[TheMontashu]

I was riding home from a night ride (in town) and didn't come to a complete stop at a blind stop sign (I was probably going about 5-10MPH) as I come around the corner I see a cop car approaching the intersection. I figure Oh well, I have my lights and my helmet on, I pretty much stopped at that stop sign.

Guess again, the car flips around and cuts on the lights. They pull up and start drilling me, about age, what I'm doing bla bla bla. They ask me for my ID, I fumble around in my pockets and sure enough I forgot it. Right then the tone goes from me getting a ticket, to code red anti terrorist mode. They make me sit on some rock (no big deal) and get all my info. After that they proceed to search me (not a huge deal again, I don't appreciate it but I know its in there rite and I didn't have anything on me) breathalyse, and checked my eyes, THEN next thing I know I am being cuffed and put into the back of the cop car. I'm thinking what the hell is this I have nothing on me, just run my name and let me go. About 2 minutes later the cop that hadn't said a word comes up, lets me out, said she was sorry and let me off with a warning. To top it all after that they lecture me on bike safety, while my lights and helmet are on.


On another note, this was my first time dealing with a female cop (2 of them actually) and they are not nearly as intimidating as men.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

Cops are strange that way. I had to take a ration of **** from the cop who showed up yesterday when I got hit, somehow it was my fault that I lost a fight with a truck.

I sort of try to fly under the wire with them as best I can, but I never let them search my bags or car without a warrant. The whole fact that now you must always have ID, even though the supreme court has not backed this concept, kind of gives you an idea of the world we live in now.

Its all one big cluster, and no matter what you do, your odds of getting screwed by the system are always going to be 1:1.

 

[sanjuro]

I was riding home from a night ride (in town) and didn't come to a complete stop at a blind stop sign (I was probably going about 5-10MPH) as I come around the corner I see a cop car approaching the intersection. I figure Oh well, I have my lights and my helmet on, I pretty much stopped at that stop sign.

Guess again, the car flips around and cuts on the lights. They pull up and start drilling me, about age, what I'm doing bla bla bla. They ask me for my ID, I fumble around in my pockets and sure enough I forgot it. Right then the tone goes from me getting a ticket, to code red anti terrorist mode. They make me sit on some rock (no big deal) and get all my info. After that they proceed to search me (not a huge deal again, I don't appreciate it but I know its in there rite and I didn't have anything on me) breathalyse, and checked my eyes, THEN next thing I know I am being cuffed and put into the back of the cop car. I'm thinking what the hell is this I have nothing on me, just run my name and let me go. About 2 minutes later the cop that hadn't said a word comes up, lets me out, said she was sorry and let me off with a warning. To top it all after that they lecture me on bike safety, while my lights and helmet are on.


On another note, this was my first time dealing with a female cop (2 of them actually) and they are not nearly as intimidating as men.

I'm calling the local police to tell them you own a large cache of guns and that you are suicidal. And that you are a student at the local college.

I bet you get another visit...

 

[DirtMcGirk]

I'm calling the local police to tell them you own a large cache of guns and that you are suicidal. And that you are a student at the local college.

I bet you get another visit...

And don't forget to throw in that his girl just left him, he's been playing GTA IV for 48 straight hours, has "Born to lose" under his shirt collar, has been spotted at the local radical mosque, and that he's going to vote for Hillary.

There's going to be some good times on the CNN tonight.

 

[Red Rabbit]

****, I wish I had kept riding with you. Would have been a hell of a lot more interesting then going home to catch up on work.

 

[TheMontashu]

****, I wish I had kept riding with you. Would have been a hell of a lot more interesting then going home to catch up on work.

It was on the street that goes right behind that elementary school over to Buena Vista

 

[Dartman]

On another note, this was my first time dealing with a female cop (2 of them actually) and they are not nearly as intimidating as men.

Yeah, you have to pay extra for that.

 

[Austin Bike]

So what was the other side of the story? What if they were on the lookout for someone that looks like you? Or there was just a burglary in the area?

If you watch cops enough you notice that 90% of the time that someone doesn't have an ID on them, the name that they give is not their real name because they have warrants.

While its never cool to get hassled for no reason, if they are on the lookout for someone, possibly dangerous, and they can't really verify who you are, then they might be a little more hard edged.

How many times do cops pull over someone for a tail light out and find someone with warrants? You broke the law and they had no way to tell who you really were. Suck it up, photocopy your drivers license and toss it in a ziplock bag in your camelback. Problem solved.

 

[MMike]

And that you are a student at the local college.
.

Ahahahahaaaaa.....Come on...you have to make the story believable!

 

[splat]

Ahahahahaaaaa.....Come on...you have to make the story believable!

He didn't say Passing student

 

[eaterofdog]

Well, that's an hour of their shift where no one's shooting at them or grabbing their ass, so mission accomplished for the coppers.

Did they have that giant "woman cop" chip on their shoulders? Many of the female cops I have interacted with overcompensate big time and go out of their way to show you they are hard as fsck.

 

[DRB]

Well at least they didn't stick a night stick up your butt....

 

[Lowlight7]

They make me sit on some rock (no big deal) and get all my info. After that they proceed to search me (not a huge deal again, I don't appreciate it but I know its in there rite and I didn't have anything on me) breathalyse, and checked my eyes.

Don't think like that. It isn't their right to search you without probable cause or before taking you into custody (in which case they must tell you why)...

Most places outside of BFE have computers in the cruisers, and they can look you up by your SSN and pull up your DL photo to confirm identity.

 

[buildyourown]

It is not required that you carry ID. It is not even required that you actually have any ID at all.
They had no right to search you without cause and not carrying ID is not cause. That would have ended badly for me.

 

[eaterofdog]

I know my rights, and they sure as hell would not have searched me without telling me why and what their probable cause is, and they would not have cuffed me without mirandizing me and giving me a reason.

I am the same way. And as soon as it becomes clear that you know what your rights are, the cops can't get rid of you fast enough.

 

[JohnE]

Don't think like that. It isn't their right to search you without probable cause or before taking you into custody (in which case they must tell you why)...

Actually they can search you on a "routine stop", see Terry v. Ohio...and they should, for your safety and for theirs.

Female cops though...so many ways to go...

 

[sanjuro]

While its never cool to get hassled for no reason, if they are on the lookout for someone, possibly dangerous, and they can't really verify who you are, then they might be a little more hard edged.

How many times do cops pull over someone for a tail light out and find someone with warrants? You broke the law and they had no way to tell who you really were. Suck it up, photocopy your drivers license and toss it in a ziplock bag in your camelback. Problem solved.

Yep. Bring your damn id.

 

[Tmeyer]

Pretty sure that search was illegal. I would have called a supervisor by now and gottten badge numbers. Biker with helmet and lights does not deserve that treatment. Sounds like you were much nicer to them then I would have been.... especially not having anything some might view as illegal on you.

 

[Sherpa]

Actually they can search you on a "routine stop", see Terry v. Ohio...and they should, for your safety and for theirs.

Female cops though...so many ways to go...

I really hope your not a lawyer.

"reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops." - from Wikipedia

Running a stop sign is not probable cause, and neither is not having an ID on a bicycle.

 

[JohnE]

Sigh...this is how to justify a stop and search...this is how they would have explained the whole thing had you pitched a fit. Not saying you did anything wrong, but neither did they. I added the underllining...
If you feel you were wronged, contact the PD and speak with a supervisor. Be cool and make it clear that you are only asking for personal knowledge, not trying to cause a problem.

The case of Terry v Ohio was brought to the Supreme Court of the United States to look into the issue of police officers invading the personal space of citizens, while not having probable cause. It had been (and still) quite common for police officers to stop suspicious people on the street based on hunches. Police feel that random interrogations can deter street crime. More commonly known as the “stop and frisk”, this procedure was formally created in the following case.
In October of 1963, a police officer observed two suspicious men, one of them Terry, standing on a street corner. He had never seen the men in the area before, and his police instincts drew them to his eye. In his opinion, they were not in the right place at the right time. Due to this suspicion, the officer took up surveillance from approximately 400 feet away. He observed one of the men leave the corner, and walk past several stores. The man looked into the store windows, and continued walking. After a minute, he turned back around, and looked in the same windows again as he went back to the corner where his friend was waiting. The two then spoke for a brief period of time. Then, the man who had previously stayed on the corner then proceeded to perform the same steps as his friend had done previously. After looking into the same stores and coming back, the first man performed the same act again. The two men switched back and forth six times, always looking into the same stores. While the two men were conferring after their trips, a third man approached the first two, and engaged them in conversation. The third man then walked away, allowing the first two to continue their pacing past the stores. After another 10 minutes of this, the first two men left the corner together; following the direction the third man took when he left.

By now, the police officer was extremely suspicious. From his 35 years of experience, he believed that the men were “casing a job”, or evaluating targets to be robbed. He considered it his duty to investigate further. He also feared that the men may have been armed, as in his opinion they were about to commit robbery. The officer then followed the two until they met back up with the third man in front of one particular store. The officer took this opportunity to approach all three men, and identify himself as a police officer. He asked the three men their names, they mumbled incoherently. The officer then grabbed the man in the middle, whom happened to be Terry, and patted down the outside of his clothing. In the left breast pocket, he felt a hand gun, but was unable to remove it. The officer then ordered the three men into the store, where he then removed Terry’s jacket, and retrieved a .38-caliber pistol. At that point, the officer then patted down the third man, and he found another pistol. No weapons were found on the remaining man during his pat down. The officer never felt beneath the outer clothing of the men until he had located guns on the outside clothing. Once the officer found the weapons on the two suspects, this gave him probable cause to fully search those individuals for any other contraband. He then called for backup, and took all three men into custody, and Terry, along with the other man whom had a weapon, were to be charged with carrying concealed weapons.

Terry was convicted of carrying a concealed weapon, and was sentenced to one to three years. The gun and ammunition confiscated by the police offer was used as evidence in the trial. The defense had filed a pre-trial motion to have the evidence suppressed. Any evidence found as the result of an illegal search, in this case the gun, would not be admissible. However, first the search needed to be deemed illegal. The motion was denied, as the judge felt that on the basis of the officer’s experience, he had cause to conduct an interrogation, therefore not violating Terry’s fourth amendment rights. Upon the outcome of the trial, the defense appealed to the Supreme Court.

The main question the Supreme Court had was whether Terry’s right to personal security was violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. First, the Court decided that any time an officer restrains a person’s ability to walk away, he is seized. The Court also said that a patting of outer clothing is indeed a search. Therefore, the judgment here is as to whether or not the actions were considered reasonable. They went on to state that when practical, police must have probable cause, and a warrant to perform a search. However, during on-the-spot observations during a beat, it is not practical for an officer to obtain a warrant. Yet, good faith alone cannot be enough to determine a situation unpractical, and to override these regulations. The Court believed that the actions the officer witnessed were enough to allow the officer to reasonably suspect the men could have been armed. The search was carefully restricted to the outer clothing where a weapon may have been located. On the one man where no weapon was found, the officer discontinued his search. Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction to Terry.

The outcome of this case causes repercussions that are not obvious to some. A police officer now has the right to detain and search any individual, without a warrant, or even probable cause, as long as he or she can justify a suspicion that the individual may be armed. Also, anything the officer feels during that pat down may then be used as probable cause, allowing the officer to complete a full search. Since Terry v Ohio, other cases have come before the Supreme Court that have extended the power of the “stop and frisk”, extending that power to “frisk” cars, for example. Whenever the judiciary “creates” law, it can and will cause controversy, and this is no exception.

 

[JohnE]

I really hope your not a lawyer.

"reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime. For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops." - from Wikipedia

Running a stop sign is not probable cause, and neither is not having an ID on a bicycle.

Not a lawyer, a cop.

Running a stop is probable cause, reasonable beleif that a crime has been commited and this individual commited it and all...but there is no way for them to know that he had no i.d. You could not justify a stop by saying he didnt have an id and I could tell. Running a stop sign, while operating any vehicle, is a good stop. In some states, you have to carry an id...especially when operating a vehicle on a roadway. Implied consent law. I cant speak to whatever state the original poster is in.

 

[Wumpus]

Actually they can search you on a "routine stop", see Terry v. Ohio...and they should, for your safety and for theirs.

Female cops though...so many ways to go...

I'm not sure that riding thru a stop sign is probable cause:

Law enforcement officers may stop and frisk someone for weapons if they have a reasonable suspicion that a crime has taken or is about to take place and the subject is armed and dangerous without violating the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures. Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed.

 

[Sherpa]

Not a lawyer, a cop.

Running a stop is probable cause, reasonable beleif that a crime has been commited and this individual commited it and all...but there is no way for them to know that he had no i.d. You could not justify a stop by saying he didnt have an id and I could tell. Running a stop sign, while operating any vehicle, is a good stop. In some states, you have to carry an id...especially when operating a vehicle on a roadway. Implied consent law. I cant speak to whatever state the original poster is in.

Terry allows for a "quick frisk," not to be cuffed and breathlysed. Unless montashu smelled of liquor, they had absolutely no right to breathalyse because they had no “specific and articulable facts.”

I'd personally be on the phone with my local ACLU office.

 

[I Are Baboon]

Be happy the lady cop wasn't Trudy Wiegel or you'd probably be dead right now, or shot at the very least.

 

[stevew]

I'd personally be on the phone with my local ACLU office.

You are that much of a pvssy?

 

[JohnE]

Terry allows for a "quick frisk," not to be cuffed and breathlysed. Unless montashu smelled of liquor, they had absolutely no right to breathalyse because they had no “specific and articulable facts.”

I'd personally be on the phone with my local ACLU office.

It all comes down to how they justify the stop on paper...been there, done that.
If they had prior knowledge that this was a high crime area, that drugs were being run on bikes, that an individual matching his description had perpetrated a crime etc, then th estop is justified.
"Quick frisk" is also so up to interpretation.
Research implied consent laws. That is what you give in order to operate a vehicle on state and county roadways.
And cuffs come off easily. They are a use of force issue, but as long as they are aplied properly, there is usually no problem with cuffing a subject.

I would advise anyone to call the ACLU or a lawyer if they thought their rights had been violated...it is your right. But this one is moot.

 

[JohnE]

Or not still a virgin.

You are thinking of Lt. Jim Dangle...

 

[TheMontashu]

It is not required that you carry ID. It is not even required that you actually have any ID at all.
They had no right to search you without cause and not carrying ID is not cause. That would have ended badly for me.

I think they are aloud to pat you down so they can check and see if you have ID on them

It is not required that you carry ID. It is not even required that you actually have any ID at all.
They had no right to search you without cause and not carrying ID is not cause. That would have ended badly for me.

I figure, if I am not going to get in any more trouble that I should let them do what they want as long as it wont put me in jail or get me tazed. It just makes them look dumb when I am being super friendly, honest, and clearly sober, and still getting cuffed and searched.

 

[splat]

I really ." - from Wikipedia

LOL trying to base fact on Wikipedia is a Bad idea!! you have to remeber where the information comes from , and who has the ability to change it .

 

[N8 v2.0]

they should have taunted about your popped collar, fake-bake tan and Paris Hilton sunglasses you until you cried.

karma

 

[JohnE]

I figure, if I am not going to get in any more trouble that I should let them do what they want as long as it wont put me in jail or get me tazed. It just makes them look dumb when I am being super friendly, honest, and clearly sober, and still getting cuffed and searched.

That says it all...be cool with them, and unless the guy is a major hard on, you will be good.
You never mentioned if the chicas were hot or not...

 

[TheMontashu]

That says it all...be cool with them, and unless the guy is a major hard on, you will be good.
You never mentioned if the chicas were hot or not...

It was hard to tell, there seemed to be a headlight, spotlight, or flashlight between me and them most of the time

 

[sanjuro]

I have to say, I have ridden at night a million times in several cities across the United States, from the poorest neighborhoods to the ritziest suburbs.

I still haven't been stopped for no reason (stupid stop sign ticket broke the streak of never been stopped).

 

[TheMontashu]

I have to say, I have ridden at night a million times in several cities across the United States, from the poorest neighborhoods to the ritziest suburbs.

I still haven't been stopped for no reason (stupid stop sign ticket broke the streak of never been stopped).

In alot of ways I am glad that they Fed with me. I think they felt so dumb for screwing with me that they just let me go with a warning.

 

[DirtMcGirk]

Not a lawyer, a cop.

Running a stop is probable cause, reasonable beleif that a crime has been commited and this individual commited it and all...but there is no way for them to know that he had no i.d. You could not justify a stop by saying he didnt have an id and I could tell. Running a stop sign, while operating any vehicle, is a good stop. In some states, you have to carry an id...especially when operating a vehicle on a roadway. Implied consent law. I cant speak to whatever state the original poster is in.

Wait, a cop who knows the law?
Now we're all really ****ed.

 

[Sherpa]

It all comes down to how they justify the stop on paper...been there, done that.
If they had prior knowledge that this was a high crime area, that drugs were being run on bikes, that an individual matching his description had perpetrated a crime etc, then th estop is justified.
"Quick frisk" is also so up to interpretation.
Research implied consent laws. That is what you give in order to operate a vehicle on state and county roadways.
And cuffs come off easily. They are a use of force issue, but as long as they are aplied properly, there is usually no problem with cuffing a subject.

I would advise anyone to call the ACLU or a lawyer if they thought their rights had been violated...it is your right. But this one is moot.

I understand implied consent. Just, with the facts given, it seems unreasonable. But, if it was in the ghetto and some white boy had been running drugs on a bike, than of course its justifiable. I'm just saying given the facts, the cops went a little overboard.

 

[AngryMetalsmith]

I understand implied consent. Just, with the facts given, it seems unreasonable. But, if it was in the ghetto and some white boy had been running drugs on a bike, than of course its justifiable. I'm just saying given the facts, the cops went a little overboard.

Yeah, drug runners on bikes wear helmets, use lights and stop for the po-po.

 

[sanjuro]

I understand implied consent. Just, with the facts given, it seems unreasonable. But, if it was in the ghetto and some white boy had been running drugs on a bike, than of course its justifiable. I'm just saying given the facts, the cops went a little overboard.

No, TheMontashu lives in 'burbs, and this was a typical nothing-to-do suburban cop harass-the-juvenile police stop.

 

[MikeD]

Actually, "frisk" has pretty well-defined legal bounds. See "plain touch" doctrine.

It's a very limited search for things immediately apparent as weapons. The test case involved a rock of crack which an officer discovered during a frisk. As it was not immediately apparent as either a weapon or contraband (due to the officer's manipulation of the rock through the subject's clothes to determine what it was), the evidence was ruled inadmissible.

Likewise, you need reasonable suspicion that someone is armed and dangerous prior to restraining and/or frisking them during a terry stop.

That said, I'm sure it was a Terry frisk that Montashu received, whether it was done within strict legal bounds or not. If it had been me, I'd probably be having a polite talk with their supervisor.

 

[JohnE]

Yeah, drug runners on bikes wear helmets, use lights and stop for the po-po.

If I were running drugs, I would be as clean cut as possible, and ensure that my vehicle (Whatever it was...) was in good working order and I obeyed all traffic laws. The man would never catch me....moooohahahahahahahaaaa!!!!!

For the record, as some of you may know, I am a military cop. I also did 4 years as a civilian copper...

Where is Manimal???