Advocacy & Safety - Arguing with the cops doesn't work

I was surfing YouTube and found a fair number of videos of cyclists and motorists who taped their arguments with law enforcement officers over traffic violations or similar matters. This tactic never works and usually results in the officer citing you for every infraction and count he/she can think of.

If you don't think a law is fair, that isn't the officer's problem, it is the law and it is his duty to enforce it. Even if you think the officer is in the wrong, remain calm and civil. Most of the time an officer has some discretion in writing tickets, so your attitude can make a difference. Yes, there are some officers out there who are full of themselves but these are also the ones you have the least chance of winning an argument with and the highest likelyhood that they will rack up the charges if you get in their face.

You have the right to read the ticket before signing it. I'm not sure if this is true in every jurisdiction, but in the tri-state area around here, signing the ticket is just acknowledgement that you understand the charges and have the right to appear in court or to waive your court appearance and pay the fine. In every case I have encountered signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt.

If you feel that the officer is wrong or that the penalties are excessive, you can appear in traffic court and state your case. Again, attitude and record are everything. Judges have even wider discretion than officers and can drop or alter charges and set the fine anywhere between the minimum and maximum allowed.

It is legal for you to video an officer during the stop but it is in your best interest to do so unobtrusively rather than in a confrontational manner. Set the camera or your phone on the dash where it will capture what is needed and just let it run. Remember, the officer is likely also video taping or at least recording you as well and that record will follow you to court. If you are the one being hostile and confrontational, kiss any chance of a reduction in fine goodbye.

Judges don't like having their time wasted, by you or the officer. While it might not happen in open court, I know that some officers have been admonished by judges or department superiors for writing excessively punative citations or citations that are not adequately based in the law.

I was surfing YouTube and found a fair number of videos of cyclists and motorists who taped their arguments with law enforcement officers over traffic violations or similar matters. This tactic never works and usually results in the officer citing you for every infraction and count he/she can think of.

If you don't think a law is fair, that isn't the officer's problem, it is the law and it is his duty to enforce it. Even if you think the officer is in the wrong, remain calm and civil. Most of the time an officer has some discretion in writing tickets, so your attitude can make a difference. Yes, there are some officers out there who are full of themselves but these are also the ones you have the least chance of winning an argument with and the highest likelyhood that they will rack up the charges if you get in their face.

You have the right to read the ticket before signing it. I'm not sure if this is true in every jurisdiction, but in the tri-state area around here, signing the ticket is just acknowledgement that you understand the charges and have the right to appear in court or to waive your court appearance and pay the fine. In every case I have encountered signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt.

If you feel that the officer is wrong or that the penalties are excessive, you can appear in traffic court and state your case. Again, attitude and record are everything. Judges have even wider discretion than officers and can drop or alter charges and set the fine anywhere between the minimum and maximum allowed.

It is legal for you to video an officer during the stop but it is in your best interest to do so unobtrusively rather than in a confrontational manner. Set the camera or your phone on the dash where it will capture what is needed and just let it run. Remember, the officer is likely also video taping or at least recording you as well and that record will follow you to court. If you are the one being hostile and confrontational, kiss any chance of a reduction in fine goodbye.

Judges don't like having their time wasted, by you or the officer. While it might not happen in open court, I know that some officers have been admonished by judges or department superiors for writing excessively punative citations or citations that are not adequately based in the law.

I partially beg to differ.

Several years ago, I was stopped by LEO, because he thought I was drunk. I found out the reason he thought I was drunk, was because, I was weaving from having poorly taken a turn. So, While I wasn't weaving intentionally, I told the officer that I could definitely see why he thought I was drunk.

A second situation was where I was pulled over for being on the sidewalk. When the officer told me there was a law about riding on the sidewalk, I told the officer that was nuts(not the officer, but the law), because while I can ride fast, there are kids that can't. The city that surrounds the town I live in, has an ordinance dating back to 1957, when the size of the city was nowhere near, what it is 55yrs. later. I also found out, the reason for the ordinance going into affect was because people were complaining about kids riding their bikes' on the sidewalk. I have been trying to get the ordinance taken off the books, for the sake of the kids.

In Quebec you don't have to sign the ticket, They give it to you anyway and you have 30 days to pay or to advise them you'll go to court. I've had two speeding ticket in my life and I have been very polite with the cops and each time they reduced the speed on the ticket and, by doing so, saved me a lot of money.
So I totaly agree with the OP

In every situation in which I have been confronted by the police, I have found that acting in a cordial, polite and professional manner has yielded the same from the officer... even when the officer started with what seemed to be a confrontational attitude. Yes, I have been ticketed, but rarely... (never on a bike), most situations resulted in mere warnings.

Ive been pulled over on my bike twice in the last week for taking the lane. I argued my case citing the laws, even giving specific section numbers. I wasn't doing anything illegal and there was nothing that they could ticket me for, so I felt free to argue civilly and both times, I was let off.

Alas, I have quite a bit of experience in this subject (i.e., being pulled over ---not arguing with the officer). There is never a good result from arguing in a hostile tone. The cop will find something to ticket you for.
Forcefully but respectfully making your case is another matter. As a matter of fact, that happened to me this morning - he claimed I "almost ran a stop sign" and also clocked me above the speed limit. I pointed out I made a full stop at the correct spot at the stop sign, and acknowledged I wasn't watching my speedometer so might have been over the limit and apologized for that. He let me go, ticket-free. What I'd like to know, but didn't argue with him about it, is how does one almost run a stop sign???

I will always give due respect to police officers.

I consider myself to be one of the good guys, but I do think certain things can happen that IMHO, that thwarts any authority they may have to a point.

This is an incident that happened to me on Monday morning. Police are police. They have certain obligations of office, but cops should never be able to harass citizens if they are having a bad day.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/851198-Abuse-of-authority

Has anyone here ever considered taking a ticket, just so you could argue the case (with lawyer) in front of a judge to make the point that police may be interpreting the law incorrectly?

I'm polite and cordial when I get pulled over. Also as helpful as I can be -- turn on dome lights, keep both hands on the wheel, no sudden moves. It has saved me from tickets, for sure.

Where I start getting a bit testy is when, in the course of being pulled over, I get the inevitable fishing expedition: where you going, where you coming from? Once, when the answers were "home" and "from work" the follow-up question "Why are you driving this route?" really got me worked up, but I just replied simply "because it's shorter." Or when I am asked for my papers before being appraised of the reason for the request.

Police start losing my respect in increments as they implement various techniques to get me to voluntarily give up rights outlined as inalienable in the Constitution they swore to uphold... On the pretext of being "polite," and with the big stick of due enforcement hanging out there if you don't play their game.

Yes, be polite and non-confrontational, but don't answer ANY questions - ever. Hand them your ID and no more. Ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. If you're being detained, you have a right to know why. Use your rights or lose them (as we mostly have in the USA). Don't forget, they're thugs and looking for an opportunity/excuse to behave like thugs - they're dangerous animals.

Anything you say to them WILL be used against you, guaranteed, no matter how innocent you are.

Has anyone here ever considered taking a ticket, just so you could argue the case (with lawyer) in front of a judge to make the point that police may be interpreting the law incorrectly?

Mr Reed Bates (Chip Seal) of Texas has a blog about some of his court appearances for multiple bicycle tickets. Interesting reading for anyone who intends to pursue such cases in court without a lawyer. http://chipsea.blogspot.com/

Mr Reed Bates (Chip Seal) of Texas has a blog about some of his court appearances for multiple bicycle tickets. Interesting reading for anyone who intends to pursue such cases in court without a lawyer. http://chipsea.blogspot.com/

Very familiar with the Chip Seal situation... his biggest problem was not retaining legal representation... I understand he had limited means at that point, but defending one's self is often a fool's game. Few of us non legal types fully comprehend all the trappings of the modern courtroom.

I was surfing YouTube and found a fair number of videos of cyclists and motorists who taped their arguments with law enforcement officers over traffic violations or similar matters. This tactic never works and usually results in the officer citing you for every infraction and count he/she can think of. I agree with you that arguing with the police rarely works (sometimes a gentle disagreement can, but once it gets to the point of an argument you've already lost -- time to either lick your wounds and just pay the fine or fight it in court, where you might lose again even if you're in the right.)

This shouldn't be news to anybody -- it should be on of the first things anybody teaches their children once they hit teenage years or so, and certainly by the time they reach driving age.

However, I should point out that what you find on youtube isn't really representative of what really happens. People only post their extreme interactions with the police on youtube -- anything that goes well isn't likely to be very interesting, so it doesn't get posted. So don't base anything on what you see on youtube -- think of youtube as a place to see what happens when things go wrong, not how often things go wrong.

Several years ago, I was stopped by LEO, because he thought I was drunk. I found out the reason he thought I was drunk, was because, I was weaving from having poorly taken a turn. So, While I wasn't weaving intentionally, I told the officer that I could definitely see why he thought I was drunk.

Perhaps arguing was too vague a term. Explaining yourself or your actions in a civil and polite manner may indeed help your situation. What I meant by "arguing" was to become hostile and confrontational.


what you find on youtube isn't really representative of what really happens. People only post their extreme interactions with the police on youtube


think of youtube as a place to see what happens when things go wrong

Agreed.

Yes, be polite and non-confrontational, but don't answer ANY questions - ever. Hand them your ID and no more. Ask if you're being detained or if you're free to go. If you're being detained, you have a right to know why. Use your rights or lose them (as we mostly have in the USA). Don't forget, they're thugs and looking for an opportunity/excuse to behave like thugs - they're dangerous animals.

Anything you say to them WILL be used against you, guaranteed, no matter how innocent you are.

Bull. Some are most are not. But if has you opinions and attitides you will quickly find they cut you no slack.

I've walked on 2 obvious speeding tickets by answering their questions and had one other speeding ticket drastically reduced. And perhaps responding decently to the officers opening line:

"Sir, do you know how long it took me to catch you?"

I don't know the max he clocked me at, I know I was at 105 and got written up for 65.

Both the speeding ones I walked on were over 80 and I thnik the first of them was back in hte days of a 55 MPH limit. It does help to respond "No, Sir" when the officer asks if you have $40 you just want to throw away.

If you're in Fort Worth, don't bother arguing with a cop who rides in a car marked "T" on the C-pillar roof support. If it is N, S, E, W, or C, you might talk them out of a ticket, because they are just beat cops in the North, South, East, West, or Central areas. But T cops are on Traffic detail. Their sole purpose is to give out traffic tickets. The Traffic Division cops are, according to a cop from the South Division, the people whose mommas didn't love them.

I agree with all sentiments about respecting authority.

This guy pulled me over, misrepresented himself by calling himself a federal officer, un-uniformed, unmarked vehicle (champagne colored Cadillac SUV)

I did exactly what he asked of me. I gave him my license, and proof of insurance. He ordered me out of the car, and I went...I listened to him gripe ad nauseum about his chipped windshield.

It was only when he decided that he didn't have to prove to me that he was who he said he was, that I lost my patience. When he did that I told him exactly what he could kiss, and went back to my vehicle and called 911.

The local cops didn't support his BS, and my insurance company said they won't either.

I would be really surprised if I hear anymore about that.

I noticed when the local cops showed up, and after they spoke with me, they went back to him. I don't know what was being said, but the local cop was pointing his finger at him in what appeared to be a heated discussion. He came back to my vehicle and said I had done nothing wrong and was free to go.

Mr Reed Bates (Chip Seal) of Texas has a blog about some of his court appearances for multiple bicycle tickets. Interesting reading for anyone who intends to pursue such cases in court without a lawyer. http://chipsea.blogspot.com/

Very familiar with the Chip Seal situation... his biggest problem was not retaining legal representation... I understand he had limited means at that point, but defending one's self is often a fool's game. Few of us non legal types fully comprehend all the trappings of the modern courtroom.

I looked at his blog and noticed something. He mentioned about the differing laws. Like the example Chip Seal cited in his blog, the situation state/county/cities is this:

1. The state says no riding on the sidewalk. But they give the counties the choice to agree/disagree.

2. My county says riding on the sidewalk is allowed, but gives the individual cities the choice to agree/disagree.

3. The city that surrounds the town I live in, has since 1957, banned riding on the sidewalk. The neighboring cities do allow riding on the sidewalk.

I ride on the road, and 'take the lane', all the time. As a way to avoid all the confusion of the differing jurisdictional laws/ordinances.

I ride on the road, and 'take the lane', all the time. As a way to avoid all the confusion of the differing jurisdictional laws/ordinances.

I think the word has gotten out here in Georgia enough that *most* people know that a bike on the road is just like a car. The 3 foot law is still fairly new, but many people seem to know it's law. I don't really know how though.

I take the lane when I need to. I'll tell you though, there are a lot of idiots on the road who will run you over. Not intentionally mind you, but I see it all the time. People who are talking on the phone, texting or just simply not paying attention.

I asked a cop about a particular intersection that people always turn in a straight lane. I asked if it would be better If I just went to the outside of that lane. The officer said I would be ticketed for an improper lane change. Same with proceeding through a red light at an intersection after a stop. It's still a red light. The law says that you can't pass the white stripe on red. Ever. Weird law.

I think the word has gotten out here in Georgia enough that *most* people know that a bike on the road is just like a car. The 3 foot law is still fairly new, but many people seem to know it's law. I don't really know how though.

At least they do know. Who cares how they know. Unless they know about it, and don't care.


I take the lane when I need to. I'll tell you though, there are a lot of idiots on the road who will run you over. Not intentionally mind you, but I see it all the time. People who are talking on the phone, texting or just simply not paying attention.

Yes, I know there are idiots on the road. I am looking for them all the time. To me, every motorist is an idiot, until they show otherwise.


I asked a cop about a particular intersection that people always turn in a straight lane. I asked if it would be better If I just went to the outside of that lane. The officer said I would be ticketed for an improper lane change. Same with proceeding through a red light at an intersection after a stop. It's still a red light. The law says that you can't pass the white stripe on red. Ever. Weird law.

Can you explain this in more detail. I tried to visualize it. But I keep getting confused about what you are referring to. Do you mean the white line, where you are supposed to stop, when the light is red?

Perhaps arguing was too vague a term. Explaining yourself or your actions in a civil and polite manner may indeed help your situation. What I meant by "arguing" was to become hostile and confrontational.

That would be a sure ticket to jail, with no 'Get Out Of Jail Free' card.

Can you explain this in more detail. I tried to visualize it. But I keep getting confused about what you are referring to. Do you mean the white line, where you are supposed to stop, when the light is red?

I was in part, referring to this thread..http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/841076-Hey-Wait-I-gotta-new-complaint

Anyway, about a week ago there was a city cop sitting outside the shop one morning as I was pulling in on my bike. (they like to hide near the building and catch speeders as they fly down the road..) So we said the complimentary good mornings and he asked if I was the guy he'd passed earlier. (I was..)

So while I had his ear, I asked him if I could get his advice..we started talking about that darn intersection. He agreed with me and told me they ticket people there for two reasons. 1 that the arrow points directly forward. 2 there are no guide lines like there are on the other side of the intersection (in photo)

He said that a bike on the road would be treated exactly like a car would, and probably more so because a cyclist has more to loose by not obeying the law. He also said that if someone were hit on a bicycle, they would technically be void of the 3 foot law because they were not following the rules of the road.

He did agree with me that the intersection isn't very well planned.

So we started talking about another intersection I have mentioned before in this forum. I can trigger the light by standing over the pad, but the darnedest thing...the green light will signal for the opposite side of the intersection, but not for me. And I'm the only person around for miles at that time of the morning.

He told me that technically ( this officer was into the "technicality" of enforcement...) A cyclist can't pass the white line at a red light (before the intersection, many intersections here are that way, although I don't exactly agree with his interpretation..)

So while I'm explaining my point to him, he asks me " why don't you just take the right at the intersection, you merge into traffic there. At that time of morning you probably wouldn't even have to stop."

I told him this was simply not possible. It would take about 2.5 miles off of my commute.

He looked a bit dazed by that revelation, and said something to the effect of "I don't make laws just enforce them." Approach.

... If you're being detained, you have a right to know why. ....

Perhaps in CA but not in WA. This is most likely dependent on each state's case law.

I was in part, referring to this thread..http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php/841076-Hey-Wait-I-gotta-new-complaint

... He told me that technically ( this officer was into the "technicality" of enforcement...) ....

The law is very technical and the police are not allowed in any state to make up laws. Rather, they are required to interpret the statutory law and case law already in place. If that officer was into the "technicality of enforcement" I would interpret that to mean the officer was trying to enforce the law appropriately and not make $h!t up. Sounds like a good cop to me.

I tend to find that the police are people (shock horror) and they are just doing their job. I try to be polite and if i disagree i talk to them and keep it civil. This tends to apply to more than just police officers .

I have been checked for drunk riding before , i thought it was funny. It happened after a very long ride (for me) and i was just recovering from a cold so it was not a good ride and i had a little trouble hold a perfectly straight line :( .

HE checked me , did a once over on the bike and then asked if i was ok to make it home or did i want him to call a family member to come get me .

I can't imagine having an argument with a cop who pulls me over. Either he is right and I have earned a ticket, or he is wrong and I now have a chance to discuss this with him if I remain calm and civil.

I really appreciate cops who have the courage to do traffic stops. IIRC, this is the most dangerous job in law enforcement and it is my opinion that cycling would be even more dangerous if cops did less traffic enforcement, so I want to encourage them to do more of these stops, not make it unpleasant for them.

I was pulled over a decade ago. I was driving a beat-up old pick-up in a rural community known for its drug culture. The trooper who pulled me over admitted that he only did so because of the vehicle and location. I thanked him for his efforts and we parted with smiles.

By the way, to make life easier on all involved, don't reach down for anything without telling the cop what you are doing first. Just keep your hands in plain sight and move slowly. The cop who pulled you over doesn't know who you are, but he does remember the last funeral for a co-worker he went to.

here's one legal way to avoid paying a traffic ticket fine and having your case dismissed altogether.

show up at your arraignment and plead not guilty in front of the judge. the judge will set a date for you to go to trial. show up at your trial. the officer who gave you the ticket is supposed to show up at the trial. but usually he will not. sometimes he does, but in my experience in California at least the officer does not show up because he is busy with more important things. wait until the judge calls your name and the officers name. approach the bench when he calls your name. if the officer doesn't appear when called then the judge should dismiss your case and tell you that you are free to go. if the officer does appear, oh well, just make sure you are ready to plead your case. even if you lose you can ask the judge to reduce the fine or penalty (he may or may not depending on how well you argue your case).

but if the officer doesn't appear ask the judge to dismiss your case. usually he or she will. and usually you wont even have to ask the judge will dismiss it automatically so you won't have to pay anything and it doesn't go on your record. use this method at your own descretion. you can check by calling ahead if the court in your area will dismiss if your officer doesnt show up.

The law is very technical and the police are not allowed in any state to make up laws. Rather, they are required to interpret the statutory law and case law already in place. If that officer was into the "technicality of enforcement" I would interpret that to mean the officer was trying to enforce the law appropriately and not make $h!t up. Sounds like a good cop to me.

Oh no doubt, he was a pretty cool guy. And I do understand what he was saying. What I was trying to point out that if I come to an intersection and I trip the lights, but they don't turn green on my side, but the other... And I'm safely stopped and I'm sure that it's safe to proceed...I thought I could. Apparently, I was incorrect. (I still do it, and I really doubt any cop who would see me would actually ticket me...)

His point to me was "technically" it's against the law. But so is speeding, texting while driving, and using a straight lane to turn. He used the word "technically" as to imply that there is a law, but it's probably not enforced the way it's written.

As far as the laws being "technical" I would say it's more like ambiguous. Like speeding up to make it before the light turns green, or making a left turn on red because you pulled into the intersection before the light turned red, or even how many miles over the speed limit a cop will allow before they ticket you. Most of this is left to the officers discretion, and whether they feel like doing the paperwork.

IMHO, good cops are the one's who can make this distinction based on their experiences. Rookie cops may be more inclined to ticket everyone for everything due to lack of experience, and the desire to show the bosses that they are out there enforcing laws.

I'm a far left socialist liberal who has nothing good to say about our current state of policing and our incredible rate of incarceration. I think we have come well into a police state. Having said that, I like to think the best of people and am unfailingly friendly with everyone, including police. In the last ten years I've probably been pulled over 5 times or so and never gotten a ticket simply because I am deferential and friendly. I don't like police tactics and think they, as a group, are abusive and out of control but I don't let that belief turn into prejudice against any single officer. For me that's a good general rule to live by in nearly every situation where one has a belief system about groups of people.

OP, correct, the officer that ticketed me this week (in my car in NYC) said: "well, my job is enforcement, so I am issuing you a summons"

The following applies to the USA:

I would say it's almost impossible to "argue" your way out of a ticket. Cops are generally not too keen on someone who is argumentative with them. You may be able to get out of it by politely offering relevant info that the cop may not be aware of, but there are a lot of other factors at play too.

For example, my state has been under a severe budget crisis for a while now. I'm telling you it's not my imagination that I've seen a lot more cops on the roads giving out a lot more tickets since the state became desperate for revenue. Make no mistake, if they pull you over here, they intend to cite you. This will vary depending on what state/jurisdiction you are in. It also matters what branch of law enforcement you are dealing with. In my experience, you may get off with a warning from a county sheriff. But if you get pulled over by the Highway Patrol, forget it. They are out there to write tickets.

In any scenario, it's best to be calm and polite and say as little as possible. Remember, the 5th amendment guarantees you cannot be compelled to be a witness against yourself (i.e. the right to remain silent), and when they pull you over and start asking a lot of questions, they are essentially interrogating you and trying to get you to admit guilt. Any admission you make, they will write down in their notes in case you try and contest the charges.

That is really your best chance, by the way. A judge is generally more willing to listen to your protestations than a cop is, especially if you are respectful and you take some time to research and prepare your argument, concentrating primarily on the law rather than excuses.

I've contested tickets in court 3 times. I won two and lost one. I'd say say my odds are much better arguing my case in front of a judge than a cop. By the way, each time I showed up in court, I saw several other cases get dismissed because the issuing officer did not show up. I wouldn't bank on it, but it does happen. Keep in mind, if you are angry and combative with the issuing officer, s/he will probably remember you and make it a point to show up in court.

The only thing you should ever say to police is "i dont consent to any seaches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present".

After being pulled over twice in 4 days for "taking the lane" or "Impeding traffic" I was told this weekend that the City cops were instructed to crack down on cyclists recently, focusing on running red lights, not signaling, etc. Too bad for them, I wasnt doing anything illegal so they had to let me off after arguing my case, stating both law and code number location of that law.

The only thing you should ever say to police is "i dont consent to any seaches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present".
How many times have you followed your own advice when stopped for a traffic citation? How did it work out?

OFFICER: "Do you know why I stopped you today?"


The only thing you should ever say to police is "i dont consent to any seaches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present".

Good way to sit by the road for an hour while the officer runs your record in the three surrounding states and waiting for your $180/hr attorney to arrive so the officer can ask your name, address and phone number before issuing a $50 ticket.


I wasnt doing anything illegal so they had to let me off after arguing my case, stating both law and code number location of that law.

Good approach, knowledge of the law and then following it is a great way to stay out of trouble.



Believe it or not, it is possible to be civil and cooperative while at the same time exercising your rights.

Well put, digibud.

Police do not have the right to pull anyone over, if they are in an unmarked vehicle, not in uniform, and their reason for the stop is invalid.
Furthermore, it is their duty to dutifully identify themselves if they do. Not cover their shield because they know they lied about who they were.

They should not be able to say "I'm a federal officer" if they are in fact are not.

If anyone on this forum who are not police officers, claim to someone that we are after they stopped someone....they would go to jail and be charged with impersonating an officer, wrongful detention and a violation of civil rights...unlawful search and seizure.. Right?

Actually an off-duty police officer can make an arrest or detain someone until on-duty officers arrive. While all officers need probable cause to make a stop, they have wide latitude in making that decision and all they need is a rolling stop, failure to signal a turn or lane change, or the ever popular "weaving" to stop and check you out.

I have never known an actual officer to fail to identify him/herself and most of them carry their shield pretty much all the time. I have never heard of an officer covering his/her sheild and they are required to give you their name, department, and badge number upon request any time they interact with you. If you receive a citation, that information will be there in writing. I'm sure like any other profession law enforcement has its bad eggs, but for the most part law enforcement officers are professional in the way the conduct themselves.


They should not be able to say "I'm a federal officer" if they are in fact are not.

If anyone on this forum who are not police officers, claim to someone that we are after they stopped someone....they would go to jail and be charged with impersonating an officer, wrongful detention and a violation of civil rights...unlawful search and seizure.. Right?

Impersonating an officer is illegal and a great way to tork off the real cops. If someone is covering his/her shield, chances are they are a security guard or other non-law enforcement posing as an actual officer. The only time I ran into a problem like this was when I lived in the Twin Cities over a decade ago and a guy in plain clothes quickly flashed a badge during a verbal dispute among several people. Turned out he was actually a security guard for a company that provided night watchmen for manufacturing plants in the area. He was trying to intimidate the former boyfriend of the woman he was with. Didn't work so good when he got called on the bluff.

Police do not have the right to pull anyone over, if they are in an unmarked vehicle, not in uniform, and their reason for the stop is invalid.
Furthermore, it is their duty to dutifully identify themselves if they do. Not cover their shield because they know they lied about who they were.

They should not be able to say "I'm a federal officer" if they are in fact are not.

If anyone on this forum who are not police officers, claim to someone that we are after they stopped someone....they would go to jail and be charged with impersonating an officer, wrongful detention and a violation of civil rights...unlawful search and seizure.. Right?

1- In WA, police can stop anyone for a violation whether on or off duty. However, it would be silly to do it off duty unless it was for a serious offense. Off duty cops make better witnesses that cops.

2- No cop, in any jurisdiction, can make up laws. So yes, they must have a valid reason for any stop. The place to argue that reason, however, is in court, not on the street.

3- If someone impersonantes an officer, I imagine any civil rights claims (violation of search and seizure) by the seized person wouldn't hold water. Just like you can't sue your neighbor for unreasonably seizing you when they trap you in a conversation you wish had ended long ago.

I was not ticketed. As a matter of fact, his story didn't wash to the local cops.

He was a real cop though, just not a federal officer as he implied. I think this is why I was politely told I hadn't done anything wrong and was free to go.

I know that a cop can use his office to protect and defend. I don't question that. Not to harass and offend...because he got a chip in his windshield.

This guy was so far outside procedure he had to be embarrassed about the whole thing. My insurance people said it was too bad. If he were to try to claim it, they would most definitely contest it.

My agent said they doubted that anything would ever come of it though. He said could you imagine him telling this story to his commander? No matter how he dressed up the story, it still makes one wonder why he felt he had to take it so far.

I can't imagine having an argument with a cop who pulls me over. Either he is right and I have earned a ticket, or he is wrong and I now have a chance to discuss this with him if I remain calm and civil.

I really appreciate cops who have the courage to do traffic stops. IIRC, this is the most dangerous job in law enforcement and it is my opinion that cycling would be even more dangerous if cops did less traffic enforcement, so I want to encourage them to do more of these stops, not make it unpleasant for them.

I was pulled over a decade ago. I was driving a beat-up old pick-up in a rural community known for its drug culture. The trooper who pulled me over admitted that he only did so because of the vehicle and location. I thanked him for his efforts and we parted with smiles.

By the way, to make life easier on all involved, don't reach down for anything without telling the cop what you are doing first. Just keep your hands in plain sight and move slowly. The cop who pulled you over doesn't know who you are, but he does remember the last funeral for a co-worker he went to. Cops around here NEVER let you off for speeding in a school zone when they have radar set up. But one DID let me off. With considerable frustration in my voice I told him the truth, that I had had a brain fart about it being a school zone, "and I even saw him sitting there with the radar gun." He recognized the truth and sent me on my way.

Don in Austin

I lived in Austin in the 70s. The school zones were enforced with zero tolerance back then as well.

I thought most states now had mandatory zero deductible glass coverage now.

Good way to sit by the road for an hour while the officer runs your record in the three surrounding states and waiting for your $180/hr attorney to arrive so the officer can ask your name, address and phone number before issuing a $50 ticket.




Officers run you for warrants (10-29) and current DL and registration anytime you are pulled over regardless of what you do.

Although asserting your rights sometimes subjects you to greater police intrusion and detention, its far more important to me that the police state be kept in check and at bay.

I speak when I feel its in my best interests and I remain silent when I feel its in my best interests.

I will not "cooperate" with police simply to "make things easier".

Things are changing in America though. Police are being forced to honor and uphold citizens constitutional rights more now than in recent times. As a citizen, you are more than willing to forfeit your rights and surrender them to the government while interacting with them if it makes you feel like you'll get a better deal from them. However, as a citizen I also have the right to assert my constitutional protections against police.

For me personally my approach has worked out very well. Of course, I am a videographer and almost always have my cameras and audio rolling. When police become aware of them they magically treated me much better and respect my right to remain silent and refuse searches.

I have no traffic citations in 17 years and I have never been convicted of a crime.

I speak when I feel its in my best interests and I remain silent when I feel its in my best interests.



That is not the same as recommending "The only thing you should ever say to police is i dont consent to any searches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present ".

I don't believe you for a second that you remain silent and uncooperative except for spouting off like that first thing, unless you are an ignorant fool with no concern for your "best interests."

I'm glad that due to my dull boring lifestyle, I couldn't care any less about my vehicles or house being searched and could answer any question asked without worry. I don't need to be concerned about LE activities concerning me. That's easy to handle.

That is not the same as stating off the bat to an LEO that, ""i dont consent to any searches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present". I don't believe you for a second that you remain silent and uncooperative except for spouting off like that first thing, unless you are an ignorant fool with no concern for your "best interests."

I have done it many times.

Most often its at DUI checkpoints, while riding my bike or when out filming.

Angio,

As much as I am not a fan of your approach, I have to agree with you about sobriety check points. I don't want drunk drivers on the road (I'm a paramedic and have seen the results way too many times) but I don't like the end run around probable cause. Proponents argue that a certain percentage of those stopped will be legally intoxicated so it is reasonable to inconvenience the rest of the law abiding drivers. My response is, how is that any different than random pat downs of people at the mall because a certain percentage will be shoplifters, or random searches of houses because some will contain meth labs?

Of course you have to look at the flip side. By the same logic should I be against checkpoints electronic or physical searches of persons and luggage for persons boarding airplanes? The big difference there, of course is that airplanes are private property of the airlines, not a public street or my own personal residence. Then you could ask the same question of checkpoints with x-ray or metal scanners and required ID to enter schools, courthouses, or other public buildings. The balance between individual liberties and societal safeguards is a b1tch.

Still the argument should be among legislators or in the courts. Once the law is in place, it is an officers duty to enforce it within the discretion alotted to him.


I will not "cooperate" with police simply to "make things easier".

I reiterate, you can be civil and cooperative while at the same time exercising your rights. Instead of immediately taking a buffalo stance with "I don't consent to any searches of my persons or property and I will not answer any further questions without my attorney present". You might want to try "Hello officer. Why did you pull me over?".


Officers run you for warrants (10-29) and current DL and registration anytime you are pulled over regardless of what you do.

True, but that can take 3 minutes or 20 depending on your attitude. You also mentioned not answering questions without your attorney. If the officer has probable cause to pull you over, say for a tail light out or minor speeding violation, and you make that statement without producing your ID, registration, and proof of insurance, he can hold you at the scene until your attorney arrives. As much as I don't like the concept of sobriety checkpoints they are currently the law. If you think the law is unconstitutional you can refuse to comply and have your day in court. Many important changes have happened in this country (USA) thanks to civil disobedience movements.

I have done it many times.

Most often its at DUI checkpoints, while riding my bike or when out filming.
When driving an automobile is the question. Do you pull your mum is the word stunt when pulled over in an automobile by an LEO? You must be a real doozy to be pulled over "many times" while riding a bicycle at DUI checkpoints or any other non driving activity.

When driving an automobile is the question. Do you pull your mum is the word stunt when pulled over in an automobile by an LEO? You must be a real doozy to be pulled over "many times" while riding a bicycle at DUI checkpoints or any other non driving activity.

You seem to have a hostile attitude towards people who believe in and assert constitutional rights.

"mum is the word" isnt a stunt. Its a very important tenet of protection against unreansonable government intrusion into the private and personal lives of citizens.

4th Amendment :

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

5th Amendment :

nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


I have never been pulled over while riding a bicycle at a DUI checkpoint. Please read my post more carefully.

I have never been pulled over while riding a bicycle at a DUI checkpoint. Please read my post more carefully.
Maybe you should clarify:

Have you ever been pulled over by an LEO while you were driving driving a vehicle? Why?

Did you assert (as you recommend for everybody else) your constitutional rights and only say to the police "i dont consent to any seaches of my persons or property and i will not answer any further questions without my attorney present"? What happened next?

I may have a hostile attitude towards bogus legal advice from a hot shot would-be Clarance Darrow.