Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Advocacy & Safety
Reload this Page >

When ignorant cops think they know the law

Notices
Advocacy & Safety Cyclists should expect and demand safe accommodation on every public road, just as do all other users. Discuss your bicycle advocacy and safety concerns here.

When ignorant cops think they know the law

Old 09-25-19, 08:23 AM
  #26  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,431

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,171 Times in 787 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
The fact that the cop did not do that, reinforces my belief..
Nothing is likely to change your belief in the character of cops who have any interaction with bicyclists. Your search for specific type of YouTube videos on this topic to post on BF are only meant to reinforce your unshakeable "beliefs" on police-bicyclist relationships.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 09-25-19, 10:23 AM
  #27  
Paul Barnard
For The Fun of It
 
Paul Barnard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Louisissippi Coast
Posts: 5,535

Bikes: Lynskey GR300, Lynskey Backroad, Litespeed T6, Lynskey MT29, Burley Duet

Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1924 Post(s)
Liked 1,342 Times in 684 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
If the cop was such a nice guy, why didn't the cop tell the cyclist that he looked up the law and that the cyclist was in fact correct. That would have diffused the confrontation and then allowed the cop to make a better point of how hard it was for the cop to see the cyclist with just the reflector.

The fact that the cop did not do that, reinforces my belief that the cop simply believes cyclist at night are more often low lives and that the cop thought he might have an easy warrant arrest with the cyclist.

Note that the cop was in more of a hurry to run the ID for warrants before he looked up the light/reflector law.


Are you certain that the cop found what he was looking for in the short time he thumbed through his phone?

He could have run the info first so that he could wait for the results while he was looking up the law. That's more respectful of the subject's time.
Paul Barnard is offline  
Likes For Paul Barnard:
Old 09-25-19, 08:02 PM
  #28  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by I-Like-To-Bike View Post
Nothing is likely to change your belief in the character of cops who have any interaction with bicyclists. Your search for specific type of YouTube videos on this topic to post on BF are only meant to reinforce your unshakeable "beliefs" on police-bicyclist relationships.
Your accusations are false.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 10:38 AM
  #29  
sheddle
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,438

Bikes: my precious steel boys

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 438 Post(s)
Liked 600 Times in 358 Posts
The cyclist was acting dumb but I support his mission to disrespect police officers.

(that said, everyone knows you don't talk to cops)
sheddle is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 12:16 PM
  #30  
Miele Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,653

Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1322 Post(s)
Liked 917 Times in 633 Posts
What would people be saying if the officer had noticed the reflector was NOT visible from behind, never said anything, and then the bicyclist was struck from behind? Would people be on the officer's case because he had not stopped the bicyclist?

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 01:42 PM
  #31  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by Miele Man View Post
What would people be saying if the officer had noticed the reflector was NOT visible from behind, never said anything, and then the bicyclist was struck from behind? Would people be on the officer's case because he had not stopped the bicyclist?

Cheers
Then that would be between the cyclist and the motorist who hit him as to who was at fault.

Should the cop go around stopping pedestrians at night, claiming they are breaking the law by not having a flashing light to make them safer? Or is it just OK to do that to a cyclist?
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-26-19, 01:54 PM
  #32  
Miele Man
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,653

Bikes: iele Latina, Miele Suprema, Miele Uno LS, Miele Miele Beta, MMTB, Bianchi Model Unknown, Fiori Venezia, Fiori Napoli, VeloSport Adamas AX

Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1322 Post(s)
Liked 917 Times in 633 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Then that would be between the cyclist and the motorist who hit him as to who was at fault.

Should the cop go around stopping pedestrians at night, claiming they are breaking the law by not having a flashing light to make them safer? Or is it just OK to do that to a cyclist?
I don't know of ANY jurisdictions in either Canada or the United States where a pedestrian is required by LAW to have either a red reflector or a red light (visible from a certain distance) on them. Can you show me one? Otherwise you've set up a Strawman argument.

I DO wish that more officers would stop AND ticket the bicyclists in Ontario (Canada) who persist in riding at night with neither reflectors or lights AS REQUIRED BY LAW! I've nearly hit a number of them over the years often missing them by mere inches or a foot or so as they suddenly appeared in front of my either from dropping off a sidewalk or coming out of a side street or driveway without slowing or it appears even looking for traffic. Far too many times those no lights no reflector bicyclists are wearing dark coloured clothing and riding a dark cololured bicycle and that makes them darn near invisible and a hazard to other road users.

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Likes For Miele Man:
Old 09-27-19, 08:14 AM
  #33  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,344

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked 558 Times in 379 Posts
Dark clothing is cool. Just look at all the black cycling jerseys there are at bike stores.

And just try to lobby the government to have the fashion industry apply reflector strips on all their designer jackets, coats and shoes.
Daniel4 is online now  
Old 09-27-19, 09:15 PM
  #34  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by Miele Man View Post
I don't know of ANY jurisdictions in either Canada or the United States where a pedestrian is required by LAW to have either a red reflector or a red light (visible from a certain distance) on them. Can you show me one? Otherwise you've set up a Strawman argument.

I DO wish that more officers would stop AND ticket the bicyclists in Ontario (Canada) who persist in riding at night with neither reflectors or lights AS REQUIRED BY LAW! I've nearly hit a number of them over the years often missing them by mere inches or a foot or so as they suddenly appeared in front of my either from dropping off a sidewalk or coming out of a side street or driveway without slowing or it appears even looking for traffic. Far too many times those no lights no reflector bicyclists are wearing dark coloured clothing and riding a dark cololured bicycle and that makes them darn near invisible and a hazard to other road users.

Cheers
How did you miss the point that a cop stopping a pedestrian for a law that does not exist is just like this cop stopping the cyclist for a rear light law that does not exist?
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-28-19, 04:35 AM
  #35  
genec
genec
 
genec's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: West Coast
Posts: 27,075

Bikes: custom built, sannino, beachbike, giant trance x2

Mentioned: 85 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13425 Post(s)
Liked 4,389 Times in 3,055 Posts
Jackass that will become a Darwin statistic soon enough. Cop will be able to identify the body. Sheesh.
genec is offline  
Old 09-28-19, 04:55 AM
  #36  
Ross520
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by Milton Keynes View Post
The cyclist is indeed correct in that no rear light is required, and the cop is wrong. However, for safety's sake, it's an incredibly smart idea to run rear red lights at night, along with reflectors. And with this guy's rear rack, I can see how the reflector is being obscured. He really should put a light on the rear of that bike.

I don't think his rights were being violated, it was a valid stop if the cop was having a hard time seeing the cyclist. But yes, it could have been a pretense for a warrant check, since most cops check everyone they deal with for warrants just as a matter of procedure. Source: My 15 years as a police dispatcher.

So all in all, this is much ado about nothing. Maybe the cop didn't know the law (and should look it up if he's not sure) but he apparently just wanted to warn the guy that he's not very visible to motorists and send him on his way.
"Illinois 725 Ill. Comp. Stat.
5/10714
Sec. 107-14. Temporary questioning without
arrest.
(a) A peace officer, after having identified himself
as a peace officer, may stop any person in a public
place for a reasonable period of time when the
officer reasonably infers from the circumstances
that the person is committing, is about to commit
or has committed an offense as defined in Section
102-15 of this Code, and may demand the name
and address of the person and an explanation of his

actions. Such detention and temporary questioning
will be conducted in the vicinity of where the
person was stopped."


And just what is considered an" offense" under Illinois state law?


"Current through P.A. 101-0591 (2019-2020)
Section 725 ILCS 5/102-15 - "Offense"

"Offense" means a violation of any penal statute of this State. 725 ILCS 5/102-15
P.A. 76-1796."


So, unless the officer suspected him of committing a crime, as opposed to a civil violation, he had absolutely no right to demand identification. Help me understand what could possibly lead you to believe that his rights were not violated? Also, being a police dispatcher is not the same as being an attorney... At all.

Last edited by Ross520; 09-28-19 at 04:59 AM.
Ross520 is offline  
Old 09-28-19, 07:30 AM
  #37  
bakerjw
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: NE Tennessee
Posts: 917

Bikes: Giant TCR/Surly Karate Monkey/Foundry FireTower/Curtlo Tandem

Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 169 Post(s)
Liked 83 Times in 61 Posts
There was a feminine cleaning product on one of the firearm forums that I moderate who would go out in public and do things within the the content of laws just trying to get pulled over by cops. He knew the laws and would then file suit against the jurisdiction that his "rights" had been violated. He even threatened to kill me when I called him a attention seeking cheap call girl.

I agree that depending on how laws are written, you may not be not required to provide identification if you are not driving a vehicle. If you are going to take that angle whenever you get stopped, then you had better know the law and be able to quote it or have the pertinent state code reference at hand. As for rights being violated? Maybe with the right lawyer.

In the OP video, I saw a reflector. Was it positioned well enough to be seen from behind? There is not enough evidence IMHO to support that assertion one way or the other. I've ridden with people with blinky lights on their helmets and jerseys that are so poorly adjusted only an aircraft might ever notice. From the riders perspective, they have a light but the reality is it is ineffective.

The take aways are that if you have questionably operating equipment, you are likely to get pulled over at some point in time.
If you do, know the law and be able to cite it.
bakerjw is offline  
Likes For bakerjw:
Old 09-28-19, 08:49 AM
  #38  
KraneXL
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 240 Times in 185 Posts
Originally Posted by mr_bill View Post
Actual safety issue.

When you install a rear rack, take care that the rear reflector is not partially occluded by the rack, or by items carried on the rack.




-mr. bill
Totally not the issue. This is about unnecessary stops when no LAW has been broken.
Originally Posted by Milton Keynes View Post
The cyclist is indeed correct in that no rear light is required, and the cop is wrong. However, for safety's sake, it's an incredibly smart idea to run rear red lights at night, along with reflectors. And with this guy's rear rack, I can see how the reflector is being obscured. He really should put a light on the rear of that bike.

I don't think his rights were being violated, it was a valid stop if the cop was having a hard time seeing the cyclist. But yes, it could have been a pretense for a warrant check, since most cops check everyone they deal with for warrants just as a matter of procedure. Source: My 15 years as a police dispatcher.

So all in all, this is much ado about nothing. Maybe the cop didn't know the law (and should look it up if he's not sure) but he apparently just wanted to warn the guy that he's not very visible to motorists and send him on his way.

And yet he was stopped, detained and questioned? Not nothing after all.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 09-28-19, 10:54 PM
  #39  
CB HI
Cycle Year Round
Thread Starter
 
CB HI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Honolulu, HI
Posts: 13,644
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1316 Post(s)
Liked 92 Times in 59 Posts
Originally Posted by bakerjw View Post
...

The take aways are that if you have questionably operating equipment, you are likely to get pulled over at some point in time.
If you do, know the law and be able to cite it.
Or if you live in a jurisdiction that the cops do not know the laws or they make up their own laws, you are likely to get pulled over at some point in time.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 07:22 AM
  #40  
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 9,641

Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2373 Post(s)
Liked 2,658 Times in 1,621 Posts
Originally Posted by Rollfast View Post
It's You Tube.
It's a LE body cam video.
dedhed is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 07:36 AM
  #41  
Lemond1985
Sophomore Member
 
Lemond1985's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Posts: 2,690
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1627 Post(s)
Liked 1,053 Times in 628 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Totally not the issue. This is about unnecessary stops when no LAW has been broken.


And yet he was stopped, detained and questioned? Not nothing after all.
But what are his damages? 10 minutes of his valuable time spent chatting with a couple cops. That's gotta be worth upwards of $15-20 bucks.

The cops could have frisked him, had him sit on the curb, yelled at him to keep his hands out of his pockets, sobriety tested him with bright lights in the eyes and reciting the alphabet backwards. They could have made all kinds of outrageous false accusations against him ("how long have you been involved in illicit child sex trafficking?") and expected him to exonerate himself right then and there. I saw none of that, just a routine stop. Maybe the patrol cop was under orders to check unusual-looking people in the area, maybe a crime had just occurred nearby with a suspect on a bike, maybe the cop thought he recognized the guy from a previous encounter, we will probably never know the exact reason for the stop, but it was probably NOT the light.

Other than the guy's pride being a bit bruised for being detained a few minutes, I see no harm and no foul. Cops question innocent people all the time, it's part of the job.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Likes For Lemond1985:
Old 09-29-19, 07:38 AM
  #42  
dedhed
SE Wis
 
dedhed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 9,641

Bikes: '68 Raleigh Sprite, '02 Raleigh C500, '84 Raleigh Gran Prix, '91 Trek 400, 2013 Novara Randonee, 1990 Trek 970

Mentioned: 37 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2373 Post(s)
Liked 2,658 Times in 1,621 Posts
Originally Posted by livedarklions View Post
And if the guy really thought that he shouldn't give the cop the ID, he shouldn't have done it. There's no constitutional prohibition on the cop asking for it.
"In general" without "reasonable suspicion", you are not required in the US to provide ID, just name. But... you should then be prepared to wait as long as it takes for them to verify your information.
Driving a motor vehicle is a different ball game with a license required.

See "Stop & Identify" laws

See also "Terry Stop"
dedhed is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 09:57 AM
  #43  
Daniel4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,344

Bikes: Sekine 1979 ten speed racer

Mentioned: 15 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1408 Post(s)
Liked 558 Times in 379 Posts
This thread reminds me of carding. It's a big issue in Toronto especially in some neighbourhoods but not necessarily restricted to those neighbourhoods.
Daniel4 is online now  
Old 09-29-19, 10:00 AM
  #44  
KraneXL
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: La-la Land, CA
Posts: 3,623

Bikes: Cannondale Quick SL1 Bike - 2014

Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3405 Post(s)
Liked 240 Times in 185 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
But what are his damages? 10 minutes of his valuable time spent chatting with a couple cops. That's gotta be worth upwards of $15-20 bucks.

The cops could have frisked him, had him sit on the curb, yelled at him to keep his hands out of his pockets, sobriety tested him with bright lights in the eyes and reciting the alphabet backwards. They could have made all kinds of outrageous false accusations against him ("how long have you been involved in illicit child sex trafficking?") and expected him to exonerate himself right then and there. I saw none of that, just a routine stop. Maybe the patrol cop was under orders to check unusual-looking people in the area, maybe a crime had just occurred nearby with a suspect on a bike, maybe the cop thought he recognized the guy from a previous encounter, we will probably never know the exact reason for the stop, but it was probably NOT the light.
The cop said it was the light, so the light is what the discussion is based on. The rest of your suppositions sounds like the irrational logic typically used in a puerile attempt to win an argument is rubbing of on you.

Other than the guy's pride being a bit bruised for being detained a few minutes, I see no harm and no foul. Cops question innocent people all the time, it's part of the job.
Using your badge to detain someone and question them about their personal information is very harmful. Policing is not about stopping people randomly to question them for reasons to arrest them. That type of policing sets a terrible precedent. Particularly after he learned the stop was for no good reason.

This is about the rear light after the cop was informed that there was no violation of the law. At that point the questioning should have ended with an apology not a sidestep in the man's personal information.
Originally Posted by dedhed View Post
"In general" without "reasonable suspicion", you are not required in the US to provide ID, just name. But... you should then be prepared to wait as long as it takes for them to verify your information.
Driving a motor vehicle is a different ball game with a license required.

See "Stop & Identify" laws

See also "Terry Stop"
Policing by intimidation? I can wait a long time.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 10:47 AM
  #45  
SactoDoug
eMail Sold to Spammers
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 13 Posts
Law enforcement look for any pretext to stop a person that they see as suspicious. They don't have to be correct about the law to detain someone if they are doing so in "good faith". It is automatically assumed that they are acting with good faith unless it can be proven otherwise, such as if this officer had recently cited someone for missing a rear reflector at night then he obviously knew the law. They can detain you and then figure out what you did wrong while you are being detained as song as they saw something that they believed might have been against the law. They can even arrest and process someone into jail erroneously. In which case, the person sits in jail for a few hours until the DA sees the error and orders them released. Law enforcement perform traffic stops this for many reasons including looking for warrants, probation violations, other violations (dui, weapons, contraband, etc.), encouraging road safety, and frankly, revenue generation. The best thing to do is exercise your rights and remain silent. Let the process work its way through and if your rights were violated, you can take that up with your lawyer and sue for damages.

Most states require you to identify yourself if asked by law enforcement. That does not mean you are required to carry identification. As far as I know, there are no states that require anyone to carry identification cards. Licenses while doing the licensed act is a different matter. For identification you can state your name, date of birth and address. Check with your local laws.

IMO, in this video, I don't see anything the officer did that is illegal. As I stated at the beginning of my post, it is legal for an officer to detain someone erroneously. If the officer pulls the cyclist over again or repeatedly for the same thing, knowing that the cyclist is not breaking the law, then the cyclist will have a civil rights violation case.
SactoDoug is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 10:52 AM
  #46  
Clyde1820
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: USA
Posts: 1,759

Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX 2x11

Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 562 Post(s)
Liked 470 Times in 357 Posts
Originally Posted by nomadmax View Post
I fully support that rider's right to ride at night without a tail light. Clearly, it will sort itself out in due time.
So do I. More or less.

Until doing so in roadways attempting to share the space with other vehicles, at which point that person's really just another vehicle and should (at least IMO) be subject to the same essential safety regulations that exist. Follow the right of way, be in the correct lane, have appropriate means of being seen, etc.


The ninny who jogged across the street in the dark, this morning, against the red light, in dark clothing, without any hint of reflection or lighting ... well, that person almost got creamed by me, all ~4000lbs of car+driver. Perfectly within his/her rights to be in the roadway without any concern for the ability to be seen.

Of course, that guy was right. He had every right to not be seen. But as the old saying goes: You can be right ... dead right.
Clyde1820 is offline  
Likes For Clyde1820:
Old 09-29-19, 11:11 AM
  #47  
I-Like-To-Bike
Been Around Awhile
 
I-Like-To-Bike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Burlington Iowa
Posts: 29,431

Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked 1,171 Times in 787 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Using your badge to detain someone and question them about their personal information is very harmful. Policing is not about stopping people randomly to question them for reasons to arrest them. That type of policing sets a terrible precedent. Particularly after he learned the stop was for no good reason.
Oh Puhleeze! No snowflakes were melted in the making of the video.

The cyclist/amateur legal beagle/videomaker got just what he wanted- attention and something "Harmful!" to post on YouTube in order to stir up the the emotional response of others of his ilk.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 09-29-19, 01:01 PM
  #48  
Ross520
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by SactoDoug View Post
Law enforcement look for any pretext to stop a person that they see as suspicious. They don't have to be correct about the law to detain someone if they are doing so in "good faith". It is automatically assumed that they are acting with good faith unless it can be proven otherwise, such as if this officer had recently cited someone for missing a rear reflector at night then he obviously knew the law. They can detain you and then figure out what you did wrong while you are being detained as song as they saw something that they believed might have been against the law. They can even arrest and process someone into jail erroneously. In which case, the person sits in jail for a few hours until the DA sees the error and orders them released. Law enforcement perform traffic stops this for many reasons including looking for warrants, probation violations, other violations (dui, weapons, contraband, etc.), encouraging road safety, and frankly, revenue generation. The best thing to do is exercise your rights and remain silent. Let the process work its way through and if your rights were violated, you can take that up with your lawyer and sue for damages.

Most states require you to identify yourself if asked by law enforcement. That does not mean you are required to carry identification. As far as I know, there are no states that require anyone to carry identification cards. Licenses while doing the licensed act is a different matter. For identification you can state your name, date of birth and address. Check with your local laws.

IMO, in this video, I don't see anything the officer did that is illegal. As I stated at the beginning of my post, it is legal for an officer to detain someone erroneously. If the officer pulls the cyclist over again or repeatedly for the same thing, knowing that the cyclist is not breaking the law, then the cyclist will have a civil rights violation case.
Regarding the first thing I bolded, no, unless you're being suspected of a misdemeanor or a felony, they have no right to detain you.

Also, most is a misnomer, 24 states are "stop and identify", making that law a minority, rather than a majority.

As for the second one, Illinois IS a "stop and identify" state. However, just like my first point, one must first be suspected of committing a crime (misdemeanor or felony). See my first post for most details.

It's worrisome that so many people are mistaken about what law enforcement may, and may not do when making contact with someone.

Last edited by Ross520; 09-29-19 at 01:09 PM.
Ross520 is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 01:19 PM
  #49  
SactoDoug
eMail Sold to Spammers
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 522
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 53 Post(s)
Liked 19 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by Ross520 View Post
Regarding the first thing I bolded, no, unless you're being suspected of a misdemeanor or a felony, they have no right to detain you.

Also, most is a misnomer, 24 states are "stop and identify", making that law a minority, rather than a majority.

As for the second one, Illinois IS a "stop and identify" state. However, just like my first point, one must first be suspected of committing a crime (misdemeanor or felony). See my first post for most details.

It's worrisome that so many people are mistaken about what law enforcement may, and may not do when making contact with someone.

What you are saying makes no sense. Infractions, such as speeding and not having correct lights on your bike, are the lowest level of crime and are below misdemeanor. If an officer cannot detain a person nor ask for ID for an infraction, how are they supposed to write a ticket?
SactoDoug is offline  
Likes For SactoDoug:
Old 09-29-19, 01:30 PM
  #50  
Ross520
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 316
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 174 Post(s)
Liked 177 Times in 99 Posts
Originally Posted by SactoDoug View Post
What you are saying makes no sense. Infractions, such as speeding and not having correct lights on your bike, are the lowest level of crime and are below misdemeanor. If an officer cannot detain a person nor ask for ID for an infraction, how are they supposed to write a ticket?
If the officer decides to write a ticket, he's accusing, not suspecting, someone of committing a violation.

I'll add that the rules are different when operating a motor vehicle. You're required to identify no matter what in that case.

Last edited by Ross520; 09-29-19 at 01:41 PM.
Ross520 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.