Is it necessary to reply to a LEO's request during a traffic stop?

[wylde007]

Then what would you say?

Brawk! Officer Safety! Brawk!

 

[palerider116]

Yeah, what if the driver is a diabetic and can't respond to the officer due to a sugar crash (dangerous hypoglycemia)?


Man Claims Excessive Force After Traffic Stop

Watch the video.

Diabetic Says Cops Tasered & Beat Him

Some of the Virginians here have diabetes, including the VCDL President. What if this happened to any of them?

Then what would you say?

Graham versus Connor (1989)

 

[Repeater]

Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106 (1977)

Brawk! Officer Safety! Brawk!

See what Pennsylvania v. Mimms can do to gun owners in this case:

Defendant Anthony Dixon was a passenger in a car driven with only one working headlight. After Officer Joshua Frisby of the Dayton Police Department stopped the car for this violation and removed Dixon from the vehicle, he observed a part of Glock’s handgun in the car under a floor mat and arrested Dixon.

...

“In Mimms, the Court held that ‘once a motor vehicle has been lawfully detained for a traffic violation, the police officers may order the driver to get out of the vehicle without violating the Fourth Amendment’s proscription of unreasonable searches and seizures.’” Arizona v. Johnson, 129 S. Ct. 781, 786 (2009) (quoting Mimms, 434 U.S. at 111 n.6). This bright line rule exists because “[t]raffic stops are fraught with danger to police officers, and the Fourth Amendment permits officers to conduct an otherwise-legitimate stop on their own terms—whether by keeping the driver (and occupants) in the car or by asking them to exit the car, depending on what they perceive as safer.”

...

Because Officer Frisby ordered Dixon from the car and stood in close proximity to the passenger side car door, he was able to see the Glock within the vehicle. This is quintessentially what the plain-view doctrine permits.

...

Officer Frisby was in a lawful position outside the open passenger door of the vehicle. The firearm was immediately recognizable as contraband: under Ohio law, it is illegal to store a firearm under the floor mat of a vehicle, see Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2923.12(A)(2); 2923.16(C).

Golly, officers just love the Plain-view doctrine -- and they will quite often do whatever it takes to get into position so they can invoke it.

After all, a traffic stop is on their terms, not yours.

Safety first; constitution last.

 

[palerider116]

See what Pennsylvania v. Mimms can do to gun owners in this case:



Golly, officers just love the Plain-view doctrine -- and they will quite often do whatever it takes to get into position so they can invoke it.

After all, a traffic stop is on their terms, not yours.

Safety first; constitution last.

Where is the Constitutional violation? At this point, the issue I see is the Ohio law that is in violation of the second amendment. Its not the officer. Its a state law that is in contradiction to the Constitution.

Gotta find the root cause of the problem.

 

[All American Nightmare]

Cooperate up to and only as required by law.

Corollary: know the law.

The general opinion of lifetime Virginians populating this forum is that while not all officers are "bad" (in fact, most of them are not) you never know which one you will get and they ALL have been tasked with generating revenue for their municipality and ENFORCING the law.

As TFred stated above, all a "bad" officer has to do is observe a person long enough and eventually they WILL break some law. Volunteering information or permitting invasion of your privacy and belongings simply gives them a shorter path to that destination.

Giving up you sidearm for officer safety is bogus. Any officer who would then subsequently "run" it has violated your 4th Amendment rights and taken your property, however briefly, without due process.

This is another reason for recorders. If an officer "requests" your weapon for their "safety" you have only to inform them that you decline. If he demands it and threatens you with detention or arrest you may still refuse. If he takes it anyway you make sure to announce that it is being done under duress and without your consent.

Then file a complaint and FOIA request.

While It might be bogus LEOS will get away with it. Until the 4th circuit starts to rule our way It will not change.

 

[Citizen]

While It might be bogus LEOS will get away with it. Until the 4th circuit starts to rule our way It will not change.

As long as we go along with the idea that the courts are the only ones to interpret the constitution.

I wonder how it would work if we got the General Assembly to pass a few statutes tightening up when a cop could or couldn't, for example, seize a gun for officer safety. Or, prohibiting, with penalties, running the serial number without at least reasonable suspicion it is stolen.

Why wait for the courts, is all I'm saying. We have another avenue.

Every time the cop-lobbyist says, "why do they care if they're not illegal", all we do is ask in return, "why do they need to check if they have no reason to suspect its illegal?"

Time to start rescinding some cop fishing licenses.

 

[Grapeshot]

As long as we go along with the idea that the courts are the only ones to interpret the constitution.

I wonder how it would work if we got the General Assembly to pass a few statutes tightening up when a cop could or couldn't, for example, seize a gun for officer safety. Or, prohibiting, with penalties, running the serial number without at least reasonable suspicion it is stolen.

Why wait for the courts, is all I'm saying. We have another avenue.

Every time the cop-lobbyist says, "why do they care if they're not illegal", all we do is ask in return, "why do they need to check if they have no reason to suspect its illegal?"

Time to start rescinding some cop fishing licenses.

It's more of the "If you having nothing to hide..." argument. I DO have a lot to hide - my person, my property, my privacy etc, etc, etc, - form unreasonable and unlawful invasion or threat thereof.

 

[Repeater]

The General Assembly can control the police -- IF it wants to

As long as we go along with the idea that the courts are the only ones to interpret the constitution.

I wonder how it would work if we got the General Assembly to pass a few statutes tightening up when a cop could or couldn't, for example, seize a gun for officer safety. Or, prohibiting, with penalties, running the serial number without at least reasonable suspicion it is stolen.

Why wait for the courts, is all I'm saying. We have another avenue.

Every time the cop-lobbyist says, "why do they care if they're not illegal", all we do is ask in return, "why do they need to check if they have no reason to suspect its illegal?"

Time to start rescinding some cop fishing licenses.

Well, this is an excellent idea -- IF you can find a patron willing to offer such a bill, perhaps as early as the next Session.

However, and this is important, any such bill which intends to restrict officer discretion MUST provide a penalty for a violation.

 

[Sheriff]

I once heard a LEO say If you flex your rights expect to be arrested for it. now thats pretty damm sad in my eyes.

This is better known as "contempt of cop".

 

[Sheriff]

..... the driver in this case created the situation. He yells at the officers from the start, interferes with the investigation, acts uncivilized over being stopped, and refuses to comply when he is legally being detained.

Again......... what we have here is "contempt of cop"!

 

[McX]

This is better known as "contempt of cop".

did you say contempt of cop, or contemptuous cop ?(heh-heh)

 

[Venator]

You are wrong. Police have the power to order a driver out of the vehicle. U.S. Supreme Court decision PA v Mimms among other case laws. They don't even need to articulate why they are ordering the driver out, the stop just has to be justified. In this case, the officer tells the driver he has a burnt out license plate light. Although I don't know what state this video is from, it would appear to rise to the standard of reasonable suspicion for a good stop. If you noticed that the driver only opened up the window an inch or so. It would be easy to articulate that he is doing so to cover up the odor of alcoholic beverage or drugs (doesn't seem to be the case here, but it happens) or the officer would like to speak with the driver outside of the car for safety reasons (he is standing in the roadway). The passengers are seized during a traffic stop as well (MD v Wilson US Supreme Court). The officer requests their license to identify them, doesn't demand it. We don't know if this state has a stop and identify law, which they might.

I agree the officers made a few unprofessional comments and that should be addressed by their supervisors. However, the driver in this case created the situation. He yells at the officers from the start, interferes with the investigation, acts uncivilized over being stopped, and refuses to comply when he is legally being detained. He turned a routine warning about a plate light (or fix it ticket), into a much bigger issue. He was legally seized for only the duration of time it took to write a ticket and then was no longer seized (given the citation and released).

He wasn't issued a ticket. He was only detained because the cops didn't like his back talk. An abuse in my mind, contempt of cop is protected, via a SCOTUS ruling.

I was referring to the passengers, as well as the demand to see ID. If the LEO had authority to have the other two exit and show ID, I'm thinking they would have exercised that authority.

I really don't think opening the window a crack is RAS or PC. Many people are doing this as a statement to the growing police state.

They were thugs.

 

[NovaCop]

He wasn't issued a ticket. He was only detained because the cops didn't like his back talk. An abuse in my mind, contempt of cop is protected, via a SCOTUS ruling.

I was referring to the passengers, as well as the demand to see ID. If the LEO had authority to have the other two exit and show ID, I'm thinking they would have exercised that authority.

I really don't think opening the window a crack is RAS or PC. Many people are doing this as a statement to the growing police state.

They were thugs.

Oh, where to start? From my view point, he was released after receiving a ticket, which he was reasonably detained for. If you (Venator) argue that in the video you didn't see that paper he had in his hand when leaving the patrol car (assumed to be a ticket), then it was out of courtesy by the LEO he didn't receive a citation, but obviously could have because he was in violation of law (explained by the LEO in the video).

Only detained because of back talk? If you (Venator) have at least one eye and at least a partial brain, then surely you saw that the red/blue lights came on before anyone (LEO or driver) spoke...therefore, the detention began before any "backtalk" was ever made. The LEOs did have the power and authority to force the passengers to exit (see my previous post), however, decided against it (for unknown reasons).

Police are thugs? Police state? You should try a week living in an area where there is no governmental laws supported by enforcement (police) and see how well you like it (Iraq perhaps???).

What the hell is a Scotus ruling? In your mind it's contempt of cop? Please explain your opinon !?! I don't mind educated debates on this forum, but you are throwing out ignorant, silly comments. Please use some form of citation or factual support before doing so. You embarrass yourself.

PM sent to Venator..requesting his reply.

 

[NovaCop]

And if I reply, "No thank you sir, I believe it safer for me to remain in my vehicle"?

Honestly, like I mentioned before, LEOs have the authority to remove drivers/passengers from vehicles during a legal stop. I have seen first hand people say those words before (or close to it) and lock their car doors and keep their windows closed or open and less than inch or so. The officer gets the "ok" from their supervisor and breaks a window in the car, gets the door unlocked, and the driver is dragged out with a gun and/or taser pointed at them. Usually this occurs when there are more circumstances involved (dui/ hit n run, etc) even though I have yet to see a citizen do it during a routine traffic violation, I don't believe it would make much of a difference. The driver is looking to add an additional charge of obstruction to driver along with going to jail for the simple traffic charges.

What I just stated is not just my opinion, but situations I have seen first hand with my own eyes. There has never been a defense attorney that questioned what happened and have never seen an officer get in trouble. Usually it's a quick plea from the defendant in a case like this. If you or anyone can provide legal citations how that would be illegal actions by the officer, I would really like to hear it.

I will say that this is a last resort for officers.

 

[Sheriff]

I really don't think opening the window a crack is RAS or PC. Many people are doing this as a statement to the growing police state.

They were thugs.

Many people are doing it because they are being taught to do it.... BY THE POLICE!

Nationwide the cop shoppes are telling people who have serious concerns as to who is pulling them over to turn on the four way flashers and do not stop until they get to a well lit area. They also instruct motorists to crack the driver's window only enough to communicate with the cop until the cop has identified himself/herself.

The BS about this masking alcohol odors is how cops try to convince judges of the RAS or PC. Some judges fall for it, others don't since the cops are teaching the practice themselves.

 

[peter nap]

Many people are doing it because they are being taught to do it.... BY THE POLICE!

Nationwide the cop shoppes are telling people who have serious concerns as to who is pulling them over to turn on the four way flashers and do not stop until they get to a well lit area. They also instruct motorists to crack the driver's window only enough to communicate with the cop until the cop has identified himself/herself.

The BS about this masking alcohol odors is how cops try to convince judges of the RAS or PC. Some judges fall for it, others don't since the cops are teaching the practice themselves.

But if you don't roll down the window, Nova229 will bust your window, tase you and drag you out at gunpoint....all for your own safety of course.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[wylde007]

But if you don't roll down the window, Nova229 will bust your window, tase you and drag you out at gunpoint... all for your own safety of course.:lol::lol::lol::lol:

He is, after all, a highly-trained and liberty-minded FRIEND of the common man.

He is on our side. Ask him. He'll tell you so... and then proceed to discredit himself, his department and law-enforcement in general by his anti-citizen rhetoric and "I am the law" dictations right out of the Judge Dredd handbook.

Pish-posh. Brawk! Officer Safety! Brawk!

 

[Thundar]

You are wrong. Police have the power to order a driver out of the vehicle. U.S. Supreme Court decision PA v Mimms among other case laws. They don't even need to articulate why they are ordering the driver out, the stop just has to be justified. In this case, the officer tells the driver he has a burnt out license plate light. Although I don't know what state this video is from, it would appear to rise to the standard of reasonable suspicion for a good stop. If you noticed that the driver only opened up the window an inch or so. It would be easy to articulate that he is doing so to cover up the odor of alcoholic beverage or drugs (doesn't seem to be the case here, but it happens) or the officer would like to speak with the driver outside of the car for safety reasons (he is standing in the roadway). The passengers are seized during a traffic stop as well (MD v Wilson US Supreme Court). The officer requests their license to identify them, doesn't demand it. We don't know if this state has a stop and identify law, which they might.

I agree the officers made a few unprofessional comments and that should be addressed by their supervisors. However, the driver in this case created the situation. He yells at the officers from the start, interferes with the investigation, acts uncivilized over being stopped, and refuses to comply when he is legally being detained. He turned a routine warning about a plate light (or fix it ticket), into a much bigger issue. He was legally seized for only the duration of time it took to write a ticket and then was no longer seized (given the citation and released).

Be very careful about SCOTUS rulings NOVACOP. Remember SCOTUS does not give you any power. All they do is determine whether your transgressions rise to the level of Unconstitutionality under the Federal COnstitution. In Virginia we have a bill of rights that is far broader in enumeration of rights and scope.

Just because SCOTUS doesn't find it unconstitutional, doesn't mean it is OK in the Commonwealth.

 

[grylnsmn]

Only detained because of back talk? If you (Venator) have at least one eye and at least a partial brain, then surely you saw that the red/blue lights came on before anyone (LEO or driver) spoke...therefore, the detention began before any "backtalk" was ever made.

At the same time, you can't deny that the detention was prolonged as a result of the back talk, and at least a large portion of the prolonged detention was because of the actions of the police, not the individual pulled over.

 

[Venator]

Oh, where to start? From my view point, he was released after receiving a ticket, which he was reasonably detained for. If you (Venator) argue that in the video you didn't see that paper he had in his hand when leaving the patrol car (assumed to be a ticket), then it was out of courtesy by the LEO he didn't receive a citation, but obviously could have because he was in violation of law (explained by the LEO in the video).

Only detained because of back talk? If you (Venator) have at least one eye and at least a partial brain, then surely you saw that the red/blue lights came on before anyone (LEO or driver) spoke...therefore, the detention began before any "backtalk" was ever made. The LEOs did have the power and authority to force the passengers to exit (see my previous post), however, decided against it (for unknown reasons).

Police are thugs? Police state? You should try a week living in an area where there is no governmental laws supported by enforcement (police) and see how well you like it (Iraq perhaps???).

What the hell is a Scotus ruling? In your mind it's contempt of cop? Please explain your opinon !?! I don't mind educated debates on this forum, but you are throwing out ignorant, silly comments. Please use some form of citation or factual support before doing so. You embarrass yourself.

PM sent to Venator..requesting his reply.

Thank you for the personal attacks, I would expect nothing less from a LEO.

First off, assumptions are dangerous, below he states he wasn't ticketed.

Second the stop was legal, I never stated it wasn't, the prolong detainment was questionable. And my opinion is that handcuffing a person for a plate bulb being out is excessive and was only done as a show of force because the LEO was pissed.

So LEOs are the salvation of a civilized society?? Perhaps a little history lesson on the evolution of city police in America. How and why they were established. (Corporate interests and strike breakers).

SCOTUS is an acronym for Supreme Court of the United States. In one of there decision they have wording stating along the lines that LEOs as public officials have to endure a variety of contempt by the public, which is expected in a free Republic.

A citizen can be disrespectful all he wants to public officials.

The public officer has the power to arrest anyone for anything they want just because they can and there is often times no repercussions for their abuse of power. This incident is nothing more than an abuse of power, because some citizen dare question their authority.

U.S. Supreme Court
Houston v. Hill, 482 U.S. 451, 462, 107 S.Ct. 2502, 2510, 96 L.Ed.2d 398 (1986)

The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.

The First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers....

6th Circuit
Greene v Barber, 310 F.3d 899 (2002)
Government officials in general, and officers in particular, may not exercise their authority for personal motives, particularly in response to real or perceived slights to their dignity.

The law is well established that…"an act taken in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under § 1983 even if the act, when taken for a different reason, would have been proper."

If you feel that the video shows that the LEOs acted in a professional manner and the stop wasn't escalated by the driver standing up for his rights, then it may be you that is myopic.

http://sanderson1611.blogspot.com/20...stor-over.html

sanderson1611 said... I did not receive a citation for the light, and the passengers were not charged with anything. As soon as the video ends we basically just drove away in peace.

I'm going to file a written complaint against the officer for "aggravated assault."