Ask A Police Officer

[8616v]

Originally Posted by JRKANOT

I would make the stop and have the conversation. In your scenario if everything checked out (not drunk or wanted, drug possession,illegal alien, etc.) and you explained it to me as you did in your post I would just give a verbal warning.

Assuming you must have seen the patrol car if the patrolman saw you make this move I now have two questions. 1.Why after seeing the patrol car did you run the light? and 2.After being stopped and talked, to and receiving the warning, how much time did you actually save? Not saying you did any of this just replying to the post as if you did.

Sorry so long but if you pull up to a signal at 3am and you see a cop don't run the light. If you do..... expect to be stopped.... because the officer has a duty to check into the situation.

I should have clarified, but i assumed that i didn't see the patrol car, because had i seen it i would have just waited to avoid the potential for that very situation. Getting stoped would not have saved anytime and probably would have cost more time and aggrivation for both parties that it was worth.


To respond to streakn...there is no emergency i have recently spent alot of time siting at stoplights later in the evening watching an emtpy intersections with no traffic and realized just how much of my life has been wasted over the years(granted i'm only24 so...) waiting at an emtpy intersection. I've decided, pehaps ignorantly, that my time is to valuable to waste at an empty intersection and that i'm not going to wait anymore...now if i see a car even 1/2 a mile away i'll wait but if i'm the only car i can see...i'm not waiting.

[streakn]

Originally Posted by MvCrash

If you are a cop, were a cop, live with a cop, or

are close to a cop you will recognize alot of the

following:



FASCINATION STAGE - 1st thru 4th year of Law

Enforcement.



For most officers, this is their first time outside

of the middle class bubble. They have never seen a

dead body, never seen life-threatening injuries,

never dealt with a family disturbance, never

witnessed the squalor some people call "living

life", and never really understood the phrase "Man's

Inhumanity To Man" until now.



Everything is new to them. You can ID them by the

amount of fancy new equipment they carry...a ten

BILLION candlelight power flashlight,

"state-of-the-art" holster, pens that write in the

rain, a ballistic vest rated to stop Tomahawk

missiles, and an equipment bag large enough to house

a squad of Marines. They love it, showing up early

for their shift. They work way past the end of their

shift without even considering an OT slip. They

believe rank within the department is based only on

ability and those in the upper ranks got there by

knowledge and skill in police work only.



They believe the Department runs with the same

attention to detail and efficiency as Joe Friday's

Dragnet TV show....everyone is dedicated &

committed, everyone is competent, and everyone is on

the same page and working towards the same

high-minded goals. When they finally go home to

their spouse/significant other, they tell them

everything they did and saw; they are wired up. Some

of the more "eaten up" purchase a police scanner at

Radio Shack so they can hear the radio calls while

at home.



HOSTILITY STAGE - 4th thru 6th year



They now show up for work about 2 minutes before

their shift, and they are hiding out about 30

minutes before end of shift, writing reports

so they can just throw them in the sergeant's in-box

and leave ASAP. They have to get to their second job

to earn money to pay for the divorce that is

pending. Their spouse is no longer interested in

hearing about all the gore and heartache. They get

the "you spend more time with the cops than you do

with me" speech. They now know how the lieutenant

got those silver bars on his collar. They consider

the FOP, the city, and all brass to be as dangerous

as any viper. They gripe about everything, drink

excessively, chase women, and hate the public,

politicians, media, etc. They feel they have more in

common with the hookers, thieves, dopers, etc. but

hate them too.



Those pens that write in the rain are no longer

needed. Writing traffic citations can be a lot more

trouble than they are worth, even on a nice day To

write one, or to write anything while standing in

the rain, is a sure sign of an insane person.



SUPERIORITY STAGE - 7th thru 15th years



This is when cops are at their best. They have

survived changes in administration. They know how

the political game is played, both inside and

outside of the department. They know who they can

trust and who they can't. They have select friends

within the department, and stay away, as best they

can, from the nuts and boot-lickers. They know the

legal system, the judges, prosecutors, defense

attorneys, etc. They know how to testify and put a

good case together. They are usually the ones that

the brass turns to when there is some clandestine

request or sensitive operation that needs to be done

right.



These cops are still physically fit and can handle

themselves on the street. They will stay around the

station when needed, but have other commitments;

such as a second job, a second spouse, a second

boyfriend/girlfriend (sometimes both), etc. They

have most of their friends outside of Law

Enforcement now.



ACCEPTANCE STAGE - 15th to????







Now the cops have a single objective... retirement

and pension. Nothing is going to come between them

and their monthly check. The boss, the city (or

State, or county), the idiots around the station,

and the creeps on the street can all go to hell...

because they could come between them and "sitting on

the beach". There is no topic of discussion that

can't somehow lead back to retirement issues. These

guys are usually sergeants, detectives, crime scene

technicians, station duty, or some other post where

they will not be endangered.







They especially don't want some young stupid cop

getting them sued, fired, killed, or anything else

causing them to lose their "beach time". These guys

are usually hard to find when the "clusters" hit.

They spend a lot of time having coffee, hanging

around the station, and looking at brochures of

things they want to do in retirement. Then the

retired cop usually dies within the first five years

of retirement, saving the city (or State, or county)

a bunch of money.

I'll agree to some of your opinions and disagree with the other's. I won't expand on anything as I don't want this to become a unproductive arguement. But I respect your opinion.

[JRKANOT]

Originally Posted by 8616v

I should have clarified, but i assumed that i didn't see the patrol car, because had i seen it i would have just waited to avoid the potential for that very situation. Getting stoped would not have saved anytime and probably would have cost more time and aggrivation for both parties that it was worth.


To respond to streakn...there is no emergency i have recently spent alot of time siting at stoplights later in the evening watching an emtpy intersections with no traffic and realized just how much of my life has been wasted over the years(granted i'm only24 so...) waiting at an emtpy intersection. I've decided, pehaps ignorantly, that my time is to valuable to waste at an empty intersection and that i'm not going to wait anymore...now if i see a car even 1/2 a mile away i'll wait but if i'm the only car i can see...i'm not waiting.

Now you've got it!

Most cops believe it or not like to exercise common sense as well as you do.But if they see an obvious violation they will not ignore it due to the fact they are wondering why someone would violate the law right in front of an officer. Usually it's one of two things. Either they just weren't paying attention which is in and of itself bad.... or they are under the influence of something that prevented them from seeing the police officer or the color of the light.

[01TruBluGT]

Originally Posted by MACHrophage

That is not going to fly in court b/c an officer is a "trained observer." Courts generally find that due to an officers occupation his/her ability to accurately observe and recall is better than average...

That’s BS. Traffic court is just like criminal court, if there is reasonable doubt the Judge cannot find you guilty.

I beat 4 tickets in three different court systems based on the same thing. An officer on the stand's word of "opinion" is just that opinion not fact and in our justice system matter of opinion is not enough for a guilty verdict.

Just because someone wears a badge does not make what they say in court hold any more weight than your average Joe. The United States justice system is based on facts and evidence, not educated guesses and or opinions. I am an estimator for a construction company, I take measurements all day long does that make my sense of distance is any better than the next guy? I mean no disrespect to any officers, I have friends that are police officers and almost became one myself, but still their word is not the end all be all. I have had ALOT of tickets in my day so I know my way around them as well as the legalities involved. I just hate when I see people say oh well I got a ticket for something I wasn't doing but the judge is not going to believe me over the officer so I will just go ahead and pay it. This is what the system is based on, you not wanting to fight it and just paying it.

[Starsky]

Originally Posted by 01TruBluGT

That’s BS. Traffic court is just like criminal court, if there is reasonable doubt the Judge cannot find you guilty.



Just because someone wears a badge does not make what they say in court hold any more weight than your average Joe. .

I disagree based on years of observation. I can't tell you how many times I have been to traffic court but suffice it to say more than 100 times. It usually goes like this;

Me- "I was posted at such and such location, watching the traffic light cycle, looking for vehicles running the red light Northbound on Such and such street. I observed the vehicle fail to stop for the traffic light which was indicating red for that vehicle prior to his arrival, and continue through the interesection.

Him- The light was green your honor!

Judge- Guilty

My word against his word. Happens all the time. Now in fairness, there has been the ocassion when the judge felt sorry for the defendant for any variety of reasons and found in their favor, though I would put it at 1 in 30 times.

[JRKANOT]

Originally Posted by 01TruBluGT

That’s BS. Traffic court is just like criminal court, if there is reasonable doubt the Judge cannot find you guilty.

I beat 4 tickets in three different court systems based on the same thing. An officer on the stand's word of "opinion" is just that opinion not fact and in our justice system matter of opinion is not enough for a guilty verdict.

Just because someone wears a badge does not make what they say in court hold any more weight than your average Joe. The United States justice system is based on facts and evidence, not educated guesses and or opinions. I am an estimator for a construction company, I take measurements all day long does that make my sense of distance is any better than the next guy? I mean no disrespect to any officers, I have friends that are police officers and almost became one myself, but still their word is not the end all be all. I have had ALOT of tickets in my day so I know my way around them as well as the legalities involved. I just hate when I see people say oh well I got a ticket for something I wasn't doing but the judge is not going to believe me over the officer so I will just go ahead and pay it. This is what the system is based on, you not wanting to fight it and just paying it.

I'm not getting into this discussion any further than to say that in my opinion... if I was on a jury... or acting as a trier of fact (a judge)... and the proper foundation was laid to show your occupation and number of years experience..... I would surely take your estimate of distance over the average citizen any day of the week. It's what you do every day of your working life and I would accept your assessment absent any better way of measuring distance. Unless someone has a tape measure I'm taking your word for it.

[01TruBluGT]

Originally Posted by Starsky

My word against his word. Happens all the time. Now in fairness, there has been the ocassion when the judge felt sorry for the defendant for any variety of reasons and found in their favor, though I would put it at 1 in 30 times.

Well like I said if you have something that will make the judge think for a second. If I walked in and simply said "well I was doing the speed limit your honor" I doubt that would work at all. Lets face it the more traffic tickets that get paid the better chance the Judge has at getting a raise. But if there is a plausable reason an officer pointing the finger saying they did it should hold no more weight than a regular citizen saying he didn't do it. Example:

I was traveling south at about 70. There is an area on this road that goes from 65mph to a 45mph on a dime. Flew into the 45 doing 70. An officer was heading north on the same road. As soon as I passed him he made a U and hit the lights. Well I went to court on this one for sure. I asked the officer if there was a possibility that he had seen another car speeding and that once he turned around since I was the one in front of him he figured it was me. He said "I know it was you because I didn't take my eyes off of the car". So then I asked if we were closing on each other at 120mph at 3:30am in the dark. Then he had to stop his car, tun it around and begin to come after me how did he not take his eyes off of me. Since he had no answer, and clearly there was time for another vehicle to be in the area the Judge threw it out

[MACHrophage]

01trublu gt..I do this for a living...and I can tell u without any doubt that an officer's word in court does carry a great deal of weight.

For the very reasoning expressed below as stated by JRKANOT:

It's what you do every day of your working life and I would accept your assessment absent any better way of measuring distance. Unless someone has a tape measure I'm taking your word for it.

There are exceptions to every rule and in the case you mentioned where the officer stated he never took his eyes off you...he mistated the facts. What he should have said was he recognized your vehicle speeding as you passed each other and once he turned around to pursue he immediately recognized you as the speeder distinguishing you from the other cars on the road & he pulled you over. Instead he made the error of overstating.." I never took my eyes off you" which was clearly not possible and as a result the judge through you a bone.

I have tried 100s of cases and based on my experience I can definitely state that what happened to you in that case is not the norm.

For a civilian to defeat and officer in court...his best bet is to have some hard or overwhelming evidence that the officer is incorrect. For example...his radar gun was not calibrated, your speedometer is not properly calibrated ( shown via statement on letterhead from a mechanic), alibi...you weren't there so it could not have been you verified by several others etc, or some sympathetic plea to the judge ( I was rushing to visit my sick grandma...

I have not been in traffic court in years but what I mentioned above used to work on somewhat regularly the rest are longshots.

[01TruBluGT]

I am not disputing the fact that in the real world an officers stated opinion is almost always taken as fact.

In reality acording to the way the law is written, opinions should bare no weight in a courtroom to the point of a verdict being based on that same opinion. However the more guilty verdicts passed down, the more money for the system.

I have beaten countless tickets with simple common sense vs. the officers testimony. The funny part is I live in a city where corruption is almost a way of life but it seems to me that our traffic court system is almost too fair to the average citizen.

Don't get me wrong if an officer says you did it and the best you can do is say you didn't well you are screwed, but if you can come with more than I didn't do it, 8 out of 10 times you are found not guilty.

Perfect example. I was in the right hand lane, getting ready to make a right turn at the intersection, well about 20' before the intersection ther eis a turning lane. As I got into the turning lane a guy on a bicycle was riding in the middle of the lane. I got as far into the lane as I could and made the turn. As soon as I did, lights come on in the rearview. Ticket for illegal turn, and improper lane useage. Well in the courtroom I asked the officer about the guy on the bike and they admitted that there was a person taking up the lane. So I asked why did I get a ticket. The officer said because more than 50% of my car was in the wrong lane. I asked how did they know it was 50%. The officer said that it appeared to him that more than 50% of my car was in the wrong lane. since there was no proof that 50% or more of my car was in the wrong lane the judge dissmissed the case.

[Fenixfire]

Originally Posted by 01TruBluGT

Well like I said if you have something that will make the judge think for a second. If I walked in and simply said "well I was doing the speed limit your honor" I doubt that would work at all. Lets face it the more traffic tickets that get paid the better chance the Judge has at getting a raise. But if there is a plausable reason an officer pointing the finger saying they did it should hold no more weight than a regular citizen saying he didn't do it. Example:

I was traveling south at about 70. There is an area on this road that goes from 65mph to a 45mph on a dime. Flew into the 45 doing 70. An officer was heading north on the same road. As soon as I passed him he made a U and hit the lights. Well I went to court on this one for sure. I asked the officer if there was a possibility that he had seen another car speeding and that once he turned around since I was the one in front of him he figured it was me. He said "I know it was you because I didn't take my eyes off of the car". So then I asked if we were closing on each other at 120mph at 3:30am in the dark. Then he had to stop his car, tun it around and begin to come after me how did he not take his eyes off of me. Since he had no answer, and clearly there was time for another vehicle to be in the area the Judge threw it out

Ya, im sorry trublu but that just does not happen. Maybe 1 in every 1000 cases(or more). You are wrong that an officers "word" cannot be considered fact or evidence. Day in and day out cases go through court where a judge is presented evidence to convict someone of a crime. Often times a witness will also be used. The witness is the person who saw the suspect commit the crime. In many cases a witnesses statement can be extremely devastating to a defendants chances of proving not guilty. Especially if there are multiple witnesses. Now a defendants lawyer is probably going to do everything they can to question the credibility of the witness, but more often than not unless there is evidence that the witness has motive to commit perjury then their statement is going to be taken as fact.

Its the same thing with a police officer. The police officer is the witness in seeing you commit the crime. The difference between a police officer witnessing a crime and joe blow off the street witnessing the crime is actually pretty big. If both of these witnesses walk into two different court rooms the chances of the officers testimony being taken as fact are almost guaranteed. You can TRY to question the integrity and credibility of the officer but if you take this route you are going to have to scale a mountain to win. Now, in the other courtroom joe blow is giving his testimony. Again, just like the officer, his credibility/integrity is questioned. Unless you have evidence as to why he might be lying then your going to have to scale a big hill to win. Its not gonna be the mountain that is the police officers word, but it would still be difficult to impossible to do.

Police officers are held to the highest levels of integrity. We have to be because of what we do. Granted there are bad cops out there, but they are usually not the ones that are pulling you over for no reason and slapping you with a 15mph over ticket just because they feel like it. Bad cops dont do that. They bust people for drugs then keep the drugs and sell them back on to the streets or they plant drugs on people just to get a bust and look good. Or they bust some guys with a ton of drug money, blood money or whatever and keep some of it for themselves. 95% of bad cops out there are going for money and dont care who they ruin to get it. They could care less about stopping some poor guy on the street who was following the traffic laws just to mess up his day. That would be stupid, because there is nothing in it for them.

Chances are if a judge throws out your ticket in court even with the cops testimony its because he felt like cutting you a break. It is very unlikely that he will go against the cops testimony. This is simply reality.

Besides, why would one question the integrity of one person when they consciencely knew that they were breaking the law? That is just being a hypocrit. If someone gets pulled over for breaking the law and they knew they were then they should take responsibility for their actions and accept their punishment instead of fighting it. Of course, people do this all the time because they dont wanna get caught or just dont wanna admit it. For just a traffic ticket though, its really not worth fighting. If you really feel that you did no wrong, then go ahead and fight it. I would. If you know you were wrong though, then you should just accept it and move on.

[Fenixfire]

Originally Posted by 01TruBluGT

I am not disputing the fact that in the real world an officers stated opinion is almost always taken as fact.

In reality acording to the way the law is written, opinions should bare no weight in a courtroom to the point of a verdict being based on that same opinion. However the more guilty verdicts passed down, the more money for the system.

I have beaten countless tickets with simple common sense vs. the officers testimony. The funny part is I live in a city where corruption is almost a way of life but it seems to me that our traffic court system is almost too fair to the average citizen.

Don't get me wrong if an officer says you did it and the best you can do is say you didn't well you are screwed, but if you can come with more than I didn't do it, 8 out of 10 times you are found not guilty.

Perfect example. I was in the right hand lane, getting ready to make a right turn at the intersection, well about 20' before the intersection ther eis a turning lane. As I got into the turning lane a guy on a bicycle was riding in the middle of the lane. I got as far into the lane as I could and made the turn. As soon as I did, lights come on in the rearview. Ticket for illegal turn, and improper lane useage. Well in the courtroom I asked the officer about the guy on the bike and they admitted that there was a person taking up the lane. So I asked why did I get a ticket. The officer said because more than 50% of my car was in the wrong lane. I asked how did they know it was 50%. The officer said that it appeared to him that more than 50% of my car was in the wrong lane. since there was no proof that 50% or more of my car was in the wrong lane the judge dissmissed the case.

Based on what you just described the officer was right in ticketing you for an improper lane change. You should have stayed behind the bicycle like it were a vehicle in front of you and once he was clear made your turn. You are very lucky that the judge threw it out.

You felt that you were not wrong and so you fought it. Nothing wrong with that. Just so you know, the proper way to have done that would to be either get behind the bike and wait to make the turn or pass the bike before entering the lane. Once you passed the bike you can enter the lane and make your turn. The officer said he observed your vehicle in two lanes at once. This makes him a credible eye witness to your actions and therefore would be enough proof to give you a guilty verdict. The fact that the judge threw out your case based on the fact that there was "no proof" of your vehicle being 50% out of the lane is interesting. It could be the laws in your state, but where I live and most other states I know for a fact that this wouldnt happen. Be aware though, many cruisers have video cameras attached to the dash. The patrol vehicles that I operate do and they start rolling once I get on shift till I get off shift. They can record for 12 hours straight and they get a new battery and dvd every shift so they see everything. Just know next time you ask "where is the proof?" dont be surprised if they pull out a tape showing your actions.

Every case that I have to go to court and testify it is policy that the video of my shift with the case in question be taken to court as well as added evidence. Im a federal cop though, so im not sure of others that may do this.

[JDraper]

Originally Posted by Fenixfire

... Be aware though, many cruisers have video cameras attached to the dash. The patrol vehicles that I operate do and they start rolling once I get on shift till I get off shift. They can record for 12 hours straight and they get a new battery and dvd every shift so they see everything. Just know next time you ask "where is the proof?" dont be surprised if they pull out a tape showing your actions.

Every case that I have to go to court and testify it is policy that the video of my shift with the case in question be taken to court as well as added evidence. Im a federal cop though, so im not sure of others that may do this.

I think one of the best tools officers have been handed in recent years is the in car video. This allows for the truth to be seen at a later date, i.e., in court when there is a discrepancy in testimony or opinion. It also keeps officers who "might" fudge the truth a little more honest, and if the public knows that all cruisers are aware that the cameras are rolling, they will be less inclined to lie about what happened or do something really stupid like attack the officer.

Cameras in cruisers are wonderful!! (and no, I'm not an officer)

[kevsrcode]

I agree 100%. As a shift supervisor, in my experience, the cameras tend to clear officers of (inaccurate) accusations of wrong doing more often than they show the officers doing anything wrong. The cameras are a great officer safety tool, and, as a by product, they produce great evidence in court.

[streakn]

Originally Posted by kevsrcode

I agree 100%. As a shift supervisor, in my experience, the cameras tend to clear officers of (inaccurate) accusations of wrong doing more often than they show the officers doing anything wrong. The cameras are a great officer safety tool, and, as a by product, they produce great evidence in court.

I'm 50/50 when it comes to cameras. I'm glad my PD doesn't have them yet. It's bad enough our PD is going to start using GPS for "officer safety" reasons, per the higher ups. Soon we are also going to have to record any and all contacts made on the street. Double the work load, when trying to get home... :OOPS:

01trublu gt..I do this for a living...and I can tell u without any doubt that an officer's word in court does carry a great deal of weight.

I need to memorialize this statement. Not to often I hear this fom the lawyers. J/K bro. I respect, ALL the work you all pour into our "petty" cases, when not handling "the big one".

[STG]

Next time you're at the Ford dealer, get one of those magnetic number thingies they use in the service department to keep track of cars. Place it over the GPS antenna on your unit.... Car 54, where are you?

I learned about this when I asked a shuttle van driver at LAX why he was putting one on the roof of his van.

[MvCrash]

Originally Posted by streakn

I'll agree to some of your opinions and disagree with the other's. I won't expand on anything as I don't want this to become a unproductive arguement. But I respect your opinion.

It wa something that was posted where I work. Not all is true, but most of us can associate with it at some point.

[kevsrcode]

I don't know that I'd like the GPS locators, our department has threatened to go to them on several occasions but hasn't yet. The cameras, as I said, have helped us more than they hurt us. As far as documenting each contact... we've got to complete a "racial profiling sheet" on every person that we self initiate a contact with. Royal pain in the rear....

[IMachU]

We are having the GPS locators installed in the supervisor vehicles. It is not a bad thing, but I'm not too keen on how they will be used. So I'm a little apprehensive about it.

And we have to do a racial profiling sheet (or form on the MDT) when we make a ped or car stop, every time. It takes up so much time and bandwidth, it is ridiculous.

[blieknight]

we dont have camra's in our cars but we have 2 things one is a vehicle stop log and on that we need to put down the persons gender,race,and if we gave them a ticket or just a worning.
The other thing is GPS we have it in out cars and unlike camer's i think it can hurt u more times then it can help u. example if we take a extra 10min for lunch or all those other little personal breaks ,your always monitered. also if we park in one spot for more then 10 min. it sends a signal back to our HQ and then they start asking for your statis. GOOD LUCK.
OH also not my department but another local has GPS in thier hand held radio's which is good for when they hit there emergency botton they can be found for safty..

[kevsrcode]

I'm don't know if i like the idea of GPS units. I agree that they may tend to hurt more than help. Also, it would allow the department to "Big Brother" you alot more than they already can/do. But if you were in a bind and needed help, they'd sure come in handy. I hate that silence when a dispatcher calls to check on a unit that's been out too long. So far, it's been the weren't listening/ couldn't hear their radios. It still doesn't make me sweat any less knowing all that. Maybe it'd be nice to have the GPS that only activated when either the unit or dispatcher indicated that there was an emergency situation....

[Mach&Roll]

I don't really like the idea of GPS in the cars. It will end up making more problems that it will solve. Now on the radios that would be cool as heck for officer safety.

[Quixotis]

There's a lot of talk about VP Cheney and the guy he shot. It seems obvious that it was an accident, but it was, and is being, managed horribly.

From a law enforcement perspective, what possible reason(s) could a person have for delaying to report a hunting accident?

[IMachU]

First, if someone in your or my position in life (general peon) were to have a "hunting accident," in order to summon an ambulance/paramedics, we would have to dial 911. That would bring everyone, from the police to the game warden to the fire department. That would pretty much take care of any delay before it happened. If, per chance, the police did not respond to the scene, once the victim is transported to the hospital the doctors have a legal obligation (they MUST, by law) call the police to report a gunshot victim. That is a back up measure to the original 911 call.

So, if there was a delay in the actual police report, it would have to be because the normal 911 route was bypassed. And some sort of law enforcement must have been involved, or the doctor is risking his license by not reporting it. I'm guessing Secret Service intervention.

[Quixotis]

Yeah, I read that he had a medical team on hand who responded immediately but waited almost a full day bfr reporting the incident on the Corpus Christi Caller-Times Web site. A lot of people are wondering why he would choose to do that.

[kopacko]

Secret Service = Federal Law