Seeking advice to resolve legal injustice - officer prob. based traffic stop on a lie

[fosnoski]

What is the name of your state? Iowa.

On the night of Friday, May 13 at approximately midnight, I was pulled over in the town of University Heights, Iowa, a town of 1000 surrounded by the much larger city of Iowa City. University Heights is known for being a speed trap. When I asked the officer why I was pulled over, he timidly said "speed." He said I was going 40. The speed limit was 25 and I was almost positive that I had not been going more than 35 (probably 30ish) however I had not been paying close attention. The officer did kindly let me see his reading, which indeed was locked on at 40. The officer was polite and respectful at all times.

The officer then proceeded to give me both an eye movement and a breathylizer(sp?) test. No problem, I had not been drinking.

The officer then let me go without a citation.

A few minutes later, I drove down a street where it was legal to drive 40 to get an idea for what it felt like, and the three passengers that had been with me all positively swore that there was NO WAY I could have been going that fast on the street where I had been pulled over!!! Given this, combined with the fact that he did not write the ticket (which is impressive for a tiny town with very little crime), I am now 95% confident that the 40 mph reading was false.

One passenger familiar with University Heights was highly surprised that the officer did not give the ticket. This may have been due to my positive attitude and respectful disposition, but I doubt it.

My theory is that this officer radared one car going 40 prior to my incident and kept his equipment locked at 40 while he pulled others over going slower speeds to test for drunk driving. After describing the situation to my parents, they believe that the officer's radar equipment was improperly calibrated and this was an honest mistake. I have a hard time believing this because most officers are very good at visually estimating speed. This officer should have known if the radar was off by that much.

Since I did not receive the citation, I could let this go and not have any issues. However, the duties of our law enforcement community are to protect the public and fight crime, and in the event that an officer would base the reason for a traffic stop (for example) on an outright lie makes me feel extremely uncomfortable. It is not reassuring to find evidence that those challenged to keep our society functional and free of crime are not being honest and forthright. This officer had every right to radar me and pull me over going the 29-34 that I probably was going, run the alcohol tests, and give me a citation for the speed I was honestly driving at.

Secondly, the reputation of the law enforcement community is at stake. Their reputation has been going steadily downhill over the past few decades (as I understand it), and an officer making an outright lie would simply add more fuel to the fire. I believe that the cause of their increasingly bad reputation is the bad attitude and harassment which many (mostly younger) officers use (this was NOT AT ALL the case in the above incident, but should be mentioned to explain why I'm following up on this) is an injustice to the more respectful, rational, and realistic officers.

My initial inclination was to write a letter to the editor of the Iowa city paper explaining the incident and the evidence that backs my theory that the officer's reading was a lie. I would include 2 things:

1. If the 40 reading was indeed false, this officer is doing a major disservice to the community, and this injustice needs to be corrected immediately. (This would include the details described above.)

2. In the unlikely event that I had really been going 40, would the University Heights Police please accept my sincere apologies for bringing this up in the public eye.

At this point, there is one reason why I am not following up with this with a call to the police chief followed by a letter to the editor: I have heard that an officer can issue a citation up to a year after the speeding offense is committed. As a speeding ticket often increases insurance by thousands of dollars, getting this resolved is not worth the risk of that happening.

I would like to pose two questions to the readers of this post:

1. Could anybody confirm or deny that a traffic citation can be issued after the fact in Iowa? I don't have a clue where to start looking other than the Iowa Code, which I have read but don't find any reference to this.

2. Any advice on how to get the word out to the public or resolve this fairly and respectfully?

Thanks in advance for your help.

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by fosnoski

On the night of Friday, May 13 at approximately midnight, I was pulled over in the town of University Heights, Iowa, a town of 1000 surrounded by the much larger city of Iowa City. University Heights is known for being a speed trap. When I asked the officer why I was pulled over, he timidly said "speed." He said I was going 40. The speed limit was 25 and I was almost positive that I had not been going more than 35 (probably 30ish) however I had not been paying close attention. The officer did kindly let me see his reading, which indeed was locked on at 40. The officer was polite and respectful at all times.

So you admit that you were, in fact, speeding. All you dispute is whether or not you were actually going as fast as the officer said you were going.

The officer showed you the radar reading. (something I would not have done)

What more do you need?

The officer then proceeded to give me both an eye movement and a breathylizer(sp?) test. No problem, I had not been drinking.

The officer then let me go without a citation.

The officer used his discretion, and released you without a citation. (I would have written it)

And what, exactly, are you complaining about?

1. Could anybody confirm or deny that a traffic citation can be issued after the fact in Iowa?

That is Iowa specific, but I suspect that he can.

2. Any advice on how to get the word out to the public or resolve this fairly and respectfully?

What is there to resolve?

The rest of your post is little more than whining that you were stopped at all. It's proof of the old adage that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

There's a police corollary that... the ones you give a break to, will be the ones who complain the loudest about being stopped in the first place.

The officer should have written the speeding citation. If he had, your complaints would be seen as nothing more than sour grapes.

Go ahead and file your complaint. Talk to a reporter about police misconduct. Take out a full page ad in the newspaper decrying that the cop dissed you for stopping you.

The only result will be that no one, but no one will get any breaks at all from that officer, or that agency ever again.

[Barwick11]

Originally Posted by Curt581

So you admit that you were, in fact, speeding. All you dispute is whether or not you were actually going as fast as the officer said you were going.

The officer showed you the radar reading. (something I would not have done)

What more do you need?

The officer used his discretion, and released you without a citation. (I would have written it)

And what, exactly, are you complaining about?

That is Iowa specific, but I suspect that he can.

What is there to resolve?

The rest of your post is little more than whining that you were stopped at all. It's proof of the old adage that No Good Deed Goes Unpunished.

There's a police corollary that... the ones you give a break to, will be the ones who complain the loudest about being stopped in the first place.

The officer should have written the speeding citation. If he had, your complaints would be seen as nothing more than sour grapes.

Go ahead and file your complaint. Talk to a reporter about police misconduct. Take out a full page ad in the newspaper decrying that the cop dissed you for stopping you.

The only result will be that no one, but no one will get any breaks at all from that officer, or that agency ever again.

Oh what a shame that would be. We force them to obey the laws and respect our rights (not stopping us for an unreasonable search and seizure), and by doing so, they retaliate by strict enforcement of arbitrary speed laws. Can you say "police state"?

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Barwick11

Oh what a shame that would be. We force them to obey the laws and respect our rights (not stopping us for an unreasonable search and seizure), and by doing so, they retaliate by strict enforcement of arbitrary speed laws. Can you say "police state"?

Hardly.

If you get stung by using your discretion, the result is usually a removal of that discretion.

For example, in agencies where officers are forced to complete mini reports on all stops that do not result in a cite (for 'racial profiling' purposes) officers have found that there is less paperwork and less chance of it coming back to bite you if you just issue the citation.

The OP has every right to yell and complain if he believes an injustice has been done. However, it is very likely that at least for a time there will likely be no quarter given in the future by that officer.

I may have done the same thing this officer did, but, were I to get spanked for it or be at the center of even a mini maelstrom, chances are high that I would not give warnings again.

Remember, there is NO LEGAL OBLIGATION for an officer to give a warning. If he does so, it is out of kindness and the use of discretion. The goal of traffic enforcement is to change behavior. If the officer believes that the stop alone is sufficient to alter the behavior, then so be it.

Anyway, I doubt that being stopped and not issued a citation is going to make much of a headline anyway. I don't see any legs here.

- Carl

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by Barwick11

Oh what a shame that would be. We force them to obey the laws and respect our rights (not stopping us for an unreasonable search and seizure), and by doing so, they retaliate by strict enforcement of arbitrary speed laws. Can you say "police state"?

Clearly, this was NOT an unreasonable stop. He was speeding, and admits as much. He only disputes how far over the legal limit he was going. An issue made moot by the fact that he wasn't cited.

So you would force the police to obey the law, but would refuse to obey other laws yourself?

As to whether speed laws are arbitrary, that's not for the police to decide. That's for the legislature.

Or do you think the police can personally decide which laws they'll enforce, and which ones they won't?

[Barwick11]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Clearly, this was NOT an unreasonable stop. He was speeding, and admits as much. He only disputes how far over the legal limit he was going. An issue made moot by the fact that he wasn't cited.

So you would force the police to obey the law, but would refuse to obey other laws yourself?

As to whether speed laws are arbitrary, that's not for the police to decide. That's for the legislature.

Or do you think the police can personally decide which laws they'll enforce, and which ones they won't?

Oh I see, so police never decide if someone was going "too fast" or "not fast enough to warrant being pulled over"? Give me a break. It is wholly up to the officer's discretion, don't give me a line trying to tell me that it isn't.

There is no way to rule innocent men, so we declare so many things to be illegal that it becomes impossible to live without breaking some law. And we leave it up to the police officers to "sort out" who was going "too fast" and give them tickets. If they pulled over every single person who was going over the speed limit, there'd be a revolution.

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by Barwick11

If they pulled over every single person who was going over the speed limit, there'd be a revolution.

Not likely ... but we WOULD need more cops. At least until everyone slowed down.

Strict enforcement has the effect of changing behavior ... even if it is only for a time.

- Carl

[fosnoski]

Firstly, thanks to those who responded to my post.

Originally Posted by Curt581

The officer showed you the radar reading. (something I would not have done)

What more do you need?

I would like an assurance that this department will never pull somebody over again based on an inherent lie (in the window of 95% confidence that it was indeed a lie). As I mentioned above, the officer had every right to pull me over and give me a citation based upon the speed that I was truly going. And I appreciate the fact that he did not.

Originally Posted by Curt581

And what, exactly, are you complaining about?

Simply put, law enforcement lying to civilians.

Originally Posted by Curt581

What is there to resolve?

My concern is that this department may continue to pull people over based on an outright lie. This needs to be resolved.

Curt is a cop.

I would like to suggest to him to add a signature line, like CDW has, pointing that out.

NACOL

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by fosnoski

I would like an assurance that this department will never pull somebody over again based on an inherent lie (in the window of 95% confidence that it was indeed a lie).

If you ask the Chief, I think he would be happy to say that his officers do not stop people without reasonable suspicion. He is NOT going to say that his officer lied to you nor can you prove it.

And, as an FYI, the police CAN lie to you about certain things - including the speed that they clocked you at. He COULD say he clocked you at 40 even if he only clocked you at 35. What he could NOT do is say that in court or on a report ... that he stopped you for doing 40 when you were not, in fact, doing 40.

What you have here could be nothing more than a difference of opinion - your belief you weren't doing 40 and his belief you were.

But, ask the Chief, and I am sure he will assure you that his officers are expected to make lawful stops with cause.

Simply put, law enforcement lying to civilians.

In certain circumstances, we can. It is not always good policy (depending on the circumstances) but it is a lawful technique.

My concern is that this department may continue to pull people over based on an outright lie. This needs to be resolved.

You are presuming the officer lied. Even if he was in error because the equipment was wrong, this does not mean he lied. On the other hand, because you felt you weren't doing 40 is far less certain than his radar reading and trained visual estimation.

I still fail to see what you hope to accomplish with your joust toward the windmill here. There's no story for the press, so this just won't get off the ground - unless things are really, really slow in your neck of the woods ... they are in mine, and we have an anti-government local paper here and even THEY wouldn't find the time to publish a tale of someone not getting a ticket. And the agency certainly isn't going to admit to pulling people over without cause even if it were true.

The MOST you might accomplish is that the officer will either start issuing more cites, or, if he was lying, he MIGHT be more careful in the future. As was mentioned before, the law of unintended consequences will likely come in to play here and the officer will decide that giving warnings might not be a good idea in the future.

But, if you've got the time and can get the ink, go right ahead.

- Carl

[Curt581]

Originally Posted by NotACopOrLawyer

Curt is a cop.

I would like to suggest to him to add a signature line, like CDW has, pointing that out.

NACOL

Is there some requirement that I do so?

Or are you just trying to figuratively "bell the cat"?

I'm still waiting for a response from you in the "Not CHP" thread...

[CdwJava]

Originally Posted by NotACopOrLawyer

I would like to suggest to him to add a signature line, like CDW has, pointing that out.

I post mine not as a warning, but so that others might know what it is I do for a living ... and because I am darn proud of what I do AND how I do it.

- Carl

[Barwick11]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

Not likely ... but we WOULD need more cops. At least until everyone slowed down.

Strict enforcement has the effect of changing behavior ... even if it is only for a time.

- Carl

Bullcrap. Strict enforcement will result in pissing off enough people that we will have ZERO traffic cops on the road, because the people will demand it.

I was the most courteous driver on the road, obeying all the little stupid traffic laws that make no sense (like on the highway, don't cross a solid white line between your lanes, even when nobody's around, and here in Michigan, the "red" left-turn light at three in the morning, when traffic going your direction has a green, and nobody's around...)

So after I got pulled over for TWO ridiculously stupid tickets where NO person was being even remotely threatened by my actions (going 36 in a 25 zone with nobody around, cars or pedestrians, and an "excessive noise" ticket for revving my engine... oooooooh....), after those two tickets, I've since become a pissed off person on the road, and could really care less about these stupid little laws that serve no purpose. I will stop at every stop sign and traffic light, I will never run one of those (there is no way to ensure there isn't someone coming), but if I'm sitting at a red light and nobody else is around at all, I might just say screw it and go, who's harmed? nobody. But if a cop saw me do that (something I've seen THEM do multiple times, so it must be safe, right?), they'd give me a ticket.

You continue to enforce stupid traffic laws that serve no purpose to protect the public, and you will continue to take people who are currently polite drivers on the road, and they will stop obeying traffic laws that serve no purpose.

[Barwick11]

Originally Posted by CdwJava

If you ask the Chief, I think he would be happy to say that his officers do not stop people without reasonable suspicion. He is NOT going to say that his officer lied to you nor can you prove it.

And, as an FYI, the police CAN lie to you about certain things - including the speed that they clocked you at. He COULD say he clocked you at 40 even if he only clocked you at 35. What he could NOT do is say that in court or on a report ... that he stopped you for doing 40 when you were not, in fact, doing 40.

What you have here could be nothing more than a difference of opinion - your belief you weren't doing 40 and his belief you were.

But, ask the Chief, and I am sure he will assure you that his officers are expected to make lawful stops with cause.



In certain circumstances, we can. It is not always good policy (depending on the circumstances) but it is a lawful technique.



You are presuming the officer lied. Even if he was in error because the equipment was wrong, this does not mean he lied. On the other hand, because you felt you weren't doing 40 is far less certain than his radar reading and trained visual estimation.

I still fail to see what you hope to accomplish with your joust toward the windmill here. There's no story for the press, so this just won't get off the ground - unless things are really, really slow in your neck of the woods ... they are in mine, and we have an anti-government local paper here and even THEY wouldn't find the time to publish a tale of someone not getting a ticket. And the agency certainly isn't going to admit to pulling people over without cause even if it were true.

The MOST you might accomplish is that the officer will either start issuing more cites, or, if he was lying, he MIGHT be more careful in the future. As was mentioned before, the law of unintended consequences will likely come in to play here and the officer will decide that giving warnings might not be a good idea in the future.

But, if you've got the time and can get the ink, go right ahead.

- Carl

I've never heard of officers pulling people over without reasonable cause... Traffic checkpoints? Guilty until proven innocent?

Do you see how in the name of "protecting the public" we're pissing on the rights of ordinary people by presuming they're guilty and forcing them into a search? Have you ever seen Minority Report? Our current state and where it's headed is exactly that movie (traffic checkpoints and speed limits claim to "protect" us from accidents involving dangerous drivers, except that no crime is ever committed, and yet we punish and arrest people who've never done anything besides what some legislature deems dangerous).

There's plenty of good things for cops to be out there doing, we hear all the time how there's not enough cops out there to keep us safe, and yet we burden them with making criminals out of common people on the roadways.

[Barwick11]

Originally Posted by Curt581

Is there some requirement that I do so?

Or are you just trying to figuratively "bell the cat"?

I'm still waiting for a response from you in the "Not CHP" thread...

And I'm still waiting for your response on the "Where does the government get the authority to regulate private automobiles?" thread...

[url]http://forum.freeadvice.com/showthread.php?p=967111[/url]