec 16th. I'll be sure to ask that question.

[countybear]

While you are correct in that RS is all that is needed to stop a car, what flies as RS in some courts won't fly in others. It's all up to the judges and the prosecutors....and even the juries who will ultimately be hearing the case. Pretextual PC is ALWAYS better than RS when push comes to shove. If you study your traffic code enough, you will almost always be able to find some violation. If not, then you'll see them another day.

Reasonable suspicion is often a very subjective thing. It all depends on your ability to articulate your suspicion to a common citizen. Just starting off like you are Chuck, I would rather hang my hat on concrete PC violations. No offense, but you won't have the on-the-job experience to back up a lot of RS that seems clear as day to you.

Couldn't have said it better myself, 121T. Exactly.

[TXCharlie]

Appreciate your comments too CB! I'll be sure to ask that question in my Dec 16th DWI refresher course.

I remember our instructor in police academy covering the topic of DWI indicators, and at that time he said it was a matter of developing enough clues to make the stop. I never heard him say that we had to have a concrete violation, so it may have been an assumption on my part that a violation isn't required.

[121Traffic]

Appreciate your comments too CB! I'll be sure to ask that question in my Dec 16th DWI refresher course.

I remember our instructor in police academy covering the topic of DWI indicators, and at that time he said it was a matter of developing enough clues to make the stop. I never heard him say that we had to have a concrete violation, so it may have been an assumption on my part that a violation isn't required.

Bottom line is yes, you can stop on RS. We are here to tell you that this RS flies better when you are talking about RS that a CRIMINAL OFFENSE may be involved. RS that a TRAFFIC offense is involved, like DUI, is weak. Again, it's a matter of your particular area. Our DA and judges often won't take a DUI case if it was initiated on an equipment violation. Sucks, but that's the fact. They're too busy to take the DUIs to trial unless there's concrete moving violations involved.

Also, do you REALLY want to be known as the guy who frequently brings the subjective RS case to court? Remember...RS is essentially still an absence of PC. Sometimes, RS is plenty for the police to intervene when our articulation will be clear and concise as to the alleged offense. But on a DUI? Dig a little more. Would you rather get concrete PC, or stretch RS to constitutionally cover your stop?

Something else to consider...here in CO, we have DUI and DUI "Per Se". DUI Per Se is the technical violation of having a BrAC or BAC over .08. Straight DUI does NOT require a chemical test to obtain a guilty conviction. When I hook someone up on a dewey, and they blow over a .08, I charge both offenses. If hey give blood, and the results come back over .08, I amend the charges to include Per Se. Both are 12 pt violations. Even if the chemical test is thrown out, supressed, etc, I can still testify to the defendant's driving and articulate how/why he was DUI...he ran a stop sign, he was weaving, he fell asleep at a red light and impeded traffic. I can ONLY do that, however, if I have some moving violations. If I were to stop people with RS based on chickenshit like weaving within a lane (which isn't a technical violation) or because I wanted to check his medical welfare, then BOTH charges would be tossed. Believe me...if you show up with that "But your honor, I just wanted to make sure he wasn't having a medical emergency" bullshit, not only will your case be tossed, but you'll have a serious dent in your credibility. Most judges, defenders, and prosecutors have been around the block and know every trick you'll think of here, and most will be wary of it. Rest your collars on GOOD policing, not resorting to stupid lawyer tricks.

Sorry, just a pet peeve of mine.

[jmur5074]

In MN all you need is reasonable suspicion to stop a car. I've made plenty of RS stops.

A trooper from TX taught a drug interdiction class I went to (in MN) and we had a big argument about PC vs. RS to stop a car, and he told us that in TX he needs PC to stop a car. Reasonable suspicion is not enough. BUT, he did also mention a "community care" stop (whatever the hell that is) as an exception to him needing PC to stop a car in TX.

[MacLean]

RS is all that is needed in Washington as well, so long as you don't find the RS as a pretext.

You can still Terry stop a car if you can articulate the reason well enough - you just can't use a traffic violation as PC to investigate something else you already suspected.

It really isn't as hard as it sounds, although I may be explaining it poorly.

http://www.mrsc.org/mc/supreme/archi...38wn2d0343.htm

[Terminator]

you just can't use a traffic violation as PC to investigate something else you already suspected.

That is absolutely stupid.

You have a vehicle in the ghetto in a minority area. You see a shady looking white guy at 3am driving a crapmobile (with a headlight out) driving slowly around like he is looking for a house. You believe he is looking to score. He goes into a house, and comes out 2 minutes later. You then watch him pull out and stop the vehicle because it has a headlight out. You smell marijuana in the vehicle, search it, and make a drug arrest. Although you suspected he was looking to score because you stopped him for a headlight out this is an illegal arrest. WHAT? Am I misreading this?

[GirlInBrown]

That is absolutely stupid.

You have a vehicle in the ghetto in a minority area. You see a shady looking white guy at 3am driving a crapmobile (with a headlight out) driving slowly around like he is looking for a house. You believe he is looking to score. He goes into a house, and comes out 2 minutes later. You then watch him pull out and stop the vehicle because it has a headlight out. You smell marijuana in the vehicle, search it, and make a drug arrest. Although you suspected he was looking to score because you stopped him for a headlight out this is an illegal arrest. WHAT? Am I misreading this?

No, but I don't think he typed what he meant to say.....But you are right Terminator...where I come from....if I get a stop from an equipment violation.....and then smell MJ in the car....I now have PC to search the car......and if "he got weed"....that is a good arrest....the motor vehicle code violation is enough to make a stop...what you get from there is fair game....
I think this is becoming more difficult than it really is......

[GirlInBrown]

So I'm in my car yesterday listening to the radio when a news ad comes on and states "Watch News blah blah blah at 5 and learn where all the police checkpoints will be in Delaware this upcoming holiday!"

This pisses me off and I'll tell you why.

I feel as though police checkpoint locations should not be public information nor advertised. This obviously gives drunk drivers an opportunity to avoid these locations and continue driving on while putting everyone else on the road in danger.



I think police checkpoints are great. Not only do they get drunk drivers off the road, but they also help capture local fugitives, and other arrests are made such as drug offenses, underage consumption, etc.

I'm passionate about getting drunk drivers off the road and that is because I had a cousin killed by one. She was struck head on by a drunk driver who crossed the center line. Her, 3 friends in the car with her, and the pathetic excuse of a man drunk, all died. Only one person survived, another friend in the car with my cousin. Today he is doing well and I saw him at a checkpoint ceremony dedicated to my cousin and the other victims of that crash last year.

I'd like to get other opinions on this issue. What do you guys think about this? Do you think there's anything I can do to possibly reverse the standards of checkpoints today? Any way I could cut off the information given to news agencies and shut that website down?

Any help would be appreciated and thanks for reading.

-Adam

And to answer the original question.....Yes...that is frustrating....agencies do it for all the 'NON" violators...makes em feel all warm and cozy that the 5-0 are getting all those "bad guys".....but in turn gives the idiots a heads up......but, fortunately for us, they are just that....idiots.....yes, some may get out of an OWI arrest because of the heads up...but think of the ones you do get out of those checkpoints....if you didn't snag them...they may have gone on to kill some one's cousin......

[Xiphos]

That is absolutely stupid.

You have a vehicle in the ghetto in a minority area. You see a shady looking white guy at 3am driving a crapmobile (with a headlight out) driving slowly around like he is looking for a house. You believe he is looking to score. He goes into a house, and comes out 2 minutes later. You then watch him pull out and stop the vehicle because it has a headlight out. You smell marijuana in the vehicle, search it, and make a drug arrest. Although you suspected he was looking to score because you stopped him for a headlight out this is an illegal arrest. WHAT? Am I misreading this?

While on routine patrol at Ghetto Blvd and Savage Ln I observed a primer grey Crapmobile SX with a headlight out. Due to the broken equipment I executed a traffic stop to issue a citation. After approaching the car and identifying the driver as Joe Shittheragman I smelled an odor of marijuana in the car. At this time my stop became an investigation into the criminal offense of possession of marijuana. After backup arrived I had Mr. Shittheragman exit his car and found an ounce of marijuana under the driver seat. .....

It's all in the articulation.