Pulled over for nooo reason.. ?

[vjf915]

Yes but did the officer state that he got a description that was ANYWHERE close to OP's car? No. The officer didnt. Your friend is right. Color plays a big role. But JUST classifying a car as modified does not justify pulling him over.

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

Do we know what the description WAS? Unless we know what the description was, we're both right.

 

[2NRSTV]

So you've read the full 1000 page handbook more than once?

Yes. It's a pain in the ass, but it was to make sure to my car complies with the law. CHP and most of your local Police and Sheriff will have a copy of the handbook with them. They also usually carry "Cheat Sheets" with the C.V.C. and one sentence summaries (sometimes even a just a phrase) that describes the law.

What a lot of them like to do is concentrate on one law, say c.v.c. 5200, and then when people catch on, they'll switch it up to something else like c.v.c. 27151, so it's in your best interest (and probably everyone on this site's that lives in Cali) to print out a copy of it and read it through at least once just so they can't pop up with a random code.

And i'm not saying I've read it like 10-20 times, I've read it at least 3 times. Once to make sure my Civic was legal, same with my 300ZX and with my S2000.

 

[XpL0d3r]

Yes. It's a pain in the ass, but it was to make sure to my car complies with the law. CHP and most of your local Police and Sheriff will have a copy of the handbook with them. They also usually carry "Cheat Sheets" with the C.V.C. and one sentence summaries (sometimes even a just a phrase) that describes the law.

What a lot of them like to do is concentrate on one law, say c.v.c. 5200, and then when people catch on, they'll switch it up to something else like c.v.c. 27151, so it's in your best interest (and probably everyone on this site's that lives in Cali) to print out a copy of it and read it through at least once just so they can't pop up with a random code.

And i'm not saying I've read it like 10-20 times, I've read it at least 3 times. Once to make sure my Civic was legal, same with my 300ZX and with my S2000.

are you sure it wasn't to find loopholes in case you got in trouble for all the cars you stole?

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

Yes. It's a pain in the ass, but it was to make sure to my car complies with the law. CHP and most of your local Police and Sheriff will have a copy of the handbook with them. They also usually carry "Cheat Sheets" with the C.V.C. and one sentence summaries (sometimes even a just a phrase) that describes the law.

What a lot of them like to do is concentrate on one law, say c.v.c. 5200, and then when people catch on, they'll switch it up to something else like c.v.c. 27151, so it's in your best interest (and probably everyone on this site's that lives in Cali) to print out a copy of it and read it through at least once just so they can't pop up with a random code.

And i'm not saying I've read it like 10-20 times, I've read it at least 3 times. Once to make sure my Civic was legal, same with my 300ZX and with my S2000.

Good job on listing the TWO most popular code violations that ANY Honda enthusiast in California knows.

Why not section 27157 or 15500?

 

[vjf915]

I think Mr. Jollypants turned into Mr. Grumpypants........

 

[oc_civic]

Alex Jones IS a little loopy.. BUT this women refused to identify herself and refused to cooperate at this "check point" and she was later found NOT guilty..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj7LGkCu_vg

checkpoints in nature are VERY intrusive.. to sit and watch cars go by looking for drunks.. looking for expired inspection.. thats all well and good.. but STOPPING someone who has NOT obviously violated the law on the premise that they MIGHT be up to some illegal activity, and DEMANDING documents of identification is VERY Nazi Germany in style.. WE the people of the United States should be free to move about the country providing we do not violate the laws of the land..

 

[RonJ]

checkpoints in nature are VERY intrusive.. to sit and watch cars go by looking for drunks.. looking for expired inspection.. thats all well and good.. but STOPPING someone who has NOT obviously violated the law on the premise that they MIGHT be up to some illegal activity, and DEMANDING documents of identification is VERY Nazi Germany in style.. WE the people of the United States should be free to move about the country providing we do not violate the laws of the land..

I find myself in complete agreement with oc.

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

checkpoints in nature are VERY intrusive.. to sit and watch cars go by looking for drunks.. looking for expired inspection.. thats all well and good.. but STOPPING someone who has NOT obviously violated the law on the premise that they MIGHT be up to some illegal activity, and DEMANDING documents of identification is VERY Nazi Germany in style.. WE the people of the United States should be free to move about the country providing we do not violate the laws of the land..

Sobriety checkpoints are not illegal. The Supreme Court that they do not violate a persons 4th amendment.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/sobriety-checkpoints.html

You're not required to go through a checkpoint, you can turn around. A lot of times, newspapers even publish this information on when a checkpoint will be.

It's not Nazi Germany in style. In Nazi Germany, they would've pulled you from the car, had guns pointed at you, THEN demanded documents.

They demand your documents because under law you are required to have them at all times. We are free to move about, if you don't want to go through a check point, turn around. I don't see the big issue in checkpoints

 

[vjf915]

but STOPPING someone who has NOT obviously violated the law on the premise that they MIGHT be up to some illegal activity, and DEMANDING documents of identification is VERY Nazi Germany in style.. WE the people of the United States should be free to move about the country providing we do not violate the laws of the land..

And this is exactly what happened to the OP. He was not violating any laws, nor did the officer have a specific reason to pull him over. This has been my whole point all along.

Sobriety checkpoints are not illegal. The Supreme Court that they do not violate a persons 4th amendment.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/sobriety-checkpoints.html

You're not required to go through a checkpoint, you can turn around. A lot of times, newspapers even publish this information on when a checkpoint will be.

It's not Nazi Germany in style. In Nazi Germany, they would've pulled you from the car, had guns pointed at you, THEN demanded documents.

They demand your documents because under law you are required to have them at all times. We are free to move about, if you don't want to go through a check point, turn around. I don't see the big issue in checkpoints

The flip side to that, is that if the officers see you turning around to avoid the checkpoint, that gives them reasonable suspicion to go pull you over.

 

[oc_civic]

Sobriety checkpoints are not illegal. The Supreme Court that they do not violate a persons 4th amendment.

http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/tips/sobriety-checkpoints.html

You're not required to go through a checkpoint, you can turn around. A lot of times, newspapers even publish this information on when a checkpoint will be.

It's not Nazi Germany in style. In Nazi Germany, they would've pulled you from the car, had guns pointed at you, THEN demanded documents.

They demand your documents because under law you are required to have them at all times. We are free to move about, if you don't want to go through a check point, turn around. I don't see the big issue in checkpoints

did you WATCH the video i posted.. that is EXACTLY what they did to that lady..

who are you..
i do not have to tell you..
mammm.. who are you..
i do not have to tell you..

and so on.. she WAS arrested.. and a jury found her not guilty..

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

And this is exactly what happened to the OP. He was not violating any laws, nor did the officer have a specific reason to pull him over. This has been my whole point all along.

Again, you're basing your opinion on something that we only know ONE side to. We don't know what the description was, we don't know who made the call, ect.

The flip side to that, is that if the officers see you turning around to avoid the checkpoint, that gives them reasonable suspicion to go pull you over.

Then go through the check point. If you don't have anything to hide, and you haven't been drinking, go through it. At the most, it's going to cost you a few minutes of your time.

 

[oc_civic]

And this is exactly what happened to the OP. He was not violating any laws, nor did the officer have a specific reason to pull him over. This has been my whole point all along.

the reason he was stopped and questioned was because his car matched what the police were looking for.. he never asked to leave.. he ALLOWED them to investigate.. if you do not ask to leave.. you can be there as long as they want.. they do not have to actually do anything till you ask to leave.. till that point they are NOT detaining you.. i KNOW that sounds silly but its the way it is..

 

[oc_civic]

Then go through the check point. If you don't have anything to hide, and you haven't been drinking, go through it. At the most, it's going to cost you a few minutes of your time.

which is completely unreasonable... its unreasonable to be obstructed from going from one point to another when you have done nothing wrong.. there is no active investigation.. it is simply a case of fishing.. fishing at the expense of my time AND tax dollars..

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

did you WATCH the video i posted.. that is EXACTLY what they did to that lady..

who are you..
i do not have to tell you..
mammm.. who are you..
i do not have to tell you..

and so on.. she WAS arrested.. and a jury found her not guilty..

In the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of state laws authorizing police to detain people who refuse to identify themselves even when there are no other grounds for an arrest.

 

[vjf915]

did you WATCH the video i posted.. that is EXACTLY what they did to that lady..

who are you..
i do not have to tell you..
mammm.. who are you..
i do not have to tell you..

and so on.. she WAS arrested.. and a jury found her not guilty..

Not only did the officers totally f**k up by arresting her, they also didnt really have reason to search her car. Even IF they did find anything in her car, it wouldnt hold up in court. Since they now had possession of her car, they should not have searched it there. Should have waited until they got it to the impound. Bottom line is that the officers TOTALLY f**ked up in that situation.

Again, you're basing your opinion on something that we only know ONE side to. We don't know what the description was, we don't know who made the call, ect.

Its not an opinion, its the law.......

And my judgment is being based on the only story that we know. Im pretty sure thats the only way to base the decision. Its not fair to sit here and say "well what if blah blah blah". No, bullshit, thats not fair to start throwing "what-ifs" into the situation. The story that we know is what we need to base it on. And it comes down to the fact that in the story, the officer was wrong.

Then go through the check point. If you don't have anything to hide, and you haven't been drinking, go through it. At the most, it's going to cost you a few minutes of your time.

Yes if you have nothing to hide, which I dont think anyone should, then just roll right through the checkpoint.

 

[oc_civic]

In the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of state laws authorizing police to detain people who refuse to identify themselves even when there are no other grounds for an arrest.

and in Delaware v. Prouse

2. ... stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. .... Pp. 653-655. [440 U.S. 648, 649]

it really seems to depend on where you are..

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

Not only did the officers totally f**k up by arresting her, they also didnt really have reason to search her car. Even IF they did find anything in her car, it wouldnt hold up in court. Since they now had possession of her car, they should not have searched it there. Should have waited until they got it to the impound. Bottom line is that the officers TOTALLY f**ked up in that situation.

Um...

In the case Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, the US Supreme Court upheld the right of state laws authorizing police to detain people who refuse to identify themselves even when there are no other grounds for an arrest.

You, being in a Criminal Justice class should know this. It is legal for a police officer to detain someone for not giving identification.

The police ALSO have the right to search a vehicle once the person is under arrest.

Its not an opinion, its the law.......

And my judgment is being based on the only story that we know. Im pretty sure thats the only way to base the decision. Its not fair to sit here and say "well what if blah blah blah". No, bullshit, thats not fair to start throwing "what-ifs" into the situation. The story that we know is what we need to base it on. And it comes down to the fact that in the story, the officer was wrong.

My judgment is being based of off what I've been told by OTHER law enforcement officers.

Yes if you have nothing to hide, which I dont think anyone should, then just roll right through the checkpoint.

Wow, we actually agree on something.

 

[oc_civic]

Then go through the check point. If you don't have anything to hide, and you haven't been drinking, go through it. At the most, it's going to cost you a few minutes of your time.

the old "if you have nothing to hide" logic is totally ridiculous..

SEARCHING house to house would totally reduce the number of illegal guns on the street, reduce the instances where children are abused in the home, AND cut down on drug houses...

and well if you have nothing to hide whats the big deal in letting the sheriff's department conduct a little 20 minute search of your home and its contents?

 

[Mr. Jollypants]

and in Delaware v. Prouse

2. ... stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 653-663.

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. .... Pp. 653-655. [440 U.S. 648, 649]

it really seems to depend on where you are..

Federal Law stumps state law.

States with “stop-and-identify” laws

The Court's opinion identified the following U.S. states as having "stop-and-identify" laws:

* Alabama
* Arkansas
* Colorado
* Delaware
* Florida
* Georgia
* Illinois
* Kansas
* Louisiana
* Missouri
* Montana
* Nebraska
* Nevada
* New Hampshire
* New Mexico
* New York
* North Dakota
* Rhode Island
* Texas
* Utah
* Vermont
* Wisconsin