police refuses to tell me why i was pulled over and got arrested

[eddie7978]

ok so i got pulled over and i asked why.. he said he would tell me when i gave him my information.. i said tell me what i did and ill give you my info.. he refused to tell me what i did.. then reached in my car trying to get my information
so i said dont touch me and tried to close my window but he forced my window down
he then opened my door and tried getting me out of the car.. thats when backup arrived and they arrested me for failure to comply.. i had a video of all this and they deleted it

this happened on long island nassau county it was hempsted police

 

[Zigner]

ok so i got pulled over and i asked why.. he said he would tell me when i gave him my information.. i said tell me what i did and ill give you my info.. he refused to tell me what i did.. then reached in my car trying to get my information
so i said dont touch me and tried to close my window but he forced my window down
he then opened my door and tried getting me out of the car.. thats when backup arrived and they arrested me for failure to comply.. i had a video of all this and they deleted it

this happened on long island nassau county it was hempsted police

Make sure you talk only to your attorney about this. Beyond that...thanks for sharing!

 

[eddie7978]

Make sure you talk only to your attorney about this. Beyond that...thanks for sharing!

i want to get advice if i did something wrong or if he did... i felt like i got violated i was ready to give him my info all he had to tell me was what i did wrong.. i want to know if its against the law for him to tell me why i was pulled over

also my car was impounded.. i got a ticket for failure to comply its a violation appearance ticket..

 

[justalayman]

i want to get advice if i did something wrong or if he did....

maybe, maybe not. He was not required to provide you a reason he pulled you over. He had to have reasonable suspicion of a crime to be able to pull you over but he didn't have to tell you what it was all about.

then you can get into the argument if you are legally required to comply with a command of an officer if he had no RS. I haven't chased that. Some states you do, others you don't.


and that is why you need to speak with your lawyer about this.

 

[tranquility]

As Zigner said, you should not talk about this with anyone but your attorney. The police need a reason to stop you. They do not have to disclose that reason just because you demand it. From what you have said, it is likely you are guilty of an obstruction/impeding-type crime. The police, in court, will have to prove they had a valid reason why they stopped you. Once they have that, you need to not resist or delay their reasonable investigation. The video would have only been evidence of your crime. Unless they used excessive force for the situation, I do not see why they would intentionally erase it.

As to the force, reaching into the vehicle MAY have been excessive. MAY. In a legal sense, there is probably not going to be a problem. But, a complaint may get his supervisor to reinforce the force continuum to the officer. If what you say is exactly true, he might have used his command presence just a bit more before taking action. However, in my mind, once you started to roll up the window, all bets were off. Consider yourself lucky you don't get an assault on an officer charge.

Say nothing to anyone other than your attorney.

 

[HighwayMan]

He had to have reasonable suspicion of a crime to be able to pull you over...

Nah, just a traffic infraction or violation is sufficient.

 

[Stressed About]

The old "you had a signal light" burnt out trick.

I've had an issue several years ago to get pulled over due to the officer just running license plates late at night and he typed in or called in one of the letters, which was actually a number and was "detained" until a sergeant arrived and noticed the error.

Still, just the way I was treated was a bad experience and after that, I learned from a friend that I did the right thing by not saying a word except for name and address and co-operating with instructions.

 

[justalayman]

Nah, just a traffic infraction or violation is sufficient.

those are crimes

 

[HighwayMan]

i want to get advice if i did something wrong or if he did...

Yes, you did.

You are required to provide your driver's license, vehicle registration, and New York State insurance card to the police when you are the subject of a traffic stop.

I don't know what he was actually reaching into the car for, but that was foolish.

If I stop someone and they start playing games instead of providing their documents then they get arrested, plain and simple.

By the way, an officer probably has a very good reason for NOT telling you why he stopped you before you hand over your documents. It's called avoiding an unnecessary argument from the motorist. I rarely tell anyone why I stopped them until AFTER I have their documents in my hand.

What were you actually charged with? I mean what law and section?

 

[HighwayMan]

those are crimes

No, they most certainly are not.

 

[justalayman]

No, they most certainly are not.

so you are saying tickets are a civil matter?

 

[justalayman]

let me stop this now;


you have criminal and civil law


if you break a law, whether it be a criminal statute or a civil statute, you have committed a crime because you have broken a law. that does not mean a traffic violation falls under criminal law but violating a traffic based statute is in fact a crime. Otherwise, the police would not be able to stop you under reasonable suspicion since the requirement is:

A reasonable suspicion exists when a reasonable person under the circumstances, would, based upon specific and articulable facts, suspect that a crime has been committed.

so, if you want to argue a traffic violation is not a crime, then the police have no right to stop you based on violating a traffic law.

 

[HighwayMan]

No, but violations and traffic infractions are not crimes. The fact that an offense gets adjudicated by a local justice court or a criminal court does not make that offense a crime. Violations and traffic infractions are classified as petty offenses, not crimes.

Also, some violations may be considered criminal violations (e.g. Penal Law section 140.05 - Trespass) but they are still not crimes.

Crimes are comprised of misdemeanors and felonies, nothing else.

 

[justalayman]

No, but violations and traffic infractions are not crimes. The fact that an offense gets adjudicated by a local justice court or a criminal court does not make that offense a crime. Violations and traffic infractions are classified as petty offenses, not crimes.

Also, some violations may be considered criminal violations (e.g. Penal Law section 140.05 - Trespass) but they are still not crimes.

Crimes are comprised of misdemeanors and felonies, nothing else.

see my post above

 

[HighwayMan]

...you have criminal and civil law...

But not every violation of criminal law is classified as a crime.

...so, if you want to argue a traffic violation is not a crime, then the police have no right to stop you based on violating a traffic law.

I took a quick look at the Criminal Procedure Law and while I couldn't find "reasonable suspicion" defined I did find the definition of probable cause (referred to as "reasonable cause to believe") and the term "offense" is used in the definition NOT "crime" (see CPL 70.10 (2)).

I would assume that if reasonable suspicion is specifically defined in the CPL then the same terminology is used.