Anyone else think this is fishy?

[littleworkerbee]

What is the name of your state? Oregon

What is the name of your state? Oregon

~~So over Labor Day weekend I was driving a few friends home around 12:30 am. Driving down a highway with a speed limit of 45 one of my friends gives me a hurried change of direction and I flip on my blinker and check my mirrors, and merge into the right lane to turn the corner. As I'm merging I notice a set of headlights in my rear view. I turn the corner and BAM...blue lights. SO I pull over, get all my legit necessities. Cop comes up and takes my stuff...and ALL three of my passengers identifications. He checks up on all of our IDs and whatnot and somehow has time to call in TWO more cop cars. He askes me to get out of my car and come talk to him...explaining that he was giving me "Illegal lane change" and "Failure to yield while merging"---I asked him what the illegal lane change was for and...no joke...he says because I didnt have my signal on for 100 ft...and then proceeds to tell me that I was half a car's length in front of him when I merged in front of him. OK....so THEN he askes me if he can search my car. I say sure...I have nothing to hide...and asked him if I could sit down....he then says he needs to search me....he pulls out my back pockets...kinda demeaning as I'm a girl...and then searches my friends in the car....another being a female. Searches my car...finds nothing on any of us....then tells me that I should ahev gotten directions before I left...and proceeds to rattle off lefts and rights and turn heres.....

My question is....should i go to court and at least try to get something dropped? and am I able to claim harassment for any of the intimidation (two other officers) and "need" for a search???

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Yes that is the law in Oregon:
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/811.html

811.375 Unlawful or unsignaled change of lane; penalty. (1) A person commits the offense of unlawful or unsignaled change of lanes if the person is operating a vehicle upon a highway and the person changes lanes by moving to the right or left upon the highway when:

(a) The movement cannot be made with reasonable safety; or

(b) The driver fails to give an appropriate signal continuously during not less than the last 100 feet traveled by the vehicle before changing lanes.

(2) Appropriate signals for use while changing lanes are as designated under ORS 811.395 and 811.400.

(3) The offense described in this section, unlawful or unsignaled change of lane, is a Class D traffic violation. [1983 c.338 §631; 1995 c.383 §64]

All states place distance requirements on signaling otherwise the law and any signal would serve no purpose.

The officer's search of your vehicle is permissible because you consented to it. He probably could not have done that without your consent or without discovering some other probable cause that another offense had been committed. The search of you could be permitted if the officer could articulate any facts that led him to believe that you might have had a weapon on your person. The general remedy for an unlawful search is to have any evidence seized to be suppressed in your trial. Since nothing was seized and you weren't charged with anything relating to that search, I don't see how you were harmed. I can't imagine there is any possible civil cause of action arising out of that search. You can fight these tickets if you wish. You certainly have that right. You can also speak with the prosecutor and see if they will just cut you some kind of a plea deal, like plea to one and dismiss the other, or better yet deferred adjudication so these don't go on your record. But from what you posted, legally I think you are guilty of at least failure to signal.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

none of that sounds fishy at all, please learn the rules of the roads before driving on them, thank you.

 

[justalayman]

Yes that is the law in Iowa: http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/1999/321/315.html

All states place distance requirements on signaling otherwise the law and any signal would serve no purpose.

The officer's search of your vehicle is permissible because you consented to it. He probably could not have done that without your consent or without discovering some other probable cause that another offense had been committed. The search of you could be permitted if the officer could articulate any facts that led him to believe that you might have had a weapon on your person. The general remedy for an unlawful search is to have any evidence seized to be suppressed in your trial. Since nothing was seized and you weren't charged with anything relating to that search, I don't see how you were harmed. I can't imagine there is any possible civil cause of action arising out of that search. You can fight these tickets if you wish. You certainly have that right. You can also speak with the prosecutor and see if they will just cut you some kind of a plea deal, like plea to one and dismiss the other, or better yet deferred adjudication so these don't go on your record. But from what you posted, legally I think you are guilty of at least failure to signal.

Iowa caveman? Did I miss something in there?

 

[CavemanLawyer]

Iowa caveman? Did I miss something in there?

Not sure where I got that. I might have been looking at another post about Iowa when I was also reading this one. I updated my prior post with the correct State's law.

 

[cepe10]

none of that sounds fishy at all, please learn the rules of the roads before driving on them, thank you.

Veronica - please explain the probable cause for the search. you are clueless as to US constitutional law. passengers in a car is not probable cause and since they were not detained there obviously was no criminal activity to search for.

 

[mr.blue]

Veronica - please explain the probable cause for the search. you are clueless as to US constitutional law. passengers in a car is not probable cause and since they were not detained there obviously was no criminal activity to search for. you are a very ignorant and disrespectful person. thank you.

Yes this is true in several threads,

What is sad here is that law enforcment have become preditory animals in todays society. I dont blame law enforcment. Its the american citizens who are at fault for allowing it to happen.
To the OP, unless your above the law you might just pay the ticket and count yourself lucky - Yes lucky.
It could of been very worse.
What to do? Use your vote to change the people in office - get rid of the people destroying your country and the principals it was founded on.

 

[Zigner]

Veronica - please explain the probable cause for the search.

cepe10 -
Who needs probable cause? The search was consensual. Perhaps you need to bone up on things...you're rusty.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

Veronica - please explain the probable cause for the search. you are clueless as to US constitutional law. passengers in a car is not probable cause and since they were not detained there obviously was no criminal activity to search for. you are a very ignorant and disrespectful person. thank you.

i believe CONSENT makes it constitutional, at least I can read.

 

[VeronicaLodge]

Yes this is true in several threads,

What is sad here is that law enforcment have become preditory animals in todays society. I dont blame law enforcment. Its the american citizens who are at fault for allowing it to happen. Because of inaction all rights of citizens are slowly being chipped away, soon there will be none. You will be guilty untill proven innocent. WELL unless you have have money or influence - THen your above the law.

To the OP, unless your above the law you might just pay the ticket and count yourself lucky - Yes lucky.
It could of been very worse.
What to do? Use your vote to change the people in office - get rid of the people destroying your country and the principals it was founded on.

lol she drove recklessly and almost caused an accident with a police car! and then consented to be searched. what in the world is fishy here????

 

[littleworkerbee]

My last post on here.

To all those who had helpful words on my two posts *particularly about the 100 feet and my compliance to a search that wasn't needed* a big Thank You. I agree that I should have been more careful merginig, but it did not take me "1 sec" to do all of the above on a two lane highway. My original posts were not very clear as to what I wanted to convey, but oh well. I seem to have started a feud between several other members, in which I find hilarious. Strange how one thing leads to another.

One particular post has really tickled my fancy....

Veronica Lodge....

um hi, she nearly ran a police car off the road causing an accident because she wasn't paying attention to where she was going or what she was doing and then consented to a search. How is that unfair? and how is my asking her to learn the rules of the road before using them unhelpful? I drive on the roads as well and would not like to be hit by her or her friends because they don't even know what they did or how they were driving was the incorrect way to drive. I also do not appreciate my insurance rates going up because of careless drivers like this. Thanks!


~~~~My response~~

I did not get a reckless driving ticket....obviously the police officer did not deem me "a liability" to other drivers, just a driver in an unfamiliar area with a distraction. To that I am thankful. As to not knowing the rules of the road...I did take a test just like every other person, and passed it no problem, have had no other tickets, and have full coverage insurance of my own, which I don't seem to have a problem paying *my premiums are nice...I don't know which insurance you are using, but perhaps should switch*

I am NOT a careless driver, just one that the circumstances didnt fall all that great upon.

~~Update for Veronica~~

I have since gotten the illegal lane change dismissed and the failure to merge reduced thanks to a judge who was a much more understanding person than you.

And as the saying goes...."If you don't have anything nice to say.....don't say anything at all."

 

[littleworkerbee]

Oh and I forgot....

Drive in Portland sometime and tell me that the "LAW" requires turn signals.....or any other major city where there are conceited people on the roads.

 

[cepe10]

Good job littleworkerbee thanks for the update too. going into court is often helpful.

 

[CdwJava]

Drive in Portland sometime and tell me that the "LAW" requires turn signals.....or any other major city where there are conceited people on the roads.

I thought the law was posted above ... I see that it does apparently require a signal be given. Are you sayin gthat the law as posted is incorrect?

If you argue that "everyone does it" (that they do what you did) that is not a lawful defense in court.

- Carl

 

[cepe10]

I thought the law was posted above ... I see that it does apparently require a signal be given. Are you sayin gthat the law as posted is incorrect?

If you argue that "everyone does it" (that they do what you did) that is not a lawful defense in court.

- Carl

I think she means it is not consistently enforced Carl and thus somewhat Arbitrary and Capricious. Do you seriously disagree? Keep in mind also that not everyone is as perfect as you I'm sure like zigner you never break any traffic regulation ever