Re: IMPRISONED FOR "DRIVING A NICE CAR IN A BAD NEIGHBORHOOD

More | Report Post

On 8/03/08, JAP to V wrote:
> Dear V...
>
> This is exactly my point! If you must know then here goes. I was,
> at the time, a Sales Consultant for two Major Automobile Companies...at
> the same time. I also have a degree in Avaition Science and I am a home
> owner. So when you start to stereotype remember that! Paying for gas,
> insurance and other wonderful items is not factoring jesture. Affording
> an attorney is different. Most attorney's are afraid to handle this case
> because of the triffleness of the arrest in the first place. The car
> itself was a "Diamante" and two years old at that time. The point is that
> there was no other reason or probable cause to initiate, the initial
> beginnings, of a traffic stop...and I am trying not to use the Racial
> Profiling arena (but what else is it?). People are so focused on the
> car...does it really matter. The POLICE said that "what caught their
> attention was a nice car in a bad neighborhood" as the main generating
> force behind initiating all-out law enforcement. WHAT LAW IS OUT THERE
> THAT SAYS "IF A PERSON (whoever they are) IS DRIVING NICE CAR PULL THEM
> OVER"? Have you ever seen the movie "First Blood"? Then stop acting like
> pointing out what really happened is wrong. What is wrong is the motive
> behind the arrest...from the beginning? Everything that the motivating
> factor of stopping a motorist hinges on is "breaking of the law". Tell
> me....what LAW was broken by DRIVING A NICE CAR?

OK, your argument is that the officers did not have "probable cause" to stop
you. "Probable cause" is necessary to stop a vehicle except at "random check
points" set up for such things as DUI detection. See e.g., [United States v.
Cummins, 920 F.2d 498, 500 (8th Cir. 1990)] Here is a little more case law on
that point. First, any traffic infraction including a license plate light
being out provides probable cause for a stop. If the officers saw ANY
traffic infraction, they had "probable cause" to stop you. Here is a
recounting of a situation where a court found "probable cause" to stop a
vehicle:
***
"As Officer O'Gwynn turned on the patrol car's blue lights, a video recorder
on the dashboard of the patrol car began recording the vehicle stop
automatically. The date and time stamped on the video are inaccurate in that
the date should be March 21, 2007 instead of March 20, 2007, and the
beginning time should be 21:28 (9:28 p.m.) rather than 20:28 (8:28 p.m.). In
all other respects the video accurately depicts the vehicle stop.

Still photographs produced from the police video of the vehicle stop appear
to show that the Lumina's rear license plate was illuminated as Officer
O'Gwynn followed the Lumina from the stop sign on Vine around the street
corner onto Hancock. The Court cannot tell from these photographs, however,
whether the Lumina's license plate was illuminated by a white light above the
tag or whether the license plate was illuminated when light from the
headlights or blue lights of Officer O'Gwynn's patrol car struck the
reflective coating on the license plate. The Court accepts Officer O'Gwynn's
testimony that the license plate was not illuminated by a separate operating
white light affixed above the license plate, as required by the Murfreesboro
ordinance. [United States v. Alexander, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52805 (M.D.
Tenn. July 9, 2008)]"
***

In a case that may be similar to yours, a police officer may not even need to
observe a traffic violation to make a "probable cause" stop. In a high crime
area an officer who is trained in crime reduction may observe conduct that is
not illegal but because of the officer's training raises a suspicion that
criminal activity is afoot. Such things as a nice car driving slowly in a
known drug crime area may indicate a drug courier or drug buyer. Coupled
with other subtle observations by the officer "a nice car in a bad area" may
provide "probable cause" to make an investigatory stop of a vehicle. Here is
what the US Supreme Court has to say about "probable cause" based on a
trained officers observation of suspicious conduct:
***
"Much drug traffic is highly organized and conducted by sophisticated
criminal syndicates. The profits are enormous. And many drugs … may be easily
concealed. As a result, the obstacles to detection of illegal conduct may be
unmatched in any other area of law enforcement. [United States v. Place, 462
U.S. 696, 704 n. 5, 77 L. Ed. 2d 110, 103 S. Ct. 2637 (1983) (citing
Mendenhall, 446 U.S. at 561)]

It logically follows that a pattern of behavior interpreted by an untrained
observer as innocent could justify an investigatory stop when viewed by
experienced law enforcement agents who are cognizant of current drug
trafficking operations. [United States v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 418-19, 66 L.
Ed. 2d 621, 101 S. Ct. 690 (1981); United States v. Vasquez, 2d Cir., 634
F.2d 41, 43 (1980)]. In Cortez, the United States Supreme Court cautioned
that terms like "articulable reasons" and "founded suspicion" are not self-
defining. But the Court noted that any assessment of police conduct must be
two-pronged, based upon: (1) "all the circumstances," including objective
observations and "consideration of the modes or patterns of operation of
certain kinds of lawbreakers"; and (2) the inferences and deductions that a
trained officer could make which "might well elude an untrained person."
[Cortez, 449 U.S. at 417-418.]"