Billings Gazette "Combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop"
"Marine Corps Times - "Marine helo pilot sues over Wyo. traffic stop"
Bikers of America "Saturday, September 29, 2012 Combat vet sues over Wyoming traffic stop.
Guns Save Life.com "Combat vet files suit in bizarre open carry arrest
September 27"
Nah, I just think it goes back to the fact that they really can't legally do anything based on one person's call. For example, someone could have been pissed off about being stuck behind a slow driver in the fast lane and figured they could call in a complaint on them about reckless driving and get them in trouble. There's no way to prove or disprove if a complaint is valid in that situation. So I understand that. But in this particular case, if the deputy didn't actually witness any reckless driving or other traffic infractions when he caught up to the MC, does he still have a reason to pull him over? If he doesn't observe some kind of illegal activity or traffic infraction, what is the point in pulling him over? I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
Good point, and I know this is true because after spotting cars for about 15 min. using a LADAR, I was able to call the speed to within +/-1mph. I'm not saying that I could come back a week later, without having the LADAR to "calibrate" my observations and still do that, but I believe that training makes this possible within an acceptable window of error. Which brings up another thing that I hadn't considered...maybe the call was made by an off-duty officer in the RV. That would explain why the MC was pulled over based on the complaint.As for alleging the MC might have been traveling at over 100 mph, the driver probably probably was estimating. To a seasoned driver, estimating another car's traveling/passing speed really isn't that difficult.
I think it's pretty obvious that the MC had an attitude. In his mind, he was being detained for doing nothing illegal. The cop had an attitude, too. In the cop's mind, he considered the MC's evasion of his weapons question to be a threat to his safety. I hate to be a Monday morning quarterback, but when the guy said he didn't consent to any searches, the cop should have immediately replied with, "I'm not asking to search you, I'm asking if you have any weapons on you." Simply maintaining his question, instead of getting sidetracked, could have eliminated any misunderstandings, and may have prevented a lot of attitude on both sides.OK, so how do you know the MC didn't have the attituide, which the LEO picked up on?
I have worn a uniform, and I know first hand about people's prejudice based on their experiences or perceptions about someone who wore the same uniform. I have no doubt that cops get attitude pretty much everyday they are in uniform, and it has nothing to do with that particular cop. It's more of an attitude about the uniform and the authority. In most cases, it's not even a conscious thing, but more an element of human nature. It's the same element of human nature that fosters racism and anti-semitism.I don't wear a uniform but I love to people watch. Over the years I notice that very often, many, many people approached by those in uniforms immediately have attituides. The usual attituide is they're better than the uniformed person. If the uniform is a cop, people will exude an air of superiority, as in so why is this cop "bothering" me? Most will always have some snide remark like "why aren't you fighting real crime?" or something similar. God forbid if the uniform is a service person like the UPS guy or sanitation or even a building doorman.
What's my point? You may not believe it, but jackass people not in uniforms exist also.
I went back and listened a second time, and you are 100% correct. Whether the RV'ers said anything about MWAG we don't know for sure, but the story didn't say, so we assume there was no MWAG called in. Still, the initial contact could have been handled better. If someone answers a question I didn't ask, or gives me an evasive answer, then I ask the question again to make sure they understand exactly what I'm asking. Doesn't matter whether it's my wife, my business partner, or my employee. That's basic communication skills, which would have gone a long way in this instance.TDC20,
If you go back and listen to the audio you will hear the leo say he didnt see the gun on the bikers right hip since the leo approached him from his left side.
The leo asked the biker if he had any guns before he got off the bike.
It wasnt until after the biker was off the bike and facing the leo that the leo saw the gun.
Sounds like a liability issue if the bike falls on the rider.:dunno:TDC,
The problem is that people offer up an opinion based on emotion, not fact:
It is part of standardized police training to leave motorcycle operators on the bike, with the kick stand up. You mistake an industry "best practice" with ball busting. That is the problem with a citizens analysis of a particular procedure....No, policing isn't just you with a gun and the basis of knowledge you currently have. It's you + training.
Do I make everyone hold their bike? No, but it is best practice when stopping riders wearing colors or are being stopped for other reasons then operation of the MC.
I gaurantee 99% of posters here would have a different outlook if they had to perform LE duties, let alone a ride along. I have the benefit of being an shooting enthusiast as well as LE, so I can relate to their "feelings". That being said, good people go bad...don't put yourself in a position of weakness. I have to pull people over and go to calls for 25 years, this guy gets pulled over once and has some expectation that the cop will entertain the possibility of a gunfight? And claim it's his right to do so? I will gladly make reasonable accomodations to a lawful carrier...once I'm sure that business will be conducted safely.
Oh, I forgot...the old Army rule was 10% ****birds. Probably about the same for LE.
Liability is one of those subjects that sounds good, but gets little traction. You can be sued for anything, however if you're doing your job, there's no issue. Let's face it, if a guy doesn't want to hold the bike, there's nothing you can do...if you instruct him to remain seated and he gets off, what do you think that means? Same concept as getting out of a vehicle on your own...makes you wonder what the driver is up to.Sounds like a liability issue if the bike falls on the rider
I worked for one city agency that would not entertain an infraction reported by complainant. The next agency takes it like any other complaint/investigation. You have an accusation, with no evidence it goes away.I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?
The training standard I was held to was 4mph. You're not issuing based on an estimate though, merely identifying excessive speed and lasing...just another element of the case. I've cut a "minimum speed violation" a few times...you see the car blast by and isssue the ticket for a 1mph over violation. Either way, if you have reasonable suspicion of a violation you can make the stop and investigate...when the op admitted to passing cars it placed him as "the guy" being reported as speeding...the only issue is to determine if there was a violation.I was able to call the speed to within +/-1mph.
It's just silly to think someone would hold up a motorcycle (especially with a passenger) when safety demands the passenger get off and the kickstand goes down. However, I keep my hands on the bars until instructed to do otherwise.Liability is one of those subjects that sounds good, but gets little traction. You can be sued for anything, however if you're doing your job, there's no issue. Let's face it, if a guy doesn't want to hold the bike, there's nothing you can do...if you instruct him to remain seated and he gets off, what do you think that means? Same concept as getting out of a vehicle on your own...makes you wonder what the driver is up to.
As far as colors, there have been other threads addressing hobby clubs to OMG's. I'd love to ride, but the last two fatals I did were MC. Not a pretty ending.
I worked for one city agency that would not entertain an infraction reported by complainant. The next agency takes it like any other complaint/investigation. You have an accusation, with no evidence it goes away.
The training standard I was held to was 4mph. You're not issuing based on an estimate though, merely identifying excessive speed and lasing...just another element of the case. I've cut a "minimum speed violation" a few times...you see the car blast by and isssue the ticket for a 1mph over violation. Either way, if you have reasonable suspicion of a violation you can make the stop and investigate...when the op admitted to passing cars it placed him as "the guy" being reported as speeding...the only issue is to determine if there was a violation.
Your right, guess I have been reading too many reply's and posts on this topic.Where did you see that the complaint was a MWAG call? the only thing I read was that the complaint was about him passing vehicles at over 100 mph.
As for whether or not the officer had seen the gun and why did he ask. there can be multiple reasons for that.
Keeping in mind that the initial reason for the contact was a complaint about basically reckless driving one of the first things any officer is going to try and do is determine who and what he is dealing with on this stop.
That may very well entail me asking a question I already know the answer to in order to see what kind of response I get and how the person reacts to it.
overall I think the officer handled the situation poorly as the stop progressed. perhaps do to lack of experience or perhaps he is just not cut out to be an officer.
I think for the most part the officer simply became frustrated rather quickly and did not know how to handle the guy.
The 20% idiot rate seems to apply across the board with the entire population in my experience.This has gotten a lot of mileage from dopes on other sites. Aside from the issue at hand, I get tired of people throwing out their military experience as some character reference...I've seen at least a 20% total idiot rate on my deployments.
-I wonder if his account is accurate?
-If he was stopped for a MV violation/suspect, oh well, the stop is valid
-I would have kept him on the bike holding it up by the bars...keeps bs level down
-As far as comments to shoot him...sounds a little stupid.
-So far we have one side of the story from a guy who wants money
In most states that would be correct as far as actually taking action, (Enforcement). However that does not deter or restrict an officer from a traffic stop based on a complaint to determine what is going on with the individual that is the subject of the complaint.Dragoon44
It's my understanding -correct me if I'm wrong - but unless the officer observes the vehicle speeding they can't charge or write a ticket on the observation of a non LEO ie civilian.
If this is the case, what was the justification for the stop to begin with.:supergrin:
What would we have to talk about here then? You tube would dry up...I will never understand why people don't comply at a traffic stop. Nothing good will ever come out of and argument.
I'm not sure I follow. Isn't giving a cop a false answer a crime by itself?I can now see more states passing laws that require persons in possession of a gun to inform leos they have a gun during official contacts.
Hopefully, they will go the route Arizona took and just require gun owners to answer truthfully if asked by leos about guns.
That matches my experience, Patchman.If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
I agree. I thought the officer's probable cause was shakey in the first place. The officer really made the stop based on what another (phantom) motorist said, but he didn't observe the alleged violation?Dragoon44
It's my understanding -correct me if I'm wrong - but unless the officer observes the vehicle speeding they can't charge or write a ticket on the observation of a non LEO ie civilian.
If this is the case, what was the justification for the stop to begin with.:supergrin:
If units are availalbe, and are close-by enough, the agency will likely make an effort to correct the reported problem. I don't know if in your two situations, the LE agency had unit(s) available or close-by enough to intercept in a timely basis.
Nah, I just think it goes back to the fact that they really can't legally do anything based on one person's call. For example, someone could have been pissed off about being stuck behind a slow driver in the fast lane and figured they could call in a complaint on them about reckless driving and get them in trouble. There's no way to prove or disprove if a complaint is valid in that situation. So I understand that. But in this particular case, if the deputy didn't actually witness any reckless driving or other traffic infractions when he caught up to the MC, does he still have a reason to pull him over? If he doesn't observe some kind of illegal activity or traffic infraction, what is the point in pulling him over? I don't think he could cite the guy based on someone else's observation of an alleged traffic violation, could he?
Well TDC20, I guess everyone's mileage will differ.That matches my experience, Patchman.
On an interstate after dark in a populated area, I used my cell to report a zooming and weaving driver, who was doing at least 85 in a 60 (my wife was driving) but I didn't expect the cops to do anything -- how could they?
Luckily, they just happened to have a car nearby, and they nailed his stupid, drunk/high ass a mere 3 miles down the interstate. The cop was stopped at the exit just waiting, and turned the lights on when the SUV was 200 yards away.
Seriously though, the interchange 3 miles ahead of where he was stopped has killed a lot of people.
Based on the tone of voice from the operator, I conclude that area law enforcement (dispatchers included) take drunk/reckless reports especially seriously. She questioned me in a manner that was clearly designed to get the important facts from me very quickly.
An officer can write a ticket based on a report of a citizen in TN, but the citizen reporting the infraction has to sign the ticket as prosecutor and appear in court as such. I think I've done it once or twice in the 10 yrs I've been a LEO. This is not to suggest it's going to be for an offense such as speeding, but reckless or another offense that may not need "expert" testimony (so to speak) will fly.Dragoon44
It's my understanding -correct me if I'm wrong - but unless the officer observes the vehicle speeding they can't charge or write a ticket on the observation of a non LEO ie civilian.
If this is the case, what was the justification for the stop to begin with.:supergrin:
frizz, is it possible that the cop that was waiting for him got the guy on radar for speeding? I'm guessing that's why he was able to nail him without the need for a sworn statement from you.That matches my experience, Patchman.
On an interstate after dark in a populated area, I used my cell to report a zooming and weaving driver, who was doing at least 85 in a 60 (my wife was driving) but I didn't expect the cops to do anything -- how could they?
Luckily, they just happened to have a car nearby, and they nailed his stupid, drunk/high ass a mere 3 miles down the interstate. The cop was stopped at the exit just waiting, and turned the lights on when the SUV was 200 yards away.
In the audio, the officer stated at the end that the RVer didn't want to make a formal complaint, so he was releasing the MC.I highly doupt the RVers stuck around or made a statement.
My bad. I didn't understand your original statement and had a mental picture of a guy standing alongside his bike, holding it up by the handlebars. I understand now, and I understand your reasoning for requiring someone to keep their hands on the handlebars (same as having a motorist keep their hands on the wheel).It is part of standardized police training to leave motorcycle operators on the bike, with the kick stand up. You mistake an industry "best practice" with ball busting. That is the problem with a citizens analysis of a particular procedure.
I don't want to be misunderstood. If I get called on a speeder in "X" vehicle, I'm not going to stop him unless I actually observe him speeding.Speeding is hard to prove unless you have been through RADAR/LIDAR training and get good at estimating speeds. We have to be consistent within 5mph before getting certified. Our vehicles have certified speedometers, and our equipment (RADAR/LIDAR) has to be checked/calibrated. I don't think I would give a ticket out to someone based on joe plumber's theory the guy was simply speeding. If a citizen approaches me and points out a car, says the driver is reckless, articulates the reckless driving/behavior, and wants to prosecute, then I don't have a problem writing out a traffic citation and allowing the reporting party to sign it. All moving violations in TN are misdemeanors. That's not the same for other states.SgtScott31
Yea thats what I thought as well -had to do it for a DUI that almost rear ended me- and I called in to report it- unfortunately the LEO didn't see them weaving all over the road- they caught up to them at the Quick mart and I had to fill out a statement- they never called me to testify though! I don't know what WY law say on this? But as Dragoon said they can stop you on a verbale I guess! Guy should have just heard the LEO's out- told them no that wasn't me or Yes I legally passed those vehicle so what? Then the officer would have done what? Can't site or arrest without observing the crime! I highly doupt the RVers stuck around or made a statement.
No doubt that the cop observed it. A big red SUV that's flying low and wobbling in his lane.frizz, is it possible that the cop that was waiting for him got the guy on radar for speeding? I'm guessing that's why he was able to nail him without the need for a sworn statement from you.
Good point, Patch. The car my wife was driving gets crappy gas mileage.Well TDC20, I guess everyone's mileage will differ.
I agree. I thought the officer's probable cause was shakey in the first place. The officer really made the stop based on what another (phantom) motorist said, but he didn't observe the alleged violation?
Bill
Bruce,Probable cause is the level of "proof" that is necessary for a custody arrest. Reasonable suspicion is generally closer to the level that needs to be articulated for the police to stop and make an inquiry. Several have already suggested that a complaint of bad driving may reasonably justify an investigative stop. My guess is that the nature of the complaint may help or hurt that justification. A simple complaint of a motorcycle speeding might be insufficient; however a complaint of a motorcycle speeding on a specific roadway in a specific direction along with a description of the bike and rider along with an estimated speed is probably adequate to justify some investigation, especially if the driving approaches a level that might be criminal or could be suspicious beyond a simple traffic violation.