Pulled over - odd reason!

[Tom NJ]

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?

 

[ripcord]

Technically, pretextual stops (without a violation) are illegal but a bunch of Supreme Court rulings make it so cops can get away with it with impunity.

 

[LongTime_Lurker]

That's odd. Radar guns can give inaccurate readings if they are not measuring an object's speed head on due to the cosine effect.

 

[BAJA_05]

Thank goodness only State Cops can use radar guns in the state of Pennsylvania. I think his reasoning was rather lame to pull use over.

 

[MParr]

He was trying to get your wife with a DUI. The least little thing is pretext for a stop.

 

[Owen Lucas]

Wife passed her creds, minus her concealed carry permit as we weren't carrying

Interesting, I know in some states you have to hand you conceal permit over even if you are not carrying.

 

[SubieRubyRoo]

Interesting, I know in some states you have to hand you conceal permit over even if you are not carrying.

Which states, and what’s the reasoning? If you’re walking down a sidewalk, you wouldn’t need a DL (maybe ID if you’re PI, but not operators license), so why if you’re not carrying would you need to supply a permit? Odd. Seems like a great way to prejudice the interaction against the person being stopped.

 

[ecotourist]

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.

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?

I've been stopped because I slowed down too. I saw the bubble top (old fashioned police car) just cresting a hill ahead and automatically started slowing down, which they could see on their radar. I had been driving a bit fast but nothing too excessive. And I had slowed down a bit by the time the windshield came into full view so the radar hadn't seen my top speed. They stopped me because "I either had the best vision they've ever seen or a radar detector". They checked the car over pretty well and cautioned me about having a case of beer on the folded down back seat where theoretically I could have reached it.

I do have good vision.

 

[CKN]

That's odd. Radar guns can give inaccurate readings if they are not measuring an object's speed head on due to the cosine effect.

Is this effcet for conventionl radar guns? Most use Lidar

That's odd. Radar guns can give inaccurate readings if they are not measuring an object's speed head on due to the cosine effect.

Cops use laser now.....
quote-
Unlike police radar which directly determines a vehicle’s speed by measuring its doppler (speed induced frequency) shift, police lidar calculates speed by observing the changing amount of time is takes to “see” a series of reflected pulses of light over a discreet period of time. Police laser was first introduced as a traffic enforcement tool in the early 1990s as a better alternative to police radar.

 

[fsdork]

Is this effcet for conventionl radar guns? Most use Lidar

Cops use laser now.....
quote-
Unlike police radar which directly determines a vehicle’s speed by measuring its doppler (speed induced frequency) shift, police lidar calculates speed by observing the changing amount of time is takes to “see” a series of reflected pulses of light over a discreet period of time. Police laser was first introduced as a traffic enforcement tool in the early 1990s as a better alternative to police radar.

Cosine angle effect is the same for laser or radar, and is negligible under 10 degrees. It causes the speed reading of the target to be understated when the source of the signal is stationary. Radar is still used widely, as laser is only used while stationary.

 

[Dave Hess]

He was trying to get your wife with a DUI. The least little thing is pretext for a stop.

30 years ago I went for a ‘ride along’ with a cop who happened to be my brother’s friend from high school. I had to sign a waiver in case I got injured I couldn’t sue the city.

This cop would stake out a local bar and wait for people to leave the bar, observe the person get in their vehicle and drive home. We were patiently waiting in the dark, then followed the vehicle with our headlights off and about 5 car lengths behind….. pretty much like a wolf stalking a deer. LOL

Cop was observing how well the driver stayed in their lane and pulled them over if they had trouble.

This cop always led this police department in DUI arrests, he had ZERO desire to write traffic tickets for minor violations. Over the limit you’re in handcuffs and straight to jail.

 

[billt460]

So the wife and I are cruising on home after a night of dinner, drinking, and dancing at our local roadhouse.

The message I got from reading your post is why be worried about a speeding ticket, when you admitted that you were both drinking?

 

[Vitamin Yoda]

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?

You're probably tired, and are overreacting because after the traffic stop you got a knot in your gut, and a that nagging feeling that something isn't right. I'm sure you'll look at the situation differently and with fresh eyes, once you had a good night's sleep. The bottom line is that you got nothing to worry about.

 

[hank2]

Technically, pretextual stops (without a violation) are illegal but a bunch of Supreme Court rulings make it so cops can get away with it with impunity.

I don't know if it's still a thing but 50+ years ago, a "furtive gesture" was grounds for a pull over and search without a warrant. At least anecdotally. I'd guess that would be reaching or shifting around as if to hide or retrieve something. Or just stating that you witnessed that. In some states they would have to combine the observed gesture with other info, like where they were coming from.

 

[dnewton3]

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.

 

[dubber09]

Well, my post got nuked. I don't support OP's cause, he's been disrespectful to his wife and they were driving after, as it seems, a few drinks that may have put them over legal limit.

 

[ripcord]

The term "pretextual" means a reason given to justify an action that is not the real reason for the action. An example of a illegal pretextual stop would be when a cop who sees a car with out of state plates from a state where marijuana is legal or the cop sees a car leaving a liquor store. The officer knows that if he pulls that car over, his chances of getting a pot or DUI bust are higher. Then, in the absence of a moving violation, he makes up a false reason or excuse to pull the car over. Technically this is illegal, but it is almost impossible to prove and courts will always side with the officer.

Pretextual stops are problematic because too often they are initiated under false pretenses when there is no actual reasonable suspicion of an infraction or other crime.

 

[JHZR2]

The term "pretextual" means a reason given to justify an action that is not the real reason for the action. An example of a illegal pretextual stop would be when a cop who sees a car with out of state plates from a state where marijuana is legal or the cop sees a car leaving a liquor store. The officer knows that if he pulls that car over, his chances of getting a pot or DUI bust are higher. Then, in the absence of a moving violation, he makes up a false reason or excuse to pull the car over. Technically this is illegal, but it is almost impossible to prove and courts will always side with the officer.

Pretextual stops are problematic because too often they are initiated under false pretenses when there is no actual reasonable suspicion of an infraction or other crime.

I don’t know if it’s too often, but it does happen.

I had one once where I was pulled over due to a claim that I was on my phone Texting. I was on my phone, in hands free, on a call. The officer said I had my head down. It was nonsense. I was driving a small car, and photo re-enactment of my driving position and proof of a hands free and no texting had the judge throw it out. But it was annoying enough that they were fishing for a situation.and mine was a pretty minor/benign situation.

You do want them picking up people who shouldnt be on the streets. Unfortunately to get that, they’re running your plate number and deciding if they “like you” on the fly every time you drive by. BTDT too. The cause for a stop was expired registration… so obviously they were running passer by plates…

Relative to the change in speed, I’ve heard this before. Theyll look for stoplights, nose dive, etc to determine who may have been speeding. Now, to me that’s human nature to adjust it if you think you’ll get caught/fine/ticket; not exactly reasonable suspicion of anything besides that there’s a human who is acting in a relatively logical reaction.

 

[dnewton3]

Well, my post got nuked. I don't support OP's cause, he's been disrespectful to his wife and they were driving after, as it seems, a few drinks that may have put them over legal limit.

I think you're reading way too much into the OPs account
- the way he describes his wifes "leadfoot" (after 5 tix), etc, may be in jest. Or not. Doesn't matter; it's not for you to interpret his marriage.
- you presume a few drinks made them "over the limit"; you have no idea how long it took to consume those few drinks, nor what kind they were, etc
- you also presume that the cop must have either been oblivious, or derelict, in that they were released after those drinks put them "over the limit"

 

[ItwastheChad]

Cops doing cop things. Normal.

I swear at night seems to be when they are in the "looking for something to do" mode. At least your guy was nice. He just was doing daily duties and all checked out normal. I have worked nights for years and all of us who do make sure our tabs and cars are in good working order. We all knew we are targets if we didn't every time we drove home.

Think of it in the way of he is just keeping honest people honest. You checked out fine. However maybe some day he will do what he does and find someone who possibly could be doing something of illegal activity and shouldn't be on the road or worse yet could be hiding from something consequential.