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 09-29-19, 01:44 PM
  #51  
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
If the officer decides to write a ticket, he's accusing, not suspecting, someone of committing a violation.

I don't see how that makes a practical difference. The officer in the OP was accusing the man in the video of violating the law. During every traffic stop, the officer observed a violation so they are all accusations.
SactoDoug is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 01:55 PM
  #52  
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 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.
Originally Posted by Ross520 View Post
If the officer decides to write a ticket, he's accusing, not suspecting, someone of committing a violation.
According to your novel interpretations of the law, an LEO cannot make any traffic stop at all (allegedly "detain" a person in the snowflake law book) unless the mandatory writing of a ticket (the "accusation") has already been determined necessary prior to any action being taken. No more warnings to the so-called "detainee" are permitted.

Under your rule of law, no more officer discretion or driver's excuses are allowed for a traffic stop, all suspicion or questions will have to be elevated to an "accusation"/ticket in order to legally stop/"detain" a motorist, cyclist or pedestrian, and only the court system can resolve the issue.

Last edited by I-Like-To-Bike; 09-29-19 at 01:58 PM.
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 04:31 PM
  #53  
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
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?
BUT, by LAW a bicycle is required to have a red rear reflector or a red rear light. A pedestrian is NOT required by LAW to have either. That's the difference in your argument.

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 06:37 PM
  #54  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 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.
Agreed. It's absolutely shameful that an officer would be concerned for the safety of a cyclist and stop him to inform him it was difficult to see him in the dark. These guys can't win...
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 09-29-19, 08:21 PM
  #55  
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 gregf83 View Post
Agreed. It's absolutely shameful that an officer would be concerned for the safety of a cyclist and stop him to inform him it was difficult to see him in the dark. These guys can't win...
Cops don't win when they do not know the law and just make it up themselves on the fly.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-29-19, 08:46 PM
  #56  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
Cops don't win when they do not know the law and just make it up themselves on the fly.
He remembered an 'and' instead of the 'or' in the law. What he remembered would be a reasonable law and, in any case, his original intention was just to inform the cyclist he was difficult to see. No malice intended.

Last edited by gregf83; 10-02-19 at 03:54 AM.
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 09-30-19, 02:19 AM
  #57  
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 gregf83 View Post
Agreed. It's absolutely shameful that an officer would be concerned for the safety of a cyclist and stop him to inform him it was difficult to see him in the dark. These guys can't win...
Take a look at the cop then take a good look at the gentleman. From my perspective the man doesn't look like he's in need of a guardian to teach him how to ride safely. He's a grown man and in compliance with the law. Any additional equipment beyond that the cop or anyone else might think he needs is his choice.

I think the older man has his safety covered pretty well all on his own. He even took the time to educate himself on the cycling laws in his new state. Yet another advantage he has over the cop.

Originally Posted by gregf83 View Post
Sure he remembered an 'and' instead of the 'or' in the law. What he remembered was a reasonable law and in any case his original intention was just to inform the cyclist he was difficult to see. No malice intended.
In fact there was malice. Cops don't run your ID because they want to get to know you better. He was fishing for violations hoping he could find something wrong so he could arrest the cyclist. Or at minimum, save himself from the ignominy of having been schooled by the much smarter cyclist. The cop was wrong on all counts. I just hope he learned something from that experience.

Last edited by KraneXL; 09-30-19 at 06:22 AM.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 05:02 AM
  #58  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
Take a look at the cop then take a good look at the gentleman. From my perspective the man doesn't look like he's in need of a guardian to teach him how to ride safely. He's a grown man and in compliance with the law. Any additional equipment beyond that the cop or anyone else might think he needs is his choice.
Youíre welcome to your opinion, but most riders would agree that having a light in the rear improves visibility. Iím surprised I have to write this as I thought it was common sense to have lights on the rear of a car or bike.
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 09-30-19, 02:20 PM
  #59  
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
BUT, by LAW a bicycle is required to have a red rear reflector or a red rear light. A pedestrian is NOT required by LAW to have either. That's the difference in your argument.

Cheers
Neither the bicyclist or a pedestrian are required to use a rear light. So the cop by his poor knowledge of the law should be stopping pedestrians at night when they are hard to see if they do not have a rear light and falsely claim they are required to have such a light. And then when the cop finds out he is wrong, he should not issue an apology to the pedestrian.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 02:24 PM
  #60  
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 gregf83 View Post
Sure he remembered an 'and' instead of the 'or' in the law. What he remembered was a reasonable law and in any case his original intention was just to inform the cyclist he was difficult to see. No malice intended.
If there was no malice towards cyclist, such as thinking most of us are drug addicts or drug couriers, then the cop would have admitted he was wrong and given an apology.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 02:25 PM
  #61  
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 gregf83 View Post
Youíre welcome to your opinion, but most riders would agree that having a light in the rear improves visibility. Iím surprised I have to write this as I thought it was common sense to have lights on the rear of a car or bike.
And that has nothing to do with the cop making an illegal stop.
__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 02:33 PM
  #62  
gregf83 
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 9,201
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1186 Post(s)
Liked 289 Times in 177 Posts
Originally Posted by CB HI View Post
If there was no malice towards cyclist, such as thinking most of us are drug addicts or drug couriers, then the cop would have admitted he was wrong and given an apology.
He may have if the cyclist wasn't an ass.
gregf83 is offline  
Likes For gregf83:
Old 09-30-19, 04:39 PM
  #63  
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
Neither the bicyclist or a pedestrian are required to use a rear light. So the cop by his poor knowledge of the law should be stopping pedestrians at night when they are hard to see if they do not have a rear light and falsely claim they are required to have such a light. And then when the cop finds out he is wrong, he should not issue an apology to the pedestrian.
That's where you're wrong. At night a bicyclist is required by LAW to have either a rear red reflector or a rear red light. Also, either must be unobscured and visible. Thus if the reflector or light can NOT be seen an officer of the law does have the rightto stop the vehicle in this case a bicycle. Why is that so hard to understand? Btw, the LAW as it applies to pedestrians does NOT require them to have either a red reflector or red light at night. Therefore comparing bicyclists to pedestrians is moot.

Anyway, I'm not arguing it with you. Believe what you like.

Cheers
Miele Man is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 05:22 PM
  #64  
njkayaker
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 13,573
Mentioned: 30 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3764 Post(s)
Liked 1,044 Times in 733 Posts
Originally Posted by njkayaker View Post
Things must be very slow in Illinois.
Things must be very slow in bikeforums.
njkayaker is offline  
Old 09-30-19, 08:49 PM
  #65  
sarhog
Full Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Greer, SC
Posts: 339

Bikes: GR300, Grail, Live Wire, 5010

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 187 Post(s)
Liked 238 Times in 119 Posts
Originally Posted by dedhed View Post
"In general" without "reasonable suspicion", you are not required in the US to provide ID, just name.
Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, you are NOT required to provide your name.
sarhog is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 02:02 AM
  #66  
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 sarhog View Post
Absent reasonable suspicion or probable cause, you are NOT required to provide your name.
The glitch there is the extent of the laws and proving those fine distinctions. Something that can prove difficult even with lawyers in a court of law. Besides, there is a natural tendency to cooperate and answer questions and police are good at getting you to do so.

The best thing to do if you feel your rights are being violated is to give the minimum (your name and address if asked), then to keep silent. Remember, police get to pool their knowledge and experience so don't try to outsmart them.

Last edited by KraneXL; 10-01-19 at 04:02 AM.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 02:52 AM
  #67  
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
Then there are these two cops:

__________________
Land of the Free, Because of the Brave.
CB HI is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 04:28 AM
  #68  
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 CB HI View Post
Seeing that footage takes me way back. I instantly recognized that landscape as it used to be one of my frequently traveled cycling routs. I also remember getting caught in those torrential rain storms too. I can almost smell the humid air and feel the sting from those fat cumulonimbus rain drops.

That route is one of the most popular cycling thoroughfares in Dade county. Never had an issue with cops there though.


Too bad he didn't show any footage of the bike.

Last edited by KraneXL; 10-01-19 at 09:01 AM.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 08:18 AM
  #69  
Milton Keynes
Senior Member
 
Milton Keynes's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 3,921

Bikes: Trek 1100 road bike, Roadmaster gravel/commuter/beater mountain bike

Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2259 Post(s)
Liked 1,678 Times in 921 Posts
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
In fact there was malice. Cops don't run your ID because they want to get to know you better. He was fishing for violations hoping he could find something wrong so he could arrest the cyclist. Or at minimum, save himself from the ignominy of having been schooled by the much smarter cyclist. The cop was wrong on all counts. I just hope he learned something from that experience.
It's SOP to run people for warrants when you stop them. How is the cop supposed to know whether or not someone is wanted or not if they don't check warrants? The simple fact that the cop let him go on his merry, unlighted way after seeing that he's clean means that there was no malice involved, just routine warrant check.
Milton Keynes is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 08:36 AM
  #70  
livedarklions
High Performance Noodler
 
livedarklions's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2018
Location: New England
Posts: 14,455

Bikes: Serotta Atlanta; 1994 Specialized Allez Pro; Giant OCR A1; SOMA Double Cross Disc; 2022 Allez Elite mit der SRAM

Mentioned: 62 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7615 Post(s)
Liked 7,980 Times in 4,479 Posts
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"
Well, Terry is about stop and frisk, so that's beside the point. The point I was making is that the cop never actually demands his ID, he asks for it, which he can do at any time. Anyone can ask you for it at any time (not just cops), and you can say no and refuse to hand it over. The guy here responds to being asked for it by handing it over and announcing his constitutional rights have been violated. By handing it over, he's waived his constitutional rights and the cop is under no obligation to refuse to take it.
livedarklions is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 08:38 AM
  #71  
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 Milton Keynes View Post
It's SOP to run people for warrants when you stop them. How is the cop supposed to know whether or not someone is wanted or not if they don't check warrants? The simple fact that the cop let him go on his merry, unlighted way after seeing that he's clean means that there was no malice involved, just routine warrant check.
... and that he's not wanted for anything.

Cops have always done this, I remember hitchhiking in the 70's, every time a cop drove past my location, they would stop, ask for my ID, and run it for warrants. I wasn't breaking the law, cops are just nosy, it's their job. Your job, as a responsible law-abiding citizen with better things to do than debating search and seizure concepts by the side of the road with a guy who has a loaded pistol strapped to his hip, is to not appear suspicious or out of place, so that cops don't take notice of you, and they won't waste your time doing routine (and completely legal) warrant checks.
Lemond1985 is offline  
Likes For Lemond1985:
Old 10-01-19, 08:57 AM
  #72  
mr_bill
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 4,502
Mentioned: 34 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2092 Post(s)
Liked 639 Times in 430 Posts
Originally Posted by Lemond1985 View Post
... and that he's not wanted for anything.

Cops have always done this, I remember hitchhiking in the 70's, every time a cop drove past my location, they would stop, ask for my ID, and run it for warrants. I wasn't breaking the law, cops are just nosy, it's their job.
In almost every jurisdiction in the US hitchhiking is prohibited. But in a jurisdiction where it is not prohibited, stopping a hitchhiker and asking for ID to run for warrants is explicitly NOT their job.

-mr. bill
mr_bill is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 09:01 AM
  #73  
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 Milton Keynes View Post
It's SOP to run people for warrants when you stop them. How is the cop supposed to know whether or not someone is wanted or not if they don't check warrants? The simple fact that the cop let him go on his merry, unlighted way after seeing that he's clean means that there was no malice involved, just routine warrant check.
Because we don't live in a police state, and it opens the door to even more police corruption and abuse of power. It was an unnecessary stop in the first place, so no investigative actions after the fact can be justified.
KraneXL is offline  
Old 10-01-19, 09:21 AM
  #74  
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 Milton Keynes View Post
It's SOP to run people for warrants when you stop them. How is the cop supposed to know whether or not someone is wanted or not if they don't check warrants? The simple fact that the cop let him go on his merry, unlighted way after seeing that he's clean means that there was no malice involved, just routine warrant check.
Yes, b-b-but, the mean old officer didn't apologize to the smart donkey, and might have made him cry!
I-Like-To-Bike is offline  
Likes For I-Like-To-Bike:
Old 10-01-19, 03:36 PM
  #75  
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
Originally Posted by KraneXL View Post
The glitch there is the extent of the laws and proving those fine distinctions. Something that can prove difficult even with lawyers in a court of law. Besides, there is a natural tendency to cooperate and answer questions and police are good at getting you to do so.

The best thing to do if you feel your rights are being violated is to give the minimum (your name and address if asked), then to keep silent. Remember, police get to pool their knowledge and experience so don't try to outsmart them.
As they say, never, ever, ever talk to cops.
sheddle 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.