leos

[ninjaridaz]

If on a group ride, and johnny law decides to pull you over, does that mean everyone else has to follow suit and pull over too? I would not think so.

[sodapop6620]

I think that depends on the state.  If I was not the last one in the line I would continue on and make him pull me over.  They will make it known to you.



I have a question for Mr/Mrs. Leo: how many miles do you folks log in a year?

[Kneescrubber]

If on a group ride, and johnny law decides to pull up behind you, does that mean everyone else does too? I would not think so.

Your question/statement makes no sense.  

[Tango59]

It would probably be best for the rest of the group to ride ahead a bit farther and pull over to wait for the one that was stopped. I've had a similar incident happen with several people in cars and it made me more than jumpy.  County, you can comment now.

[OmegaSix]

I am an individual motor-vehicle operator under all circumstances.
If a LEO wants to pull me over he can come pull ME over.
He can pull his vehicle in IMMEDIATELY behind mine, activate his emergency lights and sound alerts - thereby signalling his desire that I pull over at the nearest safe location where he can make professional contact with me.
He can also - very stupidly - attempt to pull me over by standing in front of me, pointing at me and indicating that he would like me to pull over.   That's gonna be tough if I am following a vehicle two seconds in front of me, but if he wants to try it - more power to him.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't - my choice - whatever, I goddamned sure am never pulling over for a police officer flashing lights and sirens at a vehicle other than mine.
Period.

[sodapop6620]

He can also - very stupidly - attempt to pull me over by standing in front of me, pointing at me and indicating that he would like me to pull over.

Have you have been to Maryland?  That seems the way they do it there.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

I am an individual motor-vehicle operator under all circumstances.
If a LEO wants to pull me over he can come pull ME over.
He can pull his vehicle in IMMEDIATELY behind mine, activate his emergency lights and sound alerts - thereby signalling his desire that I pull over at the nearest safe location where he can make professional contact with me.
He can also - very stupidly - attempt to pull me over by standing in front of me, pointing at me and indicating that he would like me to pull over.   That's gonna be tough if I am following a vehicle two seconds in front of me, but if he wants to try it - more power to him.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't - my choice - whatever, I goddamned sure am never pulling over for a police officer flashing lights and sirens at a vehicle other than mine.
Period.

You tell em hero.  

[county]

You tell em hero.  

I think the real hero's are those brave men and women who serve us all in the capacity of Law Enforcement Officers...

[ninjaridaz]

I think the real hero's are those brave men and women who serve us all in the capacity of Law Enforcement Officers...

Not all brave and certainly not all heroes.

[Bounce]

A couple of us were riding together.

LEO lit "me" up. I radioed the other guy and told him to keep going. I'd meet him at a gas station at the next town.

I ate the ticket.

I'd expect him to do the same the next time.  Friends don't make friends go down with the ship.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

If on a group ride, and johnny law decides to pull up behind you, does that mean everyone else does too? I would not think so.

After reading some of this guys posts I believe Shah is back.

[Mr.Black]

I got this one,











Fuckin' cops.

[Rogue]

Years ago I was riding along with another rider (who was a bit aggressive on the throttle).  This rider had already gotten a ticket just hours before for speeding so nerves where jumpy.  I had verbally warned this rider to "take it easy" or I would split up and not continue riding.  I was leading on this particular section of the freeway, when we got lit up at 70 in a 65 by a CHP.  Seriously.  Since I was leading I wasn't sure whether to pull over or not so I slowed but continued on thinking the other rider would pull over behind me.  But the rider behind me would NOT pull over!  WTF!    

I remember thinking this over and over and wondering what to do.  I think we kept on going for a mile.  So I slowed down but this other rider just shadowed me, as if to say if I don't pull over neither would he and vice versa.  I thought that was pretty fucked up for a so called "friend" to do.  I finally pulled over for the sake of not having a whole rash of CHP's setting up a roadblock for us.  Both of us got the ticket.  Suffice it to say I never rode with that person ever again.

If you're Tail End Charlie and the LEO has you lit up, pull over.  If the LEO passes you and goes after the point man then you are good to go. If the LEO stops behind you then you will have to take the ticket.        

[Andrew]

OK Rogue, let me get this straight;
You were leading the ride
You set the pace over the speed limit
Your group got "lit up"
  And you don't think you deserved a ticket

Well lets follow that logic shall we

  If you want to speed and not get tickets, get a "friend" or fellow rider to follow you. After all if you get "lit up" the tail gunner gets the rap and you get away

So Rogue want to follow me on a ride, I'll be glad to wait up at the next town


In all honesty you got lit up in a 65 doing 70, seriously WTF is up with that  I've been doing 75 in a 65 and got a friendly wave by the CHP, you must have some over zealous chippies (Spell check wants to change that into hippies  )  down there

[2RR2NV]

don't really matter to me. the only time i was riding in a group (3), we all pulled over at the exit of the state park  cause they were, basically, waiting for us. and we were doing 45 in a 35 coming out of the corner after a hill. he had his lights on the moment we came around the corner. he got radioed from another Ranger inside the park (that we were coming) who didn't pull us over but had his lights on.  wondered if it was for us or to warn folks about crossing animals (saw a deer jump across the road right behind the tail rider). the gate ranger was pretty cool about it. didn't give us tickets, thank gosh. and warned us about future speedy travels thru "HIS" park.

I'm a nice guy so i will more than likely pull over with my riding buddies. riding with buds, you take a chance of getting pulled over with the rest.

[Kneescrubber]

This one is turning bad fast.  

[Southwade]

OK Rogue, let me get this straight;
You were leading the ride
You set the pace over the speed limit
Your group got "lit up"
  And you don't think you deserved a ticket

Well lets follow that logic shall we

  If you want to speed and not get tickets, get a "friend" or fellow rider to follow you. After all if you get "lit up" the tail gunner gets the rap and you get away

So Rogue want to follow me on a ride, I'll be glad to wait up at the next town


In all honesty you got lit up in a 65 doing 70, seriously WTF is up with that  I've been doing 75 in a 65 and got a friendly wave by the CHP, you must have some over zealous chippies (Spell check wants to change that into hippies  )  down there

If you speed and get caught you deserve a ticket. You're not under any obligation to keep up with the pack.

Ride your own ride, don't let someone else ride it for you.

[ksann]

OK Rogue, let me get this straight;
You were leading the ride
You set the pace over the speed limit
Your group got "lit up"
  And you don't think you deserved a ticket

Well lets follow that logic shall we

  If you want to speed and not get tickets, get a "friend" or fellow rider to follow you. After all if you get "lit up" the tail gunner gets the rap and you get away

So Rogue want to follow me on a ride, I'll be glad to wait up at the next town


In all honesty you got lit up in a 65 doing 70, seriously WTF is up with that  I've been doing 75 in a 65 and got a friendly wave by the CHP, you must have some over zealous chippies (Spell check wants to change that into hippies  )  down there

I was on that ride, and it was a lot more complex than he simplified it into.

I respect and think appropriate what Rogue did. And will happily ride with him again.



ken

[zer0netgain]

Hard and fast rule that I like to have known on group rides....don't like it, do your own thing....

We don't practice "group punishment."  The only thing worse than one guy getting a ticket on a ride is everyone getting a ticket on a ride.

If you get pulled over, everyone else will continue on and stop somewhere safe up the road and wait for you.  The cops can pull over who they want.  If they want the whole group, they will be set up for just that, but it isn't the norm in most places.

We have enough LEOs in our groups to know that the whole group pulling over will likely escalate things just on the basis that the one cop will be vastly outnumbered and he/she will presume the worst.

You don't rat out other people in the group ride...even if some of them were riding like ass hats and likely got the cop's attention.

[Bounce]

In all honesty you got lit up in a 65 doing 70, seriously WTF is up with that

+1 is speeding and discretionary to the LEO.  I've been pulled over for +3 with in-state tags. the myth of up to +8 being a pass is just that... a myth.

[ninjaridaz]

+1 is speeding and discretionary to the LEO.  I've been pulled over for +3 with in-state tags. the myth of up to +8 being a pass is just that... a myth.

True- guy was in court for a +1 mph over.  After a 5 minute tirade on the leo the judge dismissed the case- in Chicago.

[2RR2NV]

you want sucky...  My ex got pulled over for goin 5 over by the Lusk Sheriff in Wyoming, heading to Denver. then, got pulled over by the deputy for goin 1 over on the way back. both stuck. WTF???  

[mxvet57]

you want sucky...  My ex got pulled over for goin 5 over by the Lusk Sheriff in Wyoming, heading to Denver. then, got pulled over by the deputy for goin 1 over on the way back. both stuck. WTF???  

County coffers must of been low that month.

[expatbrit]

This one is turning bad fast.  

And you are surprised, how?

[Royal Tiger]

you want sucky...  My ex got pulled over for goin 5 over by the Lusk Sheriff in Wyoming, heading to Denver. then, got pulled over by the deputy for goin 1 over on the way back. both stuck. WTF???  

I hear these stories but can never make the mental leap to believe them.  Maybe the west is different and allows this type of nonsense.  PA does not allow vehicles to be stopped unless they are doing at least 6 over the posted limit by statute.  Speedometer error alone would void a ticket for 1 over.

[PatM]

A lady in my neighbourhood got tagged for 51 kmh in a 30kmh School zone.
She went to court and successfully argued that the 30 kmh limit only applied during school hours as per the local bylaw.
The juge agreed and condemned her for 1 kmh over.  

[Rogue]

So Rogue want to follow me on a ride, I'll be glad to wait up at the next town

In all honesty you got lit up in a 65 doing 70, seriously WTF is up with that  I've been doing 75 in a 65 and got a friendly wave by the CHP, you must have some over zealous chippies (Spell check wants to change that into hippies  )  down there

I know, I know.  I still think it was fooked up the way it turned out.  If I were in a group and an LEO got behind me, I mean directly behind me, I pull over no matter what the other group members are doing.  Like the others said, every individual is responsible for their own actions and their own ride.  I would not feel slighted in any way if the rest of the group kept on going.  So yes.  I’ll be happy to ride with you so long as you promise to pull over when you get lit up!      

Seriously, the CHP who pulled us over stated that we were going too fast for conditions and accelerated to 70 in a 65 before he caught up to us.  He also stated we were splitting lanes too fast before he got us for speeding, I remember splitting when my speedo said 45 when there was some congestion, which to me is perfectly fine.  We all know CHP’s split lanes at 65+ so WTF?  Do as they say but don’t as they do huh?  Yup.  No surprise there.  I didn’t agree with him.  He actually pulled over that other rider about 75 feet behind me and I “waited”, but the fooker walked all the way over to me to hand me the same citation.  I should have just kept on going but…..should have, could have, etc.  

Whatever the case, proper etiquette is to pull over when the LEO is behind you.  Forget what your buddies are doing and just ride your own ride under those circumstances.  Just like you don’t ride over a cliff if they decide to, you don’t keep going when an LEO is obviously directly behind you with lights on.  

[ConPilot1]

I say fuck'em.

WOT and give 'em a run like you just got out of prison and stole it.

[Rogue]

I was on that ride, and it was a lot more complex than he simplified it into.

I respect and think appropriate what Rogue did. And will happily ride with him again.
ken

Yes you were on that ride and I seem to remember you got away scott-free!    

Those were fun times weren't they?  My wife and I went to re-visit (by cage) Tiburon last month.  That coffee shop/bar is still there and still serve great Cafe Americano.  Nothing has changed.  Still beautiful with fantastic views.  They did re-pave Highway 1 around Muir Woods.  

[ShervinRRR]

I am an individual motor-vehicle operator under all circumstances.
If a LEO wants to pull me over he can come pull ME over.
He can pull his vehicle in IMMEDIATELY behind mine, activate his emergency lights and sound alerts - thereby signalling his desire that I pull over at the nearest safe location where he can make professional contact with me.
He can also - very stupidly - attempt to pull me over by standing in front of me, pointing at me and indicating that he would like me to pull over.   That's gonna be tough if I am following a vehicle two seconds in front of me, but if he wants to try it - more power to him.
Maybe I will, maybe I won't - my choice - whatever, I goddamned sure am never pulling over for a police officer flashing lights and sirens at a vehicle other than mine.
Period.

+1,000 to anyone that makes me look like a pretty sensible guy.

[Andrew]

Whatever the case, proper etiquette is to pull over when the LEO is behind you.  Forget what your buddies are doing and just ride your own ride under those circumstances.  Just like you don’t ride over a cliff if they decide to, you don’t keep going when an LEO is obviously directly behind you with lights on.  

Yep 100% correct there, When the LEO's behind me with the Red & Blue on I pull over, whatever the rider ahead of me does is his/her business. To Not pull over just because the rider ahead of me does not is just asshattery.

[JonS]

Yep 100% correct there, When the LEO's behind me with the Red & Blue on I pull over, whatever the rider ahead of me does is his/her business. To Not pull over just because the rider ahead of me does not is just asshattery.

Exactly. I would not have been amused.

[Open Sore]

I would only pull over if I was the one he is directly behind.  If the person at the tail end pulls over and the group continues, and the LEO continues, I would assume he is interested in someone else in the group.  I would think pull over one at a time until he pulls over.

If the LEO stayed with the rider at the back, I would pull over and wait for him.  I don't think the group needs to pull over unless the LEO makes it very apparent that is what he wants us to do.

[Rogue]

If the LEO stayed with the rider at the back, I would pull over and wait for him.

A good strategy would be to pull over at the next gas station and hook up there.  Agree on something that everyone in the group understands yet does not leave the others in danger nor give the LEO an easy chance to give everyone else a ticket.  Let him work for it.

[expatbrit]

A good strategy would be to pull over at the next gas station and hook up there.  Agree on something that everyone in the group understands yet does not leave the others in danger nor give the LEO an easy chance to give everyone else a ticket.  Let him work for it.

We use campsites on this, a fair bit. I've had a couple of instances where other riders get pulled over (and one where he pulled both of us over). One was because my buddy was using a LOT of body lean since his ST1300 was on cords (DOH) and we were limping it home; attracted attention, even though he wasn't going fast. I slowed, just in case he wanted me (I was first around the corner) but he plainly didn't. We stopped and waited for him in a campsite parking lot.

The second had the LEO flip a U-turn directly in front of me as I rounded a (blind) corner; his SUV was across my lane as he pulled round to give a caution to our lead rider. That'd have been an exciting incident. Again, we went on, pulld

[falcofred]

This officer walked right by my buddy and gave me a ticket for wreakless driving. I passed one of his buddies, and his buddies wife on the double yellow. The officer didn't even witness the pass, said he could give me a ticket on wreakless driving that someone else reports. I stated that we would see about that in court. He ended up taking the ticket back, and giving me a verbal warning.

[Rogue]

They use Mercury Grand Marquis for cop cars?  How nice and luxurious.  LOL!

[mxvet57]

Why is it that every one has a problem around here and i don't?

Stay with in reason and you won't have a problem.

For one thing i don't go subsonic on the roads and if you do see a cop DONT touch the brake. Chop the throttle and down shift. If the cop See's the brake light come on then he knows you know that you were doing something wrong.

Haven't been pulled over in over 4 years.

[mxvet57]

This officer walked right by my buddy and gave me a ticket for wreakless driving. I passed one of his buddies, and his buddies wife on the double yellow. The officer didn't even witness the pass, said he could give me a ticket on wreakless driving that someone else reports. I stated that we would see about that in court. He ended up taking the ticket back, and giving me a verbal warning.

Obviously he was trying to bluff you.

[Carbonero]

Wreakless driving is the worst.

[Spanky]

For one thing i don't go subsonic on the roads and if you do see a cop DONT touch the brake. Crack the throttle and down shift. If the cop See's the brake light come on then he knows you know that you were doing something wrong.

Haven't been pulled over in over 4 years.

FTFY .

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

Wreakless driving is the worst.

Yeah, so I hear.  Almost as bad as reckless driving.

[Kneescrubber]

I try to practice wreckless driving.

[Stray Cat]

 

I see no reason for a cop acting this way. Maybe a LEO here would like to explain this reaction?

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

I'm in a hotel and watching videos suck so I won't try.  But let me be the first to say.  Fuckin cops.  

[Mr.Black]

I'm in a hotel and watching videos suck so I won't try.  But let me be the first to say.  Fuckin cops.  

YOU BASTARD!!!

[Windblown]

The folks I ride with tend to pull over as a group if we are in close proximity to each other when the blue lights come on.  

Secondly, the LEO around here will work their way through to the front of the group if the riders further up don't pull over when the tail rider does if they want to talk to everyone.  

Sportbike riders have a bad rep for dipping out when the lights come on and LEO's appreciate the fact the the folks I ride with don't play that game and we often are back on our way in just a few minutes with just a verbal warning.  Doesn't hurt to have a bit of age on my side. I got pulled a few weeks ago by a young state cop and as he was walking up to us I was pulling off my helmet, at which point he said "Oh, I thought I was pulling over some young guys. I'm not gonna give ya'll a ticket."  LOL.

[Rogue]

The folks I ride with tend to pull over as a group if we are in close proximity to each other when the blue lights come on.  

 

[Stray Cat]

I'm in a hotel and watching videos suck so I won't try.  But let me be the first to say.  Fuckin cops.  

Well I'll give you the IMDB version. Group ride, rider with a camera mounted to his helmet is pulled over, cop says I'm going to take that camera and use it against all your buddies. Rider says why did you pull me over? Why are you taking my personal property? Cop doesn't answer either question, goes back to the car and returns to rider and arrests him for having a concealed plate. Which it clearly is not. Takes and throws the rider into the back of the car.
It's pretty clear that the cop is frustrated with the group of riders and thinks that he is going to be a hero by using the video from the camera in court against all the other riders. Which I'm guessing would become un-admissible because there was no due cause for the stop or the confiscation of his personal property.
 

[tomek]

Well I'll give you the IMDB version. Group ride, rider with a camera mounted to his helmet is pulled over, cop says I'm going to take that camera and use it against all your buddies. Rider says why did you pull me over? Why are you taking my personal property? Cop doesn't answer either question, goes back to the car and returns to rider and arrests him for having a concealed plate. Which it clearly is not. Takes and throws the rider into the back of the car.
It's pretty clear that the cop is frustrated with the group of riders and thinks that he is going to be a hero by using the video from the camera in court against all the other riders. Which I'm guessing would become un-admissible because there was no due cause for the stop or the confiscation of his personal property.
 

You are  cop hater .

[Stray Cat]

You are  cop hater .

No I'm a grammar Nazi, and that is terrible grammar and sentence structure.  

[tomek]

No I'm a grammar Nazi, and that is terrible grammar and sentence structure.  

That is irrelevant to the point I`m trying to make here and you are doing your best to sidetrack this discussion .

 Hatred toward police made you post that video .

[Mr.Black]

Fuckin' grammar Nazis.

[mxvet57]

FTFY .

There's always one comedian in the crowd.  

[Stray Cat]

Fuckin' grammar Nazis cop hater.

Apparently I'm a hater, not a Nazi. So FTFY  

[coho]

FTGP

[Mac]

For one thing i don't go subsonic on the roads

Only supersonic riding for you?  

[falconati]

Yeah, so I hear.  Almost as bad as reckless driving.

You tell em hero  

[zer0netgain]

you want sucky...  My ex got pulled over for goin 5 over by the Lusk Sheriff in Wyoming, heading to Denver. then, got pulled over by the deputy for goin 1 over on the way back. both stuck. WTF???  

Most departments it is all about the money.  Colorado, for a time, had you pay a ticket AT THE ROADSIDE via credit card.  Want your money back, go to court and win.    I'm pretty sure that wasn't Kosher because IIRC they abandoned the program, but it wasn't about public safety...it was about money.

Wyoming isn't that bad regarding highway patrolmen, but local authorities can be dicks.  If the court wants to stuff the coffers, 1 MPH over will get you an enforceable ticket.  Don't like it?  Appeal.  It's only your time and money.  Many years ago I got a BS ticket for speeding in a construction zone (I wasn't in one when the cop said I was speeding...doing the posted limit BEFORE the zone).  To fight it, I'd have to appear in court to plead not guilty then come back again for the trial.  The cost in gas alone was more than the fine.  A lawyer would be even more so.

Of course, that's true most anywhere.  A place that was finally annexed off the map was Hacienda Village in Broward County, Florida bordering US-84.  Those assholes were ticketing for 1 MPH over or UNDER the limit.  It was their chief income and the source of much scandal.  You could know you were passing through by the obscenely large radar dishes they had aimed down the highway to catch people not doing exactly 55.  They were "municipal" tickets, so the "Boss Hogg wanabe" was the judge in every ticket case.

[zer0netgain]

I see no reason for a cop acting this way. Maybe a LEO here would like to explain this reaction?

I won't speak of the cop's actions (re: professionalism) but some say he was out of bounds to seize the camera.  I disagree.

Unless the SCOTUS made a 180 turn on the rights of people to their papers and effects, one of the standing rules on a warrant requirement is tied to whether the evidence sought is in danger of immanent destruction.  When pulled over, a cop doesn't need a warrant to check your person or your vehicle for drugs if he has probable cause that you may be under the influence of possess drugs.  Another standing rule is tied to mobility.  A motor vehicle is mobile and you can't get a warrant on something whose location can change at any moment.  If the vehicle was first impounded, THEN you'd have an argument for requiring a warrant first.

In this case, the rider with the camera was riding with a bunch of asshats who were breaking the law.  The officer had probable cause that the camera may contain evidence of the criminal activity.  While seizing the camera is a bit excessive, certainly if the officer does not know how to properly retrieve the memory card, taking the whole camera would be the better choice.  That the camera was readily mobile means a warrant could not be obtained.  If you seriously think there would be anything on that memory card when the rider got home where a warrant could have been served at a later time, you are fooling yourself.  The evidence was in immanent danger of being destroyed, and there was no time to obtain a warrant to seize it.

More so, if they did get a warrant and served it on the guy's home, a warrant lets the cops search anywhere that the item(s) listed in the warrant could reasonably be concealed.  Do you know what most cops do during a search warrant?  They tear things up looking for what they want.  A 23" TV is one thing...a SD card (or smaller) means they will go through EVERYTHING to find it, and since you could have more than one, they would try to seize every one you have in your home to ensure they got the one they are looking for.  If you ask me, I'd rather deal with it being taken in the field and deny the cops probable cause for a warrant to search my home than do it the other way around.

The only gray area I see is that if the cop could did not have probably cause that that the man with the camera was participating in the illegal activities (and, no, a "concealed plate" doesn't pass the stink test), I am uncertain if the general rule of law allows a cop to seize the property of a 3rd party because it contains evidence of a crime committed by another person.

[Stray Cat]

So evidence for a traffic violation falls under the same category as murder or imminent danger to people or property?
Would you be okay with a cop during a routine traffic stop to confiscate your GPS because it perhaps might contain a stored top speed that is over the posted limit? Not that he can prove when or where this happened.
Remember, there was no crime, the cop was fishing. He was hoping to obtain evidence to use against the riders. So what if the camera showed somebody doing a wheelie or stoppie or whatever. The cop has to witness it and then use the video as evidence. Confiscating video and then hoping it contains some illegal activity is not supported in our constitution. There is no grounds in this case that I can see.
No different then a LEO entering my home and taking my camera with the hope it might contain video evidence of something illegal.
   

[zer0netgain]

So evidence for a traffic violation falls under the same category as murder or imminent danger to people or property?
Would you be okay with a cop during a routine traffic stop to confiscate your GPS because it perhaps might contain a stored top speed that is over the posted limit? Not that he can prove when or where this happened.
Remember, there was no crime, the cop was fishing. He was hoping to obtain evidence to use against the riders. So what if the camera showed somebody doing a wheelie or stoppie or whatever. The cop has to witness it and then use the video as evidence. Confiscating video and then hoping it contains some illegal activity is not supported in our constitution. There is no grounds in this case that I can see.
No different then a LEO entering my home and taking my camera with the hope it might contain video evidence of something illegal.   

No, you are comparing apples to oranges.

A LEO pulling you over and wanting to confiscate your stuff because MAYBE there is evidence on it (with no other basis for probable cause) is not going to pass the stink test.

A LEO pulling you over because he saw you with a group engaged in criminal behavior AND likely recording it does create probable cause to confiscate the media for inspection.

In this case, the biker had a video camera.  He was riding with a group of hooligans, and the camera mounted on his helmet established that he may have captured criminal behavior on "tape."  Probable cause is established.   As the camera was not in a fixed location and its contents were readily destructible, seizure for the purpose of preserving the evidence would be valid.

Again, I'm not sure if this standard could be imposed on a 3rd person who witnessed/recorded criminal behavior (did not directly participate) or if it only applies to someone who was directly involved, but the cop wasn't "fishing" in this case.

As the saying goes...."If you're going to do something illegal, DON'T record it."

Also, stunting on a public roadway (especially if there are other motorists or pedestrians around) does constitute reckless endangerment.  One wrong move and you could inflict serious bodily harm on other around you.  So, no, it's not just a minor traffic violation.

[FJR1300]

+1

[Stray Cat]

A LEO pulling you over and wanting to confiscate your stuff because MAYBE there is evidence on it (with no other basis for probable cause) is not going to pass the stink test.

A LEO pulling you over because he saw you with a group engaged in criminal behavior AND likely recording it does create probable cause to confiscate the media for inspection.

This LEO did not know that the camera recorded anything. Because the rider has a camera does not mean that he did (likely isn't good enough) recorded anything.
"Likely" doesn't cut it. It's the same as "maybe"... Far all anyone knows it's a video of his sister's wedding or brother's bah mitzvah. The cop didn't know and that's why he is going to get dinged for this. Having a video camera is not probable cause of any crime. If it is, everyone of us can end up in jail.
However he did know that he couldn't just take the camera without charging the rider with something, so he came up with an obstructed plate. Since when is that an arrestable offense? Next time your plate gets muddy, you might get thrown in jail and whatever you have get confiscated. But don't worry, for several thousand dollars you can hire a lawyer to clear it all up. Yeah, that all seems right.

There are lot's of ways to handle this, and this one was wrong. Pulling this guy over was stupid and will never hold up in court no matter what is on that camera. It will be un-admissable. He had no right to confiscated it. Period. The traffic stop and the arrest was bogus.

[FJR1300]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

[Playinthestreet]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

The kid was shooting his mouth off before the cruiser was stopped.  

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

If one should ever need a criminal lawyer you'd be foolish to go out and hire one when we have all the legal experts you'll ever need here on ST.N.  

[expatbrit]

I hear these stories but can never make the mental leap to believe them.  Maybe the west is different and allows this type of nonsense.  PA does not allow vehicles to be stopped unless they are doing at least 6 over the posted limit by statute.  Speedometer error alone would void a ticket for 1 over.

When I did IT for the DA's office they were very proud of this. They pulled someone over for 2 over, on I40 - local sheriff.

Then they got permission to search the car, and the guy had 100lbs of marijuana in the boot. But the initial stop was traffic, 2 over, in a 75mph limit.

[Stray Cat]

If one should ever need a criminal lawyer you'd be foolish to go out and hire one when we have all the legal experts you'll ever need here on ST.N.  

And if somebody needs any sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion they should include you.  

 

[Stray Cat]

My guess is if the rider wasn't an ass, things would have gone differently.

Sent from my HTC Inspire using Tapatalk 2

Transcript:
MOORE: "Was I doing something wrong? What am I being pulled over for?"

WESTBROOK: "The whole group of you guys."

MOORE: "No. I was not, individually. How can you pull me over?"

WESTBROOK: "The reason you're being pulled over is because I'm gonna take your camera and we're gonna use it as evidence of the crimes that have been committed by other bikers."

MOORE: "I have not committed any crimes, and you cannot take my personal property from me, sir."

WESTBOOK: "That's fine. Need to see your license and registration."

A real mean guy there... It's almost like "yep... you caught the tater"...  

[zer0netgain]

This LEO did not know that the camera recorded anything. Because the rider has a camera does not mean that he did (likely isn't good enough) recorded anything.
"Likely" doesn't cut it. It's the same as "maybe"... Far all anyone knows it's a video of his sister's wedding or brother's bah mitzvah. The cop didn't know and that's why he is going to get dinged for this. Having a video camera is not probable cause of any crime. If it is, everyone of us can end up in jail.

Probable cause does not require certainty.  This guy was in a group of bikers doing stunts.  He had a helmet cam.  The odds are that a "reasonable person" would conclude that there may be evidence of a crime recorded on the camera, and that is sufficient to seize the camera and examine the contents.

The contrast you are asserting would require a lone biker with a camera on his helmet.  Without the fact pattern of this case, yes it would be a ludicrous stretch to believe any evidence of a crime may be on the camera in such a situation.

However he did know that he couldn't just take the camera without charging the rider with something, so he came up with an obstructed plate. Since when is that an arrestable offense? Next time your plate gets muddy, you might get thrown in jail and whatever you have get confiscated. But don't worry, for several thousand dollars you can hire a lawyer to clear it all up. Yeah, that all seems right.

There are lot's of ways to handle this, and this one was wrong. Pulling this guy over was stupid and will never hold up in court no matter what is on that camera. It will be un-admissable. He had no right to confiscated it. Period. The traffic stop and the arrest was bogus.

Um, not so.  Police don't have to take you in custody to confiscate evidence of a crime.  However arresting you for something can let them easily justify it as search incident to arrest.  Going a step farther, start paying attention to SCOTUS rulings.  Cops can now (for better or worse) justify STRIP SEARCHING you for even minor offenses.  1 MPH over or weaving in your lane, any minor infraction is an arrestable offense dependent on the officer's discretion.  You won't prevail by saying they can't do it.

Even if the traffic stop and arrest was bogus, it does not make the evidence INADMISSIBLE.  Particularly since the evidence would not incriminate the rider, but another person.  The only way to make evidence inadmissible is for it to be illegally seized.  As the warrant requirement for search and seizure doesn't apply items in motion or subject to immanent destruction or alteration, I don't see a court tossing out the evidence because of how it was obtained in this case.

[Formerly Known as Bigfoot]

And if somebody needs any sort of intelligent contribution to a discussion they should include you.  

 

Was I wrong?

[Stray Cat]

Probable cause does not require certainty.  This guy was in a group of bikers doing stunts.  He had a helmet cam.  The odds are that a "reasonable person" would conclude that there may be evidence of a crime recorded on the camera, and that is sufficient to seize the camera and examine the contents.

The contrast you are asserting would require a lone biker with a camera on his helmet.  Without the fact pattern of this case, yes it would be a ludicrous stretch to believe any evidence of a crime may be on the camera in such a situation.



Um, not so.  Police don't have to take you in custody to confiscate evidence of a crime.  However arresting you for something can let them easily justify it as search incident to arrest.  Going a step farther, start paying attention to SCOTUS rulings.  Cops can now (for better or worse) justify STRIP SEARCHING you for even minor offenses.  1 MPH over or weaving in your lane, any minor infraction is an arrestable offense dependent on the officer's discretion.  You won't prevail by saying they can't do it.

Even if the traffic stop and arrest was bogus, it does not make the evidence INADMISSIBLE.  Particularly since the evidence would not incriminate the rider, but another person.  The only way to make evidence inadmissible is for it to be illegally seized.  As the warrant requirement for search and seizure doesn't apply items in motion or subject to immanent destruction or alteration, I don't see a court tossing out the evidence because of how it was obtained in this case.

I totally understand what you are inferring here. But isn't what you are saying a bit like "two black guys were seen robbing houses in my neighborhood (which is predominantly non black) and the cop sees two black guys in a car in my neighborhood so he pulls them over and searches their car? In no way would that stand up, even if like you say a "reasonable person" might think that these two had to be the guys.

I'm not defending asshatery here. The jokers on the bikes should be prosecuted, but it needs to be done in a way that doesn't interfere with our rights. This cop IMHO did so much wrong, and it's these kind of stops that give all the cops a bad rap.

My original post of the video stated "I see no reason for a cop acting this way. Maybe a LEO here would like to explain this reaction?"
look at the posts that the LEOs on this board posted. Way to be stand up guys there chaps. Nice that you could at least try to explain why this guy acted like he did, or shouldn't have acted like he did.

[cruisin]

If on a group ride, and johnny law decides to pull up behind you, does that mean everyone else does too? I would not think so.

  None of this make any sense at all; did "johnny law: hit his lights, siren, or both or did he just pull up behind you?  What is it everyone else is supposed to do?  

Hint: complete thoughts expressed with correct grammar will yield more sensible answers.

[county]

Was I wrong?

I have never known a law enforcement officer to be wrong...

[zer0netgain]

I totally understand what you are inferring here. But isn't what you are saying a bit like "two black guys were seen robbing houses in my neighborhood (which is predominantly non black) and the cop sees two black guys in a car in my neighborhood so he pulls them over and searches their car? In no way would that stand up, even if like you say a "reasonable person" might think that these two had to be the guys.

Well, using that example....

If two black guys are seen in a predominantly "non black" neighborhood robbing houses.  THEN, if a cop sees two black guys in a car in your neighborhood, he MAY have probable cause to pull them over...more so if they are acting suspiciously (e.g., driving up and down streets with no particular destination in mind).  If during that stop they act in a manner that arouses suspicion as to why there are in the neighborhood (e.g., evasive answers, belligerent attitude, nervous behavior), that MAY establish further probable cause to search them and their vehicle for evidence of criminal behavior.

Probable cause is a continuum.  It isn't 100% from the first moment an encounter starts.  It's like an onion...layer after layer with the more the cop wants to intrude on a citizen's rights, the more probable cause must exist which the officer must be able to articulate when when questioned about why he/she did the things that were done during the stop.  At no time must the officer be 100% certain that something will be found or that something is going on...but it must be more than just a "hunch" or feeling that something ill is afoot.

Again, given the circumstances preceding that video, I don't see any problem with the officer being able to articulate probable cause to do what he did.

[Carbonero]

I totally understand what you are inferring here.

Implying.

[Tejasbusa]

I have never known a law enforcement officer to be wrong...

I hope that statement was meant to be a little tongue in cheek because the ones I know and call friends are wrong just about as much as the non LEO's

[Carbonero]

I hope that statement was meant to be a little tongue in cheek because the ones I know and call friends are wrong just about as much as the non LEO's

It's like you're new to ST.N and County's posts.