PDA

View Full Version : Got pulled over for speeding-Two questions


modls7
07-12-2009, 1:10 AM
Hi fellas,

I have a few questions regarding about a traffic stop I was involved in this morning. First, here's the story of events:

I was cruising down a hill, and I do admit I was speeding (20 over). When the cop pulled up behind me I did not want to stop on the road I was on because its a 55 mph zone and no shoulder to pull off on. I really did not want to stop in the middle of a 55 mph lane, so I took the first turn off of that road and pulled into a shopping center (about 1/4 mile).

I parked rolled my windows down, and this is pretty much what happened:

Cop: "Put your hands on the wheel"
Me: I put my hands on the wheel

Cop: "You were doing (20 over) and failed to yield to an emergency vehicle! Step outta the car and put your hands on the roof!"

Me: I step out of my car and put my hands on the roof of my car.

Cop: "Why didn't you stop? You know your supposed to stop IMMEDIATELY!"
Me: "I didn't feel safe stopping in the middle of a 55mph road, Officer"

Cop:"You didn't feel safe? So you think you can continue driving? You didn't feel safe on that road?! I'm about to arrest you and impound your car for failing to yield to an emergency vehicle!"

Me: "No officer, I just did not feel safe stopping on that road"

Cop: "Have you ever been arrested before?"

Me:"No officer"

At this point I was pretty worried, the cop told me to put my hands behind my back which I did and then he patted me down, took my wallet out, and went through my pockets.

After which he told me to sit down on the curb and asked me were I was coming from, where was I going, where do I live, who do I live with which I answered just from intimidation.

Next, he took my license out of my wallet and wrote me a speeding ticket. Continued to tell me to stop immediately, otherwise he'll think I'm hiding cocaine or a gun which he has to worry about and that's why he pulled me out of my car. He drove off after handing me my ticket and that's the end.

My questions are simple, did I really screw up that bad by driving somewhere safe, and was this deserved? Should he have gone through my pockets and taken my license out of my wallet while not being under arrest?

bigmike82
07-12-2009, 1:18 AM
I've always heard that the best thing to do when you're in a spot you don't feel safe pulling over in is to put on your hazards, slow the f down, and proceed to a safe place within a reasonable distance. If the guy gets on the PA and tells you to pull over, disregard the above and pull over then and there.

modls7
07-12-2009, 1:24 AM
I did have my hazards on, and slowed down considerably. Never did he say anything over the PA.

1911su16b870
07-12-2009, 11:21 AM
The best thing to do is to immediately and cautiously pull over to the right when you see an emergency vehicle with lights on.

If it is not safe the LEO will announce that over the PA and you can follow his instructions from the PA.

tyrist
07-12-2009, 12:47 PM
For Officer safety reasons you stop where we choose. We won't usually light you up until we are in an area we want you to stop. You were thinking of a good place to stop however I guarantee all that officer was thinking was ambush.

MotoDuc
07-12-2009, 1:14 PM
Actually you did the right thing, sounds to me like the officer was may be having a bad day. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on that cause to me he sounds a bit badge heavy, if you did nothing the provoke or escalate any incident that may have happened.

I would prefer doing stops off the freeway if possible. I'll instruct you where to stop if need be, I also do passenger side approach, all in the name of officer safety. If it's not a safe location you do not need to stop immediately, why would you stop on the road with no shoulder.

That being said, yes, I'm signing you up for 20mph over.

modls7
07-14-2009, 1:23 AM
Thanks fellas, a few of my LEO friends told me he was probably having a bad day too. I'm told its fuzzy he searched inside my pockets though before the terry pat.

Fire in the Hole
07-14-2009, 6:33 AM
Thanks fellas, a few of my LEO friends told me he was probably having a bad day too. I'm told its fuzzy he searched inside my pockets though before the terry pat.

He checked inside your pockets, and told you it was fuzzy? Do you have holes in your pockets?

Jonathan Doe
07-14-2009, 11:14 AM
You just pull over and if it is not at the safe area, he will make you move.

eltee
07-14-2009, 1:03 PM
You didn't mention (or I missed it) how long (time wise) and how far (distance wise) it was between the time he first lit you up until you came to a complete stop.

I see both sides of your situation, but as the delay on your part (justified or not) extended time wise, I can see the cop's consternation level rising.

We also consider delays as a means for vehicle occupants to hide, toss or otherwise remove contraband (think about that traffic stop scene from Cheech and Chong..."ehhh, man, I never seen anybody take that many pills at one time..."). It can also give time to a real badguy to setup a defensive posture and/or lure the police vehicle into an area giving the badguy a tactical advantage.

If the area where you were originally lit up was truly without a safe place to pull over, I'd lean on your side of the issue. As cops, we are responsible for a motorist's safety when we stop them...we often PA a driver directions to stop in a safe area. It also protects us, if my car is behind yours in a 55 MPH zone with no shoulder, who gets hit first? While I'm out of the car talking to you, I am totally out in the road.

No simple answers to traffic stops...many factors need to be considered.

wildcard
07-14-2009, 2:44 PM
Actually you should have just pulled over regardless. It is entirely possible that he wasn't even coming after you and wanted to go around you. In that situation, you'd just be slowing him down!

Out of self preservation, I'd go to the nearest safest spot. If there's none available and I'm not given instructions over the PA, i'll let them worry about getting hit.

B Strong
07-14-2009, 5:36 PM
The best thing to do is to immediately and cautiously pull over to the right when you see an emergency vehicle with lights on.

If it is not safe the LEO will announce that over the PA and you can follow his instructions from the PA.

^^^The winning answer^^^

Let the officer make the call if it's a bad location to stop.

modls7
07-14-2009, 7:31 PM
I drove the route again last night on my way home from the gym, from the spot he hit the lights to the spot I pulled over (which was a small shopping center) was about .35 miles.

Its a two lane 55mph road, on the left (where I was at) is a concrete barrier, on the right is a sidewalk with a small bike lane with plenty of traffic buzzing by me since I was driving about 35mph with my hazards on. If I DID make an attempt to make it to the right shoulder, I DEFINITELY would have traveled further along before I could have made a stop.

Next time I will pull over regardless.

I just don't see that as an arrest & impound as he threatened.

BTW, thanks everyone that has responded!

Triad
07-14-2009, 10:11 PM
I am not even going to attempt to answer this because I am not the cop that did the traffic stop, so I can speak on his mindset and I am not familar with the area.

I will say, if he felt you were a significant danger to him or the safety of others, or were running from him, you probably would have been pulled out at gun point.

alex00
07-14-2009, 11:34 PM
I can't speculate on why the officer reacted the way he did. There are way too many variables to take into account for what led to his perception of the event. I will say that it didn't take long for me to learn that the general motoring public NEVER reacts exactly the way you think when the lights come on. I would have a hard time threatening arrest for a driver that drove .35 miles past the point I lit them up. I will say that I generally prefer people to pull over quickly after I turn on the lights, but making the first right turn and stopping is usually quite alright. If I thought you were a threat, I would handle the stop to maximize my safety, but I would still be as professional as possible. I will also say that I have had bad days, and cannot please everyone I contact.

retired
07-15-2009, 12:00 AM
For those fairly new non leos intending to post in this thread and other leo threads, please read the rules in the sticky at the top of this forum re posting leo bashing threads.

Calling a leo a knucklehead or any other derogatory term is not tolerated in this forum and if one were to read the rules, one would realize that. If you cannot post without using a derogatory term, don't post. Simple as that.

locosway
07-15-2009, 12:34 AM
I was lit up in Northern CA by a CHP (female too) and I waiting to exit the freeway and found a safe side street to pull down. The officer was grateful I exited the freeway, and I didn't get a ticket.

Emergency vehicles do not have the right of way. When they have their lights on they're asking for the right of way, but that doesn't mean they're granted it. As others have said, if he gets on his PA and orders you to pull over now and stop on the highway then that's a different story all together.

nukechaser
07-15-2009, 9:12 AM
For those fairly new non leos intending to post in this thread and other leo threads, please read the rules in the sticky at the top of this forum re posting leo bashing threads.

Calling a leo a knucklehead or any other derogatory term is not tolerated in this forum and if one were to read the rules, one would realize that. If you cannot post without using a derogatory term, don't post. Simple as that.


I had NOT read the sticky and I was in the wrong. I missed the point that this particular forum's scope is question-to-and-from-LEOs.

In retrospect, my posting had the hint of bashing and name calling. I apologize to anyone offended and it will not happen again.

I'm very sorry.

Sincerely,
nukechaser

Ron-Solo
07-15-2009, 9:39 AM
Emergency vehicles do not have the right of way. When they have their lights on they're asking for the right of way, but that doesn't mean they're granted it. As others have said, if he gets on his PA and orders you to pull over now and stop on the highway then that's a different story all together.

Oh really? I beg to differ and the vehicle code states "Shall" which makes it mandatory.

21806. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle which is sounding a siren and which has at least one lighted lamp exhibiting red light that is visible, under normal atmospheric conditions, from a distance of 1,000 feet to the front of the vehicle, the surrounding traffic shall, except as otherwise directed by a traffic officer, do the following:

(a) (1) Except as required under paragraph (2), the driver of every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway, clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

(2) A person driving a vehicle in an exclusive or preferential use lane shall exit that lane immediately upon determining that the exit can be accomplished with reasonable safety.

(b) The operator of every street car shall immediately stop the street car, clear of any intersection, and remain stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

(c) All pedestrians upon the highway shall proceed to the nearest curb or place of safety and remain there until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

Amended Sec. 68, Ch. 1154, Stats. 1996. Effective September 30, 1996.


It doesn't mean pull into the center median because you don't want to bother with the right curb, slow down because you are going someplace important.

eltee
07-15-2009, 11:53 AM
Yep...failure to yield is a common violation that is subject to penalites. "Shall" = must, not may. Use of a red light is a compelling action, not a request.

BTW, Nukechaser...your post # 18 is cool and appreciated.

Turbinator
07-15-2009, 4:17 PM
Hi folks, I've actually read advice written elsewhere (long since gone, so I cannot quote properly) that a driver, if being pulled over, may consider driving to a "safe, well lit spot" and having the officer follow him / her accordingly.

This comment was in light of some of the not-too-distant fake LE pull-over-and-carjack incidents that were going on.

Based on the answers in this thread, I presume pulling over immediately is the right response from a driver. However, how are we to know 100% without a doubt that the officer doing the stop is legit?

Just curious.

Turby

eltee
07-15-2009, 5:56 PM
Most of the fake pullovers inc. the celebrated Carl Chessman case, involved unmarked cars with a mail order red light. Police auction, surplused Crown Vic and a red light and you have an instant unmarked car.

I don't recall any such incidents with marked cars with rooftop light bars. In Calif. there is a lookalike cop car proscription (I think it arose out of the New York Pizza Delivery / NYPD sedans a while back).

You're right, I've told my wife not to yield in an isolated area to an unmarked car. If she gets charged with failure to yield, I'll let the court decide what was reasonable.

Rivers
07-15-2009, 7:25 PM
Contrary to those opinions that one must pull over immediately, regardless of the level of safety perceived by the "presumed offender," I have just one name to say. Craig Peyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Peyer

For those with short memories, he was the CHP officer in San Diego who in 1986 murdered a coed in the dark of night, on a dark freeway, because she "had to stop immediately when instructed." One of the few smart laws that our legislature passed was the one that permitted the driver to continue at a safe speed to the nearest safe area, such as a well lit shopping center, gas station, etc.

The officer's impatience and authority do not override the citizen's safety, regardless of what they say during any stop. When in doubt, request a superior officer. If an officer insists that you engage in an unsafe act, feel free to take that up with his captain and/or the judge.

Doing the traffic stop in a safer area is for everyone's protection.

locosway
07-15-2009, 11:14 PM
Emergency vehicle is code 3, has an accident, who's at fault?

It's my understanding that 100% of the time it's the emergency vehicle since they were REQUESTING the right of way, but DO NOT HAVE IT by default.

Yes, we need to yield to them and give them the right of way when requested, but from what I understand they are not automatically given the right of way.

Perhaps someone with experience in this matter can comment?

eltee
07-16-2009, 10:19 AM
Each code 3 based, or any dept. vehicle involved, accident is investigated. Fault is determined by investigation. A Code 3 accident does not automatically render fault to any participant. Lots of cops have been jammed up on Code 3 collisions for violating dept. orders, state law, etc. but likewise civilian drivers are often found at fault.

Philosophically, we consider ourselves largely responsible when we use the Code 3 option...we put ourselves and others at risk. The whole Code 3 protocol and practice is the subject of ongoing dicussion, litigation, revision, etc. It is always evolving. In the academy it is drummed into us how dangerous high speed driving can be and the risks it poses to ourselves, other cops and, of course, the citizens on the road. Remember, lots of cops get severely injured and killed as the result of MVAs.

The driving training we undergo is awesome. We had a race car driver as one of the instructors. It is extremely difficult. We drive forward, backwards (high speed, timed, no mirrors), in traffic (fast and slow moving cars in our way). It is several long, grueling days of training. Additionally, patrol cars are built specifically for high speed driving, and they are scrupulously maintained (@ least in my area). I'm not an Indy 500 level driver, but I think a typical policeman in a typical police patrol car is probably better suited to traveling at high speeds than any typical civilian driver. Sure, a 20 year old with a high end road car (BMW, Porsche, etc.) may have a much better performing car than a Police Interceptor, but he probably hasn't gotten the training and probably doesn't have a car equipped with emergency lighting and siren.

Post # 19 clearly defines some of the statutory elements of the issue. The poster is someone with experience in this matter.

Like everything related to law and law enforcement, there are no absolutes.

SoCalDep
07-16-2009, 10:23 AM
It is not 100 percent of the time...it completely depends on the circumstances. Code 3 is not a request, and vehicles shall yield the right of way, but that does not absolve the peace officer from safe driving.

eltee
07-16-2009, 10:34 AM
Contrary to those opinions that one must pull over immediately, regardless of the level of safety perceived by the "presumed offender," I have just one name to say. Craig Peyer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Peyer

For those with short memories, he was the CHP officer in San Diego who in 1986 murdered a coed in the dark of night, on a dark freeway, because she "had to stop immediately when instructed." One of the few smart laws that our legislature passed was the one that permitted the driver to continue at a safe speed to the nearest safe area, such as a well lit shopping center, gas station, etc.

The officer's impatience and authority do not override the citizen's safety, regardless of what they say during any stop. When in doubt, request a superior officer. If an officer insists that you engage in an unsafe act, feel free to take that up with his captain and/or the judge.

Doing the traffic stop in a safer area is for everyone's protection.

IMHO, that was kind of an unfair example. That was an extremely rare incident. Using extremely rare, isolated incidents to justify a particular action is a tactic that the anti-gunners use. Remember Patrick Purdy? Thanks to his extremely rare, isolated incident 20 years ago they banned "assault weapons" in California. Peyer was an extreme anomaly, as was Purdy.

I totally agree that anyone getting pulled over has the right, to a great degree, to determine their own personal safety as to where to stop, but they should at least slow down and activate flashers to indicate they are willing to comply. I even told my wife to use discretion.

Hey, some cops tend to be a grumpy, prima donna bunch anyway and are prone to hissyfits when they don't get their way. Believe me, as a supervisor I've heard more complaints from citizens than I can remember. Yes, if you think a cop has mistreated you, talk to a supervisor. It has been my experience that supervisors take genuine, founded complaints very seriously. Remember, once you put it in my lap, I own it. If I screw up or ignore a founded complaint, then I have to tapdance in front of my boss. Chain of command thing.

If you want to complain, go in prepared. Have notes or an outline with the facts. Coming in and sputtering about how a cop was rude or mean to you without specifics is not as strong as having notes with quotes, witness statements, a copy of the citation (if applicable), etc. Don't just show up demanding a pound of flesh...prepare yourself. A good supervisor will listen, guide and assist you. Trust me, we know who the jerks are in our unit and he/she has probably had prior complaints about similar misconduct. We won't take that officer out to the garage and beat him/her in your presence, but when I say, "I will look into it and take appropriate action based on further investigation" it does not mean he/she and I will be laughing about your complaint over coffee and doughnuts.

locosway
07-16-2009, 10:44 AM
Ok, so I'll say I was wrong on the code 3 thing.

However, I won't agree that a cruiser is any more equiped for high speed travel than a sports car. In fact, the sports car would likely have a suspension more in tune for high speed travel. I know cruisers get the heavy duty suspension or service suspension, but that does nothing for high speeds.

Also, do officers train for high speeds? I know the CHP does, but I don't think normal departments do. The physics of driving over 100 or 120 mph change the vehicles handling drastically.

If you've ever driving 150 mph you know that cars come up very very quickly.

Rivers
07-16-2009, 11:50 AM
IMHO, that was kind of an unfair example. That was an extremely rare incident. Using extremely rare, isolated incidents to justify a particular action is a tactic that the anti-gunners use. Remember Patrick Purdy? Thanks to his extremely rare, isolated incident 20 years ago they banned "assault weapons" in California. Peyer was an extreme anomaly, as was Purdy.

I totally agree that anyone getting pulled over has the right, to a great degree, to determine their own personal safety as to where to stop, but they should at least slow down and activate flashers to indicate they are willing to comply. I even told my wife to use discretion.

Hey, some cops tend to be a grumpy, prima donna bunch anyway and are prone to hissyfits when they don't get their way. Believe me, as a supervisor I've heard more complaints from citizens than I can remember. Yes, if you think a cop has mistreated you, talk to a supervisor. It has been my experience that supervisors take genuine, founded complaints very seriously. Remember, once you put it in my lap, I own it. If I screw up or ignore a founded complaint, then I have to tapdance in front of my boss. Chain of command thing.

If you want to complain, go in prepared. Have notes or an outline with the facts. Coming in and sputtering about how a cop was rude or mean to you without specifics is not as strong as having notes with quotes, witness statements, a copy of the citation (if applicable), etc. Don't just show up demanding a pound of flesh...prepare yourself. A good supervisor will listen, guide and assist you. Trust me, we know who the jerks are in our unit and he/she has probably had prior complaints about similar misconduct. We won't take that officer out to the garage and beat him/her in your presence, but when I say, "I will look into it and take appropriate action based on further investigation" it does not mean he/she and I will be laughing about your complaint over coffee and doughnuts.

We're really on the same page here. I agree that Peyer is an extreme example. However, up to that time, there was the requirement that the motorist pull over immediately. That was a bad law that needed changing. Peyer's abuse forced lawmakers to modify that stance to improve safety for the motorist and the LEO. The motorist was still required to proceed as if "in custody" of the LEO.

IMHO, I think there are only a few LEOs who are overly rigid in permitting the motorist to safely proceed to the nearest safe location for the traffic stop. But when that happens, the LEO and his supervisors deserve to hear about it. Staying safe is not a challenge to the LEO's authority, it is just what it is, helping both parties to live to see another day. The ticket will still get written and everyone goes home alive and healthy.

TerryC
07-16-2009, 6:02 PM
If a LEO lights you up, pull over immediately. He/she will tell you via the loud speaker if they want you to go somewhere else. It's the LEO responsibility to insure the public's and your safety. If they error, the city is responsible if you followed the LEO's direction.

locosway
07-16-2009, 6:06 PM
If a LEO lights you up, pull over immediately. He/she will tell you via the loud speaker if they want you to go somewhere else. It's the LEO responsibility to insure the public's and your safety. If they error, the city is responsible if you followed the LEO's direction.

So, if the LEO has you stop on train tracks because they ordered you to you should comply? I'd like to think the general public has a little more control over their own safety and life.

retired
07-16-2009, 6:15 PM
Come on locosway, you know that he didn't mean it that way and you are reaching if you believe a leo is going to have you stop on the tracks. Realize, if he did, he would be on the tracks also when he is talking to you. If for no other reason than that, I highly doubt it would be done.

Debate is fine, arguing for argument's sake is not and one can "what if" all day long.

locosway
07-16-2009, 6:19 PM
I think my point that it's never cut and dry the way it should be. Ideally everyone would pull to the right, not stop in the fast lane, not create an accident by trying to slow for PD.

I just want people to know they have the option of using their judgement. Too often people are lead around like sheep when all they needed to do was question the circumstances.

;)

Neil McCauley
07-16-2009, 6:20 PM
He checked inside your pockets, and told you it was fuzzy? Do you have holes in your pockets?

:rofl2: wtf

eltee
07-16-2009, 11:07 PM
Ok, so I'll say I was wrong on the code 3 thing.

However, I won't agree that a cruiser is any more equiped for high speed travel than a sports car. In fact, the sports car would likely have a suspension more in tune for high speed travel. I know cruisers get the heavy duty suspension or service suspension, but that does nothing for high speeds.

Also, do officers train for high speeds? I know the CHP does, but I don't think normal departments do. The physics of driving over 100 or 120 mph change the vehicles handling drastically.

If you've ever driving 150 mph you know that cars come up very very quickly.

Read the last sentence in the third paragraph of post # 25 where I talk about high end cars being faster than ours. We are IN AGREEMENT about performance cars often being faster or better suited for hi speed road work than a typical pursuit car ! :)

However, it is more than just suspension. In our pursuit cars the chassis is stiffened, the height is lowered, we have special rims and tires, steering and brakes are modified, different third member and ratio, etc. Sure, not a Porsche but more than simple suspension mods. I don't know what you base your "...HD suspension...does nothing for high speeds.." comment on but ask anyone about the physics of high speed driving and they will likely challenge that assertion. Also, most freeways are relatively straight with mildly radiused curves, so a freeway flier Police Interceptor may actually perform better than a "sports car" setup for windy roads with tight turns.

Of course, there was an era when the pursuit car was a hopped up Ford Taurus :eek: and we couldn't catch a cold in them.

Yes, we train for extreme high speed pursuit driving even if not CHP. In my earlier post I mentioned a pro race car driver was one of our instructors. While CHP officers may get more emphasis on freeway pursuits than a city/county cop (and I don't know that for a fact) many surface street pursuits end up on the freeway with that city / county cop in pursuit. The avg. speed on the high speed course was 90MPH...the AVERAGE. So century plus speeds are not uncommon.

locosway
07-16-2009, 11:51 PM
I'm not even sure anymore what we were talking about... Anyway, here is some info on the interceptor. While there are a lot of differences (mostly small) between the normal crown vic and the police model there are some discrepancies from what you said.

The rims aren't special, they're cheap steel rims.

Tires are probably standard H rated or perhaps Z rated on some of the interceptors. I don't think you'll ever see a W rating on a patrol car.

I have yet to see sub-frame connectors welded into a cruiser to stiffen up the chasis. The ride height is not lowered, the suspension is beefed up a bit to handle dips and what not without bottoming out the car during a pursuit.

Steering isn't changed, brakes are just ceramic pads like most new cars.

I actually have a SSP Mustang out front of my house, it's the second one I've restored. The good thing I WILL say about the crown vics are the safety ratings. They're the only production car tested for a 80 mph rear end collision. If I was spending my time on the side of the road, that's the car I'd want to be in.

p.s. Your department may actually upgrade parts on the crown vic, but I find that highly unlikely for numerous reasons.

Sheepdog1968
07-17-2009, 9:52 AM
Most of the fake pullovers inc. the celebrated Carl Chessman case, involved unmarked cars with a mail order red light. Police auction, surplused Crown Vic and a red light and you have an instant unmarked car.

I don't recall any such incidents with marked cars with rooftop light bars. In Calif. there is a lookalike cop car proscription (I think it arose out of the New York Pizza Delivery / NYPD sedans a while back).

You're right, I've told my wife not to yield in an isolated area to an unmarked car. If she gets charged with failure to yield, I'll let the court decide what was reasonable.

Had a LEO friend of mine in the Bay Area say that in his Dept unmaked cars aren't allowed to pull people over. They need to call in a marked black and white for the reason mentioned above. Was a subtopic of a subtopic of a conversation so I don't remember any more specifics than that.

eltee
07-17-2009, 10:08 AM
Had a LEO friend of mine in the Bay Area say that in his Dept unmaked cars aren't allowed to pull people over. They need to call in a marked black and white for the reason mentioned above. Was a subtopic of a subtopic of a conversation so I don't remember any more specifics than that.

Technically, where I work that is supposed to be what we do, call in a marked unit for the stop.

Lancear15
07-17-2009, 10:14 AM
Always pull over immediately. If they wanted you to pull over further down the road he would have followed you further down the road and then lit you up. He can also direct you over the PA once you pull over if he wants to get to a safer location. Also if he was not pulling you over but just trying to get past you, then you are very much so failing to yield.

Ron-Solo
07-17-2009, 11:36 AM
So, if the LEO has you stop on train tracks because they ordered you to you should comply? I'd like to think the general public has a little more control over their own safety and life.

Now this is just getting ridiculous.

Rivers
07-17-2009, 7:07 PM
Always pull over immediately. If they wanted you to pull over further down the road he would have followed you further down the road and then lit you up. He can also direct you over the PA once you pull over if he wants to get to a safer location. Also if he was not pulling you over but just trying to get past you, then you are very much so failing to yield.

That is under the assumption that "whoever" is pulling you over is a) a real LEO who b) does not have felonious intent. Craig Peyer WAS a CHP who liked to rape and murder. If you're a LEO who doesn't like that a motorist is now legally empowered to USE DISCRETION to evaluate the safety of a stop's location, thank Mr. Peyer for messing up your game.

So there is no misunderstanding, the motorist must proceed at a slower and safe speed that recognizes the intent of the LEO to stop the vehicle. Driving otherwise is not in compliance with this safety measure.

In truth, any safety-conscious LEO would either wait for a safe area to stop a motorist, or would respect the motorist's concern that stopping in a dark, deserted stretch of the road does not provide adequate security for anyone. Consider, if the motorist was a BG who intended to do the LEO harm, the BG would want darkness with no witnesses. The well-lit parking lot benefits both the motorist and the LEO. Any LEO who gives me or mine a bad time about that is certainly going to hear from his superiors in a very short time.

Ron-Solo
07-18-2009, 12:33 AM
All the paranoia about phony LEO is almost amusing, since it is such a rare and isolated occurence.

Unless there is something to indicate the stop is fake, just pull over.I often make 30+ stops a shift. I always take my safety and the safety of the motorist into account. Don't try to outguess the officer about what is safe. When working the field I once had a person try to say they didn't believe I was a real cop even though there were 4 marked Black & whites (plus mine) and a helicopter trying to stop her. She got a very expensive ticket. The motorist's level of cooperation determines if I write a cite or give a warning.

You can complain to a supervisor all you want but the location of the stop is a judgement call by the officer. The average individual might get stopped once or twice in their lifetime, while the average officer makes that many an hour. Who has more training and experience in this field? Think about it for a minute.


On a somewhat related note,

If you are "always getting stopped by the police" as many in this forum claim, figure out what you are doing to draw attention to yourself and adjust your driving habits. I have a friend who drives too fast, has all kinds of modifications on a high performance car, dresses like a thug even though he isn't, plays his music loud enough to destroy his hearing, and can't figure out why he keeps getting stopped. I've tried to tell him, but he doesn't get it. We've been friends for 35 years, but he's a little dense sometimes.

locosway
07-18-2009, 6:55 AM
I'm VERY surprised I haven't been stopped in my truck yet. I think a lot of that has to do with my Oregon plates... :)

eltee
07-18-2009, 11:15 AM
Oregon Plates + California DL (can possibly) = Citation via CHP, et al

Heads up for if and when you do get stopped.

Maybe you're just a good driver and don't draw any LEO attention regardless of your plates. We look at the vehicle's actions first, plates later. If you are driving in a manner warranting attention, I don't think having out of state plates makes much difference.

eltee
07-18-2009, 11:31 AM
I'm not even sure anymore what we were talking about... Anyway, here is some info on the interceptor. While there are a lot of differences (mostly small) between the normal crown vic and the police model there are some discrepancies from what you said.

The rims aren't special, they're cheap steel rims.

Tires are probably standard H rated or perhaps Z rated on some of the interceptors. I don't think you'll ever see a W rating on a patrol car.

I have yet to see sub-frame connectors welded into a cruiser to stiffen up the chasis. The ride height is not lowered, the suspension is beefed up a bit to handle dips and what not without bottoming out the car during a pursuit.

Steering isn't changed, brakes are just ceramic pads like most new cars.

I actually have a SSP Mustang out front of my house, it's the second one I've restored. The good thing I WILL say about the crown vics are the safety ratings. They're the only production car tested for a 80 mph rear end collision. If I was spending my time on the side of the road, that's the car I'd want to be in.

p.s. Your department may actually upgrade parts on the crown vic, but I find that highly unlikely for numerous reasons.

(emphasis added)

You're right, after 25+ years as a cop and sitting on the panel that negotiated specs and prices with the Ford fleet manager...I am lying. :rolleyes:

The "cheap rims" cost more than the LX mags and "H.D. specialty rims" is a Ford description.

The reinforced, stiffened chassis was out of the P71 spec...I never said anything about " ... sub frame connectors..."

The tires were rated for 125+ MPH and were classified as pursuit tires. Sticky but wore out quickly...increased rate of replacement.

Brakes, as spec'd by Ford (not me) were higher performance in stopping and cooling (according to Ford) than the standard Vic or LX

Lock to lock steering ratio was different than a Vic or LX

I don't know about your comment on the 80 MPH rear end rating. I am unfamiliar with that rating. I DO know that for certain model years, rear end collisions were considered by many to be extremely dangerous due to the reported tendancy of the gas tank to rupture.

While a "sports car" might outrun us on a tight, twisty course (as they are designed for) there aren't alot of tight, twisty turns on any freeways around here. Yes, people outrun us all the time, or they just aren't worth putting other motorists at risk so we discontinue. Lose one, catch 3. Every shift, every day you catch a few and lose a few...it's the job.

tyrist
07-18-2009, 1:55 PM
I'm VERY surprised I haven't been stopped in my truck yet. I think a lot of that has to do with my Oregon plates... :)

Actually the out of state plates are what you target in certain areas because drug runners use rental vehicles from out of state to transport dope. They wouldn't want their personal vehicle seized permanently.

locosway
07-18-2009, 2:49 PM
I have a dodge 2500 diesel, so it's not a rental vehicle. I have a 5" exhaust and that's why I find it amusing that I haven't been stopped yet.

Eroland7
07-18-2009, 2:51 PM
you shoulda just pulled over immidiately... If the officer felt that it was not safe enough of an area, he will tell you over the load speaker to continue to a different spot. Just friendly advice.

Fire in the Hole
07-19-2009, 4:35 PM
I'm VERY surprised I haven't been stopped in my truck yet. I think a lot of that has to do with my Oregon plates... :)

The Coastal and Southern Divisions of the CHP enforce this law quite agressively actually. There is even a dedicated report used to investigate it (DMV 69). They even have special duty positions assigned to enforce and maintain the stats on it. (Foreign Vehicle Registration Unit).

6700. (a) V.C.: Except as provided in Section 6700.2, the owner of any
vehicle of a type otherwise subject to registration under this code,
other than a commercial vehicle registered in a foreign jurisdiction,
may operate the vehicle in this state until gainful employment is
accepted in this state or until residency is established in this
state, whichever occurs first, if the vehicle displays valid license
plates and has a valid registration issued to the owner, and the
owner was a resident of that state at the time of issuance.
Application to register the vehicle shall be made within 20 days
after gainful employment is accepted in this state or residency is
established in this state.

That is, you have 20 days to register your vehicle in CA after gaining employment, or residency.

locosway
07-19-2009, 4:38 PM
I have an OR DL still and I haven't been able to prove residency in CA yet and I'm not working. Was planning on going back to school but they say I'm a CA resident until mid 2010.