Minnesota, here we go again. I'm betting ammo/gun sales are brisk

[Member 34319]

Thousands if motorists are lawfully pulled over every month solely for expired tags. 99.999999999% of them are not killed by police. Why is that?

It's me questioning things, is that ok?

 

[Member 53328]

You make some good points.

Those that favor red flag laws could argue that you can have your say and if you don't like your charges, you can take them to court and fight it.

I do believe these are similar. You have not completely sold me they are not.

Speeding, duh. Fishing till you find something because the officer believes you to be a criminal (sounds like a few steps were slipped or a judgement was made), I can't call that the exact same as having officers showing up at your house to take your guns, but it sure is similar.

From a rights perspective, it certainly puts the 4th amendment into question.

I should have the right to not be looked at and judged to be a criminal, so that a cop fishes to find legal, or not, reasons to pull me over.

You have to remember as long as you're not on parole ect. LE have to have consent from you to search your body or vehicle. They need that or a warrant. If you give them consent you can stop the search at any point and time. If LE is fishing they can only get so far if you have nothing to hide. You still have rights that are protecting you. Where as your rights are thrown out the window with red flag laws. I'm not trying to persuade you just trying to give you some insight. They can't just dig through your personal property whenever they want. Just be aware of case laws that have founded things like the clear view doctrine ect. If you get pulled over for a tail light and have nothing to hide and are professional and polite with the officer you will be on your way. Give them an attitude and they may just decide to write that ticket or look a little deeper than the originally had intended.

 

[Camelfilter]

It's me questioning things, is that ok?

That's perfectly fine, that's what our forum is about.

Provisions being, staying within the rules, staying on topic and avoiding sophistry.

This topic is currently turning into sophistry, if it continues, unfortunately the thread will be locked.

 

[Member 53328]

I have zero arguments if pulled over and this is takes place.

Ive seen stops where the officer doesn't state the reason for the stop. This should be the first thing out of their mouths in my opinion. To %100 clarify the stop was legal.

If they can't articulate the reason for the stop, it's legality is questionable.

I've seen plenty of footage where a cop pulls someone over, does not give driver reason for stop. Immediately asked for license and registration. If at any moment a person knows or shows they know their right to have the cop state the legal reason for doing so, god forbid they question the legality of the reason, the cops tend to escalate.

Again, not saying it's what happened to Mr Wright, just illustrating that it happens, and is being privately documented more and more. Which likely means it happens a lot to a lot of people and they just "go along" with it.

A lot of times they won't say why they stopped you immediately cause they are going to get all your information first. Run it. And then come back to you when they know who they are dealing with. It also allows you to self incriminate yourself. If you start saying what you did wrong without them saying anything and it's recorded than you have self incriminated yourself without them even having to say anything and that is completely legal. Criminals talk. And in effect shoot themselves in the foot a lot of time.

 

[Member 34319]

You have to remember as long as you're not on parole ect. LE have to have consent from you to search your body or vehicle. They need that or a warrant. If you give them consent you can stop the search at any point and time. If LE is fishing they can only get so far if you have nothing to hide. You still have rights that are protecting you. Where as your rights are thrown out the window with red flag laws. I'm not trying to persuade you just trying to give you some insight. They can't just dig through your personal property whenever they want. Just be aware of case laws that have founded things like the clear view doctrine ect. If you get pulled over for a tail light and have nothing to hide and are professional and polite with the officer you will be on your way. Give them an attitude and they may just decide to write that ticket or look a little deeper than the originally had intended.

No need to try and persuade, I'm learning a lot. I'm guessing you are or were LEO? No worries if you don't wish to state that personal information.

Im coming to understand the tactic of fishing a lot due to our conversation here. I'll admit I was entirely shocked by the "skinhead" post earlier. While I understand it, at the same time the constitutionality of it is questionable, especially since there is no law against being a skinhead.

I would say this, using your words in or out of context to illustrate.

Red flag laws must go through law enforcement, something must "flag" the person to be looked at. Just like something must "flag" the cops attention during fishing.

Yes, if you did nothing wrong, you move along from a traffic stop. If you did nothing wrong in a red flag situation, you can get you guns back.

Again, not exactly the same, but similar.

Both are working on the basis of crime prevention rather than enforcement. One only has the convenient use of lawful detainment by means of having a foot in the door by means of a traffic stop. Ones only the 4th amendment in question where the other is the 2nd and 4th.

 

[Member 34319]

That's perfectly fine, that's what our forum is about.

Provisions being, staying within the rules, staying on topic and avoiding sophistry.

This topic is currently turning into sophistry, if it continues, unfortunately the thread will be locked.

Sorry, I don't believe I'm breaking any rules. I really try not to. There are two here I've had really good conversations with and it's been really helpful to get a better understanding of outlooks on law enforcement.

 

[Member 34319]

A lot of times they won't say why they stopped you immediately cause they are going to get all your information first. Run it. And then come back to you when they know who they are dealing with. It also allows you to self incriminate yourself. If you start saying what you did wrong without them saying anything and it's recorded than you have self incriminated yourself without them even having to say anything and that is completely legal. Criminals talk. And in effect shoot themselves in the foot a lot of time.

That's where I think a lot of the trouble is starting to develop lately. More people are learning their rights and starting to question this. Sadly, some cops turn it into being uncooperative and then escalate. Seen lots of nasty stops because the driver questions or refuses to identify until reason for stop is articulated. Then cop goes for refusal to comply.

 

[Member 53328]

No need to try and persuade, I'm learning a lot. I'm guessing you are or were LEO? No worries if you don't wish to state that personal information.

Im coming to understand the tactic of fishing a lot due to our conversation here. I'll admit I was entirely shocked by the "skinhead" post earlier. While I understand it, at the same time the constitutionality of it is questionable, especially since there is no law against being a skinhead.

I would say this, using your words in or out of context to illustrate.

Red flag laws must go through law enforcement, something must "flag" the person to be looked at. Just like something must "flag" the cops attention during fishing.

Yes, if you did nothing wrong, you move along from a traffic stop. If you did nothing wrong in a red flag situation, you can get you guns back.

Again, not exactly the same, but similar.

Both are working on the basis of crime prevention rather than enforcement. One only has the convenient use of lawful detainment by means of having a foot in the door by means of a traffic stop. Ones only the 4th amendment in question where the other is the 2nd and 4th.

Kinda. It's hard to explain over text. I have never been a civilian LEO but I was a MP in the Marines and had to enforce California state law, Federal law, Base codes, and the UCMJ. A lot of moving parts. I learned a ton during my time in the Marines. There are ways that you can get in a lot of trouble as a LEO and can get cases tossed easy. It's also fairly easy to communicate and manipulate people into telling the truth and admitting to crime. It just takes time and practice and mistakes. Biggest difference between red flag laws and criminal conviction/citation is due process and your right to search and seizure. One allows it and the other doesn't.

 

[Member 53328]

That's where I think a lot of the trouble is starting to develop lately. More people are learning their rights and starting to question this. Sadly, some cops turn it into being uncooperative and then escalate. Seen lots of nasty stops because the driver questions or refuses to identify until reason for stop is articulated. Then cop goes for refusal to comply.

You are required to identify yourself/show proof of idea if pulled over. Now if a cop randomly walks up to you on the street and demands it without you doing anything wrong then you don't have to surrender it. Ask if you are being detained. If they say no than continue on your day. It's not a good look though. If you have no reason to hide your ID why not comply, be courteous and show it. That will go leaps and bounds further than arguing with the cop over identification.

 

[Member 34319]

You are required to identify yourself/show proof of idea if pulled over. Now if a cop randomly walks up to you and demands it without you doing anything wrong then you don't have to surrender it. Ask if you are being detained. If they say no than continue on your day. It's not a good look though. If you have no reason to hide your ID why not comply, be courteous and show it. That will go leaps and bounds further than arguing with the cop over identification.

Is it truly required to give an officer ID if pulled over for driving if you didn't do anything wrong and they don't tell you what you did wrong?

If that's the case, what stops officers pulling over anyone for anything just to get ID and look for warrants?

I think it's highly immoral and wrong if the officer gets your ID and then goes and runs it without giving you any sort of information to why you got pulled over. Even if they pulled you over legally.

Yes, it's legal, but that's just wrong in my opinion.

That only adds to why I still see similarities between this sort of thing and red flag stuff.

Maybe I'm going about this asking the wrong questions.

Is it illegal to drive if you have warrants for your arrest?

 

[Member 53328]

Is it truly required to give an officer ID if pulled over for driving if you didn't do anything wrong and they don't tell you what you did wrong?

If that's the case, what stops officers pulling over anyone for anything just to get ID and look for warrants?

I think it's highly immoral and wrong if the officer gets your ID and then goes and runs it without giving you any sort of information to why you got pulled over. Even if they pulled you over legally.

Yes, it's legal, but that's just wrong in my opinion.

That only adds to why I still see similarities between this sort of thing and red flag stuff.

Maybe I'm going about this asking the wrong questions.

Is it illegal to drive if you have warrants for your arrest?

Normally if your ID is taken that means you are being detained at which point you are no longer free to go. Normally once the ID, insurance, and registration is turned over the officer will tell you why he or she stopped you. There is rarely a point when you get stopped, your ID gets ran and then the cop lets you go without explanation.

 

[Member 53328]

@Reno if you got questions feel free to message me. That way we dont hijack this thread anymore than it already is. Haha. Hope I helped clear up some things. I'm no expert and some laws may have changed from when I was in but I'm more than welcome to talk to you about this stuff. Legal stuff can be tricky.

 

[Member 34319]

@Reno if you got questions feel free to message me. That way we dont hijack this thread anymore than it already is. Haha. Hope I helped clear up some things. I'm no expert and some laws may have changed from when I was in but I'm more than welcome to talk to you about this stuff. Legal stuff can be tricky.

Thanks will do. I do think our dialogue is worthy for others to read, even if not %100 pertaining to the original subject. I'll leave it be there and hit you up later.

 

[nammac]

It's safe to say Mr. Wright did it all wrong...

He played a stupid game, played it with an officer that was not having a perfect day, now both families pay the price.

Cannot change the laws of nature, for every action there's an opposite reaction.

Both sides screwed up, Wright resisted arrest for his crimes and fled the scene. Brooklyn Center police followed bad form for dealing with a known felon, known to be armed. He should have been removed from the car, door shut, brought around to the back of the car, bent over the trunk, cuffed and searched... If BCPD followed good procedures, we'd have to be debating something else, like democrats now wanting to stuff the SCOTUS....

Don't do the crime, if cant do the time, don't do it...

 

[trevi]

Not a justified reason to be shot. And yes normally departments have you position your taser on the opposite side of your firearm. But some departments allow you to set up your gear as you wish.

Indeed, not a reason to be shot. I am sure they had enough information to know his living whereabouts to catch him later. Also, Ben Crump, a lawyer made a good point about this shooting, omparing it to a few years ago, a white male beat two cops with their baton and stole their cruiser. The coppers did not even unholster their weapon (or taser), even as the perp struggled to get the cruiser in function all the while the old copper was standing besides the driver-side door. Strange?! Will they not shoot their own car if stolen?

 

[trevi]

Brooklyn Center police followed bad form for dealing with a known felon, known to be armed.

Is this true? Honest curiosity.

 

[nammac]

Is this true? Honest curiosity.

Thats what I keep hearing, news/talk program's talking with retired LEO, they've all said it was bad procesure to attempt to cuff with the drivers door still open. And some have detailed what I posted, identifying that as the proper or preferred procedure in dealing with a felony stop. Makes sense when you think about it, the police didn't have control of the situation.

Just repeating what I've heard.

 

[WillametteWill]

Not the last one, last I checked being white in a Hispanic neighborhood isn't a crime, and not to say you are racist, but that comes off pretty close in my opinion

See details below.

Fishing is questionable and I've seen it abused. In some cases fishing, as a possible LEO member here stated, "skinheads driving at night in a neighborhood that is primarily Hispanic" is grounds for a stop?

If that is trained or common practice, neither have due process.

That was me. Let me expand the real scenario. Nazi skinheads were fighting with Hispanic gangs with firearms in play. If an officer sees a car full of these yutes, again driving slowly at 11:30pm in the neighborhood. If you see this car and it has expired tags, a brake light out or some other vehicle code violation is it good police work to lawfully stop this vehicle to have a little conversation while you are discussing the violation? Or do you pass up a lawful opportunity and wait to see if the 3 year old gets shot? I'll pick the first answer every time. The key, lawful stop. If you don't have a VC violation then your articulation on why you stopped the car must be very high.

For example, can you pull over a vehicle for possible DUI without a vehicle code violation if you can articulate why you believe the driver is impaired. The officer MUST be able to articulate this to the satisfaction of the court. Otherwise, case thrown out.

Just looking like a skin head is not a reason for a stop. But if you are in a Hispanic community and as a cop you see a truck with white guys, shaved heads, and swastika tattoos you should automatically have reasonable suspicion something is gunna pop off. That's not a reason to initiate a stop. But I can guarantee you that cop is going to find something illegal on the vehicle to initiate a stop. Lights, exhaust, tags, fender flares, mud flaps, whatever. We would be the first to blame that same cop if he saw them, did nothing, and they went and shot up a kids birthday party.

Yup.

If that's the case, what stops officers pulling over anyone for anything just to get ID and look for warrants?

So, typically you can only detain someone for long enough to conduct your lawful business (i.e. writing a citation). You cannot detain someone an unreasonable amount of time. I have let people go before a warrant check was completed because I was done writing the cite. Part of the rules to respect the right of citizens.

A few comments have been made about pulling people over for no reason. This should never happen, period. Does this happen with some officers? Unfortunately yes and where I came from they were shunned quickly and didn't last long.

Going back to the OP, my understanding the stop was for obstructed vision (items hanging from the rear view) and/or expired tags. Both are likely lawful reasons for a stop. The officers better have known about at least one before the stop was initiated. If they didn't...I'll be using this a "don't" model in future teaching. Thanks all for sharing perspectives.

 

[Darby Darrow]

Im coming to understand the tactic of fishing a lot due to our conversation here. I'll admit I was entirely shocked by the "skinhead" post earlier. While I understand it, at the same time the constitutionality of it is questionable, especially since there is no law against being a skinhead.

I believe that you are mistaken in your use of terms, and I don't like the term "fishing" because it can confuse people.

There are two main reasons that an officer can stop a vehicle:

1. Traffic violation

2. Investigatory stop

For the traffic violation, any current violation can be used to stop a vehicle. The officer need not cite the driver, they may just give a verbal or written warning. Driving with expired registration would be an example of a legitimate stop. I don't know about all states, but in the state where I spent 25 years in law enforcement driving with expired tags would be a legitimate stop. From there other probable cause may develop.

For example: let's say that a driver has a current registration but forgot to put their new tabs on. An officer sees the vehicle and pulls the driver over for expired tags. As they are talking to the driver they notice a bloody sheet wrapped around a body in the back seat which turns out to be a recently murdered person. The probable cause for the stop was "failure to display expired tabs" but the bigger charge will (probably) be murder.

The second type of stops generally comes about after a crime occurs, let's say an armed robbery of a bank and a witness got a very detailed description of the get away vehicle and driver. Now if the officer sees a vehicle and driver matching this description, they would have at least reasonable suspicion to stop and detain the vehicle and perform an "investigatory stop". In this case, the contact may or perhaps not end with an arrest. It would depend on whether the officer could develop probable cause to arrest (perhaps the officer notices in plain sight a money bag with the name of the banks and purple dye on the driver's face) Then the driver would be arrested for the robbery.

Now if there was a less than a detailed description, let's say the witness said the get away vehicle was a 1990 Ford Bronco, black in color with some front end damage, and a plate that ended with 123.

And the officer sees a 1991 Bronco, dark blue in color with front end damage and a plate that ends with 128, driving close to the scene of the crime.

It doesn't match exactly, but is is pretty close. Some officers might make the stop based on the info that they have. Others could following the vehicle to see where it will go, and in the process they notice that the tabs on the plate are expired. At this point they could stop the vehicle. They would probably not mention the robbery but get all the info they need for the traffic citation while simultaneously trying to develop probable cause.

Is it truly required to give an officer ID if pulled over for driving if you didn't do anything wrong and they don't tell you what you did wrong?

If I stopped someone for a traffic violation I generally started off the contact by asking for their license, registration and proof of insurance. If they asked what they did wrong, I told them that I would explain it all once I had their License...

Once I had their info then I would explain in detail why I stopped them.

The reason that I did it that way, was because I learned that if I told them that I had witnessed them rolling through a stop sign, many times the denials would start and they wouldn't give me their license.

If that's the case, what stops officers pulling over anyone for anything just to get ID and look for warrants?

If you don't have reasonable suspicion or probable cause then anything that you find out afterwards becomes "fruit of the poisoned tree" and will not be admissible in court. That is one of the reasons to initiate the stop after a traffic violation. Once the violation occurs you have probable cause, and you (Reno) might think that the violation is bubblegum (for example air freshener/obstruction on the rear view mirror) but it doesn't matter if you don't think the violation is a worthwhile violation, the only thing that matters is the fact that there is a penal code section that states that it is a violation.

I think it's highly immoral and wrong if the officer gets your ID and then goes and runs it without giving you any sort of information to why you got pulled over. Even if they pulled you over legally.

Nope. I would agree that it is not very courteous but it is not highly immoral and long as the stop is legitimate.

Is it illegal to drive if you have warrants for your arrest?

No. You may drive if you have warrants, but if you get stopped you may get picked up for those warrants.

And as an experiment, tomorrow as you drive around count how many times you see someone breaking a traffic law. As an officer I never had to make up a violation, as they are going on all around you.

 

[trevi]

Thats what I keep hearing, news/talk program's talking with retired LEO, they've all said it was bad procesure to attempt to cuff with the drivers door still open. And some have detailed what I posted, identifying that as the proper or preferred procedure in dealing with a felony stop. Makes sense when you think about it, the police didn't have control of the situation.

Just repeating what I've heard.

But what of the part about him being historically armed? That is what I highlighted.