leos

[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.