I feel this is unfair....

[littleworkerbee]

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???

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by VeronicaLodge

why is this unfair? you broke the law, please learn the rules of the road before driving on them, thank you.

That is a pretty condescending and totally unhelpful response. The OP didn't ask for any lectures.

She said that she believes she was doing nothing wrong and was wrongly accused and harrassed. What part of her post led you to the brilliant conclusion that she "broke the law"?? Was it the part where she says she checked her mirrors, or turned on her turn signal?

The OP asked a legitimate question. If you do not have a legitimate answer, maybe you should not post.

[justalayman]

he says because I didnt have my signal on for 100 ft...

so, did you have your turn signal on for more or less than 100 feet

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.

and were you?

You state things like we know what went on. We only know what you tell us.

OK....so THEN he askes me if he can search my car. I say sure...I have nothing to hide...

so that makes the search totally legal

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

are you inferring he touched you in ways you believe to be inappropriate?

...and then searches my friends in the car....another being a female.

same here

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???

please explain why you feel you were harassed and why s search you consented to now presents a problem.

[trieroffact]

Welcome to the world of illegal profiling to go on fishing trips to find something even when there is no probable cause.

You can sue for a civil rights violation-but expect the police officer to invent some cause.

The 100 ft is very subjective...I guess the other poster (hypocrite) carries a tape measure around a measures the distance he will be changing lanes ahead of himself....

Go to court and ask for some leniency and do mention the search - it certainly makes it look like traffic enforcement was not the main goal.

[Zigner]

Originally Posted by trieroffact

Welcome to the world of illegal profiling to go on fishing trips to find something even when there is no probable cause.

Wow - since when did a search (with full consent) turn in to "illegal profiling"?

Watch out...the man is out to get you!

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by trieroffact

Welcome to the world of illegal profiling to go on fishing trips to find something even when there is no probable cause.

You can sue for a civil rights violation-but expect the police officer to invent some cause.

The 100 ft is very subjective...I guess the other poster (hypocrite) carries a tape measure around a measures the distance he will be changing lanes ahead of himself....

Go to court and ask for some leniency and do mention the search - it certainly makes it look like traffic enforcement was not the main goal.

and how do you turn:

so, did you have your turn signal on for more or less than 100 feet

in my post into I had a tape measure and I have condemned the OP for breaking the law? I asked if the distance was correct as OP ever denied the fact in their original post yet they seemed they were incorrectly charged. i was asking for clarification and I get slammed as being a hypocrite.

Trierof fact, that is the definition of hypocrite right there; you calling me a hypocrite when you in fact have proven yourself to be the hypocrite.

When you and your little play buddies running around here want to grow up and learn that when we ask questions or even when we tell an OP we see no defense and there is little we can do for them or even greater; little reason to contest their ticket, arrest, etc, we are not being hypocrites, we are being realists.

Grow up or go away.

So, to dissect your post:

Welcome to the world of illegal profiling to go on fishing trips to find something even when there is no probable cause.

Since you hopped in here and started crap with no reason, OP may now not clarify as to the actual reason they were pulled over. If the stop is righteous, then they have absolutely no complaint. In other words, no fishing trip and no illegal profiling. (btw, not all profiling is illegal and you have presented diddly squat that would even suggest ANY profiling, let alone illegal profiling)

You can sue for a civil rights violation-but expect the police officer to invent some cause.

If the charges are even close to legit, officer does not need to invent anything. The stop was good and OP consented to the search. They did have the option of refusing. If a search was performed then, then OP might have a claim, depending on the circumstances.

The 100 ft is very subjective...I guess the other poster (hypocrite) carries a tape measure around a measures the distance he will be changing lanes ahead of himself....

Not sure how "100 feet" can ever be subjective. You can get a tape measure out and measure 100 feet. that removes all possibilities of anything being 100 feet. Now, you being a dolt or a moron, that would be a subjective fact. Well, now that I think about it, maybe not.

Go to court and ask for some leniency and do mention the search - it certainly makes it look like traffic enforcement was not the main goal.

I have no problem with asking for leniency (can;t see any reason to ask for it from what has been posted but...) but not because of your reasoning. As I said before, OP had every right to refuse the search and did not do so, so they will have a hard time using that as a reason for anything.

If OP wants to do the little doe eyes thing with the judge and try for leniency, more power to her but absolutely NOTHING in her post even comes close to the actions being incorrect or improper.

[cepe10]

Originally Posted by justalayman

and how do you turn:in my post into I had a tape measure and I have condemned the OP for breaking the law? I asked if the distance was correct

Tisk Tisk little hen - Don't get angry just because your not logical. 66 feet per second means the signal only has to be on for a fraction over a second. (or for about 1.5 standard 1/4 residential lots)

How did the law enforcement officer determine this criteria was not met? Burden is on the accuser remember? You don't ask any questions on how the law enforcement officer measured the 100 ft as we all know he pulled this out of thin air. Thus your bias shows.

Once the signal was on for 1 second the police office had the obligation to yield according to traffic law (see the sections on yielding to overtaking vehicle).

The fact is she most likely signaled long enough and secondly that you yourself probably don't properly signal all the time and thus should surrender your license because you don't obey the law. That is if your not a hypocrite.

For littleworkerbee - yes it was unfair -ask your parents if they will assist you in filing a complaint with the police department - if it was my daughter that was groped I would certainly be interested in this kind of behavior not being tolerated.

In the future - don't consent to a search (see motorists.org the national motorist association). and don't react to your passengers if they are not giving you proper time to make the traffic maneuver - swing around the next block if you don't have time to get over for a turn.

There was a great case in Maryland a few years ago in a similar fruitless search situation resulted in the Maryland State Police losing a lawsuit and having to comply with a consent decree admitting their fault for just such bogus profiling and illegal searches. Mr. Wilkins is a real hero for his effort in the matter. The Maryland State Police continues to violate the
Maryland Public Information Act to this day regarding the consent decree and are being sued again. I guess they only enforce the law not obey it.


Mr. Wilkins statement before the senate for those interested:
[url]http://www.senate.gov/comm/judiciary/general/oldsite/330200rw.htm[/url]

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by cepe10

How did the law enforcement officer determine this criteria was not met? Burden is on the accuser remember? You don't ask any questions on how the law enforcement officer measured the 100 ft as we all know he pulled this out of thin air. ...
The fact is she most likely signaled long enough and secondly that you yourself probably don't properly signal all the time and thus should surrender your license because you don't obey the law.

Ah,, if only you could read as well as you can be wrong...

Originally Posted by OP

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

[JIMinCA]

YAG,

That carries little weight in my eyes. The cop was obviously biased as per the fact that he searched (fruitlessly) the OP, all the passengers and the vehicle. The OP obviously didn't have to consent to the search, but she did as an act of cooperation. Of course the cop had to write her a ticket for something... otherwise his bias would have been even more obvious.




justalayman/zigner,

Here you go again. You guys are trying to prosecute the OP right here on this site. The questions you ask her are with an obvious prosecutorial slant. Why can't you ask questions that may bolster her defense? You guys and your rightous indignation have done nothing more than muddy up another thread where a poster simply wants to know opinions on how to prepare a defense.

I know you think she is guilty and therefore not worthy of your assistance. As I have stated on other threads, I have gotten several dismissals on cases that you two would have said I was guilty before going to court. I think your bias is clear and your prejudice is not helpful.

[Zigner]

Jim would have us run around with wanton disregard for the law and hope for a dismissal...

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by Zigner

Jim would have us run around with wanton disregard for the law and hope for a dismissal...

Jim would have us exercise the rights given to us by the constitution and challenge inappropriate law enforcement practices.

[VeronicaLodge]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

That is a pretty condescending and totally unhelpful response. The OP didn't ask for any lectures.

She said that she believes she was doing nothing wrong and was wrongly accused and harrassed. What part of her post led you to the brilliant conclusion that she "broke the law"?? Was it the part where she says she checked her mirrors, or turned on her turn signal?

The OP asked a legitimate question. If you do not have a legitimate answer, maybe you should not post.

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!

[justalayman]

Originally Posted by JIMinCA

justalayman/zigner,

Here you go again. You guys are trying to prosecute the OP right here on this site. The questions you ask her are with an obvious prosecutorial slant. Why can't you ask questions that may bolster her defense? You guys and your rightous indignation have done nothing more than muddy up another thread where a poster simply wants to know opinions on how to prepare a defense.

I know you think she is guilty and therefore not worthy of your assistance. As I have stated on other threads, I have gotten several dismissals on cases that you two would have said I was guilty before going to court. I think your bias is clear and your prejudice is not helpful.

You are a ****ing moron. I asked questions. PERIOD. That was an intent to allow OP to explain any problems rather than me condemning her. Somehow you, the ****ing moron, turn that into my condemnation of the OP and ruling her guilty.There was no slant. I believe you are a bit paranoid Jim.

You are obviously a troll with no knowledge and no intention of assisting anybody in anything. You are intentionally being disruptive while claiming it is everybody else.

Go away asshat.

[justalayman]

Oh, and (as YAG so affectioantley calls you) peepee, link me up to this requirement (and I am talking about statute, not a suggestion by a drivers program) that a driver must give up right of way simply because a turn signal was on for...what was that?? one second?

Once the signal was on for 1 second the police office had the obligation to yield according to traffic law (see the sections on yielding to overtaking vehicle).

as a matter of fact, I would like you to show me statute IN ANY STATE that mandates a driver yield to a driver in another lane simply because the turn signal is on.

and to this:

For littleworkerbee - yes it was unfair -ask your parents if they will assist you in filing a complaint with the police department - if it was my daughter that was groped I would certainly be interested in this kind of behavior not being tolerated.

where did it say she was groped. While I attempted to have OP relay what she saw as a problem, you run off and claim she was groped. and you guys claim I have a bias.

WOW!!

[JIMinCA]

Originally Posted by VeronicaLodge

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?

No... she stated that she used her turn signal and checked to see that the lane was clear. The cop said she cut her off. You have nothing to base your opinion that she "nearly ran a police car off the road". However, you sure do jump to conclusions.

and how is my asking her to learn the rules of the road before using them unhelpful?

I think her post indicated that she was acting properly. She used her turn signal and she looked to verify a clear lane. Maybe she is skewed in her perspective, but you have no evidence of that. The part that is so "unhelpful" is the condescending tone of such a statement. She obviously KNOWS the rules of the road (as indicated by her post).

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!

So.... your bias really emerges now. Your post is all about you. The OP came here looking for help and your response only demonstrates your own personal interests. That is not what the OP asked for, nor is it in keeping with the intent of this forum.