profiled and detained fpr 1 + hour

[MLT]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? indiana
I was pulled over by state police. When asked why he replied that he was sure the handicap plate did not belong to my vehicle, I assured him they were correct, he questioned my disability then advised me sit tight, 10 minutes later he came back and started picking my car apart, illegal windshield, tires, no hood, checked all light functionality, etc, told me to sit tight, came back 35 minutes or so later and handed me a ticket for no registration with a time of 5:02 on it, a warning for improper windshield with a time of 4:36 on it and told me he spent the last 20 minutes contemplating whether to impound my vehicle or not, in total we were detained for one hour because this officer profiled my plate, were my rights violated (4th amend) and what to do?

[cyjeff]

You were driving down the road without a hood?

Was the car legally tagged?

[Banned_Princess]

So, your windshield was illegal, and you were driving without a hood, and your car wasn't properly registered, and you think he "profiled your plate" ???


Your lucky he didn't impound your car I'm amazed you don't get pulled over more often. .. thats it.

[MLT]

the car was registered properly, the plates belonged, i just did not have the reg with me... the reason he stopped me was he did not believe the plates belonged, everything after should not be a factor should it? The windshield was lexan, i was under the imppression it was ok, ignorance, but unaware

[MLT]

Originally Posted by cyjeff

You were driving down the road without a hood?

Was the car legally tagged?

yes it was

[MLT]

Originally Posted by Banned_Princess

your car wasn't properly registered, and you think he "profiled your plate" ???


.

It was properly registered, his statement at the beginning that he was sure the handicap plate did not belong sure soumds like profiling... and to hold us for an hour after finding that the plate was legit seems like illegal seizure per the 4th

[ecmst12]

He didn't seize anything nor search. It was a legal stop.

[Banned_Princess]

He did not in any way seize your car. you drove away in your car, and I bet you barely got out of the car, so your understanding of "illegal seizure per the 4th" is out of wack.


A police officer's job is to pull people over and give them tickets.. seems to me he was just doing his job.

Additionally along with your misunderstanding of the word seizure, Profiling doesn't have anything to do with license plates. or disability's or the disability plate on your car, it refers to police pulling over black drivers an overwhelmingly percent of the time due to the misconception black drivers are more likely to have stolen the car, or have drugs.

The officer had probable cause to pull you over because your plate seemed to be wrong, and it wasn't so you weren't ticketed for it.


What do you want anyway, to sue the police force? If your car is properly registered the ticket will be dismissed. and that is the end of it.

[CdwJava]

While not really a "seizure", per se, the detention is still covered under the 4th Amendment. Whether it was a lawful detention or not is something that a court would have to decide based upon the totality of the circumstances.

The officer must have a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot before he can effect a detention. Simply guessing that a disabled plate does not match the car would NOT be sufficient, by itself, to justify a detention. Now, if he ran the plate and it came back with no record (for some reason) or came back registered to a car that did not appear to match the car it was on, then that should be sufficient. But simply to guess? No.

Also, MLT, "profiling" is not unlawful in any way. It is UNLAWFUL profiling that is ... uh ... unlawful. And that unlawful profiling tends to be based upon race, gender, creed, or one of a number of so-called protected classes. License plates or cars are not part of any protected class that I am aware of.

In short, if the officer had reasonable suspicion to affect the detention, and as a result of that detention he discovered these other issues, then everything is likely lawful. Your next step is to fight the citations in court. If you wish to argue against the initial stop, you might consider consulting an attorney unless you can learn a lot about 4th Amendment law in your state and federal circuit in a short period of time.

- Carl

[Banned_Princess]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

While not really a "seizure", per se, the detention is still covered under the 4th Amendment. Whether it was a lawful detention or not is something that a court would have to decide based upon the totality of the circumstances.

The officer must have a reasonable belief that criminal activity is afoot before he can effect a detention. Simply guessing that a disabled plate does not match the car would NOT be sufficient, by itself, to justify a detention. Now, if he ran the plate and it came back with no record (for some reason) or came back registered to a car that did not appear to match the car it was on, then that should be sufficient. But simply to guess? No.

Also, MLT, "profiling" is not unlawful in any way. It is UNLAWFUL profiling that is ... uh ... unlawful. And that unlawful profiling tends to be based upon race, gender, creed, or one of a number of so-called protected classes. License plates or cars are not part of any protected class that I am aware of.

In short, if the officer had reasonable suspicion to affect the detention, and as a result of that detention he discovered these other issues, then everything is likely lawful. Your next step is to fight the citations in court. If you wish to argue against the initial stop, you might consider consulting an attorney unless you can learn a lot about 4th Amendment law in your state and federal circuit in a short period of time.

- Carl

1 hour is in no way an unreasonable amount of time to recieve a ticket when you consider the following the officer had to do.
1) run the plates and license information
2) there is obvious illegal equipment on the car and he took his time inspecting the cars other equipment to decide if he was going to impound the car with no hood and illegal windshield.
3)The man in the post did not provide the officer with the registration papers. and I bet OP was accusing the officer of "profiling" and illegally seizing him per the 4th amendment the whole time.

But thank you for pointing out to me that seizure of time is also protected by the 4th amenment. That is good to know, and I hope to learn all about it in my legal studies.

And the Itallic underlined is exactly the answer OP was looking for. Thank you Carl.

[MLT]

I was under the impression that the traffic stop had to be to the point, I had no idea they could sit back and "contemplate" on our time. Assuming my handicap plate did not belong would also seem to me as profiling against disabilities, i mean, what exactly should a disabled persons car look like, must we all drive vans with a scooter on the back? Once he found out the plate was good, was he not obligated to ask for my signature and send me along, or could he just start digging thru pockets, asking more questions about my physical copnditions and maybe we could discuss religion as well> There must be a point where an hour is excessive when the warning ticket was written half an hour before the written!

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Banned_Princess

1 hour is in no way an unreasonable amount of time to recieve a ticket when you consider the following the officer had to do.
1) run the plates and license information
2) there is obvious illegal equipment on the car and he took his time inspecting the cars other equipment to decide if he was going to impound the car with no hood and illegal windshield.
3)The man in the post did not provide the officer with the registration papers. and I bet OP was accusing the officer of "profiling" and illegally seizing him per the 4th amendment the whole time.

One hour is a very long detention. I can do a similar inspection and confirm the registration by radio or phone in just a few minutes. Even when I worked in a very busy agency, an extensive inspection should have taken no more than 20-30 minutes.

But, as there was no articulable damages or other issues at work here, the length of the detention is really not much of an issue. The issue at hand is whether or not the initial detention was based upon articulated, reasonable suspicion. If the officer just GUESSED that the plate did not look like it went with the vehicle, and had nothing else to go on, then the detention would almost certainly be unreasonable and thus unlawful.

If the officer cannot articulate good cause for the stop, then the resulting violations should be dismissed.

- Carl

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by MLT

I was under the impression that the traffic stop had to be to the point, I had no idea they could sit back and "contemplate" on our time. Assuming my handicap plate did not belong would also seem to me as profiling against disabilities, i mean, what exactly should a disabled persons car look like, must we all drive vans with a scooter on the back? Once he found out the plate was good, was he not obligated to ask for my signature and send me along, or could he just start digging thru pockets, asking more questions about my physical copnditions and maybe we could discuss religion as well> There must be a point where an hour is excessive when the warning ticket was written half an hour before the written!

Once he had you lawfully stopped, he could well have seen other violations. The key is whether he had reasonable suspicion to stop you in the first place. Once you were stopped, the rest can come to pass as a result of his observations.

Whether you are legally required to provide any proof of your disability when stopped by an officer in your state, I do not know. I suspect all you have to show is the proper paperwork. If you lacked the proper registration paperwork, that can also grant some legal authority for the officer to conduct a limited search in order to fin those items (assuming your state does not have a more restrictive standard than federal law allows).

Whether the one hour detention is unreasonable is something for a court to decide. But, since I doubt that a court will ever be asked to decide that question, it's moot. It seems unreasonably long to me, but I could probably figure out a way to stretch it if I had to, so I doubt that would go anywhere even on the off chance you could pay an attorney to file a 1983 action against the agency for a violation of civil rights.

Probably your ONLY hope to avoid the other citation is successfully show that the officer lacked the reasonable suspicion to make the detention in the first place. But, I bet the officer is NOT going to say that the plate did not look like it matched the vehicle ... at least, not without something more reasonable.

Oh, and it is NOT unlawful profiling. So, forget that argument altogether. Unless he has a record of pulling over only disabled people, that's not going to fly. And even if he did, if he had objective reasonable suspicion to make the stop, such a claim would be out the window for the most part even if he did have some sort o a beef against disabled people.

- Carl

[MLT]

20 minutes is more understandable than an hour

[MLT]

and I bet OP was accusing the officer of "profiling" and illegally seizing him per the 4th amendment the whole time.

you would lose that bet