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

More | Report Post

If you think i was steriotyping, you misconstrued my point as i was trying to
point out to you, what others might see from another perspective, as to why you
got arrested. It makes not a lick of sense to me, "unless" you violated some
unknown ordanence, or something else took place we know nothing about. I don't
know who you are race wise, so basicly that is irrelavent to me. I know from
first hand experiance being in the wrong place at the wrong time can get you
quetioned, as to what your purpose for being there is. i haven't had a problem
with it except for one time a young upsart got a little out of control &
abussive. That probably would have gotten me arrested if it weren't stoped by
his superiors. Other than that, i understand where they are coming from. I go
with the flow of this is the way it is, now. I may not like it. That's why i
wonder how much more there is to this story. Without sounding sarcastic, you
know evey body in prison is innocent.

On 8/03/08, -- wrote:
> 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.]"