You don't think you deserve to know why a cop pulls you over?

What if you hand over your license and registration, then he comes back from his car and hands you a reckless driving ticket 30 feet from dropping your kid off at daycare because he hates white people? Or maybe because he's behind on his quota?

How can there be an arguement if the cop won't tell you why you are stopped?

You are making the same presumption....

Depends. There was a department a few years ago that was pulling over vehicles that we're driving legally and giving them gift certificates...

Varies by state.

The term to look for is "stop and identify".

I'm doubting that Mr Officer would allow the guy to calmly walk over and get in the back of his police car.

Because regardless of who was in the right or legal, it was a dick measuring contest very shortly after they had the pleasure of meeting each other.

WASHINGTON LAW AT RCW 46.61.021 DOES NOT REQUIRE ME TO GIVE YOU MY DATE OF BIRTH OR TO HAVE OR SHOW ANY FORM OF PICTURE IDENTIFICATION!

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 (3) and the CrRLJ 1.1 decisional law of this state does NOT require me to give you my “Date of Birth,” my “Social Security Number” or to have or show you A “Drivers License,” a “State Identification Card” or any other form of PICTURE ID!

RCW 46.61.021 Duty to obey law enforcement officer--Authority of officer.
(1) Any person requested or signaled to stop by a law enforcement officer for a traffic infraction has a duty to stop.
(2) Whenever any person is stopped for a traffic infraction, the officer may detain that person for a reasonable period of time necessary to identify the person, check for outstanding warrants, check the status of the person's license, insurance identification card, and the vehicle's registration, and complete and issue a notice of traffic infraction.
(3) Any person requested to identify himself or herself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself or herself, give his or her current address, and sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of infraction. . . .” (That is "VERBAL" folks!)

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 (3) is worded in the conjunctive and clearly reads that any. . . “person requested to identify himself to a law enforcement officer pursuant to an investigation of a traffic infraction has a duty to identify himself, give his current address, and sign an acknowledgment of receipt of the notice of infraction.” It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 at subsection (3) only requires that I identify myself by giving you my “name and address.”

“As we understand it, the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a driver’s license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means–a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make–the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. See id., at ___, 59 P.3d, at 1206-1207.” Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., 124 S.Ct. 2451 at 2457 (June 21, 2004).

“Indeed, there is no general requirement in this country for citizens to carry any identification.” State v. Barwick, 66 Wn. App. 706 at 709, 833 P.2d 421 (July 30, 1992). [WHAT did that say?]

It is also undisputed that RCW 46.61.021 (3) only requires me to give you my “name and address.” Further I cannot be charged with violating RCW 46.61.020 for not having a “drivers license” if I don’t have one.

It is undisputed that only a “licensee” is required to show a “drivers license.”

“RCW 46.61.020 Refusal to give information to or cooperate with officer--Penalty. (Effective July 1, 2004.)

(1) It is unlawful for any person while operating or in charge of any vehicle to refuse when requested by a police officer to give his or her name and address and the name and address of the owner of such vehicle, or for such person to give a false name and address, and it is likewise unlawful for any such person to refuse or neglect to stop when signaled to stop by any police officer or to refuse upon demand of such police officer to produce his or her certificate of license registration of such vehicle, his or her insurance identification card, or his or her vehicle driver's license or to refuse to permit such officer to take any such license, card, or certificate for the purpose of examination thereof or to refuse to permit the examination of any equipment of such vehicle or the weighing of such vehicle or to refuse or neglect to produce the certificate of license registration of such vehicle, insurance card, or his or her vehicle driver's license when requested by any court. Any police officer shall on request produce evidence of his or her authorization as such. (2) A violation of this section is a misdemeanor. . . .”  [Gee, since I don't "drive" or "own" a "motor vehicle", then I suspect I don't need to produce a license, card or certificate, or WEIGH such "vehicle" or produce certificate of license registration. . . " Sure glad I'm not in commerce with 'this state' or District of Columbia, HUH?]

It is undisputed that RCW 46.61.020 is unconstitutional because it is the “lessor but included offense” of RCW 9A.76.020 the Obstructing Statute which was declared unconstitutional by the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. White, which held that:

“. . . A DETAINEES REFUSAL TO DISCLOSE HIS NAME ADDRESS, AND OTHER INFORMATION CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF AN ARREST.” State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, at 103, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982); (You might need to re-read that a few times!)

“Defendant could not be arrested for refusing to give law enforcement officer his name pursuant to a statute prohibiting obstruction of public servant in discharge of his official powers.” West’s RCWA 9A.76.020(3).–State v. Hoffman, 664 P.2d 1259, 35 Wash. App. 13, 16, 664 P.2d 1259 (1983).;

“Portion of traffic-law-enforcement statute requiring stopped motorist to identify themselves to police officers, which required unlicensed motorist to give “evidence of his identity,” was unconstitutionally vague; statute gave no notice of what type of identification, other than driver’s license should suffice to avoid arrest and in failing to do so, encouraged arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. U.S.C.A. Const. Amends. 5, 14; A.R.S. section 28-1075, subd. B.” State v. Boudette, 791 P.2d 1063.;

“We must emphasize that we do not hold that a suspect may be detained and searched merely because he either refused to identify himself or refused to produce proof of identification.” People v. Loudermilk, 241 Cal.Rptr. 208 (1987);

“...The defendants’ refusal to furnish identification–which they were entitled to do ...[in] a Terry stop...” U.S. v. Brown, 731 F.2d 1491, at 1494 (1984);

“Probable cause is not established by failing to present identification upon request by a law enforcement officer, . . .” Moya v. United States , 761 F.2d 322, at 325-326 (Sept. 21, 1984).

The few times I have been pulled over I have been told why I was pulled over. That is after they ask if I know when I was pulled over and I say no.

Funny thing about the ACLU getting involved...

https://www.aclu.org/files/assets/bustcard_eng_20100630.pdf

"IF YOU ARE STOPPED IN YOUR CAR
[...]
Upon request, show police your driver’s license, registration and proof of insurance. "

What do you mean "they"?

The only thing this was missing was a night stick and a 95# Sabretoothed Germanic Sheep herding K-9 gnawing on his ass while bad boys played in the background!!!

Officer was a complete idiot.  When he realized it was a black guy who was not going to cooperate that he stopped, he should have just asked him to have a nice day and walked back to his cruiser and tried again until he found a compliant white male to stop.

He will deservedly lose his job for his idiocy now.

Lol.

The only mistake I saw was Officer Friendly falling on his ass and almost getting run the fuck over. 

Considering how most LEOs are, I'm sure the other guys at the station are replaying that portion of the video many times... in slow motion... with commentary. 

Can we send him a 1* t-shirt, since he risked his ass by falling on it?

Asshats on both sides of the law is all I see in this video.

Well, it doesn't.

Dude was going to argue no matter what the officer said.

If he was going to argue to the point of physical resistance, he was going to do it before or after knowing what the stop was for.

Once again, you're naive as fuck if you think telling him the reason for the stop was going to "deescalate" anything.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/cops-rip-out-car-window-yank-man-out-won’t-say-why-video

Ummm, it's kind of hard to keep a stop "off the record" when the entire thing is captured on the dashcam.  

He ran a stop sign just before letting the black minivan turn. It's right there in the video and it was obvious he knew why.

He stopped for the minivan because he blew the sign just to the left and knew he was busted. You can see him roll right on through it without stopping at the beginning of the video.

Hmmmm, interesting!

Attached File

Civil settlements are the black-robed idiots' in Federal Courts way to "stick it to the Man" like they've been trying to do since they went to Berkeley or other liberal indoctrination gulag.  Frankly, it's a cost of doing business here in the 9th Circuit.  What they don't realize is that I'm so likely to be sued, even when I do the right, legal thing, that I just might as well go rogue and do whatever the fuck I want, and screw civil rights, because I'm gonna be fucked either way.  Luckily for the citizens, the vast majority cops take their oaths very seriously and won't knowingly violate the Constitution.  Unlike the morons in black robes, my oath meant something when I made it.  I will get to retire and look at myself in the mirror and know I honored it.  Few Federal Judges can honestly say the same, in this area.  Their "feelz", however, will be placated.

Except, you are wrong.  See how that works out for you.

That's a 4th Amendment violation and the citizens involved should have sued the ever-loving pants off the officers and agency involved.

Your laymans understanding is wrong, and thats EXACTLY how we do this in the USA.

No problem with the arrest.

Why does everyone have to be a roadside lawyer?  Just act like a decent person.  If you're right, you'll win.

My dad was going 85 in a 65 in his corvette.  State Trooper was being argumentative and belligerent. Dad told him that the road side was no place for an argument and he should shut up and write the damn ticket.  Trooper stepped to the back of the car and wrote the ticket.  

"Pfft, 4 points, I only have 2 now, see ya in court."  Said dad. "Yeah I know ""press hard 5 copies""."


Yes he gave up his license, registration, and proof of insurance. He also went to court. In his mind it cost the county more than they took in fines.

Pulling someone over requires reasonable suspicion that they have commited, are committing,  or are about to commit a crime. If there is no crime then there can be no reasonable suspicion.  No reasonable suspicion means that you have been unreasonably seized.

How is this hard?

Also this is why I think police should have to state the reason for pulling you over either to the driver or note it in some other way at that time. I police officer shouldn't  have a month and hindsight to figure out why he pilled you over.

What does that have to do with an obligation to tell the stopped driver anything?  Do you want to pretend a cop cant have reasonalbe suspicion unless he tells the driver before getting ID?

You dont understand how the fourth amendment works.

Motor vehicle violations are crimes?

Needs more hickory lessons for a thorough education.  Not sure the driver got the point entirely.

That's not what I said. Work on your reading comprehension.

Pulling someone over requires a crime.
Police should be required to notify you of that crime so they don't have a month to play creative writing.

The instances I am aware of, the PD stopped people without RS of a crime and then gave them a gift certificate.  Vehicle stops are a seizure, under the 4th amendment and must be made with either reasonable suspicion, or probable cause that a crime has occurred, or will occur and the person/vehicle to be stopped is involved.

Oh, I know that the government likes to play games and say that it is a civil action or an infraction all so that they get a lower burden of proof and you don't have a right to a lawyer. But as far as I'm concerned,  if the government is coming after you in court it should be considered crime.