Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: OCing, Driving, and Pretext Traffic Stops

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Fairfax Co., VA

    OCing, Driving, and Pretext Traffic Stops

    Hey, fellas. Thought you should know. The Washington Supreme Court just knocked a big hole in Ladson that formerly offered some protection from pretext stops.

    This latest case is State vs Chacon Arreola. Essentially, they said that if the cop has an actual, conscious, and independent legal reason for traffic-stopping you, then the stop is constitutional. Meaning, if the cop isn't stupid enough to come out and say he stopped you on the pretext of a burned out brake bulb so he could fish for suspected gun violation or marihuanna, it works for the courts. That is to say, as long as the cop tells the court his pretext was an independent and conscious reason, the courts will approve.


    A mixed-motive stop does not violate article I, section 7 so long as the police

    officer making the stop exercises discretion appropriately. Thus, if a police officer

    makes an independent and conscious determination that a traffic stop to address a

    suspected traffic infraction is reasonably necessary in furtherance of traffic safety and

    the general welfare, the stop is not pretextual. That remains true even if the legitimate

    reason for the stop is secondary and the officer is motivated primarily by a hunch or

    some other reason that is insufficient to justify a stop. In such a case, the legitimate

    ground is an independent cause of the stop, and privacy is justifiably disturbed due to

    the need to enforce traffic regulations, as determined by an appropriate exercise of

    police discretion.

    Just reading the court's reasoning makes me want to toss my cookies. They cover it up with high-sounding verbal garbage to the effect that trial courts should take into account subjective intent as well as objective circumstances in determining whether the cop abused his discretion. Hahahhahahahahahah!!! All the cop has to do is utter the magic words: conscious and independent. It doesn't take a law degree to know what little shift in viewpoint and testimony is going to occur. Hell, the police academy instructors are probably already re-writing their lecture notes to teach students how to make a pretext stop look legitimate.

    I'll have a drink in loving memory of the protection y'all lost this day. Sorry, fellas.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MSG Laigaie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Philipsburg, Montana
    That remains true even if the legitimate reason for the stop is secondary and the officer is motivated primarily by a hunch or some other reason that is insufficient to justify a stop.

    This is not Law, this is a way to get around the Constitution. The last election has empowered these people to trash the Document and start over. I support that if they do it in some other country. I see all too many people in power telling me they want to "scrap" the 2A.

  3. #3
    Campaign Veteran slapmonkay's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Wow, sad. Disappointed in the decision. One step closer to stop, show me your papers.
    I Am Not A Lawyer, verify all facts presented independently.

    It's called the "American Dream" because you have to be asleep to believe it. - George Carlin

    I carry a spare tire, in case I have a flat. I carry life insurance, in case I die. I carry a gun, in case I need it.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Whatcom County
    Sigh. And some will just say when we warned of this that we were just "paranoid".

    All the more reason not to talk to cops.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Long gone
    Well.....................if you got nothing to hide.......................................UMMM... ................ never mind

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts