Utah-LEOs have opened taser hunting season on drivers

[Stir]

Want to bet we wouldn't know about this stop if the guy had signed the ticket and moved on

 

This battle has been fought numerous times and the ruling stands. The Supreme Court says "we" control the traffic stops.

 

This guy probably had it coming, but I'm not convinced the Supreme Court would uphold a requirement to sign a ticket. What's the compelling state interest in having a signed ticket?

 

Did the officer conduct an illeagal search of the vehicle? He just told her we was going to look and did not get permission. What say you oh legal one?

[ericfoerster]

Did the officer conduct an illeagal search of the vehicle? He just told her we was going to look and did not get permission. What say you oh legal one

 

Oh legal one better say that was a search incidental to arrest. A common and often misunderstood thing.

 

Keep reaching folks...he still did it right.

[BigArn]

Did the officer conduct an illeagal search of the vehicle? He just told her we was going to look and did not get permission. What say you oh legal one

 

Oh legal one better say that was a search incidental to arrest. A common and often misunderstood thing.

 

Keep reaching folks...he still did it right.

 

Yes more of our rights being flushed.

[ESokoloff]

Keep reaching folks...he still did it right.

 

Not acording to the his employer...

While UHP may justify the tasing, it does not stand behind the trooper's communication, or lack thereof. The trooper could still be disciplined after all.

 

See my last post for link.

 

No disrespect to any LEO's but this one got it wrong.

 

EDIT: And may end up paying for it.

[ericfoerster]

Yes more of our rights being flushed.

 

No, not really. It's kind of like when Timothy McVeigh was stopped. Most of the evidence against him came from the search after the arrest.

 

Weird, when it is the killer of your family memeber that we catch it's all good work. When we catch you speeding or catch your kid puffing some doobie we become jack booted thugs

 

Not acording to the his employer...

 

This is from the Utah Highway Patrol Home page...their position is going to follow closely with this statement:

 

"We have taken this matter very seriously and have spent many man-hours looking into the allegations. In regards to the case, we have found Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances that he found himself in."

 

 

 

Sue away, it's part of the job. My guess is they won't get a dime. I'll go one futher and suggest a summary judgement in less than a year in favor of the State.

 

[BigArn]

Yes more of our rights being flushed.

 

No, not really. It's kind of like when Timothy McVeigh was stopped. Most of the evidence against him came from the search after the arrest.

 

Weird, when it is the killer of your family memeber that we catch it's all good work. When we catch you speeding or catch your kid puffing some doobie we become jack booted thugs

 

Ahh major big difference in Killing, then speeding or smoking a joint don't you think?? If not, I'm glad your there and I'm here.

[Agent_Orange]

Now it is clear to me why I ended up a firefighter in stead of a LEO.

After I got out of Nam, I was asked to go into law enforcement. I even interviewed for the Fl Marine Patrol.

I figured that I never met a fish I couldn't arrest.

But, had I been that officer, I probably would have put a couple of rounds in to the guy, and when the wife came around the side, a couple into her.

Who knows?

I was always taught to do what you were asked, or told, by "da man' and bitch later.

Worked for me.

And yes, that suckin sound IS our rights going down the tube.

[jaytee]

When we catch you speeding or catch your kid puffing some doobie we become jack booted thugs

 

No, it's when your comments to us at the scene or captured on video or quoted later show a casual disregard for the common citizen.

 

Power and a dangerous job do not excuse bullying, fear-tactics, and pain-punishment.

 

Act like respectful, responsible officers of the state and you are doing good work. Act like power-mad petty-tyrants and you are adding to the public awareness of bad policing.

 

JT

[ericfoerster]

I'm glad your there and I'm here

 

Me too, most Texans seem to obey AND understand the law

[ericfoerster]

Act like respectful, responsible officers of the state and you are doing good work. Act like power-mad petty-tyrants and you are adding to the public awareness of bad policing.

 

Hmmm...act like a respectful citizen who understands "turn around and put you hands behind your back" and we won't have a problem.

[smiller]

Given that the trooper was alone in the middle of nowhere with multiple people in the car he stopped, I can totally understand why he was eager to get control of the situation very quickly.

Yep, that pregnant lady could have has a sawed-off shotgun up her pants leg. It's mean it's possible, right..?

 

Yes, I'm being tongue-in-cheek. But regradless of the ever-present potential danger in just about every interaction an LEO has with the public he has to use some discretion as to the proper use of force or every traffic stop would be a felony car stop. In this case the officer didn't use very good discretion, from beginning to end.

[Ken H.]

Tazers for not signing a ticket, un lawful roadblocks stopping law-abiding citizens, we are heading in the wrong direction, and fast.

He didn't taser him for not signing a ticket, he tasered him for not obeying a direct order after the suspect got out of the vehicle and started rearward. Big difference. The officer even stated that when asked, "Why did you taser me?"

 

If you listen closely to the conversation at the very start of the stop, the suspect was confrontational from the git-go. The stage was set by him for the rest of the way it went down IMHO.

[Ken H.]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

Isn't the forum called, "Riders Discuss Other Topics"?

[David]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

Isn't the forum called, "Riders Discuss Other Topics"?

 

It wasn't in this forum when I made that comment.

[BigArn]

I'm glad your there and I'm here

 

Me too, most Texans seem to obey AND understand the law

 

Sure, go ahead and believe that. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Texas leads all other states in Executions? And how does one go about getting executed, by not following the law! WOW

[smiller]

The stage was set by him for the rest of the way it went down IMHO.

LEOs deal with unruly/unpleasant subjects all the time, it goes with the job. But since the officer is the one in authority he has a duty to act in a fair and professional manner nonetheless. As was mentioned earlier, if the officer had kept his composure had calmly informed the driver of the reason for the request of the signature and explained that he would be subject to arrest if he continued to refuse to sign (instead of immediately ordering him out of the car with an unecessarily agressive and surly attitute which no doubt exacerbated the driver's negative response) then in all liklihood the escalation might never have occured, but we'll never know that now. Most LEOs I have known have been rather proud of their ability to defuse an interpersonal situation and consider it an important part of their job, and would be very embarrassed to be baited into escalating one.

 

Are people here really saying that they saw a problem with the driver but none on the part of the officer..?

[russell_bynum]

Act like respectful, responsible officers of the state and you are doing good work. Act like power-mad petty-tyrants and you are adding to the public awareness of bad policing.

 

Hmmm...act like a respectful citizen who understands "turn around and put you hands behind your back" and we won't have a problem.

 

+1

 

I do agree with Mike, that there are lessons to be learned here that could be used by future officers to prevent this sort of thing, but the bottom line is: you obey the officer.

 

Personally, I go WAY out of my way to make sure officer knows that HE/SHE is in FULL and COMPLETE control of the situation. Both hands visible at all times. If I'm going to reach into my pocket/glove compartment/whatever to get something (license, registration, insurance, etc), I tell them EXACTLY where it is and ask if it's OK if I get it. I don't so much as fart without permission.

 

After a few minutes of this, the officer is at ease and understand how this is going to go down.

 

Incidentally, More often than not, I get let off with a warning at that point.

 

But when I don't (I got one ticket six years ago), I take the ticket, thank the officer, wish him/her a good day, and continue on my way. Then I can fight it in court where I have some chance of winning.

 

The side of the road is not the place to argue a ticket.

[Ken H.]

EDIT: And may end up paying for it.

Oh so what? People say, "I'm going to sue" all the time. And some do it. But that in itself adds no creditability to their position.

[Ken H.]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

Isn't the forum called, "Riders Discuss Other Topics"?

 

It wasn't in this forum when I made that comment.

Oh, I didn't realize that.

[jaytee]

Act like respectful, responsible officers of the state and you are doing good work. Act like power-mad petty-tyrants and you are adding to the public awareness of bad policing.

 

Hmmm...act like a respectful citizen who understands "turn around and put you hands behind your back" and we won't have a problem.

 

Ahhh.. thats the attitude that a large sub-section of Americans brought up on the idea that they have "rights" (whatever that means) have a problem with.

 

"Obey me like a drill seargent becasue I am the Man" is bound to create/escalate confrontations with citizens who are thinking "I have 'rights' so lay off!"

 

Two wrongs neither make a right nor help the public's opinion of the admittedly dangerous and thankless task you have to do.

 

This incident damaged the public's view of UHP. The UHP is well aware of this as noted in the article someone linked above:

 

"We are worried about public confidence, and that maybe the confidence with the Highway Patrol, with the Department of Public Safety and law enforcement in general was damaged here, and so we hope to restore that confidence," explained (Public Safety Commissioner)Duncan.

 

Sooo... regardless of the right/wrong of anyone's actions, the manner in which this particular officer in this particular set of circumstances acted has caused a potential erosion of the public's confidence and comfort with their law enforcement services in Utah. Right or wrong this cannot be a good thing.

 

JT

[Ken H.]

Are people here really saying that they saw a problem with the driver but none on the part of the officer..?

Well I for one am not saying that. Quoting my own earlier post, "The Utah driver was being foolish, the adrenalin was flowing fast and hard on both sides, and he got tasered. Did the LEO over react, maybe, maybe not,"

 

But as mentioned, we're all Monday morning quarterbacking this. Given a stop that stared out badly and was clearly escalating, for a number of reasons on both sides, he had no choice but regain control over the situation by whatever means availed to him. Utah seems to be drawing the same conclusion; faulting him for communications, but that the tasering was justifiable.

[skinny_tom (aka boney)]

"Obey me like a drill seargent becasue I am the Man" is bound to create/escalate confrontations with citizens who are thinking "I have 'rights' so lay off!"

Yes, but they don't have 'rights:'

 

When you got your drivers license in CA you agreed to "follow the direction" of an LEO when you are so directed. Yes, the LEO is the man for the purposes of a traffic stop. And no, you don't have a right to a driver's license. You are "allowed" one by the state once you agree to the laws pertaining to possessing one, and demonstrate that you have a very basic knowledge and skill set.

 

 

Two wrongs neither make a right nor help the public's opinion of the admittedly dangerous and thankless task you have to do.

JT

 

Amen

[russell_bynum]

"I have 'rights' so lay off!"

 

Your "Right" is to sign the ticket so that you can deal with it later, or don't sign the ticket and go to jail.

 

It isn't complicated. Those are your two choices. Take your pick.

 

Contrary to popular belief, traffic court does not take place on the side of the road.

 

Fight the ticket later.

[ericfoerster]

Ok, I’ll agree that the cop could have done a better job at communicating the fact the suspect was under arrest. The words “you are under arrest” would have cleared up some misunderstanding. I am sure that there is not a court in the land that would not agree the suspect was not free to leave at the point the suspect was told to put his hands behind his back.

I’ve never been told to put my hands behind my back for any other reason. How about you?

 

I don’t see how folks come up with the idea that this is an erosion of your rights. The operation of a motor vehicle on a public road is a privilege and not a right. You agree to operate by the rules of the road and when you don’t there is a penalty of some kind.

 

I admit that I’ve baited the hole here a bit in the hopes of eliciting some good debate. It worked!

 

Drive safe, be nice, do as you are told, and have a good day!

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Texas leads all other states in Executions

 

It’s because we have an overabundance of electricity and that is good way to burn off the excess.

 

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Act like respectful, responsible officers of the state and you are doing good work. Act like power-mad petty-tyrants and you are adding to the public awareness of bad policing.

 

Hmmm...act like a respectful citizen who understands "turn around and put you hands behind your back" and we won't have a problem.

 

Ahhh.. thats the attitude that a large sub-section of Americans brought up on the idea that they have "rights" (whatever that means) have a problem with.

 

We do indeed have rights, and we have recourse to the law if we feel we've been wronged. But if we're going to assert those rights, we have an obligation to understand the real limits of those same rights. Case in point: the arrestee had a right to plead not guilty in court, but not by the side of the road.

 

Ultimately, even if you correctly understand your rights and feel they're truly being violated, arguing with (and then disobeying) a guy who has been trained to maintain control of the situation and is equipped with painful/deadly weapons is not the way to assert those rights.

[Stir]

EDIT: And may end up paying for it.

Oh so what? People say, "I'm going to sue" all the time. And some do it. But that in itself adds no creditability to their position.

 

Not so sure in this case. Utah has dismissed all charges except for the speeding ticket. I'm certain that if the prosecutors could make a case for the arrest, they would.

[ericfoerster]

The arrest was for the ticket. The charge stands.

 

So in the end the original charge still applies, correct?

[Mike]

Eric--

 

I'm curious about your viewpoint, given your position, in which you supervise officers. If you were to sit down in a training room with your subordinates and critique the officer's performance, would you see any way(s) in which he could have done a better job? How would you critique this?

[ericfoerster]

Mike, great question

 

I would stress the need to control the situation better. I'd ask the officer to be a little more obvious with the need to sign the ticket and the options available to the suspect. Your choices are as follows, x, y, and z.

I still believe that the officer could have, not should have, written refused and given the guy the ticket.

 

Once the suspect was told exit the vehicle the officer needed to assume immediate control of the suspect and tell him "you are under arrest". The walking back and forth is just crazy. It's unsafe for several reasons.

 

Stirring the pot aside, it was not good from the start. I think the officer could have done a better job at the first contact. Do I think he did "wrong", no. I think he could do better and I'd be sure to stress the need to telegraph your intentions to the suspect.

 

If the suspect were my kid I tell him he too could have done things better.

[ghaverkamp]

Oh legal one better say that was a search incidental to arrest. A common and often misunderstood thing.

 

And, of course, that's why I suggested a "sign or arrest" law is little more than a pretense to get at a car.

 

My original argument wasn't based on the Fourth Amendment, but on the First. Is there a compelling state interest in forcing someone to sign to appear? While I understand the benefits that Tom listed, and I'm perfectly willing to accept that perhaps a signature isn't really a protected expression (though the forced signature certainly is), the question seems to me whether than forced expression alone should be sufficient to require arrest. (Regardless of what Russell says, it isn't a binary decision; there is discretion left to the officer.)

 

Now, in California at least, arrest for failure to sign does not permit a search. That impacts the pretense argument. However, once a likely agitated person is out of the car, finding probably cause for arrest on other grounds isn't difficult to achieve.

 

To be clear, I'm not suggesting self-help is an appropriate measure on the side of the road, nor that signing the ticket is the wrong thing to do. I was simply taking issue with a narrow little bit that has bothered me for a while.

[Mike]

Eric--

 

Thanks for your response. Your assessment largely echoes my thoughts (but I'll still give you credit ).

 

I know philosophies vary from department to department. One of the things I've seen emphasized by some is "verbal judo," training the officer to control and defuse the situation by his verbal interaction with a subject. It doesn't necessarily mean being soft or touchy-feely. In this situation, the verbal judo move might have been something along the lines of saying, "These are your options: You can sign the citation now and decide whether to appear in court at a later date, or, if you decide not to sign, I will have to place you under arrest" (actually, from what I understand, having the subject sign is not mandatory in Utah and some departments dictate simply that the officer hand the citation to the driver or place it in the vehicle if this occurs).

 

It also appeared to me that the officer handled the arrest poorly--he told the guy to get out of the car, then walked away from him, turning his back toward the driver. My gut feeling is that when he told the driver to put his hands behind his back the guy was confused, not having been told that he was under arrest.

 

Even if the officer had done everything perfectly this still might have gone south, but my impression is that he contributed to the escalation.

[ericfoerster]

Greg, I see no real indication of the officer wanting to search the SUV. I also feel srongly that the officer could have done a "protective sweep" of the vehicle after the incident due to the furtive actions of the suspect and his wife. Their actions were not the norm by any standards. Cali may not allow a search after a failure to sign arrest but a protective sweep surely would not be out of the question here. Exigent Circumstances for the protection of the officer apply here due to the strange behavior.

 

Pretext stops are allowed in the 5th circuit and the laws surrounding pre-text arrests change from day-to-day. I won't touch on that issue here due to the changing tides.

[russell_bynum]

Eric--

 

I'm curious about your viewpoint, given your position, in which you supervise officers. If you were to sit down in a training room with your subordinates and critique the officer's performance, would you see any way(s) in which he could have done a better job? How would you critique this?

 

For some reason, I can't get "Torrey Eric" out of my head.

 

The scene: A police briefing room. Officers sitting at tables all facing the front of the room. (I'm picturing the briefing room from CHiPS.)

 

Eric's standing at the front of the room with a dixie cup of Tequilla in one hand and a big stinky ceegar in the other.

 

Officer: "Now Chief...what would you have done differently?"

Eric: Stands back and watches the video for a few seconds, then takes a big draw on the ceegar, blows the smoke out and says "I woulda just shot 'em right off the bat."

 

[ericfoerster]

Eric: Stands back and watches the video for a few seconds, then takes a big draw on the ceegar, blows the smoke out and says "I woulda just shot 'em right off the bat."

 

 

BINGO...we have a winner

 

Threads like these make life worth living. Cast and crank

[jaytee]

"I have 'rights' so lay off!"

 

Your "Right" is to sign the ticket so that you can deal with it later, or don't sign the ticket and go to jail.

 

It isn't complicated. Those are your two choices. Take your pick.

 

Contrary to popular belief, traffic court does not take place on the side of the road.

 

Fight the ticket later.

 

I guess you didnt read the whole post again? That part is in quotes which means I am paraphrasing the way many members of the public (not me personally) feel.

 

Your quotation and response imply that I am an idiot for feeling that way.

 

Nice.

 

And by the way, not signing your ticket is certainly not a one-way-ticket to jail. Many LEO's do not take violators into custody over unsigned infractions.

 

JT

[russell_bynum]

And by the way, not signing your ticket is certainly not a one-way-ticket to jail. Many LEO's do not take violators into custody over unsigned infractions.

 

That's news to me. What I was taught in Driver's Ed in Texas (maybe it is different in different states) is that your signature is your promise to appear. If you don't sign (saying that you'll appear voluntarily at some later date), they force you to appear NOW.

 

 

At any rate...I don't really see what difference that makes. If a cop tells me "Turn around and put your hands behind your back", and I decide to do something other than that, I would not be remotely surprised to find myself getting tased. And, I'd be damn glad it was a Taser and not a nightstick or a Sig Sauer that he decided to use to persuade me of the error of my ways.

 

Arguing with the cop about whether or not the ticket was justified is just stupid. Save that for court. The cop has obviously decided that you are getting the ticket...there's nothing you can do about it at that point. Just sign it, take the ticket, and go find a lawyer.

[Agent_Orange]

The kid was on Fox news this AM. He was concerned that the officer was getting death threats. He stated that both he and the officer could have handled the situation better.

[jaytee]

And by the way, not signing your ticket is certainly not a one-way-ticket to jail. Many LEO's do not take violators into custody over unsigned infractions.

 

That's news to me. What I was taught in Driver's Ed in Texas (maybe it is different in different states) is that your signature is your promise to appear. If you don't sign (saying that you'll appear voluntarily at some later date), they force you to appear NOW.

 

According to my LAPD neighbor (who I just asked), it is his discretion, but he will always take them in if he wants to write the ticket and he is unsure about their identity. If he feels confident that they have a valid address (lots of indigents on his beat) and he has identified them, he usualyl will not take them in unless he is realyl wanting them off the street for some reason other than the ticket (i.e. he received a call the they were dealing drugs on the street but they have nothing on them so he gives them a ticket for loitering).

 

Obviously it is the officer's discretion.

 

JT

 

Edited: yeah, I should have said "In California"

[Rocket_Cowboy]

Obviously it is the officer's discretion.

 

...in California.

 

There was follow-up that indicated that it's also discretionary in Utah, but I haven't seen anything more than hearsay relative to Utah specifically.

 

I believe both Texas and Tennessee (the only two states who've issued me a drivers license at some point in time) are mandatory detention/arrest for failure to sign.

[AdventurePoser]

What does any of this have to do with riding motorcycles? It seems like most of the passionate subjects around here recently have squat to do with riding.

It sure beats discussing which oil is best.

 

Or helmet laws, or the best tire, or CCW.....

 

Steve in So Cal

[PRC]

And by the way, not signing your ticket is certainly not a one-way-ticket to jail. Many LEO's do not take violators into custody over unsigned infractions.

 

JT

 

I also will tell you that it is an arrest situation in Fl as well. With that said, I will explain the results of refusal to sign after the initial refusal...don't have to, but makes for a better case when they know the penalty for refusing and then still do it. If they refuse after I explain, well there's no miscommunication, they know they're going. Everyone that has refused at this point has gone to jail.

 

However, the whole thing could've been avoided if the speed limits weren't so artificially set soooo low!

 

Be safe and have a joyous holiday season!

[Agent_Orange]

[Mike]

The kid was on Fox news this AM. He was concerned that the officer was getting death threats. He stated that both he and the officer could have handled the situation better.

 

Yeah, that's the unfortunate result of all of this. I don't think the officer handled things in the optimal matter, but he's just a regular guy trying to do a tough job. Now he and his family are being threatened. That's not right.

[motorman587]

This is motorman's $.o2 worth.

 

First. I agree the officer could've, explained himself better. About the ticket and arrest.

 

However, "sign the ticket and put your hands behind your back" is resisting, any officer may up his use of force. What part did not understand?

 

Second, that officer was cleared for excessive use of force.

 

And third, and why we do not smile on traffic stops. Happened yesterday with one of your traffic officers.

Click below.

http://www.tallahassee.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071204/NEWS01/712040321/-1/BREAKINGNEWS

[sgendler]

We do indeed have rights, and we have recourse to the law if we feel we've been wronged. But if we're going to assert those rights, we have an obligation to understand the real limits of those same rights. Case in point: the arrestee had a right to plead not guilty in court, but not by the side of the road.

 

This raises an important question for me - perhaps a little off-topic, but I don't think its a full hijack, so I'll ask it here. As I understand it, the court is generally expected to consider a cop an expert witness and believe his statements about events barring any evidence to the contrary (which rarely exists on a regular traffic stop). If I have issues with the officer's perception of events, I have absolutely no way to communicate those issues until a court date, often several months away. It seems to me that, given those circumstances, the officer should almost be obligated to take notes about my defensive statements so that they can be given to the court in conjunction with his testimony.

 

I got a ticket sometime between midnight and 1am for running a stop sign (at about 2mph) while out of gas and coasting into a gas station. I attempted to explain the circumstances to the officer at the time, while being very polite and totally cooperative. The cop in question was completely uninterested in listening to a word coming out of my mouth - just like the cop in the video, though I was a whole hell of a lot more polite than the other guy in the video. When the case made it to court, the officer didn't make the slightest mention of the fact that I told him I was out of gas and coasting uphill at the time of the violation, or that I had indicated by turning on my hazards, looking over my shoulder directly at him, pointing at my gas tank, and then rolling through the stop sign at the minimum speed that would still get me to the gas station. It is worth pointing out that he did not have lights on until after I rolled the stop sign, and he most certainly did see me turn and look right at him before I did so. In fact, when I asked the officer whether that is what happened in court, he "could not recall" so the judge completely ignored my testimony in favour of the officer's "expert testimony." I can't say for sure that the circumstances I was describing would have gotten me out of the ticket, but I'd say it is likely. Instead, the judge got pissed that I was "argumentative" (his words) and forbade me from attending traffic school despite the fact that I was perfectly eligible to do so. If the officer had been required by law or process to note my statements, I would not have had that trouble. Do cops truly not feel that they have a responsibility to document the statements of 'criminals' they "arrest?" What happened to "anything you say can and will be used against you?" I guess that's true only if it is convenient to making their case, eh?

 

Even more amusing, the officer didn't even get the time of the stop right. He claimed it was sometime after 4pm, when he pulled me many hours after it got dark, because he couldn't read his own damn writing. He juxtaposed the 1 and the 2 so that it looked like a 4 - a confusion that couldn't have occurred if he were required to use 24 hour time when writing the thing up. If I hadn't been so pissed that he refused to even acknowledge that my testimony might be accurate, I'd have called him on it and asked im to prove that he was even working at 4pm. With my stop being after midnight, it seems likely that he might not even have been on shift during the time that he stated in his "expert" testimony. Unfortunately, that didn't occur to me until after I'd driven out of the parking lot.

 

All of that is me taking the long way to the following question - given that a cops testimony is considered to be 'expert' don't folks think it would probably behoove law enforcement departments to ensure that their officers to listen to and even document the statements of people they isue traffic citations to, because folks like me, who have had such ridiculous experiences at the hands of our state LEOs are all too likely to be pretty concerned that our statements are heard and documented, which could easily be perceived as being 'argumentative' at the side of the road? I carry a recorder in my tank bag now, and it will certainly be set to record before a cop walks up on me after any traffic stop in future. It is bad enough when I get tickets that I do deserve, but getting tickets that I absolutely do not deserve just pisses me off. And yes, I know that I need to tell the officer that I am recording.

 

--sam

[ESokoloff]

This is from the Utah Highway Patrol Home page...their position is going to follow closely with this statement:

 

"We have taken this matter very seriously and have spent many man-hours looking into the allegations. In regards to the case, we have found Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances that he found himself in."

 

 

 

Seems that you neglected to include the next part......

However, the Utah Highway Patrol expects its Troopers to be professional and communicate as much as possible with those they come in contact. With this being said, the Utah Attorney Generals office is going to look into the matter further at the Utah Highway Patrol’s request.

http://highwaypatrol.utah.gov/

[ericfoerster]

Nope, no neglect here. The rest of the story is to placate the public. They teach these tatics in command school. It's kind of a way to back the public out of a situation. Seems some people take the bait and others don't.

 

This is the stance of the department: "we have found Trooper Gardner’s actions were lawful and reasonable under the circumstances that he found himself in".

 

 

Want to make a bet on how the story ends?

 

[MotorinLA]

[hijack answered]

If the officer had been required by law or process to note my statements, I would not have had that trouble. Do cops truly not feel that they have a responsibility to document the statements of 'criminals' they "arrest?" What happened to "anything you say can and will be used against you?" I guess that's true only if it is convenient to making their case, eh?

 

What is wrong with taking your own notes, the police officer is not your personal secretary.

 

What happened to "anything you say can and will be used against you?"

 

The Police have no obligation to help you with your own defense. Furthermore, your failure to monitor your own gas level is your problem, so why are you trying to paint yourself as ‘the victim’ in this incident. That fact that you caused your own emergency is not a justification for committing a traffic violation, nor is it an explanation that would have gotten your citation overturned by a Traffic Commissioner in any of our courts.

 

A large number of violators have some kind of excuse for why they chose to commit a given violation, what most fail to understand is that these excuses generally do not amount to a legal defense for breaking the law.

 

So, record away, although I think you’ll be disappointed with future outcomes of traffic citations if you don’t have a legal reason to commit the violation at hand.

 

[/hijack]

[Dave McReynolds]

The Police have no obligation to help you with your own defense. Furthermore, your failure to monitor your own gas level is your problem, so why are you trying to paint yourself as ‘the victim’ in this incident. That fact that you caused your own emergency is not a justification for committing a traffic violation, nor is it an explanation that would have gotten your citation overturned by a Traffic Commissioner in any of our courts.

 

What is this, some kind of "whack-a-mole" game? Even when I was an IRS agent, we were taught to seek the truth, whether in the favor of the taxpayer or the government. Whatever happened to protect and serve?

[ESokoloff]

Want to make a bet on how the story ends?

 

Sorry, I'm not a betting man.

Nor I'm I a COP basher.

Sure the motorist made mistakes but he's not the working professional trained to defuse such incidences.

 

I believe that the motorist truly is perplexed at the reason for the stop.

The video does not show the 40-mph speed sign 1/2 mile before the stop as the officer asserts.

What the video does show is a temporary sign that is shorter then a normal one that is obstructed by the patrol car until the motorist is a mere few yards from it.

 

Again with the upmost respect toward all LEO's I feel that the burden of responsibility for this incident rest mainly on officer Gardner