Pulled over - odd reason!

[proveitwithdata]

thanks for no ticket, but is this an actual behavioral pattern?

 

[Tom NJ]

Just to clarify, we had two drinks each over a three plus hour period, so we were well well below the limit. Even the deputy noted that she was driving fine, and said he was okay with a few mph over the limit. His sole stated cause for the stop was the sudden slowing when we saw the deer, and he didn't.

I don't blame him and certainly am not upset over this - in fact my wife and I had a good laugh over it. I was just curious if this was a common situation. I am glad that our roads are well patrolled to keep our village safe. I always use cruise control and never warn others of speed traps by flashing high beams.

 

[KrisZ]

How is pulling people over for no reason keeping the community safe?

 

[dishdude]

That's when you say "I invoke my right to remain silent officer".
The small chit chat is to try and establish a probable cause, you got lucky the officer didn't hear a trigger word out of you or your wife.

I'm sure that'll go over real well. At that point they're going to assume you have something to hide and do everything they can to find it.

 

[Jetronic]

So the wife and I are cruising on home after a night of dinner, drinking, and dancing at our local roadhouse. Mrs lead-foot is at the wheel of her little Mitsubishi Eclipse five speed V6, but after her last ticket (#5) she finally took a lesson from me and was using cruise control, a safe 60 in a 55. We live just five minutes out of our little mountain town, and about half way home I spot a deer on the side of the road, very common in these parts, and where there is one there is usually more so I call out DEER and the lady punches the brakes. About the same time I catch a glimpse of a sheriff's car, lights out on the side of the road, but pay it no mind as we were not really speeding. A couple of minutes later we notice the car behind us has his high beams on, and again pay it no mind, until he lights us up with his blue & reds.

The deputy comes to the passenger side and I lower my window. Young guy with a 4" red beard (hey, this is Appalachia), and he couldn't be more polite. Wife passed her creds, minus her concealed carry permit as we weren't carrying since we were drinking. He says the reason he pulled us over was because he saw on his radar that we slowed by 10 mph when we approached him, and that usually means the driver has something to hide. Really? We of course said, in unison, that we saw a deer, which he understood. After chatting for a couple of minutes he was satisfied that we were not under the influence and wished us well.

Doesn't seem to me like a good reason to pull over a citizen when we were not really speeding or weaving. Is this a common practice for the law?

But you were really speeding... 5 mph over is speeding, even if it's low priority

 

[350Rocket]

So the wife and I are cruising on home after a night of dinner, drinking, and dancing at our local roadhouse. Mrs lead-foot is at the wheel of her little Mitsubishi Eclipse five speed V6, but after her last ticket (#5) she finally took a lesson from me and was using cruise control, a safe 60 in a 55. We live just five minutes out of our little mountain town, and about half way home I spot a deer on the side of the road, very common in these parts, and where there is one there is usually more so I call out DEER and the lady punches the brakes. About the same time I catch a glimpse of a sheriff's car, lights out on the side of the road, but pay it no mind as we were not really speeding. A couple of minutes later we notice the car behind us has his high beams on, and again pay it no mind, until he lights us up with his blue & reds.

The deputy comes to the passenger side and I lower my window. Young guy with a 4" red beard (hey, this is Appalachia), and he couldn't be more polite. Wife passed her creds, minus her concealed carry permit as we weren't carrying since we were drinking. He says the reason he pulled us over was because he saw on his radar that we slowed by 10 mph when we approached him, and that usually means the driver has something to hide. Really? We of course said, in unison, that we saw a deer, which he understood. After chatting for a couple of minutes he was satisfied that we were not under the influence and wished us well.

Doesn't seem to me like a good reason to pull over a citizen when we were not really speeding or weaving. Is this a common practice for the law?

Makes sense to me. Just bad timing with the deer, but if I'm riding with someone else and they hit the brakes hard like that, I'd be asking what the heck they were thinking? I would almost assume that would get us pulled over.

 

[KrisZ]

I'm sure that'll go over real well. At that point they're going to assume you have something to hide and do everything they can to find it.

How are they going to do that?
The stop was a fishing attempt, you talking to them may just give them a reason. The best and safest way is to stay quiet. Every lawyer is going to tell you that.

 

[dishdude]

How are they going to do that?
The stop was a fishing attempt, you talking to them may just give them a reason. The best and safest way is to stay quiet. Every lawyer is going to tell you that.

You're not in Canada any more. Down here they'll teach you a lesson, boy.

 

[KrisZ]

You're not in Canada any more. Down here they'll teach you a lesson, boy.

LOL! Keep licking them boots man!

 

[Chris142]

I do believe that "sudden braking" can indicate presence of a radar detector.

Mrs. Kira was flirting with both sides of 90 mph on the NJ Turnpike once. Ahhh, the joys if that Saab Aero!
I had simply tired of telling her to slow down.
There's a unique, single lane crossover for emergency vehicles between 2 well separated exits.
When wifey zoomed beneath it, a snowy white car descended the ramp and rapidly persued us.
I suggested she slow down. We were informed that she was doing the 'double 8'.

POINT: The officer asked how we knew to slow down and if we had a radar detector.
I told him, "I saw you back up to go down the ramp". He had the option to persue either northbound or south.

Everybody was polite and she got a littering ticket.

Littering? That's $1000 here.

 

[y_p_w]

I remember driving home once which went through a small community that set up a DUI checkpoint. The officer asked if I'd been drinking, I said no but I was going to have a drink when I got home. He laughed a bit and I was on my way.

 

[sloinker]

Cop could have turned off his body and car camera and had a good time! Gets boring out on the highway at night.

 

[SC Maintenance]

You're not in Canada any more. Down here they'll teach you a lesson, boy.

And this is exactly the reason why more and more people want qualified immunity gone.

 

[dnewton3]

And this is exactly the reason why more and more people want qualified immunity gone.

That, too, has consequences ...

QI gone? What cop would ever be willing to get involved in any situation that would require any manner of physical contact, or pointing a firearm, or using a Taser, etc?

Removing QI is a means to allow criminals to run rampant, because they know no cop would touch, or even pursue, them. Removing QI means any cop could get personally sued even if he followed all SOPs and broke no laws. Is that something we believe to be fair and just?

If a cop breaks a law or violates departmental protocol, then there are processes to deal with those violations. QI is not unlimited. It's called Qualified Immunity, not Unlimited Immunity, after all. QI does not protect an officer that breaks laws or violates SOPs. QI is in place to protect those who protect others when they do the right things the right way.

Remove QI and it would surely lead to mass exodus of current officers, and very low incoming numbers. Eventually LE agencies would not "enforce" laws; they would only show up after the fact to mop up blood and wipe tears away.

 

[dnewton3]

How is pulling people over for no reason keeping the community safe?

It doesn't.

How does your question relate to the OPs story here?
It doesn't.

 

[SC Maintenance]

That, too, has consequences ...

QI gone? What cop would ever be willing to get involved in any situation that would require any manner of physical contact, or pointing a firearm, or using a Taser, etc?

Removing QI is a means to allow criminals to run rampant, because they know no cop would pursue or even touch them. Removing QI means any cop could get personally sued even if he followed all SOPs and broke no laws. Is that something we believe to be fair and just?

If a cop breaks a law or violates departmental protocol, then there are processes to deal with those violations. QI is not unlimited. It's called Qualified Immunity, not Unlimited Immunity, after all. QI does not protect an officer that breaks laws or violates SOPs. QI is in place to protect those who protect others when they do the right things the right way.

Remove QI and it would surely lead to mass exodus of current officers, and very low incoming numbers. Eventually LE agencies would not "enforce" laws; they would only show up after the fact to mop up blood and wipe tears away.

Your 100% correct. The problem is that partially due to the way the law is written its become in some cases unqualified impunity, with lawsuits for clearly egregious behavior dismissed immediately by courts due to "qualified immunity" my comment was in response to another poster who indicated that the police were free to do whatever they wanted. Easy to find thousands of examples of this being true sadly, hence his post was pertinent.

When no one trusts the police, this is bad for everyone, the least of which being the police themselves.

Qualified immunity was intended to protect government employees, especially LEO, when they made an honest mistake. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that is wrong. However that isn't how its always used in practice.

In relation to this post - slowing down is not illegal. Its not even suspicions IMHO. Now if the LEO wanted to pull them over for speeding, or wanted to follow them to see if any other infractions warranted a stop, that would have been a better decision on their part. Fortunately nothing more became of it.

I will also point out there was no qualified immunity prior to 1967 and yet law enforcement existed, so I find this argument that the current QI laws can't be at least amended or clarified to be false arguments.

 

[dnewton3]

Your 100% correct. The problem is that partially due to the way the law is written its become in some cases unqualified impunity, with lawsuits for clearly egregious behavior dismissed immediately by courts due to "qualified immunity" my comment was in response to another poster who indicated that the police were free to do whatever they wanted. Easy to find thousands of examples of this being true sadly, hence his post was pertinent.

When no one trusts the police, this is bad for everyone, the least of which being the police themselves.

Qualified immunity was intended to protect government employees, especially LEO, when they made an honest mistake. I don't think any reasonable person would argue that is wrong. However that isn't how its always used in practice.

I would agree in general with your points above.

In relation to this post - slowing down is not illegal. Its not even suspicions IMHO. Now if the LEO wanted to pull them over for speeding, or wanted to follow them to see if any other infractions warranted a stop, that would have been a better decision on their part. Fortunately nothing more became of it.

Slowing down is not illegal. Abrupt changes in speed (erratic behaviors) are one of many "clues" to a potential assessment of impairment; that's a different conversation. In this thread storyline, the OP said they saw the deer, but the officer did not. Therefore the extreme slowing rate, while reasonably justified to the driver, appeared to be erratic to the officer. That, when paired with other factors, could be used for reasonable suspicion. Add in the speeding, and now you have two markers for potential impairment. As I said, "slowing down" isn't illegal, but the action without perceived just cause, and paired with other factor(s), most certainly contribute to other conclusions. There are even some SCOTUS case law decisions (I've forgot the citations; back in my academy days) that allow for evidentiary inclusion even when the officer was wrong about the circumstance, because his perception of the event(s) were reasonable and articulably justifiable.

I will also point out there was no qualified immunity prior to 1967 and yet law enforcement existed, so I find this argument that the current QI laws can't be at least amended or clarified to be false arguments.

True. I would agree that refining the QI criteria may be of benefit. But I would also note that our society was much less greedily litigious back then; far fewer frivolous civil suits were filed. So QI perhaps wasn't as "necessary" back then. That's certainly not the case these days ...

 

[ripcord]

Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and maybe one out two other states forbid the use of qualified immunity defenses by state officials and police. Those states seem to still have effective and functional law enforcement.

 

[02SE]

In my experience, just riding a Sportbike is a good way to have regular roadside fishing expedition chats with LEO's...

 

[incognito_2u]

As to the OPs direct situation, I would not feel comfortable pulling someone over for sudden slowing if that appeared action warranted. I wasn't there; I cannot attest to the specific nature of that one event. But if you were speeding, that alone is enough to give "reasonable suspicion" for the stop. (Don't confuse reasonable suspicion with probable cause; those are different thresholds of legal standing). Erratic driving is often pretextual in many states of the US. Sudden slowing could reasonably be interpreted as erratic. While you may have had good reason to do so (the deer in road), if the officer didn't see that impending issue, then he has clear conscious to "believe" your driving was erratic and initiate a stop. Once you get stopped, you have a chance to explain, and then officer discretion can be applied in your favor, if warranted; you explain the extenuating circumstances and get leniency at the scene. But if you're found otherwise to be under warrant or committing a crime, well that's the RS for the stop, and then the crime/warrant is PC for the arrest. I don't know the nuance of your state laws, so you'll just have to investigate those for yourself.

*******************************

There are about 18,000 LE agencies in the US, with over 800,000 officers (across a very broad system; fed, state, local).

They should all operate under the same rules, but we have to admit that they are going to be different at times. Different states have different laws. Different towns, etc. The all operate under the same Constitution, but there are always variances depending on local. I'm not saying you should like it, but to deny reality is not helping the conversation. What cops get away with and what is "legal" are not always the same thing; that's not goot at all. But to be fair, there are a lot of air-chair lawyers out there that "think" they know the law, when they are woefully uneducated in the matter.

There are some great cops out there; they really understand the laws (both legislative and case law) and operate within those bounds. Then there are others that, frankly, are bad at the job. It may be a power trip, or just plain bad training and poor understanding of the laws. This is no different than lawyers, doctors, mechanics, plumbers, etc ... good and bad examples exist in all manner of professions. WHY the cop is bad at his job does not alleviate the public loss of confidence. Bad cops give good cops a bad reputation. It's not fair; it's just reality.

The public rightly expects LEOs to follow the proper laws and rules, even when the public is breaking them.

We can take away pretextual stops; fine by me. But then you lose a lot of ability to identify intoxicated drivers, find dangerous felons, etc.

I personally have lost track of how many people I arrested on warrants simply because they were speeding or ran a stop sign, and when I got their identification for the traffic infraction(s), I was able to ID them and discover their outstanding warrants. People whom you and I want off the streets get discovered because of pretextual stops. Impaired drives are frequently discovered because of pretextual stops. If you want pretextual stops eliminated, just realize that you are agreeing to have more felons roam the streets and more intoxicated drivers on the roads. For every ying there is a yang. For every pro there is a con.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!