Question about Reasonable Suspicion

[ahern25]

Maybe your vehicle matched a vehicle they are looking for in a crime or maybe you matched a person they are looking for in a crime? Without knowing the knowledge the officer had at the time it can be taken in a wrong way and I can understand that. However I think you would of gotten the same point across with "No sir. Just doing some Kayaking" VS "No, does it look like we have fishing poles?"

[RedVines]

to answer you original question about whether the registered owner being unlicensed amount to reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, yes it does. Case law in both CA and other states.

To answer your question regarding the officer deliberately fudging the order of the name to create RS to further the investigation, Tom had already admitted to having no DL in possession, which is a traffic infraction (at least in CA it is). At that point the officer has PC, To arrest and he doesn't need to use any "tactics" to prolong the stop.

Regardless of how you feel about the stop, based on the circumstances you've provided, I don't see anything questionable about it. Everything the officer did was IMO perfectly grounded in case law.

Couple other points. An officer is not obligated to tell you what traffic violation was observed, nor is he obligated to issue a citation for said violation. Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate, an officer doesn't need any PC,RS or reason to run a registration check.

Your comments about our "oath" does come across as trolling. If you feel you have been wronged please go make a complaint. But copy and pasting a bunch of rhetoric in the LE forum to support your accusations of an officer's wrongdoing, especially when most cops here don't see any wrong doing based on what you said, is condescending.

[zack_trp1911]

If people are humble and polite towards LEO, things like this won't happen. But when you do act like a jack*****, then yes, an LEO can and will find something to stop you, and conduct his/her investigation.

[Ninety]

to answer you original question about whether the registered owner being unlicensed amount to reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop, yes it does. Case law in both CA and other states.

Thank you . And can you walk me thru that process?
Run the registration.. Then run that name? Or does the running of the registration also attach any licensed drivers.. and the absence of one coming back would create the RS for further investigation..

To answer your question regarding the officer deliberately fudging the order of the name to create RS to further the investigation, Tom had already admitted to having no DL in possession, which is a traffic infraction (at least in CA it is). At that point the officer has PC, To arrest and he doesn't need to use any "tactics" to prolong the stop.

The Ranger didn't know that Tom didn't have a DL in hand until after he had pulled him over..

Regardless of how you feel about the stop, based on the circumstances you've provided, I don't see anything questionable about it. Everything the officer did was IMO perfectly grounded in case law.

The only questionable thing I have with the stop.. is why is a AZ Department of Game and Fish Department Ranger following someone to initiate a traffic stop if there is no suspicion of illegal fishing or any other infraction related to his job description .. why dig deeper? Why go out of your way to pull Tom over?

Wildlife Manager I, II, and III:
Performs a variety of technical wildlife management field activities including population surveys, research programs, monitoring wildlife movement, patrolling assigned district and enforcing game, fish and watercraft laws.

I - Class Code 36112 Grade 19:
Bachelor's degree in a wildlife science or a closely related field.

II - Class Code 36113 Grade 20:
Bachelor's degree in a wildlife science or a closely related field and two years of professional experience in wildlife research or wildlife management; OR one year as a Wildlife Manager I in Arizona State service.

III - Class Code 36116 Grade 21:
Bachelor's degree in a wildlife science or a closely related field and three years of professional experience in wildlife research or wildlife management which included wildlife law enforcement work; OR two years experience as a Wildlife Manager II in Arizona State service.

Required: AZ Post Certification as a state peace officer is required for the wildlife manager positions.

Couple other points. An officer is not obligated to tell you what traffic violation was observed, nor is he obligated to issue a citation for said violation. Also there is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a license plate, an officer does need any PC,RS or reason to run a registration check.

I'm guessing you meant doesn't
So at no point of a stop is an officer obligated to tell you why he detained you? Specifically? I guess when you get a ticket it's pretty clear as to why you were stopped.. I know they don't have to tell you up front.. but I thought at the end of things they did.. guess it's just a courtesy

Your comments about our "oath" does come across as trolling. If you feel you have been wronged please go make a complaint. But copy and pasting a bunch of rhetoric in the LE forum to support your accusations of an officer's wrongdoing, especially when most cops here don't see any wrong doing based on what you said, is condescending.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to with Rhetoric.. The only thing I copied and pasted was an oath from the Cheifs association and an oath from a local So cal Police Department.

A trolling comment it was not.. but I probably could have phrased it differently.

Ahern.. That I am 99% sure was not the case here.

and as far as being polite.. obviously everyone involved would have had a much nicer day had that occurred.


ETA:
Irish I didn't see this part of your reply for some reason or didn't understand what you were saying..

You keep writing ***umes which brings me back to your below the belt dig. I get what you're saying, the officer/warden was an @ss by making assumptions. But I'm seeing you make a whole lot of assumptions as well here.

I write assumes as ASSumes... just as a play on words like everyone does.. not really takin a dig at the guy .. Everyone is always pointing out when people assume things on this forum.. Maybe the emphasis wasn't needed..

And I think they are Rangers..

[RedVines]

OK. Here's your walk through of the legalities of your said encounter:

Ofc sees Tom's truck. Ofc run registration check on license plate, which does not require RS (reasonable suspicion), PC (probable cause) or any other justification or reason.

Registered owner of truck comes back to a male. Ofc checks registered owner for license status, which doesn't require RS or PC. Registered owner shows unlicensed. Ofc sees that the driver of said truck is male. Based on case law, Ofc now has RS to initiate a traffic stop, detain the driver and investigate in order to confirm or dispel his suspicion that a traffic violation (unlicensed driver) had indeed occurred.

In order to conduct that investigation, the Ofc is afforded certain investigative procedures, such as asking for a driver's license. The driver says he doesn't have one on him. Ofc now has PC to arrest for a traffic violation (no DL in possession), even though it was a different violation that he initially suspected when he made the traffic stop (unlicensed driver).

The Ofc is still at this point allowed to continue his investigation into the original suspected traffic violation (unlicensed driver), hence the conversation about Mr Warren. Ofc tells driver he made a traffic violation, could have been referring to no DL in possession or something else; the Ofc is not obligated to tell the driver.

Driver asks if he's being detained, Ofc grabs driver's arm and tells him to put his hands behind his back, which he is allowed to do for safety reasons; It would be the Ofc's burden to articulate why he did that if someone asked (I can articulate a dozen reasons why I would have, but I wasn't there). Ofc takes a picture of driver, which he allowed to do during a lawful detention.

Ofc decides he is satisfied with his investigation into the original suspected violation (unlicensed driver) and decided to exercise his discretion by not citing driver for the other confirmed violation (no DL in possession), which is a really nice gesture. The Ofc used the least intrusive methods to conduct his investigation to confirm/dispel his suspicions as quickly as he could and the driver is released after 5 mins, a reasonable amount of time for an investigative detention under these circumstances.

Notice how the above narrative included nothing about Tom's original contact with the Warden when he was asked about fishing and Tom's subsequent answer? That's because those circumstances are completely irrelevant to the legality of the Ofc's actions. Did the Ofc follow Tom because of the snarky remark? I don't know. Possibly. Maybe it was a coincidence. Who knows? But quite frankly it's irrelevant. What happened to Tom happened because he was driving a truck registered to an unlicensed driver and he didn't have his DL on him. Cut and dry.

As far as you thinking that it is questionable that a Fish and Game officer is conducting traffic stops, if AZ fish and game wardens are like their CA counterparts, which i suspect they are, they are sworn state peace officers. There is no difference between them and any other cop. They enforce all the same laws and have all the same arrest powers. In rural areas, they are often the only law enforcement around. Don't get hung about the job title. Fish and game wardens are cops. Pure and simple.

As far as "why dig deeper" goes, it's our job to dig deeper. Jaycee Dugard was rescued after 18 years of captivity because a university campus cop on desk duty "dug deeper". Digging deeper is good police work. Your friend "Tom" happened to be on the other end of good police work. Other than his offended sensibilities and his indignation that he was stopped by a fish and game warden and not a "real" cop, he has not wronged in any way, nor were his constitutional rights violated, nor was the Ofc doing anything illegal or unethical.

So now that I've explained it to you step by step, you should a very clear understanding of how there was nothing questionable about the stop. Now let's revisit some of your comments in post #7, namely "an illegitimate inquiry into someones personal information for personal reasons and not lawful ones", "a violation of the 4th under the guise of a traffic stop" "a violation of an officers ethics" and "abuse of power". Still don't think it's a little condescending?

If that's truly your opinion, cool. Rock on bro. F*ck the police. It doesn't matter to me. But you seem like a reasonable guy; i wouldn't bother with you if i thought otherwise. Does it suck to get pulled over? Yeah. Is it demeaning to be told to put your hands behind your back? Yeah. Is it unfortunate that this happens to law abiding citizens sometimes over minor traffic violations? Yeah. Can the above happen in the course of good police work done by good cops? You better believe it. Do I expect the people on the receiving end of this to understand and accept it? Not really.

What I do hope is that reasonable people like yourself don't jump to conclusions about cops being unethical and abusing their power and going against their oath just because they don't understand something that the cops did, and then blast it on the LE forum. There's enough of that from the unreasonable people. I stopped posting here because I got tired of the invasion of the trolls. But once in a while there's that one person here who's open minded and willing to understand things from another perspective. I hope that's you and that I didn't just waste 20 mins of my life I'll never get back.

[9mmepiphany]

I write assumes as ASSumes... just as a play on words like everyone does..

Not everyone, and it is usually considered condescending

not really takin a dig at the guy

...means...yeah, sort of

Everyone is always pointing out when people assume things on this forum.

Maybe in OT...this isn't OT, it is more than a bit childish

Maybe the emphasis wasn't needed.

Maybe not

[Ninety]

Thank you Red Vines for taking the time for that thorough response.

So some more info to add and clarify.. and some more opinions from other LE in the Area..

This was a US Fish and Wildlife officer from the Department of the Interior.. Not a AZ Game and Fish.. so Federal officer not State.. doesn't really change much as according to the county Sheriff's dispatcher they have limited state LE powers.. The person I spoke to today about it said they do not have the authority to arrest and that the Sheriff's department will come and make them for them. They do however have the authority to make traffic stops..

Tom went to the MVD today to check on his registration, The lady at the MVD said that there is no way that running his registration would have come back with a result of an unlicensed driver... The MVD records are correct as far as name and his CA state DL is attached to his MVD record from a speeding ticket back in 08. I know this is from the MVD , and they don't know what systems and screens that officer or department might see.

Tom also spoke with the officers supervisor today .. who happens to be just a fill in.. temporary supervisor.. not an officer herself. She apologized profusely and said she would turn it over to (insert akronym) which investigates these sorts of issues internally...

Tom also ran across a Deputy while in town and talked to him a little bit about the incident.. He said that the USFW officer operate with their own set of rules and think their **** don't stink..The Deputy said that it was BS the way they operate and to be sure to file a complaint.

The Deputy which was confirmed again later by another department stated that in AZ when operating a motor vehicle , all that is necessary is to be a licensed driver and have a state issued ID .. No DL needed... Gotta Love AZ

He also spoke with a different Deputy from a different office and they seemed to agree with the information provided them from Tom , that it sounded a little shady.. but it happened within the city limits.. on the edge of the county so any complaints would have to be made to the local police department.

He's gonna shoot an email to the Sheriff and see if the local police department will accept a complaint. I think that's about all he can do.. The place is pretty small.. so the chances of running into him again are very very good.

Tom feels an apology is in order.. I'd imagine it would be recommended not to approach the officer to request one..

The reason to initiate the stop is what is at question here.. As I'm sure.. haven't found any data to back it up yet.. that the USFWS doesn't usually make traffic stops unless they are investigating other things pertaining to their job.. There are 2 USFWS in the area.. It will be interesting to find out how many traffic stops they make as a whole.. and how many he makes..


And yes 9mm .. maybe too much time in OT..

[hitman13]

1. There are Feds who are also certified as LE in Arizona.
2. You must have your DL in your possession within AZ while operating a MV. ETA: generally speaking, but Tom does not call into one of the exemptions.
3. Out of state DL generally does not come back on an AZ registration, since you have an OLN assigned in AZ regardless when the vehicle is registered.


Good stop, Tom needs to stop being a little *****.

[ahern25]

Seems like Tom was expecting to be the only one giving lip. Instead he got it back in return. Now Tom is upset and trying hard to find a way to get the officer in trouble.

[TRICKSTER]

I am starting to wonder why this was even posted here. Tom said this, Tom said that, with constantly changing "facts" is evidence of nothing. The proper advise has been given, even with the constantly changing info. What purpose does posting second and third hand accusations and speculations serve at this point?

[Ninety]

I don't think anything has changed as it pertains to the original question.. only details and an update.. yes I made a mistake about the agency.. but it really doesn't matter.. as you and I both know Federal Officer get granted State LE powers all the time.. This was confirmed today..

Your advise and answering of the questions is greatly appreciated.. The reason I posted it here was to get an honest opinion from you guys.. I have plenty of other people I can call and ask.. but they just might blow smoke up my ***.. you guys could care less.

What added accusations have I added? The OP of this thread included the reason for the stop and the events that led up to it.. everything else after that doesn't really matter..

I now have conflicting information about having to have a DL in your possession.. I did a search earlier and was unable to find the code for AZ./ I will look some more unless Hitman knows it off the top of his head..

Trickster.. Am I doing something wrong? I 'm not trying to beat a dead horse . just thought I 'd throw an update with what was done and heard today.

Once again thank you .

[TRICKSTER]

I don't think anything has changed as it pertains to the original question.. only details and an update.. yes I made a mistake about the agency.. but it really doesn't matter.. as you and I both know Federal Officer get granted State LE powers all the time.. This was confirmed today..

Your advise and answering of the questions is greatly appreciated.. The reason I posted it here was to get an honest opinion from you guys.. I have plenty of other people I can call and ask.. but they just might blow smoke up my ***.. you guys could care less.

What added accusations have I added? The OP of this thread included the reason for the stop and the events that led up to it.. everything else after that doesn't really matter..

I now have conflicting information about having to have a DL in your possession.. I did a search earlier and was unable to find the code for AZ./ I will look some more unless Hitman knows it off the top of his head..

Trickster.. Am I doing something wrong? I 'm not trying to beat a dead horse . just thought I 'd throw an update with what was done and heard today.

Once again thank you .

Ever consider the chance that "Tom" just might be blowing smoke up your ***? And all this "Tom said this guy told him this and that guy told him that" is really not relevant to what happened and appears to be posted with the sole intent to bash the officer and agency. None of this is going to change the fact that the proper advise has been given. If he wants to file a complaint, he should do it.

[hitman13]

28-3169.A
A licensee shall have a legible driver license in the licensee's immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. On demand of a justice of the peace, a police officer or a field deputy or inspector of the department, a licensee shall display the license.

[TRICKSTER]

28-3169.A
A licensee shall have a legible driver license in the licensee's immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle. On demand of a justice of the peace, a police officer or a field deputy or inspector of the department, a licensee shall display the license.

Yep, took me a whole 15 seconds to find that doing a Google search.
It was in the first return.

[riddler408]

If "Tom" was being hostile, especially in light of many recent militia/extremist activity, putting his photograph and information into a local database was probably what the officer was preparing to do

Many recent militia/extremist activities? many? extremist?


Really? Have any LEOs been instructed to take pictures for this purpose? I am honestly curious about it!