EDIT: A&M University PD Strikes Again

[Will938]

I've been pulled over twice in as many weeks, my previous contact before these two was a couple years ago. I was driving down University at about 4:30AM, I saw him behind be (recognized the headlights), he pulled me over. I was going the speed limit, wasn't weaving or anything. So I had my windows down, dome lamp on, info out; I give it to him and we go through the usual banter. Tell him "I have a CHL and I am armed". The last cop didn't care at all, this one asked where it was, "Glove compartment". "What's the problem officer" I asked, "Well your license plate light was out, hang on right here." Then he came back, handed me my license and said "Well I guess I'll let you go." I said, "Hang on, I've got extra bulbs in the car." "No" he said, "It was just obscured with dirt" So I told him I'd rub it off with water. I got out and headed back with a bottle of water, there wasn't a speck of dirt on it. So I guess he pulled me over to make sure I wasn't drunk, I didn't push the issue. Take it for what it's worth.

edit: I just recalled that he identified himself as University PD, not college station.

[TexAg08]

Seems to be a popular reason to pull people over lately in CS. Funny thing is one of my buddies got pulled over on Soutwest Pkwy the other day at 6:00 PM (time on his ticket) for the same reason of no license plate light. It was during the day time! He got a warning for it, but thats it. My other friend got pulled over for the same reason and was also let off with a warning.

[KBCraig]

Pretext stops are absolutely despicable.

[srothstein]

And lying about it is worse. There may be a few times where a peace officer can lie on duty, but they are very few and far between. Lying about the reason for the stop just confirms that it was a constitutional violation, IMHO.

[Will938]

I thought it was somewhat humorous. I grabbed my bottle of water and headed to the back with him, saw that there was no dirt, kind of looked at him, and then poured water on the two lights (you're only required to have a single license plate light, so I'm not sure why his excuse would matter in the first place). I then rubbed the lights with my finger and he was like "Yeah, thats much better" LOL

[BrassMonkey]

There is a balance between a good pretext stop and a bad pretext stop. many bg's are picked up based off an initial contact from a pretext stop. Or even a racial profile stop. I've done both, and I have had both done to me.

We, as a society, have to find a happy medium in so far as what we accept or don't. Personally, I don't mind it too much. I will cautiously give up the this partial liberty as long as it remains effective in catching bad guys. I am ok with getting pulled over now and then when I did nothing wrong if the pretense/intention was good. Now I would NOT be ok with getting a bogus citation and that would be fought tooth and nail.

I equate this with being part of the responsibility of driving and being a contributing member of society. We also have to remember that driving is a priviledge.

Just my .02

[Charles L. Cotton]

There is a balance between a good pretext stop and a bad pretext stop. many bg's are picked up based off an initial contact from a pretext stop. Or even a racial profile stop. I've done both, and I have had both done to me.

We, as a society, have to find a happy medium in so far as what we accept or don't. Personally, I don't mind it too much. I will cautiously give up the this partial liberty as long as it remains effective in catching bad guys. I am ok with getting pulled over now and then when I did nothing wrong if the pretense/intention was good. Now I would NOT be ok with getting a bogus citation and that would be fought tooth and nail.

I equate this with being part of the responsibility of driving and being a contributing member of society. We also have to remember that driving is a priviledge.

Just my .02

The problem with this is much like the argument given by by LEO's enforcing laws that most people don't like; "I'm just enforcing the law and if you don't like the law, change it." The difference is, the Constitution isn't going to be changed, but that's beside the point.

A pretext stop is a legal stop because the driver has violated the law. If something "bigger" is found during the stop, then it's a legitimate arrest. But stopping someone for no reason and making up an excuse is not a pretext stop and it's not legal. Any officer doing it should be fired and TCLEOSE should pull their license.

How can we expect people to respect the law when the people hired to enforce it violate the highest law of the land? Think of the message it sends to a driver when he/she is pulled over for nothing, and is then lied to by the officer. In essence, the officer is saying, "I can do anything I want." In doing so, he makes it much harder for every honest LEO trying hard to do their jobs within the confines of the law and the Constitution.

Chas.

[BrassMonkey]

I understand.

What if the light "appeared" to be out and truly wasn't? Has the officer done wrong?

One of the big ones we used in Florida was, "weaving within a traffic lane" Is this a horrendous breach of the public trust? What about a 1000 yard stare? This could be indicative of a drunk, or a driver having a medical problem. Police have to be given some leeway to do the job they have been charged with.

Look at just about any DUI report you see nowadays, it will almost always contain the text, "based on my training and experience..."

As a side note, why can't the constitution be changed. It was changed at one point in time, I believe this is a definition of an amendment. I don't remember my high school government classes by the way :-)

There is a balance between a good pretext stop and a bad pretext stop. many bg's are picked up based off an initial contact from a pretext stop. Or even a racial profile stop. I've done both, and I have had both done to me.

We, as a society, have to find a happy medium in so far as what we accept or don't. Personally, I don't mind it too much. I will cautiously give up the this partial liberty as long as it remains effective in catching bad guys. I am ok with getting pulled over now and then when I did nothing wrong if the pretense/intention was good. Now I would NOT be ok with getting a bogus citation and that would be fought tooth and nail.

I equate this with being part of the responsibility of driving and being a contributing member of society. We also have to remember that driving is a priviledge.

Just my .02

The problem with this is much like the argument given by by LEO's enforcing laws that most people don't like; "I'm just enforcing the law and if you don't like the law, change it." The difference is, the Constitution isn't going to be changed, but that's beside the point.

A pretext stop is a legal stop because the driver has violated the law. If something "bigger" is found during the stop, then it's a legitimate arrest. But stopping someone for no reason and making up an excuse is not a pretext stop and it's not legal. Any officer doing it should be fired and TCLEOSE should pull their license.

How can we expect people to respect the law when the people hired to enforce it violate the highest law of the land? Think of the message it sends to a driver when he/she is pulled over for nothing, and is then lied to by the officer. In essence, the officer is saying, "I can do anything I want." In doing so, he makes it much harder for every honest LEO trying hard to do their jobs within the confines of the law and the Constitution.

Chas.

[seamusTX]

As a side note, why can't the constitution be changed.

If I may be so bold, I think Charles meant the fourth amendment (search and seizure) will not be changed because there is no political will to do so.

BTW, I have a standing bet that the Constitution will not be amended in my lifetime. The devisive issues that require an amendment, like going to direct election of the President, will not pass in three-quarters of the states.

- Jim

[BrassMonkey]

HAHA, "what the lawyer meant to say was..."

I certainly won't take that bet. We don't directly elect the president? You mean Bush really didn't win? :-D

As a side note, why can't the constitution be changed.

If I may be so bold, I think Charles meant the fourth amendment (search and seizure) will not be changed because there is no political will to do so.

BTW, I have a standing bet that the Constitution will not be amended in my lifetime. The devisive issues that require an amendment, like going to direct election of the President, will not pass in three-quarters of the states.

- Jim

[seamusTX]

We don't directly elect the president?

No. There's that thing called the electoral college. Quite a few Presidents have not had a majority of the popular vote, including Mr. Clinton both times, and Mr. Bush in 2000.

Or were you kidding? I can never tell.

- Jim

[BrassMonkey]

Yeah, I was joking... :-)

I voted for Mr. B...

We don't directly elect the president?

No. There's that thing called the electoral college. Quite a few Presidents have not had a majority of the popular vote, including Mr. Clinton both times, and Mr. Bush in 2000.

Or were you kidding? I can never tell.

- Jim

[srothstein]

BTW, I have a standing bet that the Constitution will not be amended in my lifetime. The devisive issues that require an amendment, like going to direct election of the President, will not pass in three-quarters of the states.

Jim, do you mean amended again? I seem to recall 5 amendments being ratified in my lifetime already. And since the last one was in 1992, I would bet that it has happened in your lifetime too.

On a side note, the last one took 200 years to ratify, so it could be awhile until the next one.

[seamusTX]

Jim, do you mean amended again?

Yes, of course. ISTR we're about the same age.

The 27th amendment being ratified was a fluke. It had been kicking around for over 200 years, never ratified by enough states until 1992. That won't happen again.

- Jim

[cbr600]

deleted