Anyone ever file a complaint after being pulled over without suspected Probable Cause?

cidsamuth

Liberty Biberty
Established Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
906
Location
Virginia
You can complain to SCOTUS. It's their standard. A parking lot at night, with no open businesses and a vehicle leaving the lot is reasonable suspicion enough to warrant a stop. Remember reasonable suspicion is the level at which an officer suspects...not HAS probable cause that criminal activity MAY be afoot...not IS afoot.

You would also feel pretty shitty if you were the business owner and you knew the police let the burglar get away without stopping him/her. They would be the first to show up and complain why the cops don't do anything. It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't world we operate in. Navigating that line inevitably pisses someone off.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

It's funny how few people actually realize that a short detainment . . . which is what a traffic stop is . . . requires only reasonable suspicion and not probable cause.

Years ago, I had a DUI arrest that ended with a criminal conviction with no issues. When it went to a subsequent administrative hearing to see if the guy would lose his license, it was thrown out because they ruled I didn't have probable cause to make the stop. Point being, even the DMV bureaucrat types, who are not law judges, had a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.
 

jmsa540

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
3,470
Location
Fort Benning, GA
Cbj, are you speaking of terry frisk when youre talking about reasomable suspicion?

Also, can you initiate a traffic stop on someone with only reasonable suspicion?
First off a private business parking lot is not the same as a public roadway or area. Most shopping centers hand over enforcement authority to the local police through ordinance. Its the reason police can write handicap/firezone tickets, etc. It is still technically private property, and the police are acutely aware of the operation hours and trespassing postings at the shopping centers. Reasonable suspicion is about how a reasonable officer observing said action would feel given the same facts and totality of circumstances. Perhaps there have been past nighttime break ins at this location? Past trespassing complaints? All of these factors build toward the officers reasonable, articulable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the the totality of the circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

...and to your other point if you text and drive you have now handed the police actual probable cause to stop you based on an observed violation. The bottom line is that reasonable suspicion is that area that rests between a "hunch" and probable cause. It must be backed up with facts and information that lead the officer to believe that criminal activity MAY be afoot. Some of those facts and determining factors you, as the subject of the detention, may not have access to or be privy to. Listen...don't kill the messenger. I'm just telling what it is and how it's used and yes...if an officer can articulate why, based on the circumstances you were stopped in a business parking lot after hours...it will stick.It's not a requirement...its the minimum legal requirement (standard) that an officer needs to stop and briefly detain someone. It's not a policy, it's the accepted legal standard for every police officer in the US.See my above dissertation...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

jmsa540

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
3,470
Location
Fort Benning, GA
What did you stop the dui arrest for in the first place?
It's funny how few people actually realize that a short detainment . . . which is what a traffic stop is . . . requires only reasonable suspicion and not probable cause.

Years ago, I had a DUI arrest that ended with a criminal conviction with no issues. When it went to a subsequent administrative hearing to see if the guy would lose his license, it was thrown out because they ruled I didn't have probable cause to make the stop. Point being, even the DMV bureaucrat types, who are not law judges, had a fundamental misunderstanding of the law.

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

jmsa540

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
3,470
Location
Fort Benning, GA
Cbj, sorry for the quote feature


My question about the parking lot would be what would cause the lone car to be lead up to the officer having reasonable suspicion?
First off a private business parking lot is not the same as a public roadway or area. Most shopping centers hand over enforcement authority to the local police through ordinance. Its the reason police can write handicap/firezone tickets, etc. It is still technically private property, and the police are acutely aware of the operation hours and trespassing postings at the shopping centers. Reasonable suspicion is about how a reasonable officer observing said action would feel given the same facts and totality of circumstances. Perhaps there have been past nighttime break ins at this location? Past trespassing complaints? All of these factors build toward the officers reasonable, articulable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated using the "reasonable person" or "reasonable officer" standard, in which said person in the same circumstances could reasonably suspect a person has been, is, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity; it depends upon the the totality of the circumstances, and can result from a combination of particular facts, even if each is individually innocuous.

...and to your other point if you text and drive you have now handed the police actual probable cause to stop you based on an observed violation. The bottom line is that reasonable suspicion is that area that rests between a "hunch" and probable cause. It must be backed up with facts and information that lead the officer to believe that criminal activity MAY be afoot. Some of those facts and determining factors you, as the subject of the detention, may not have access to or be privy to. Listen...don't kill the messenger. I'm just telling what it is and how it's used and yes...if an officer can articulate why, based on the circumstances you were stopped in a business parking lot after hours...it will stick.It's not a requirement...its the minimum legal requirement (standard) that an officer needs to stop and briefly detain someone. It's not a policy, it's the accepted legal standard for every police officer in the US.See my above dissertation...

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

cidsamuth

Liberty Biberty
Established Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
906
Location
Virginia
Cbj, are you speaking of terry frisk when youre talking about reasomable suspicion?

Also, can you initiate a traffic stop on someone with only reasonable suspicion?

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app

The Terry Frisk is specific to searching for a weapon within the immediate reach.

Yes, you can make a traffic stop based only on reasonable suspicion, although I suppose it is possible that individual jurisdictions might require higher.
 

cbj5259

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
PA
Cbj, are you speaking of terry frisk when youre talking about reasomable suspicion?

Also, can you initiate a traffic stop on someone with only reasonable suspicion?

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Terry V. Ohio is it's own rabbit hole...it requires reasonable suspicion but also other factors as well such as, but not limited to: high crime area, previous knowledge of the offender having weapons, a bulge indicative of a concealed weapon, presence of contributing hand in hand crimes (ie where there are drugs there are usually guns) etc. Furthermore the search is not as thorough as a search incident to arrest. It is strictly for identifying and securing a potential weapon. It is not intended to be a doorway to find other illegal activit, although that sometimes happens.

As far as traffic stops go...yes, reasonable suspicion is the minimum standard an officer needs to make a stop. Probable cause is the standard that is used to make an arrest or in the case of a traffic offense, issue a summons.
Cbj, sorry for the quote feature


My question about the parking lot would be what would cause the lone car to be lead up to the officer having reasonable suspicion?

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
Reasonable suspicion requires articulation. Time of day, high crime area, previous criminal activity, etc. An officer would not have reasonable suspicion to stop a car parked in a shopping center parking lot during the day. The businesses are open to the public at that time. At night the businesses are closed, the shopping centers are still considered private property and the police in almost every jurisdiction have been tasked with keeping trespassers off those properties through ordinance.
The Terry Frisk is specific to searching for a weapon within the immediate reach.

Yes, you can make a traffic stop based only on reasonable suspicion, although I suppose it is possible that individual jurisdictions might require higher.
I dont believe any agency can legislate when an officer may or may not use reasonable suspicion to do their job as it is a constitutional standard. I've never heard of that ever. The agency would get challenged in every arrest they made if they were stupid enough to actually make that a written policy.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

jmsa540

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2009
Messages
3,470
Location
Fort Benning, GA
Ty
Terry V. Ohio is it's own rabbit hole...it requires reasonable suspicion but also other factors as well such as, but not limited to: high crime area, previous knowledge of the offender having weapons, a bulge indicative of a concealed weapon, presence of contributing hand in hand crimes (ie where there are drugs there are usually guns) etc. Furthermore the search is not as thorough as a search incident to arrest. It is strictly for identifying and securing a potential weapon. It is not intended to be a doorway to find other illegal activit, although that sometimes happens.

As far as traffic stops go...yes, reasonable suspicion is the minimum standard an officer needs to make a stop. Probable cause is the standard that is used to make an arrest or in the case of a traffic offense, issue a summons.Reasonable suspicion requires articulation. Time of day, high crime area, previous criminal activity, etc. An officer would not have reasonable suspicion to stop a car parked in a shopping center parking lot during the day. The businesses are open to the public at that time. At night the businesses are closed, the shopping centers are still considered private property and the police in almost every jurisdiction have been tasked with keeping trespassers off those properties through ordinance.I dont believe any agency can legislate when an officer may or may not use reasonable suspicion to do their job as it is a constitutional standard. I've never heard of that ever. The agency would get challenged in every arrest they made if they were stupid enough to actually make that a written policy.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-G892A using the svtperformance.com mobile app
 

Twisted2v

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2011
Messages
763
Location
USA
I don't see any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do this. It happened to me one night, passed him doing the speed limit (no stupid stuff before), and he turned right and floored it, just to ride one foot off my bumper with left lane wide open.

Another night I must have been tailgated for a mile at 25mph.
 

RedRocketMike

A Member Well Known
Established Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2007
Messages
6,714
Location
PA
I don't see any reasonable suspicion or probable cause to do this. It happened to me one night, passed him doing the speed limit (no stupid stuff before), and he turned right and floored it, just to ride one foot off my bumper with left lane wide open.

Another night I must have been tailgated for a mile at 25mph.

Coming home tonight I encountered state police. He was behind me for a while then cruised by. A van ahead of me was doing about 10-15 over the speed limit and was out of sight before he moved on from checking me. I was curious to see if he would pass me up for the van. Not complaining. If I didn't know the headlights/behavior I wouldn't have even known what was behind me until he passed. A very normal encounter.

Maybe the dent UBER/LYFT is putting into the number of drunk drivers around here, they're getting more aggressive about finding people to stop, or it's a temporary focus.
 

lOOKnGO

Keep'um smiling
Established Member
Joined
Oct 1, 2009
Messages
6,888
Location
White Post, Va
An overwhelming majority of certain crimes happen at night. Vandalism. Theft, DUI, Arson, Physical altercations.

The world is not your playground. The roads aren't yours nor random closed commercial parking lots. The lights are not on for your convenience, but to deter actions listed above. As a teen and a young adult, I was pulled over countless times. To the point of almost losing my license twice!

I work all hours of the day and night. I've seen a lot in many places. Frankly, I wish police could do more to keep vagrants off the streets and out of fast food joints at night.

Always be respectful or just normal and The LEO will proceed to the next task at hand. Act like a troll and see how it works for you.
 

cidsamuth

Liberty Biberty
Established Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
906
Location
Virginia
I dont believe any agency can legislate when an officer may or may not use reasonable suspicion to do their job as it is a constitutional standard. I've never heard of that ever. The agency would get challenged in every arrest they made if they were stupid enough to actually make that a written policy.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk

I'm not a constitutional law scholar, but I believe the reasonable suspicion standard is one set up to do exactly what the Constitution does: Protect the individual from the Government, not vice-versa. As such, the standard represents the minimum, and I believe jurisdictions can require higher of their Governmental entities, whether by local law or policy.

As a parallel example: Freedom of speech protects you against actions by the Government, not actions by a private entity. So, by virtue of the Constitution, Walmart could fire an employee simply for stating he supports X candidate. However, local or state laws likely provide protection to the employee above and beyond the Constitution that would prohibit Walmart from doing such things.
 

cbj5259

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
PA
I'm not a constitutional law scholar, but I believe the reasonable suspicion standard is one set up to do exactly what the Constitution does: Protect the individual from the Government, not vice-versa. As such, the standard represents the minimum, and I believe jurisdictions can require higher of their Governmental entities, whether by local law or policy.

As a parallel example: Freedom of speech protects you against actions by the Government, not actions by a private entity. So, by virtue of the Constitution, Walmart could fire an employee simply for stating he supports X candidate. However, local or state laws likely provide protection to the employee above and beyond the Constitution that would prohibit Walmart from doing such things.
An agency can set up any standard they want as long as it falls within constitutional standards...the question is why they would? The quagmire this would open up with conducting arrests would be utterly untenable. Since reasonable suspicion inherently leads to probable cause with regard to many arrests...an agency would be opening up their officers to 1983 Monell claims with virtually every traffic stop or arrest. I'm not saying it's not possible that some agency somewhere hasn't or wouldnt do that...but it would literally be one of the dumbest things they could do. In 20+ years of doing this and helping literally dozens of agencies gain accreditation, I have never heard of an agency not accepting the minimum standard for detention as adjudicated by SCOTUS.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:

cidsamuth

Liberty Biberty
Established Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
906
Location
Virginia
You don't think some of these smaller departments in yuppie towns in the People's Republic of California don't hold themselves to higher, anti-police standards?

I could also see individual jurisdictions setting up laws, or perhaps lower court judges establishing precedent, that holds departments to higher standards than the Constitution (ala the Supreme Court) requires.
 

musclefan21

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
10,880
Location
USA
Based on OPs descriptions, it seems pretty clear the LEO was being the dickhead in all instances.

Being out after midnight isn't PC for a stop.
Based on the OPs statement.. bingo! there are cops with attitude issues so are there citizens.

I don’t see any valid complaint in this thread even based on the OPs side of story. Also, there isn’t any rule that the officer has to light you up as soon as he gets behind you. He can determine when and where. There is a lot of stuff that happens behind the scenes average person just doesn’t know and I sincerely recommend ride alongs to people to better understand some of the stuff officers do.

You are absolutely entitled to file a complain of you are unhappy about your circumstances and I would encourage you to do so if you truly believe a wrong doing was a factor.

Lastly, although I am not a fan of being rude to people and believe that doesn’t serve anyone well, it is very counterproductive for the law enforcement professional and the citizens, but being rude alone isn’t a violation per se (as long as the officer doesn’t lose his cool and start cussing or calling names, etc.)

I am a State Trooper and have been pulled over by local guys under similar circumstances numerous times in my person vehicle for absolutely the pettiest things. my car is all factory with no modifications, but I have an insider knowledge, so it never bothered me. I understood what they were doing. And yes, even us LE officials don’t like being pulled over, nobody does, so I can understand the irritation, but is this complaint worthy? that is upto the individual perception.
 

o2gt

Active Member
Established Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2007
Messages
970
Location
Texas
You don't think some of these smaller departments in yuppie towns in the People's Republic of California don't hold themselves to higher, anti-police standards?

I could also see individual jurisdictions setting up laws, or perhaps lower court judges establishing precedent, that holds departments to higher standards than the Constitution (ala the Supreme Court) requires.

I understand what your saying and to some respect it does happen. I would think you would see more policy set by powers within a jurisdiction not laws for example will a city/ county prosecute certain crimes as a policy. the law might direct them to but they decide not to. A judge can make a call however they want.
 

cbj5259

Well-Known Member
Established Member
Joined
Aug 11, 2008
Messages
1,379
Location
PA
You don't think some of these smaller departments in yuppie towns in the People's Republic of California don't hold themselves to higher, anti-police standards?

I could also see individual jurisdictions setting up laws, or perhaps lower court judges establishing precedent, that holds departments to higher standards than the Constitution (ala the Supreme Court) requires.
Here's the issue...most states train their officers to latest legal standards. Training is conducted statewide with a statewide mandatory curriculum. I'm employed in PA and the MPOETC is the training commission that trains all municipal police officers in this commonwealth. A few years ago when reasonable suspicion was upheld by SCOTUS as the minimum standard for an involuntary police detention, it was taught to every police officer in the commonwealth as a requirement of the legal update training that we all receive every year. I think you are missing my point about agencies unwittingly opening their officers up to Monell lawsuits...I'll provide an example:

Officer A observes a vehicle swerving within its lane of travel, constantly hard braking and at points rapidly accelerating. All of these behaviors the officer recognizes through his training and experience as indicators of a vehicle being operated by a DUI driver. No violation has yet occurred as the vehicle was not speeding, had not left its lane, etc...but reasonable suspicion exists based on the totality of the circumstances for a traffic stop. As a result if the stop, the officer establishes that the driver is in fact intoxicated and established probable cause for an arrest. The driver is processed, eventually arraigned and later found guilty at trial for DUI. A good arrest from start to finish...however for some unbeknownst reason Officer A's agency has a policy of only allowing its offers to make arrests in cases where probable cause was the originating and determining factor for the original detention. So the person who was arrested, and found guilty in court may now turn around and sue the officer and his agency under a 1983 Monell suit for the officer violating his own department policy to effect an arrest even though the arrest was 100% lawful. If the agency just accepted the standard that 99.999% (dare I say 100%) of all departments adhere to there would be no claim at all. That's why i can never imagine an agency anywhere ever doing this...even in yuppieville.

Sent from my SM-N975U using Tapatalk
 

Users who are viewing this thread



Top