Citizen
Founder's Club Member
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.
Excerpt:
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.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=866104MAJ
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.
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.
Excerpt:
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.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=866104MAJ
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.
