Bored officer?

[bahwan]

Last night I was driving down a country road (4 lanes wide, in the middle of nowhere) with 3 other people and it was kind of late, around 2am probably. I was slowing down for a stop sign when a state officer drives past me and turns around to follow me. I turn and drive 1-2 mph under the speed limit because I don't feel like getting pulled over just so he can check my car hoping to find something. I pull up to a red light, switch my turn signal on and turn right on red, a few minutes later he pulls me over.

I turn on all my interior lights,roll down my window and put my hands on the steering wheel (doing exactly as they like you to - I have some friends on the metro force). He yells from the back of the car for me to exit the car and walk backwards tward him blah blah blah... I get back to him he goes through the normal questions... anything in the car I should know about, any weapons, anyone been drinking, may i search your car.

After about 15 minutes he finds nothing and I ask him why I was pulled over, he states that, at the red light, I didn't use my turn signal for a long enough duration befor turning then asks for my lisence/proof of insurance and, befor getting in his car asks if its my car several times, not a friends, not my parents or anyone else I know. I reply by, after all this, politely asking him if he would write down his badge number and patroll car number when he brings my lisence back. He dosn't say anything and instructs me to get back in my car.

After another 10 minutes he walks up to my car, throws my lisence and insurance card at me in my car then drives away.

Should I file a report or leave it be? A friend on our local police says he was in the wrong...

[Igovert500]

I'd report it, because something like that would piss me off.
I get followed quite a bit, but I have a red sports car, and am in an area with plenty of young drunk drivers, so I can understand why.
But pulling you over for something like that, treating you like you stole the car, and then throwing your license at you and refusing to comply with your request of his badge number and such is definantly ridiculous.

Chances are he will probably have nothing bad happen to him, as he can simply make up some BS excuse. But if he has other complaints against him, then maybe it will do some good. So I would definantly file a complaint.

[stoned_pimp420]

In my area if you request any information about an officer from him/her and they refuse it they can lose their job. so i'd say report it. maybe it's a national law or sumthang!

[satchmode]

never let cops search your car. they can only legally force you to let them search your car if they prove that you are intoxicated. otherwise it's just unneccessary. besides, they might find something you forgot you had in there.

[YukiHime]

But if you don't let them search, they'll just back into their car and get a warrant. And you just don't want anymore trouble...Unless they stopped you completely for no reason.

[noctorum]

Unless they have probable cause (which in your case, there was none) they could not get the warrant. Not to mention, the trouble required to get one really isn't worth it just to harass you.

Don't let them search, even if there is nothing to find.

[YukiHime]

Originally Posted by noctorum

Unless they have probable cause (which in your case, there was none) they could not get the warrant. Not to mention, the trouble required to get one really isn't worth it just to harass you.

Don't let them search, even if there is nothing to find.

They don't even need to search my car...they can just look inside...(Hatchback)

[noctorum]

Originally Posted by YukiHime

They don't even need to search my car...they can just look inside...(Hatchback)

limo tint :P

[greasyhog]

if an officer asks to search your car and you say no this gives the officer probable and the right to search your car because you might be trying to hide something. Its either let them search or they wil search it when you say no.

[noctorum]

Originally Posted by greasyhog

if an officer asks to search your car and you say no this gives the officer probable and the right to search your car because you might be trying to hide something. Its either let them search or they wil search it when you say no.

No it doesn't. That completely eliminates the point of the right if that was true. Even if I'm not hiding anything, and I'm completely sure the officer is not going to let me off of whatever I've been pulled over for, I'll refuse to let him search, just on the principle.

[greasyhog]

thats fine if you refuse. go for it see how nice the officer is. he could impound the car and they will do an "inventory search" at the impound to make sure you get your stuff back. yeah right. Its like saying no to taking a breathalizer test when your drunk. if you say no they arrest you. as simple as that. so why you post then if you are going to argue with people who know what they are talking about.

[greasyhog]

oops sorry...this is for noctorum

[greasyhog]

Most police officers are aware of the warrantless search exceptions that apply to motor vehicles. They know that they may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, and any containers found inside, when the driver of the vehicle has been arrested, 1 although the Ohio Supreme Court has placed some limitiations on the specific containers which an officer can search. 2 They also know that they can perform a pat-down of the driver, as well a protective sweep of the area in the vehicle surrounding the driver, when they "possess an articulable and objectively reasonable belief that the suspect is potentially dangerous." 3 However, officers often become confused as to whether they may search a motor vehicle after it has been towed and safely impounded, and we are often asked the question: "Do we need to get a search warrant now?"

If officers have sufficient probable cause to search a vehicle that has been towed and impounded, the answer to that question is "No." The original warrantless search exception for motor vehicles was created in Carroll v. United States 4 to address the secretive transportation of alcoholic beverages by trucks and automobiles during the Prohibition Era. In Carroll, the United States Supreme Court upheld the probable cause search of a motor vehicle, without a warrant, due to the fact that the vehicle was easily moveable; the vehicle's mobility created exigent cricumstances which would allow officers to dispense with the usual warrant requirement. Since then, most officers have assumed that they must prove the existence of exigent circumstances in order to conduct a warrantless search, and that once the vehicle has been secured, they must obtain a search warrant. Later case law establishes that these assumptions are not well founded.

In United States v. Johns, 5 the United States Supreme Court specifically stated:


A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrantless search. 6
Although this rule has not been addressed in Ohio's published case law, unreported decisions reveal that Ohio appellate courts have followed the rule. 7

The high court has also held:


The scope of warrantless searches based on probable cause is no narrower - and no broader - than the scope of a search authorized by a warrant supported by probable cause. Only the prior approval of a magistrate is waived; the search is otherwise as the magistrate could authorize. 8
These Supreme Court decisions seem to make it clear that, when considering the search of a motor vehicle:

If there is probable cause to search for the specific items sought, the search may be conducted without a warrant, even though the vehicle has been placed in a secure environment; and
If there is probable cause to search for the specific items sought, the whole vehicle, including containers within the vehicle, may be searched without a warrant, just as if there had been a warrant issued by a magistrate upon that same probable cause.
No exigent circumstances required!

......all a cop has to do is frisk you, then he can search your vehicle. theres ways around it. depends on how much of a dick your cop feels like being.

[saddledust]

By now you most likely have decided what course of action to take. However, I'd say just forget it.

Cops know the rules, read up on vehicle codes, penal codes, alcohol/beverage codes, etc. They go to school to train for those things, therefore knowing much better than most what is or is not appropriate driving.

Check your state vehicle code. See what it dictates as far as signaling duration. I would imagine, that seeing the cop, put you on your best behavior (we all do), thereby, you may not have paid attention to the signal duration, but more of what 'he' was doing. More than likely you were in the wrong....does not excuse his behavior, if it is truly as you state. But, just know that most states have a policy that if you accuse a cop of doing something, and he or the department can prove you wrong, i.e., a tape recorder (many use them), or a patrol car video (most have them), then in the end, after the dust settles, the cop can take you to small claims court and sue you up to $10K for slander - and the $$ goes to him - not the department. Most cops who do win, donate the funds to charity, as they don't want the $$, but want their reputation cleared and the message put out there. Because slander is just that. Saying someone did/said something, than can be proven otherwise. Know that cops get lots of complaints for no reason and some for reason. But they are prepared to preserve their reputation if you are slandering them.

So....hope you are in the right if you have filed a complaint, otherwise you may want to re-think it. Takes nothing to resend it, just a telephone call.

There is no law about them giving/not giving you badge#, etc., most have a name tag on the front of their uniform. Most have a car or unit # posted on the roof or back of their patrol car. And more importantly, all you'd have to do even without a name or badge # is to go to the police department, list the time and location of your t-stop, and they'd know. After all you know he 'ran' your information to make sure the vehicle was clear the stolen system, and also that you didn't have warrants. So your t-stop would be a documented log, forever to be.

And, by most accounts persons out at 2am as opposed to being in bed cuz they have to go to work in the a.m., sometimes are up to no good (not saying you, just saying), so I see them as doing their job, making their presence known and prehaps preventing a burglary by being proactive in their work.

Best of luck with your issue!

[noctorum]

The gist of what you said greasyhog supports my point.

"Most police officers are aware of the warrantless search exceptions that apply to motor vehicles. They know that they may search the passenger compartment of a vehicle, and any containers found inside, when the driver of the vehicle has been arrested"

A breathalyzer has nothing to do with a search. If you have not been driving erratically (that is for the police officer to decide) and do not experience signs of intoxication, they will not do a breathalyzer on you in the first place. If you are obviously inebriated then they will ask you to do the test. Irregardless of if you say yes or no you will be arrested, and then your vehicle could be searched.

"A vehicle lawfully in police custody may be searched on the basis of probable cause to believe that it contains contraband, and there is no requirement of exigent circumstances to justify such a warrantless search."

Of course. When you are arrested, you lose those rights.

"If there is probable cause to search for the specific items sought, the search may be conducted without a warrant, even though the vehicle has been placed in a secure environment; and
If there is probable cause to search for the specific items sought, the whole vehicle, including containers within the vehicle, may be searched without a warrant, just as if there had been a warrant issued by a magistrate upon that same probable cause."

Probable cause definition:

" *

Probable cause is where known facts and circumstances, of a reasonably trustworthy nature, are sufficient to justify a man of reasonable caution or prudence in the belief that a crime has been or is being committed. (reasonable man definition; common textbook definition; comes from Draper v. U.S. 1959)
*

Probable cause is what would lead a person of reasonable caution to believe that something connected with a crime is on the premises of a person or on persons themselves. (sometimes called the nexus definition; nexus is the connection between PC, the person's participation, and elements of criminal activity; determining nexus is the job of a judicial official, and it's almost always required in cases of search warrants, not arrest warrants)
*

Probable cause is the sum total of layers of information and synthesis of what police have heard, know, or observe as trained officers. (comes from Smith v. U.S. 1949 establishing the experienced police officer standard)"

This basically means that if a normal, rational person, upon the same information the police have, would agree that there is a high likelihood that a crime has been commited.

This includes both erratic driving (not counting turn signals, rolling stops, and other minor crimes), and obvious intoxication.

You might want to link to where you got your information, as well;
http://www.enforcergraphics.f2s.com/sep99a.htm

And mine:

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/325/325lect05.htm