Daughter Patted Down During Traffic Stop

[dave33]

We have a great police department - I'd even say impressive - it's just that sometimes they get a bit over-zealous. If there was no legal basis for a pat down, or if what they are doing is improper, they need to know - because you can only do better when you know better. The CO that responded said I could file a complaint and I told him I wasn't really interested in that, I was just trying to understand why it went all the way to a pat-down. Had they found drugs/narcotics in her car, then I could understand it.

Sounds like you got a generic response. If everything is as proper as they say, than ask them if you can review the tape. I suspect you may have a different take than the officers.

 

[quincy]

Sounds like you got a generic response. If everything is as proper as they say, than ask them if you can review the tape. I suspect you may have a different take than the officers.

I think it is difficult for us to judge the pat-down based solely on what we have been told but what seems clearer is what the police department would argue if the pat-down were to be challenged.

Although I already provided a link to the Cunningham case, here is an excerpt relating to the pat-down:

" ... t is well-settled that police officers are not permitted to conduct pat-down searches of occupants of vehicles pulled over during a routine traffic stop unless there is reasonable suspicion to believe that the person to be subjected to the frisk is armed and dangerous. Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U.S. 323, 327, 129 S.Ct. 781, 784 (2009); see also Mitchell v. State, 745 N.E. 2d 775, 781-82 (Ind. 2001). Although an officer may order an occupant out of the vehicle during a traffic stop as a matter of routine because of officer safety concerns, the additional, more intrusive step of a pat-down search is not automatically justified. See id.; Knowles v. Iowa, 535 U.S. 113, 117-118, 119 S.Ct. 484, 488 (1988); Mitchell, 745 N.E. 2d at 781 ... A generalized suspicion by an officer that 'everyone can be armed' does not authorize a pat-down search ..."

I think there are some questions raised about the pat-down described here by littlebiddle - realizing as I do that littlebiddle was not the one stopped and we do not have the benefit of having viewed the video or knowing all of the facts. Because of the latter points, I do not think that the clarification littlebiddle seeks is available on a forum. A personal review by an attorney in her area, of the video and the facts, appears necessary to determine if the pat-down was justified - and, if not, where to go from there.

 

[CdwJava]

What differs in the CO's reply and my daughter's story [which I shared with him], is the canine officer stated specifically the dog was in training and asked her if he could 'walk the dog around to give him practice' and then when the dog alerted, demanded she tell him why the dog barked. She said she didn't know and then he raised his voice several times, continuing to ask her why the dog barked. When she told him she didn't know, he said she needed to tell the truth. I think she just did by saying she didn't know. Seriously? How is she supposed to know why the dog barked. That's what dogs do. Some dogs alert by sitting quietly. Depends on what the dog has been trained to do. (I wrote a story for an insurance publication about canine training a few years ago.)

It's not my intent or desire to sue the police department. If this is the worst thing that ever happens to my daughter, she'll live a very blessed life. But if the officer overstepped his authority, that needs to be dealt with internally. My daughter's headlight was out and she didn't have her registration. She got a 2 warnings. If the officer violated his/her authority, he/she needs to be warned, too.

It's cop-101 to confront people assertively when you think they are lying. The dog alerted, the officer felt that there may be drugs, so he aggressively questioned your daughter. Many times that's sufficient to get someone to admit that there are drugs there (if there are). if not, then they will hold out as your daughter did. But, when faced with the speech, "Tell me the truth now and it'll go better on you, but if I search there and if I find drugs, you're going to jail for <additional charges>," ... many people fold if they are holding.

Police work is not retail work, and doing our job means sometimes being a prick. Often, it can be rude and even ugly. Unfortunately, sometimes good people get wrapped up in the "bad cop, bad cop" game. I still don't see a violation of any kind except for MAYBE rudeness ... and even that's dependent upon the circumstances as they presented themselves to the officer at the time.

And even a review of the video will not tell the whole tale. Video does not capture everything - either visually, or certainly not by the other senses. Ultimately, I think this is a non-starter from a legal perspective. But, it's your time and money at stake to pursue and if it gives you some more peace of mind, go for it. But, keep in mind that you may not agree with the reasoning for the search or the attitude even if it might be perfectly lawful. As I said, the real job is not pretty - criminals don't just walk up and confess and flash us with the stolen property, bad guys don't always tend to go quietly to jail, and most people we talk to lie through their teeth and swear on their grandmother's grave that they are being honest. It's not pretty work.

 

[littlebiddle]

When requested, she presented a false registration card to the officer. In most parts, that is a crime. I really don't think she's got anywhere to go with this.

Thank you for taking an interest in this discussion. I understand how you might look through a lens of some sort and see it in a way that even the officers did not. Her registration is up to date - she did not have it with her in the car. They ran her plates and were able to verify the car was registered to her and was properly plated. I believe she was given a warning for that and the burned out headlight. I believe she probably looked at the registration and said, "This isn't for this car, it's for my mom's car," which means I probably have hers. Our tags all come due at the same time. I don't believe she handed the registration to the officer hoping he'd mistake a Buick for a Honda.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for taking an interest in this discussion. I understand how you might look through a lens of some sort and see it in a way that even the officers did not. Her registration is up to date - she did not have it with her in the car. They ran her plates and were able to verify the car was registered to her and was properly plated. I believe she was given a warning for that and the burned out headlight. I believe she probably looked at the registration and said, "This isn't for this car, it's for my mom's car," which means I probably have hers. Our tags all come due at the same time. I don't believe she handed the registration to the officer hoping he'd mistake a Buick for a Honda.

The point is that, given the totality of the circumstances, a pat-down probably will be found to be reasonable.

 

[CdwJava]

The point is that, given the totality of the circumstances, a pat-down probably will be found to be reasonable.

I would tend to agree. A Terry frisk is minimally intrusive, requires very little probable cause, and is common practice for a prolonged detention.

 

[littlebiddle]

Sounds like you got a generic response. If everything is as proper as they say, than ask them if you can review the tape. I suspect you may have a different take than the officers.

I appreciate the time it took for the Commanding Officer to look up this case and do the research. I felt the explanation was a little weak in the pat down department. I replied to him yesterday and asked if I could come in and watch the video. He went me an email today asking me to contact him next week and we'll make an appointment to view it together.

I am going to take him up on the offer. It will be interesting to see what happened.

I learned a very valuable lesson when this very daughter was in kindergarten. The principal of her school was addressing the parents and he said he'd make us one promise. "If you will promise to only believe half of what your child comes home from school and tells you, we'll promise to only believe half of what they come to school and tell us." I was a teacher for a few years after I graduated from college and I thought those were some of the wisest words ever uttered. They have served me well.

Do I think everything went as my daughter said? No. Do I think everything went as the CO said? No.

The truth, as it often does, probably lies somewhere in the middle.

Thank you for responding. It's been a very interesting discussion and I have learned from it. Hope I'm not the only one.

 

[quincy]

... I replied to him yesterday and asked if I could come in and watch the video. He went me an email today asking me to contact him next week and we'll make an appointment to view it together.

I am going to take him up on the offer. It will be interesting to see what happened. ...

I would be interested in hearing what you think after you have had the opportunity to view the video, if you have the chance to post back.

 

[littlebiddle]

Of course!!

I would be interested in hearing what you think after you have had the opportunity to view the video, if you have the chance to post back.

I won't leave you hanging, Quincy! You have been so helpful during this discussion! I appreciate the time you took to find specific Indiana case law. I've said it before; your clients must feel like they've hit the jackpot.

And to everyone else, thank you, too!

CDJAVA, the perspective of a police officer is invaluable and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Thank you for what you do, and even though I am questioning the actions of law enforcement, I still respect the role of police officers and realize that the overwhelming majority of officers have a heart for service.

Stay tuned!

 

[quincy]

I won't leave you hanging, Quincy! You have been so helpful during this discussion! I appreciate the time you took to find specific Indiana case law. I've said it before; your clients must feel like they've hit the jackpot.

And to everyone else, thank you, too!

CDJAVA, the perspective of a police officer is invaluable and I appreciate your thoughtful responses. Thank you for what you do, and even though I am questioning the actions of law enforcement, I still respect the role of police officers and realize that the overwhelming majority of officers have a heart for service.

Stay tuned!

Thank you for the nice words, littlebiddle - so nice, in fact, that I am considering printing off your post and hanging it on my office wall.

I'll keep an eye out for your update.

 

[littlebiddle]

Assertive v Aggressive

It's cop-101 to confront people assertively when you think they are lying. The dog alerted, the officer felt that there may be drugs, so he aggressively questioned your daughter. Many times that's sufficient to get someone to admit that there are drugs there (if there are). if not, then they will hold out as your daughter did. But, when faced with the speech, "Tell me the truth now and it'll go better on you, but if I search there and if I find drugs, you're going to jail for <additional charges>," ... many people fold if they are holding.

Police work is not retail work, and doing our job means sometimes being a prick. Often, it can be rude and even ugly. Unfortunately, sometimes good people get wrapped up in the "bad cop, bad cop" game. I still don't see a violation of any kind except for MAYBE rudeness ... and even that's dependent upon the circumstances as they presented themselves to the officer at the time.

And even a review of the video will not tell the whole tale. Video does not capture everything - either visually, or certainly not by the other senses. Ultimately, I think this is a non-starter from a legal perspective. But, it's your time and money at stake to pursue and if it gives you some more peace of mind, go for it. But, keep in mind that you may not agree with the reasoning for the search or the attitude even if it might be perfectly lawful. As I said, the real job is not pretty - criminals don't just walk up and confess and flash us with the stolen property, bad guys don't always tend to go quietly to jail, and most people we talk to lie through their teeth and swear on their grandmother's grave that they are being honest. It's not pretty work.

I had a response written earlier but even I couldn't understand what I was trying, in vain, to articulate.

You said, "It's cop-101 to confront people assertively when you think they are lying. The dog alerted, the officer felt that there may be drugs, so he aggressively questioned your daughter. "

Assertive and aggressive are two entirely different words that have separate and distinct meanings. I am assertive and I am comfortable with assertive people. I am not aggressive and I am not comfortable with aggressive people. So uncomfortable that I shut down.

I'm not sure one size fits all if the goal is to get to the truth.

 

[CdwJava]

Assertive and aggressive are two entirely different words that have separate and distinct meanings. I am assertive and I am comfortable with assertive people. I am not aggressive and I am not comfortable with aggressive people. So uncomfortable that I shut down.

And many guilty people will crack when confronted with an aggressive interrogatory question. What might work for some people (officers) won't work for others. I tend to be assertive and not aggressive - and overt aggression doesn't work with me, but, there is a time when accusatory aggression will work. Other times, no. Sometimes you have to go with a tactic and hope it works. You don't tend to get the opportunity for a do-over on the side of the road.

 

[littlebiddle]

Thank you for the nice words, littlebiddle - so nice, in fact, that I am considering printing off your post and hanging it on my office wall.

I'll keep an eye out for your update.

I'd be honored to know it was hanging in your office!

I stumbled across this, "Justices Rule That Police Can't Extend Traffic Stops."

Specifically, it says, &#8220;A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution&#8217;s shield against unreasonable seizures,&#8221; Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. The vote was 6 to 3."

Can you help me understand this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/supreme-court-limits-drug-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

Thank you!!

 

[littlebiddle]

Sounds like you got a generic response. If everything is as proper as they say, than ask them if you can review the tape. I suspect you may have a different take than the officers.

So now I have visions of a Word template with fields such as, <insert personalized information here> ... :-/

 

[quincy]

I'd be honored to know it was hanging in your office!

I stumbled across this, "Justices Rule That Police Can't Extend Traffic Stops."

Specifically, it says, “A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures,” Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority. The vote was 6 to 3."

Can you help me understand this?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/supreme-court-limits-drug-sniffing-dog-use-in-traffic-stops.html?_r=0

Thank you!!

The Rodriguez v. United States case was one I was actually going to mention early on in this thread but your initial question was on the pat-down, so I stuck to that.

Here is a link to the US Supreme Court Opinion:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/13-9972_p8k0.pdf

And, instead of me trying to help you understand the decision - and I think you are understanding the cases I have provided to you pretty well on your own - following is another link, this time to the SCOTUS blog. It has a good analysis of the recent decision.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/04/opinion-analysis-traffic-stops-cant-last-too-long-or-go-too-far-and-no-extra-dog-sniffs/

Yes, there is much about your daughter's recent traffic stop that seems less-than-right. It is a matter of deciding how "un-right" the stop was and, then, what you want to do about it. You might want to speak to an attorney in your area eventually, to get his/her opinion of the matter after the attorney has had the chance to view the video.