I got pulled over once while I was doing 45 in a 45 zone. On the way past the convenience store, I had seen his car parked nose in. The policeman said, "I had to go 65 to catch you." I said, "Of course you did. If you pulled out of that Circle K and accelerated to 45, you would never catch me. Even though I was only going 45, you can never catch me if you don't go over the speed limit." He pulled out his ticket book and prepared to start writing. I said, "There's some math that will prove I wasn't speeding, but I'll save that for when I challenge this ticket in court and you have to testify under oath." He looked at me for a few seconds and said, "Just watch your speed from now on, okay?" That math? We had a problem in algebra about a car moving at a constant speed and how long it would take for a car starting up and accelerating to a higher speed to catch up with the first car. Five years later, it got me out of a ticket. Who says algebra has no usefulness in the real world?
In many states the trooper would've just lied, but the car used by the Wyoming State Trooper was equipped with a dash cam, and caught the whole thing on video. The camera was equipped with telemetry recorders, so his speed was accurately recorded and therefore became known to the court. I think that this kind of transparency is to the credit of the Wyoming State government. Good job by the Cowboy State.
Easy. You watch the truck's rear tire and car's front tire and when they pass over some maRKO you time it. A simple "one Mississippi two Mississippi" is good enough.
I'd say dashcams rarely prevent police from lying. There's loads of court cases (many on YT) where the cop tells brazen, obvious lies. In court the cop just says "at the time, I thought I saw him weave. Reviewing the video, he did not". And then nothing at all ever happens to that cop for lying. Really, there's no reason for cops not to lie. Some charges might get dropped. So what? What do they care if they do? They get promotion credits for arrests, not convictions.
@@USMC6976 It doesn't sound very hard. The easiest way would probably be recording it on the police dashcam and the time difference between when the tire of the front truck and the tire of the back car pass a mark in the road. Don't know if that if how they do it though.
the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
Cop: They're not breaking the law right now lets speed up and tailgate them and eventually they will break the law and give us a reason to search their vehicle.
And then we get to take their stuff! Traffic police my ass, old school highwaymen. Not all police are like this, but enough are to have become a thing. And this right here is where erosion of respect for authority arises. When i was a kid, people respected the police, because they were worthy of that respect. Not so much anymore.
@@jeromethiel4323 the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
@@justinwolfe6143 Just call it what it is and don’t insult people’s intelligence acting any different. It’s predatory and intimidation with intent and the-instinctual act of most hitting the brakes in reaction mentioned before proves this. It’s a threat, the mind and body acknowledges and gives it credence. The rushing up on you and tailgating, posting up all over the place often in speed traps and hidden places it’s nerve wracking and irritating, legality otherwise.
A number of years ago I received a speeding ticket from a police officer that was coming towards me on a two lane highway late at night. I observed my speed on the police moving radar unit and I observed his speed when he locked in my speeding infraction. I was doing 70 on a 50 mph hi-way. He was doing 72 mph. I went to court and fought the speeding ticket. I asked the police officer what he was doing when he pulled me over and he responded that he was just on routine patrol and that he observed my vehicle in excess of the speed limit. I asked him to explain how moving radar works and his explanation was very precise as he turned out to be a training officer. He explained how radar works and that we were the only two vehicles on a straight stretch of hi-way so there could be no error in the recorded speeds and that the 70 mph was my speed and the 72 mph was his speed. I asked him if he routinely sped while on ‘routine patrol’ at which time the judge stoped the proceedings dismissed my speeding ticket pointing out that neither one of us should have been speeding and that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to be issued a speeding ticket in this case.
About twenty years ago, Phoenix was having a problem with a guy dressed up as a cop pulling people over in an unmarked car. I was heading to work on a freeway, when I saw a flashy red Mustang weaving through traffic, coming up fast, really fast. He took the same exit as me, and popped his lights as we got to the light. A uniformed deputy walked up to my window and demanded my window be rolled down and did I know how fast I was going? I refused to roll it down, citing the fake cop and told him I had no idea of my speed because I was distracted by a maniac in my rearview. I told him to call a marked car, because I was not going to talk to him. His sergeant came up, and I told him about the reckless driving of the deputy and why I asked for him. He told me to have a good day and drive safe and let me go.
@@derkaderkaduh - These days, I'd have a cell phone with me, and I'd be on the phone with 911 before he left the Mustang. Dispatch would have a marked car onroute before he had the chance. And I have a lawyer that would love to get us some cash.
This happened to a female friend of mine who was driving alone at night. I don't remember why the cop in the unmarked car pulled her over, but being a woman alone, she refused to roll down her window and demanded that he call for a marked car.
I live in a city's residential area where cops have almost ran over kids while speeding at 100+ MPH to go and help another officer search a vehicle. Far too often these officers put the lives of innocent people on the line so they can write a ticket.
as a former cop you'd be amazed at how bad things are and I'm not talking about corruption etc. Cops now aren't trained in police work anymore. everything is centered around traffic stops aka revenue collections. if they can't make traffic stops 98% of their arrest go out the window. the concept of community policing where the cops knew the people are long gone. nowadays if you aren't in their computer you don't exist and the same goes if you wrongfully end up in there you're a suspect for life without any rights.
I live in a city where a copy went over 106mph on a city street, hit and other car killing that drive and got away with it because officer safety is more important than us normal humans.
I was crossing a one-mile straightaway that crosses an Alabama swamp as I made a quick lunchtime trip from my job to my business. The trooper ticketed me for 66 in a 40. Fair enough. On the way back with three passengers the trooper was again on the roadside at the other end of the swamp. He pulled onto the highway in front of me and I followed him to the next stop sign 8 miles away, again, going 66. I stopped him and asked him to call his supevisor out, who refused, but later gave me every excuse imaginable why it was OK for his comrade to be speeding. In court I testified that I wanted my ticket thrown out, that, unlike the trooper, I wasn't sworn to uphold the law ... he was. The judge agreed.
You're engaged in a chase or something I can see them speeding like that but yeah they do it all the time for no reason and then get mad at anyone else doing it. I still think you should earn that ticket and feel no sympathy if you had to pay it but the other officer is a hypocrite and should have also written himself a ticket.
A few years back I was traveling back into Texas heading into Lubbock while doing about 75 in a 70. I saw a state trooper pass me going the opposite direction (probably doing about 70) when I noticed him turn around way back behind me. He ended up pulling me over for speeding and called the K9 unit out (and found nothing). But the only thing that was running through my head the whole time was, how fast did he have to go to catch back up to me after turning around? I've never understood how they believe doing almost double the speed limit justifies pulling over someone traveling at a relatively safe speed.
Well, you don't gain much by going 75 in a 70 zone but your gas mileage is even worse than it was at 70 AND you open yourself up to harassment by bored cops. Of course, 9 of 10 times a cop would ignore 5 mph over a 70 limit.
Let's be real here. It's highly unlikely the cop pulled you over for doing 5 over. I'm not saying that's not the reason he put on the paperwork, but that's not why he made the decision to pull you over. The fact he called in a K9 unit supports this.
The intensity with which the officer chased down a car that was committing zero traffic violations suggests that he was hunting for that exact car. I'd be willing to bet that this was a botched case of parallel construction of evidence. This happens far more than people realize. Some law enforcement agency, like the DEA, DHS, CBP, etc. will discover that someone in a certain car is actively involved in something like trafficking, but through means that might be illegal or blatantly violate the fourth amendment. So, in order to catch the offender while keeping the source of the information concealed, they pass certain tips to other agencies and let them know they should probably stop and search that car if it commits any infraction. Keep in mind, this isn't a theory, some law enforcement agencies already openly admit to using these tactics.
Seriously! Because how many LEOs out there actually pull someone over and ticket them for following too closely on a regular basis without it being a "I wanna ID this driver" situation?
@@paulh2981 Out of State plates heading either out of Canada or Washington/Oregon/Ca the cops have a statistical probability that someone is moving stuff or money where things are legal to where they aren't. That was the cops "hunch". They probably pull people over all the time, maybe 1 in 10 have something. If they don't find anything, they probably just let people go with a warning.
I was thinking something along the same lines. The cop realized well after the guy had passed him that he wanted to pull him over even though he didn't see him do anything. For him to have waited so long before chasing him, he must have needed time to run his plates or check a list of descriptions of vehicles or something, but it wasn't something that legally counted as probable cause or he would have mentioned it in court. He also must have suspected the guy had drugs in his car to have pulled him over for such a bullshit reason and then called in the dog.
A guy I knew was driving along at 75 mph in a 70 zone, at night when a car passed him going 90. It was a Georgia State Patrol car with no lights or sirens going. So the guy speeds up and matches the trooper's speed several cars back, so as to not get a ticket for following too close. After a few miles the trooper realizes someone is behind him matching his speed, so he slows down and pulls off the road. The guy I know then slows back down, and the trooper pulls back onto the road and pulls him over. Trooper asks him why he was driving so fast, and the guy asks him the same thing. Trooper was about to write him a ticket when the guy, a retired Marine, tells him "I have me and 2 other witnesses in this car that will testify in court that you were going 90 mph without being on a call. " Trooper told him to slow down and let him go.
There are two auditors in Texas that do this all the time. They will actually keep following the cops/deputies until they stop and walk up and call them out. A few have tried to pull the old "well, I will give you a ticket for driving that fast".....never worked out well for the cop/deputy.....
Once a police officer pull me over for going under the speed limit. She said why your going under the speed limit I answered back because you make a reckless u turn to get behind me. After questioning her about her reckless driving she said have a good night.
Lol lucky. In Indiana they pulled me and my cousin over for going 43 in a 45, and a license plate light. We were smoking a joint so they tossed his car, confiscated his muzzle loader, and gave him like 4 tickets that were all thrown out BUT the weed ticket, PLUS a night in jail. Over a joint. They also busted the scope on his rifle and took a knife or something to the barrel and SHAVED metal off it. Also failed to file a chain of custody for it.. State did nothing about it because they don’t care and are (as we all know) apathetic and corrupt as fuck
@@DillonWaffles Bullshit. Nobody's going to pull you over for going 2 miles under the speed limit. Over, maybe, but not under. I've been driving for 49 years.
@@edennis8578 Lol it was in the officers statement that my cousin was going under the speed limit. And it was the license plate light that was his excuse for probable cause. Why would I make any of this up lol
A random car drives by. So random in fact the cop drove with such confidence to break the law to catch up to this random. Then waits for the most minor and basic of infractions. And then immediately calls for a dog. Yea this was obviously a stingray mission the cops don't want you to know they do. Its highly illegal.
I'm guessing that it looked like a chance for a civil forfeiture. They do that for sport, just to screw with people's lives. They'll find any excuse for the charges, even if it's just gravel on your floorboards being suspected crack cocaine. For civil forfeitures, they don't care about the victim. They care that they'll get an attaboy, and maybe win a "most drug arrests" award.
@@BlackJesus8463 Victimless crimes? How about fentanyl laced grass? Or PCP, meth or some other surprise? Too many people wind up with brain damage or worse and it happens all the time.
@@OneWildTurkey Your not a victim if you are a willing participant. This is why young people have no personal accountability. Too many dipshits putting the blame on a substance instead of the action of the individual.
Cause the law say you doing 5mph over the democratically declared "safe speed" is "dangerous". It say nothing about cops doing much more and dodge traffic is dangerous. Double standard.
Yes, but they are trained to drive fast safely. They read two paragraphs in a manual and become experts in driving fast without being dangerous. They are also able to become “drug recognition experts” from similar training. Its all very complicated, you wouldn’t understand.
This wasn't about the cop speeding. This was about the man's 4th Amendment rights. The "following too close" was a pretextual stop. The cop had no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime for following this specific car. However, when you think about time and distance, 55 miles per our is a little more then 9/10ths of a mile per minute. Unless the cop is already moving the same direction as you are, you will likely be 1/2 to 1 mile ahead of him by the time he gets rolling on the highway. Now he has a big problem if there are more exits/entrances where you can pull off or similar cars can enter. What amazes me here is the cop did not lie about following him.
About 25 years ago I was about halfway between Columbia SC and the Georgia state line on I-20. I had an unmarked police vehicle to do a u-turn in the median and had I not taken evasive action he would have hit me. No regard at all for what he was doing. This BS is why I now have a go-pro camera facing forward and another facing backward in my vehicle.
That is why almost all cop shops got rid of radar guns that can catch someone speeding in the opposite direction; some many cops would just hit the median and come flying out into traffic causing accidents.
The trooper had no probable cause to target the defendant and broke the law to make the stop. If the trooper had acted appropriately and not gone after the vehicle, the defendant would not have had his "cargo" confiscated. Shouldn't the state return the "cargo" to him? I think he should file a civil suit for the monetary value of the unconstitutionally seized "cargo."
When an item has been identified as illegal is remains illegal regardless of how it was obtained or found. Only the liability if the owner or holder of said item can be removed. Being illegal, there is no monetary value to be returned to the owner as it should not have existed in the first place.
This makes total sense to me. Cops are allowed to break a lot of laws when they think they're trying to catch someone who's broken the law. They are generally not allowed to break those laws 'just because'. So just like they can't just kick down random doors and arrest people they catch breaking the law, they shouldn't be able to drive recklessly and break the speed limit just to tailgate someone until they catch them breaking a law. Kudos to the WY Supreme Court
I agree but I’m still massively concerned with his “hunch” people get senses like this but is typically with things out of the norm or object or others your very familiar with. To just randomly decide 1 vehicle in hundreds btw I have driven that exact road and it is a very busy one at that, but I digress to pick 1 vehicle out of countless others defies all logic and probability he is not a hero cop with some sixth sense there’s probably something going on were their being tipped off or otherwise specifically targeted.
"A Hunch". Yeah, they had info - you don't get that lucky at random. He was looking for the car, missed it, and had to catch up. And they didn't want to give up their illegal means of getting info on the car carrying the weed.
You are so right I live near a sec of I-70 known for drug stops they know the vehicle is coming he just wasn't alert it got by. If you were to hear their radio traffic. He knew he missed it. And that's big problem for him if the car gets across the border to the next state. But they like the money better than the drug stops.
I think ultimately it had nothing to do with the officer speeding before hand, and had everything to do with the officer taking actions to pursue a vehicle without reasonable articulate suspicion, only after deciding to chase the vehicle did the officer create pretext to stop the vehicle.
@@justwannasharevideo1058 The appeals court knows this is a case of parallel construction and is using the officers illegal actions to send a message that police can not commit illegal actions in pursuit of an investigation. In this case they are using the "excessive speeding" as a placeholder for "illegal surveillance", which this is no direct evidence of but it's kinda obvious taking the "totality of the situation" into account.
@@justwannasharevideo1058 Because sometimes courts make mistakes. If the officer did something illegal in his driving he should be held accountable for it, but why should an offender get away who really did break the law?
@@raybrensike42 Depends on whether the motorist was allegedly speeding 1 mile per hour over the limit, or was reasonably suspected of child molestation and/or kidnapping. Cop speeding w/o good cause can unnecessarily endanger the lives of every other motorist the cop encounters while speeding.
About 30 something years ago I was driving in a 45 zone on a 4 lane divided highway I was in the right lane and a sherrif's deputy was in the left lane, both doing the speed limit when the deputy decided to pull me over, claimed I was pacing him, my reply was the last time I checked it wasn't illegal to do the speed limit, I was let go.
wow I got pulled over for the exact same thing, he accused me of stalking him with intent to do harm. that lasted less than 2 mins after a supervisor showed up on the scene; then a few mins of butt kissing was done by the initial officer.
About 15 yrs ago I was on the highway in Orlando following two Orange County Sherriff's in the center of 3 lanes. Cruising along for 20+ miles. One officer takes an exit. Minute or two later, the other gets into the right lane, starts coasting, falls back, jumps right behind me and pulls me over. "Do you know how fast you were going?" "Sir, I was driving with traffic. And the traffic was you." "Watch your speed, have a nice day."
In My Humble Opinion, The infraction that an officer uses to initiate a traffic stop should be MORE dangerous to traffic than the actual traffic stop. Failing that, the officer is causing more danger to traffic that the alleged driver with the traffic stop on the side of the road, and that is just stupid. They even openly admit the danger with state laws that force all drivers over to give any emergency vehicle on the shoulder an empty lane of safety (like here in Tennessee).... Another point regarding this exact case- the reason the driver may have stayed behind the semi versus passing could have been because they may have just spotted a vehicle approaching rapidly from behind and weaving back and forth through traffic and were then concerned to change lanes or brake quickly to not follow the semi so closely. That would be my argument. Also, if it is against the law to follow so close, then why do cops regularly tailgate cars when "investigating" in traffic? I do realize they are "seeing how you react", but why is ANY unnecessary illegal/dangerous driving OK when cops do it?
the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
@@ihatecrackhead I do agree with you completely.. Way to many times I have had a "private" conversation with someone about some obscure thing or product and the next day Im hit with a bunch of advertising about this. We both are hit. And that's for advertising. Cant imagine what they do for crimes.
My take away…..The trooper screwed up in his testimony. He failed to lie adequately about his reasons for the pursuit and stop. He will not make that mistake again. Next time he will make sure to fabricated a traffic violation to justify the initial stop. He must of been new to the job. They get better at lying under oath and in depositions with experience.
So true. I had an friend who I met at a real estate seminar, (Gary Pirosko of Denver, now deceased), who was a former cop who went to law school and became a prosecutor, then did DUI defense cases. He told us ALL cops lie even under oath on the stand. Without question.
Steve sir. One over looked point also is a law enforcement officer is not allowed to extend a traffic stop to call in a drug dog to search the vehicle. Between the unlawful speeding and extending the traffic stop both together makes it a definite violation of his fourth under u.s. and wyoming constitution
Isn't it a time limit? .... doesn't matter who the officer calls the officer can't keep you around waiting for the dog but calling for a dog itself is fine (so long as it doesn't extend the stop past the time limit). Don't recall what the time limit was though. I think Steve talk about it in one of his videos. Maybe I am mistaken.
I had a time once on I10, I was driving a black Yukon xl to San Antonio from Houston. My dad was in the hospital with newly found cancer. I was driving about 85+ and a state trooper pulled up on my right, we looked at each other for about 10 seconds before I punched it up to 95. He slowed down and let me go, God was with me that day. All worked out well. Thanks trooper.
It's called precedent, and one reason lawyers cost so much is because they have to dig through all that precedent to see if any of it is helpful to your case.
I do not know why my comments are showing up here, instead of where they should be, ie. in response to a commenter in a thread above. I also don't know how to fix it. TH-cam will be youtube.
Probably held accountable for missing the guy, then having to catch up when they illegally pinged gps on phone, car or other method, and he was past the officer. They were upset he wasn't corrupt enough, and probably more upset the guy had the 42lbs, not the cash from sale they could "civilly forfeit"
@Fred Lister : Not held accountable by the court. I'd bet that his superiors "held him accountable" for the "lack of vigilance" that led to him having to go 111 MPH to catch up to the 42 pounds of "evidence".
I was on a Federal Grand Jury for 18mo, every case involving drugs found in apparent random traffic stops were not random at all. The suspects were in constant surveillance the whole time. most were informed on by rival dealers. Leo's were seeking federal charges.
A few years back in Hawaii, I was driving home late at night and just before my freeway exit was a merge onto that freeway from another freeway. As I approached that merge I saw a car speeding quite fast coming from that other freeway, and I KNEW he was going to fly past me on my right, just where I normally go into the right lane before my exit. So, I S-L-O-W-L-Y merged over, intentionally cutting him off from passing on my right. I was already going 65mph in a 55 zone, so it's not like I wasn't moving at a fair pace. He was a cop and his formerly unlit blue light suddenly came on once I got in front of him, so yeah, he pulled me over. As soon as he approached my van I got on him for speeding without his lights or siren and his excuse was, "I was trying to catch speeders!" I basically dared him to write me up, but he knew he was wrong and that I would have forced him into court to explain how I cut him off when he had no lights or siren (blue light was off completely, which was likely against dept policy while on duty) while I was doing 65. He ended up walking away.
Wish I had known this a couple decades ago. I was driving home one night, was lighting a cigarette and I think I crossed one of the lines for a millisec, I was really the only one on the highway. Now I did see a car coming the opposite way, it looked like a cop car but I didn't think much of it. I remember thinking he would have to do 120mph to the next exit, get back on the highway do 120mph to pull me over before I took my exit. That is what he did. Craziness
My question is, how did the officer just happen to pick the one car not breaking a traffic law that happened to have drugs in it? Sounds like some illegal parallel construction of evidence to me
Likely, because that was the only car not speeding. When I'm on the road I always drive 5mph over the speed limit even if there is a cop passing me. That's the risk I take and I can argue in court for myself. However, it is widely theorized that you should not break the law when your breaking the law. So there is a CHANCE that when an officer witnesses a driver being hyper vigilant of the legal limits it could be due to Illegal activity. Long shot but sometimes it works like in this case.
The most plausible explanation that fits the known facts is, the policeman knew the car, who was in it, and what they were carrying. For some reason, he could not use this information as probable cause, but couldn't resist the bust. The stretch of I-10 that runs through my neighborhood see about a dozen big drug busts a month because the State Police pulled over a speeding car that just happened to be carrying 50lbs of cocaine. Thirty thousand cars go by in a day and most of them are speeding, but they stop the drug runner.
When I was 19, I was going to work on a winding back road at 4:30 a.m. I came up on a lady doing 20 mph, and passed her. Never saw the cop sitting on the side of the road, but he saw me. I was flying, but a street light stopped me at the end. The cop pulled up behind me, and after the light changed and I turned right, he flicked his lights on and stopped me. He took my info, came back and told me he was giving me a ticket for passing in a no passing zone because he saw that, but he couldn't for speeding because he couldn't catch up to me! He said he did around 60 mph, but never even saw my brake lights, so he couldn't prove I was speeding. He just told me to slow down and gave me the $20 ticket. Never did slow down, but never got another ticket, either.
There was years ago a dateline or 60 minutes story about police conduct on the NYS thruway. A NYS trooper was clocked at 80 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone. So the reporter asked the woman trooper why she was driving so fast. She claimed that she was trained in driving faster on the road way. The reporter then makes the point, so madam your where trained to drive at 80 miles per hour while and here's the kicker she was trained to drive at that speed while eating fried chicken 😅. She pussed out and ran back to her barracks and hid behind a closed door. She couldn't defend her actions lol
When I was a teen and still dumb enough to argue with cops I was in an area known for excessive ticketing so I made sure I was going 45 which was the speed limit. I saw a cop car pass from the opposite direction. I double checked my speed at that time and verified I was doing 45. He turned around, speed up and pulled me over. He asked if I knew why I was pulled over and I said no as that was the truth. He said he clocked me doing 58 when he passed and was pacing me at 60 after he turned around. I told him he was lying because I was doing 45 when he passed and kept my speed at 45 while I watched him turn around and catch up to me and he hit his lights while he was coming up behind me and never had a chance to keep pace with my vehicle. I told him I looked forward to seeing his evidence in court and was let off with a warning. I guess a warning for driving a red car while being a teen. Sadly, some cops care more about issuing tickets than they do ensuring public safety.
It Happens Over And Over, Abuse Of Power!!! We Need Make Dirty Cop's Accountable!!!! Until We The People Step It Up And Not Allow OUR Law Enforcement Become The Very Criminals They Are Supposed To Protect Us From!!! And, For All Honest Law Enforcement Officers, We Thank You!
The question that I have, and often have in cases like this, is how .... HOW, did a traffic stop for following too closely lead to a search of the vehicle? Or was the 43 pounds of contraband just sitting out in plain view?
He mentioned calling in a drug sniffing K9 which has been found verboten for just a traffic stop in a 2015 Supreme Court case. Not sure why this was not brought up.
Something not exactly similar happened here in Kansas. Few years ago. Someone with an out of state tag was coming in to Kansas from Colorado. A state trooper started following the person. The person took an exit, which was a dirt road, they turned right and then turned in to the driveway of a farm. While backing up to turn around, the state trooper drove past the person. The state trooper then testified that he pulled over the car because the drive, "Look at him suspiciously." The driver had a large quantity of weed with him but the whole thing ended up getting thrown out of court because, "Looking at someone in a certain manner does not constitute a traffic violation."
They had that happen a few times right after Colorado made it legal to posses weed. They were stopping people with trailers coming out of Colorado into Kansas.
Nice. Excellent job from the courts here in Wyoming, high standards make for better living... Now for the rest of the facially unconstitutional stuff, more can be done.
I had almost the exact thing happen back in 1978. Took it to court and proved he had to have been doing 120mph prior to knowing if I was speeding or not.
I live in the UK and I was almost knocked down by a police car while crossing the road AT A WELL SIGNED TRAFFIC CROSSING (we call them "zebra crossings - and they don't have control lights). He also did not have his lights or sirens on. I was already halfway across and citizens car had stopped at the crossing, so the police car went into the wrong lane to pass the stopped car and narrowly missed me. Thankfully, by chance the stopped car had a dashcam and gave me the details later - I reported it to the police and the police person in question was suspended pending inquiries, and later prosecuted for endangering life of the public unnecessarily. And this is not the only time the police have broken the law without cause - cases like this one and mine NEED to happen to keep the bad actors in the police force in line.
It took a min for the plate scanner to return the read. Then he pounced. They don't want to talk about the plate reader technology that is in use. They can take the loss on this case and keep mum on what is actually happening across America.
I've seen a video that feels eerily like this case. A guy was stopped for following too closely. His defense to the trooper was "you were tailgating me--I was trying to put a little room between you and me, and I had no idea you were a cop." I don't recall anybody being arrested for it in the video I saw months ago, but maybe. Gotta love it when the cop is following behind at 0.4 seconds distance and then tickets YOU for following at 1.2 seconds.
I ALWAYS slow down when people follow me too closely to lessen the impact if they rear-end me. I can control my distance between me and the car ahead of me. I can't control how close you follow, but I can make that unsafe distance a little safer.
Investigation needs to dig deeper into that cop. He knew what was in that car ahead of time. Most likely he us corrupt and getting kick backs from at least one criminal organization.
I live in the area and drive that stretch all the time. The WHP will pull over anyone with out of state plates, especially states where weed is legal, for minor infractions before they pull over locals for speeding. It's not a good thing but it's how it is at the moment.
Since the stop was ruled unconstitutional shouldn't the contraband also be returned or the victim made whole via monetary compensation for the total value of the contraband? Serious question; is there an argument to be had here or will a judge just say you're lucky to not be in prison?
There seem to be several problems with this case; the cop 'randomly' choosing to pursue a non-offender until he had a pretext to perform a stop is only part of the issue to me, though I am fairly certain we are all thinking there is more to THAT story. More troubling, in my opinion, is the officer immediately calling for a canine unit to do a sweep; my understanding of traffic stops is that in order to be in compliance with the 4th Amendment, an officer can only keep you for as long as it takes to process the initial reason for the traffic stop and cannot legally extend the stop to fish for evidence of further wrongdoing, such as the time required to summon a canine unit. This alone should have been grounds to have any evidence removed as my understanding is this constitutes an illegal search and seizure.
Charles, I don't think so. It seems like the court specifically said they were not making the decision based upon the officer's "subjective intent". It would have been more clear and predictable if your analysis was correct. I don't understand this ruling. If the cop had proceeded at 75 mph and took an extra mile or two to catch up then all would be fine?
@@IsItTrueThat the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over see if you can foia his body and dash camera before the stop and see how he is communicating, bet some video or audio will be missing
That would be amusing though. 1) Evidence is released to the owner. 2) Owner retrieves the evidence. 3) Police stop owner two minutes later and charge him with possession with intent to sell.
I work with a retired KS State trooper. If you have an out of state plate in kansas driving on I-70. You better do everything right. They are looking for out of state plates vehicles coming from Colorado with weed in them.
Once again, the "correct" answer was finally achieved - while simultaneously the seizure represents a negotiable amount of cash that is being retained by the law enforcement agency and all costs are still responsibility of the defendant. There is nothing about safety included herein. This is a brightly uniformed poacher sitting at the side of the road picking pockets.
@@GilmerJohn John… I’m living prove that your statement is wrong! Note: You are not right even following all laws you can still be attacked by rogue cops! In my case for years because I told them “NO” I would note move from behind the steering wheel to let my older brother drive my car… in heavy rain storm! The cops hunted me nonstop after that incident, like myself there are an awful lot of Americans citizens that are done with cops terrorizing us because they got a call or they had a hunch that someone did something wrong! My every move was tracked by cops in one county in Michigan for more then ten years! Ticket after ticket charges after charges they hunted me until I could no longer pay the ticket and court fees and ended up in jail accused of a felony which I could have proved I was innocent of but because as a teenager living on the streets I couldn’t get myself out of jail! Once there they had me I was stuck with judge forcing me to stay behind bars until I excepted their court appointed attorney or rotted behind bars! The court appointed attorney insisted that I take a plea for a reduced charge for a misdemeanor instead of a fighting a felony which I could prove I wasn’t guilty of but if I decide to fight the charge I would be force to stay longer in jail until the new trail date which would cost me my job or I could take the plea and be released the same day that I took the plea with time spent! However while attorney was telling me I could get my records expunged add another hearing and attorney fees and he also forgot to mention that if you pled guilty to a misdemeanor that was reduced from a felony your records would still show that you had a felony! I was innocent but I just couldn’t fight it no longer and took the plea! It wasn’t until twenty years later that I learned of the felony crap while buying a firearm! This bull crap charge has followed me now for more then fifty years it followed me into problems getting a job it followed me into my children schools and never did I do what they charged me for! With now being more then fifty years later I’ve never had another charge nor even a ticket! This is what happens if a cop feels like or has a hunch!!! No cops should never be able to do this at all! Ironically I still deal with this charge while every single person that had any input has been dead and gone for more than 25 years so I’m paying for something that I didn’t do because of a crooked court appointed attorney! I’m done with cops I’m done with judges I’m done with the system as a whole!
@@richardbadour1714 This happened to me but it was a misdemeanor charge, but I wanted a clean record to get into financial services. Police with a vendetta against a person have no supervision to control any misbehavior. The blue wall prevents good cops from "policing" bad or out-of-control officers. The DA had wanted to try to make a felony case just before an election to bolster his record but someone within the court system prevented a grave miscarriage of justice. I was exonerated but nearly broke because of attorney's fees. Since police and DA have unlimited funds and they could care less about the innocence of a person vs their arrest/conviction record. It is a sad day when innocence no longer matters.
This is so interesting. So a cop can follow you if they see a violation. He can also start to follow you with no violation and drive normally, and if he comes across you violating the law fine. That is established case law. Cops can pull you over for any traffic violation even if they are using the traffic laws as a pretext to search your car. But here he basically decided to pull you over for absolutely no reason, which is a violation of the constitution. How do we know the cop decided to pull you over for no reason? He drove 110 miles an hour to catch up with you. Very good judicial analysis.
Technically, they were stopped for a valid reason, but the encounter didn't begin with the stop, it began when the cop started following, or maybe when the cop first looked at them. The ruling basically says that the encounter as a whole has to be reasonable, not just the parts that happen *after* it actually becomes a traffic stop.
I watched a video recently that was actually about a State Trooper in an unmarked car responding to an emergency call. But it started with his dash cam footage which included readouts of things including speed. It showed that he would speed well over posted limits not chasing anyone, then slowdown when he would get kitty corner behind a car in the right lane. If that car did not speed up or whatever, he'd take off and speed down the road to some next random car. He did three before he got a call that made him turn around and become part of the reason for the video. But obviously this is what he does. Speed down the highway in an unmarked hot car and try to entrap others?
Back in about 1989 I was traveling through Wyoming, saw a cop in the distance, and JUST managed to brake enough that he clocked me at only 98 mph. He gave me the option of arresting me and waiting for the judge OR handing him $100 RIGHT NOW. I opted for number 2 and never heard anything of it again.
How do the police determine he was 1.2 seconds behind the truck? At speed telling time with that sort of accuracy is very difficult for a human...how can they be so precise?
Someone else posted the following too closely statute and it doesn’t actually mention anything about seconds so the 2 second rule is just the guideline.
@@thomyohansen3961 what metric is used to determine if you're too close behind someone though? It's not as if cops have sensors that can tell you exact spacing. Seems like a judgement call which probably costs people yearly. My wife, for example, has terrible depth perception which means she really has a hard time telling how far from another vehicle is. How can we guarantee the "measurement" the police take with their eyes is reliable? We can't which means that rule is unreliable. That said, if they were to use actual measurements it might be more understandable but even then we're relying on he said she said and cops tend to be believed before citizens
What you aren't hearing is that an informant told the police these guys were trafficking weed which is why the trooper decided to follow this vehicle without seeing them do anything illegal.
What happened when the trooper first saw the car that required him to travel so fast for so long to catch up the defendants car? Defendant travelling about 50/55 the trooper needed to reach 100+?
Most likely had to confirm with someone that the vehicle he just observed was in fact the vehicle from an alert or "Be on lookout for" from their Drug Task Force.
That court decision made perfect sense to me. Here's another one: My friends son had a learners permit and she was teaching him to drive. A police car came up on them, then past them. The kid was nervous and thought that if he was traveling at the same speed as he police car he was OK. The police car pulled over then turned on his lights and pull him over and gave him a ticket for speeding. The judge threw out the case, because the officer said he was pacing the driver from in front of him. The officer was the one setting the pace, not the defendant. She didn't say whether the judge pointed out that the officer was actually breaking the law by speeding himself.
If offered, the lawyer would tell him to refuse because they would then have a legal reason to suspect that he has drugs and can get him for, and the lawyer isn't a miracle worker. But would be funny to see. I bet, there would be at least one person that would want it back if offered, regardless of what the lawyer said. Lawyers have so much trouble with keeping clients behaved and even just following the simple instruction of staying quiet. I also remember a case of when a criminal did an armed robbery at a convenient store and was going to take some alcohol, the person working said they didn't think the robber was old enough, and to prove age, the robber handed their ID, the address was memorized and given to police.
If the evidence was illegal to posses why on earth would they give it back? If they did offer to give it back why would you accept it? If you accepted it then you would again be in possession of illegal goods and be arrested for that possession. As to what happened to it.. It was likely destroyed.
The oddest part about this case is that the driver who was arrested most likely has a valid case to sue the state for the monetary value of the weed they seized. It would be interesting to see the outcome if he actually did it.
An illegal act does not have standing. And if you sued for the value, you would then be admitting to committing a crime. That would not be good for you.
I am wondering if there was some type of profiling involved with that stop. You don't call the drug dog for a following too close ticket. In my younger days, I got pulled over quite a lot as a rebellious teenager and young adult. I think I have been asked if they could search my car once.
Colorado license plate + slow driver. You can pretty reliably find people smuggling contraband in that part of the state based on those 2 characteristics.
Decades ago I knew a young man who played in a band, and drove a VW bus because he could haul the band equipment in it. The bus was quite well-kept, as I recall, and had large Jesus slogans painted on the outside. He got pulled over many times because the cops figured the Jesus slogans were a front for something nefarious. (They weren't.)
You have convinced me that this was not a silly opinion after all... Without a reasonable suspicion of this vehicle, this also seems like a violation of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. There were several vehicles he needed not drive so recklessly to observe.
Love this ruling. Bravo for judges standing up for individual rights! We need more of this in the lower states. A question I have, if the traffics stop was for following too closely, why did they need a drug dog? The cop was fishing from the get go. That kind of fishing should be illegal and punishable. If you’re driving along minding your own business and bothering no one, there’s no crime! But the police seem to be giving the extra job of bringing in revenue for the localities. You’ve already reported on some of those. This is a ridiculous and IMO an unconstitutional practice!
"Why did they need a drug dog?" Having a dog sniff around the outside of a vehicle doesn't require violating private property (your vehicle) so it doesn't require any sort of warrant or legal approval. It's akin to a police officer looking over the vehicle and peering through windows, which is one of the ways they gather the evidence to request a search warrant so they can then enter the private property and do a full search. The additional time required to bring in a drug dog for this MAY be legally unreasonable and require some sort of justification, but it doesn't constitute an illegal search, afaik. It's certainly unreasonable in a practical sense, but courts seem to assume everybody has loads of time for legal and law enforcement processes.
Makes a lot of sense...the cops like to issues tickets to us when we pass traffic on the highway and have to speed up a tad to prevent opposing traffic.
Reminds me of a story I heard years ago, which may well be just urban legend, but here it is. A couple from Winnipeg, Canada were on a little cross border shopping trip to Grand Forks, ND. Somehow they came into collision with a police vehicle, which would appear to be their fault. It wasn’t much more than a fender bender and neither vehicle was disabled. In fact, the police immediately received a emergency call they had to attend to, so sped off before exchanging full particulars. The couple figured they were going to be in hot water with the local authorities, and contacted their lawyer back in Winnipeg. Their lawyer, a shrewd senior partner of a prestigious firm though for a moment and told them not to worry. When court proceedings subsequently ensued the cagey old lawyer stood up and countered the charges against his client by launching a counter suit against the police officer for leaving the scene of an accident. The judge threw the whole case out, dropping all charges.
Any Following to closely law should be in feet and NEVER in seconds. They put it in seconds to allow cops to pull ya over for any distance and this is shady.
But in feet it doesn't even make sense, and is harder to comply with. The whole point of follow distance is to give you time to recognize and react appropriately to hazards and oddities on the road, the time that takes is in roughly linear relation to the speed of travel. An appropriate distance for an 80mph road like the I-80 is through much of Wyoming, is going to be a multiple of the appropriate distance for a local 30 or 40mph road. Also, the appropriate minimum distance decreases with the speed of the flow of traffic: if the I-80 is moving at 30mph near an interchange, then the minimum follow distance will differ. TL;DR: time is the correct way to think about minimum follow distance, and the correct way to set it out in law and legal precedents.
It should be in seconds and not feet. You have to give the time required for the average person to be able to react plus, different speeds stop at different rates. Like, if you are just putting along at 5 MPH, you can easily stop in about 3 inches, but for you to see that you need to stop suddenly will be around 1.3 sec. In that time it could be more around 10 ft. So, by your logic, we should give 10+ feet for cars (we can even say about 14 ft, about 1 car length). But now let's bump that up by 10. So, 50 MPH, in 1.3 sec would be about 100 ft., but it certainly cannot easily stop in 30 inches. So do we have cars have to stay back 100 ft while on the road and moving? Cut that in half to 25 MPH and they can most certainly stop within 50 ft, they can do so in less than 30 ft. So now the distance you gave for 50 MPH is more than enough to have 2 cars traveling at half the speed to to stop in and leave over 15 ft of extra room. This is the short form of, you don't know what you are talking about. The long form would be teaching a bit of physics, inertia, the friction coefficient of cars, human response time, weather, how the temp of the road changes the friction coefficient of cars, and a few other small things. But let's be real, if you had time for that, you would be reading up on that on your own and figuring it out.
I am reminded of a story I heard out of a grand jury session: the charge was DUII, driving with a revoked license (DUII), and attempting to elude. first, the judge and defendant were on a first name basis. second, the judge asked the officer what his probable cause was, and the officer said, "I recognized him, your honor." then the judge asked the defendant why he attempted to flee. "I knew he recognized me, your honor."
Eh, Laramie has far worse cops than Cheyenne. Laramie has the worst cops in the state. That being said, the reason was "greenie driving slowly" - not a legal reason, but an accurate one.
Pretext stops are allowed, but you can't break the law to get the pretext. Following too closely was a valid pretext for a stop, but it was invalidated by the fact that the cop had to break the law before he had pretext in order to see him following too closely.
As a Brit, I have to laugh at the ridiculous situation where you allow someone off on this constitutional point and yet still have civil asset forfeiture as legal against the same amendment! If you’re going to have just one of those in favour of law enforcement I’d suggest doing away with civil asset forfeiture would make a lot more sense.
I can only imagine how many people he illegally followed until they broke some kinda minor law. Like barely going over the speed limit or barely touching either line cause he's following them.
Considering the amount of "evidence" that was found, the cop knew it was there, and had to watch for them to commit some traffic violation as pretext to stop them. He sped because he was slow to identify the car as one he was waiting for, and wanted to catch up, instead of calling to have someone down the road watch for them.
See, when he said the trooper was going over 100 mph to catch someone, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I was thinking maybe it was on an interstate. Nope, guy he was trying to catch was going 54, probably in a 45. Which means this happened on a state highway. This cop should get a ticket for reckless driving for sure and be suspended. That's absurd. He could've got someone killed, or totalled the cruiser that WE paid for. Unacceptable behavior
The person had Colorado plates and was going 55 on I-80 outside of Cheyenne. Speed limit was most likely 75. 95+% chance you are smuggling something from Colorado if that is the case.
I'm assuming they confiscated the 42lbs of evidence. Would they be forced to return that evidence? Obviously if they return it then they can charge the guy for possession again, but what if they have destroyed the evidence already? Would they be forced to compensate the person to the "alleged value" of the evidence? That would be a nice little windfall, because those values are always exagerrated.
I find it strange that the court is concentrating on the smaller or less significant crime of an unreasonable traffic stop and not the gross violation of liberty being the illegal search.
Weed is legal in over half the country. Stop with the hate. You alcoholics are no better. I'd argue worse. Weed doesn't kill, drunk driving and alcohol poisoning do.
@Paul Smith if it's legal in more states than it's not, it stands to reason, most people get it from a legal dispensary. I know you're tiny brain will have a hard time with logic. You live in a propaganda bubble. Untold crime... Translation: I don't have any real data and have to gas light and lie spreading fear. BE AFRAID!!!.... The 1980's want their propaganda back. It's flipping legal in half the country. You honestly believe everyone in every one of those states are deranged violent criminals? How sad are you to be so ignorantly arrogantly terrified of things you have no actual idea about?
I got pulled over once while I was doing 45 in a 45 zone. On the way past the convenience store, I had seen his car parked nose in. The policeman said, "I had to go 65 to catch you." I said, "Of course you did. If you pulled out of that Circle K and accelerated to 45, you would never catch me. Even though I was only going 45, you can never catch me if you don't go over the speed limit." He pulled out his ticket book and prepared to start writing. I said, "There's some math that will prove I wasn't speeding, but I'll save that for when I challenge this ticket in court and you have to testify under oath."
He looked at me for a few seconds and said, "Just watch your speed from now on, okay?"
That math? We had a problem in algebra about a car moving at a constant speed and how long it would take for a car starting up and accelerating to a higher speed to catch up with the first car. Five years later, it got me out of a ticket. Who says algebra has no usefulness in the real world?
THANK YOU!!! Cop logic is no logic.
Same thing happened to me! Except I Got a ticket for exceeding the speed limit. Took it to court and Won! BTW, 10mph = 18 ft per second. I Love Math!
I had that same math problem back in HS and the was in the mid 60s.
You should have challenged him to give you the ticket anyway.
@@larrybrinley8222 I didn't need to challenge him. I assumed he was going to write it and said, basically, "See you in court."
In many states the trooper would've just lied, but the car used by the Wyoming State Trooper was equipped with a dash cam, and caught the whole thing on video. The camera was equipped with telemetry recorders, so his speed was accurately recorded and therefore became known to the court. I think that this kind of transparency is to the credit of the Wyoming State government. Good job by the Cowboy State.
u have to give credit to WY Judges, Here in Ohio they will rule against u no matter what, u can't hold em accountable!
I want to know how the Trooper was able to determine the car he was following was 1.2 seconds behind the vehicle in front of it.
Easy. You watch the truck's rear tire and car's front tire and when they pass over some maRKO you time it. A simple "one Mississippi two Mississippi" is good enough.
I'd say dashcams rarely prevent police from lying. There's loads of court cases (many on YT) where the cop tells brazen, obvious lies. In court the cop just says "at the time, I thought I saw him weave. Reviewing the video, he did not". And then nothing at all ever happens to that cop for lying. Really, there's no reason for cops not to lie. Some charges might get dropped. So what? What do they care if they do? They get promotion credits for arrests, not convictions.
@@USMC6976 It doesn't sound very hard. The easiest way would probably be recording it on the police dashcam and the time difference between when the tire of the front truck and the tire of the back car pass a mark in the road. Don't know if that if how they do it though.
Sounds to me more like a case of a Cop with NO PROBABLE CAUSE going on a "Fishing Expedition."
I was thinking the officer's testimony botched their parallel construction.
the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time
this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION
they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
Not 1st time cops are fishing...
Wonder why he singled out this car in the first place.
At least the guy didn't get his asshole probed multiple times like what happened in my neck of the woods a few years back.
Cop: They're not breaking the law right now lets speed up and tailgate them and eventually they will break the law and give us a reason to search their vehicle.
And then we get to take their stuff! Traffic police my ass, old school highwaymen.
Not all police are like this, but enough are to have become a thing. And this right here is where erosion of respect for authority arises.
When i was a kid, people respected the police, because they were worthy of that respect. Not so much anymore.
@@jeromethiel4323
the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time
this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION
they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
I've been tailgated by cops twice, didn't get pulled over, but it's rather dangerous to blind people in a car by following them too close in a SUV
@@justinwolfe6143 Just call it what it is and don’t insult people’s intelligence acting any different. It’s predatory and intimidation with intent and the-instinctual act of most hitting the brakes in reaction mentioned before proves this. It’s a threat, the mind and body acknowledges and gives it credence. The rushing up on you and tailgating, posting up all over the place often in speed traps and hidden places it’s nerve wracking and irritating, legality otherwise.
A number of years ago I received a speeding ticket from a police officer that was coming towards me on a two lane highway late at night. I observed my speed on the police moving radar unit and I observed his speed when he locked in my speeding infraction. I was doing 70 on a 50 mph hi-way. He was doing 72 mph. I went to court and fought the speeding ticket. I asked the police officer what he was doing when he pulled me over and he responded that he was just on routine patrol and that he observed my vehicle in excess of the speed limit. I asked him to explain how moving radar works and his explanation was very precise as he turned out to be a training officer. He explained how radar works and that we were the only two vehicles on a straight stretch of hi-way so there could be no error in the recorded speeds and that the 70 mph was my speed and the 72 mph was his speed. I asked him if he routinely sped while on ‘routine patrol’ at which time the judge stoped the proceedings dismissed my speeding ticket pointing out that neither one of us should have been speeding and that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to be issued a speeding ticket in this case.
About twenty years ago, Phoenix was having a problem with a guy dressed up as a cop pulling people over in an unmarked car. I was heading to work on a freeway, when I saw a flashy red Mustang weaving through traffic, coming up fast, really fast. He took the same exit as me, and popped his lights as we got to the light.
A uniformed deputy walked up to my window and demanded my window be rolled down and did I know how fast I was going? I refused to roll it down, citing the fake cop and told him I had no idea of my speed because I was distracted by a maniac in my rearview. I told him to call a marked car, because I was not going to talk to him.
His sergeant came up, and I told him about the reckless driving of the deputy and why I asked for him. He told me to have a good day and drive safe and let me go.
Sadly these days you'd probably end up in cuffs with a broken window for daring to question their authority
@@derkaderkaduh - These days, I'd have a cell phone with me, and I'd be on the phone with 911 before he left the Mustang. Dispatch would have a marked car onroute before he had the chance. And I have a lawyer that would love to get us some cash.
This happened to a female friend of mine who was driving alone at night. I don't remember why the cop in the unmarked car pulled her over, but being a woman alone, she refused to roll down her window and demanded that he call for a marked car.
So how long did it take for him to get his weed back?
I live in a city's residential area where cops have almost ran over kids while speeding at 100+ MPH to go and help another officer search a vehicle. Far too often these officers put the lives of innocent people on the line so they can write a ticket.
and people like you call them brave heroes for it "back the blue"
I was almost hit by one yacking on a cell phone while I was going through a pedestrian crossing.
@@ricosuave666, what a mean-spirited assumption.
as a former cop you'd be amazed at how bad things are and I'm not talking about corruption etc. Cops now aren't trained in police work anymore. everything is centered around traffic stops aka revenue collections. if they can't make traffic stops 98% of their arrest go out the window. the concept of community policing where the cops knew the people are long gone. nowadays if you aren't in their computer you don't exist and the same goes if you wrongfully end up in there you're a suspect for life without any rights.
I live in a city where a copy went over 106mph on a city street, hit and other car killing that drive and got away with it because officer safety is more important than us normal humans.
I was crossing a one-mile straightaway that crosses an Alabama swamp as I made a quick lunchtime trip from my job to my business. The trooper ticketed me for 66 in a 40. Fair enough. On the way back with three passengers the trooper was again on the roadside at the other end of the swamp. He pulled onto the highway in front of me and I followed him to the next stop sign 8 miles away, again, going 66. I stopped him and asked him to call his supevisor out, who refused, but later gave me every excuse imaginable why it was OK for his comrade to be speeding. In court I testified that I wanted my ticket thrown out, that, unlike the trooper, I wasn't sworn to uphold the law ... he was. The judge agreed.
You are a hero!
Watch your back, that kind of LEO includes payback in the job description.
You're engaged in a chase or something I can see them speeding like that but yeah they do it all the time for no reason and then get mad at anyone else doing it.
I still think you should earn that ticket and feel no sympathy if you had to pay it but the other officer is a hypocrite and should have also written himself a ticket.
A few years back I was traveling back into Texas heading into Lubbock while doing about 75 in a 70. I saw a state trooper pass me going the opposite direction (probably doing about 70) when I noticed him turn around way back behind me. He ended up pulling me over for speeding and called the K9 unit out (and found nothing). But the only thing that was running through my head the whole time was, how fast did he have to go to catch back up to me after turning around? I've never understood how they believe doing almost double the speed limit justifies pulling over someone traveling at a relatively safe speed.
valid point, but people getting away all the time doesn't really make them feel like they are doing their job.
They're bored. See it all the time in small town cops and state troopers/highway patrol working in the middle of nowhere.
Well, you don't gain much by going 75 in a 70 zone but your gas mileage is even worse than it was at 70 AND you open yourself up to harassment by bored cops.
Of course, 9 of 10 times a cop would ignore 5 mph over a 70 limit.
Let's be real here. It's highly unlikely the cop pulled you over for doing 5 over. I'm not saying that's not the reason he put on the paperwork, but that's not why he made the decision to pull you over. The fact he called in a K9 unit supports this.
@@GilmerJohn depends where you live, in the south you rarely see someone pulled over for doing 10 over (IE 80 in 70)
The intensity with which the officer chased down a car that was committing zero traffic violations suggests that he was hunting for that exact car. I'd be willing to bet that this was a botched case of parallel construction of evidence.
This happens far more than people realize. Some law enforcement agency, like the DEA, DHS, CBP, etc. will discover that someone in a certain car is actively involved in something like trafficking, but through means that might be illegal or blatantly violate the fourth amendment. So, in order to catch the offender while keeping the source of the information concealed, they pass certain tips to other agencies and let them know they should probably stop and search that car if it commits any infraction. Keep in mind, this isn't a theory, some law enforcement agencies already openly admit to using these tactics.
@@TheBooban rw0037's explanation makes WAY more sense than yours.
Seriously! Because how many LEOs out there actually pull someone over and ticket them for following too closely on a regular basis without it being a "I wanna ID this driver" situation?
The same way they always find the cars with money leaving Las Vegas.
@@paulh2981 Out of State plates heading either out of Canada or Washington/Oregon/Ca the cops have a statistical probability that someone is moving stuff or money where things are legal to where they aren't. That was the cops "hunch". They probably pull people over all the time, maybe 1 in 10 have something. If they don't find anything, they probably just let people go with a warning.
I was thinking something along the same lines. The cop realized well after the guy had passed him that he wanted to pull him over even though he didn't see him do anything. For him to have waited so long before chasing him, he must have needed time to run his plates or check a list of descriptions of vehicles or something, but it wasn't something that legally counted as probable cause or he would have mentioned it in court. He also must have suspected the guy had drugs in his car to have pulled him over for such a bullshit reason and then called in the dog.
A guy I knew was driving along at 75 mph in a 70 zone, at night when a car passed him going 90. It was a Georgia State Patrol car with no lights or sirens going. So the guy speeds up and matches the trooper's speed several cars back, so as to not get a ticket for following too close. After a few miles the trooper realizes someone is behind him matching his speed, so he slows down and pulls off the road. The guy I know then slows back down, and the trooper pulls back onto the road and pulls him over. Trooper asks him why he was driving so fast, and the guy asks him the same thing. Trooper was about to write him a ticket when the guy, a retired Marine, tells him "I have me and 2 other witnesses in this car that will testify in court that you were going 90 mph without being on a call. " Trooper told him to slow down and let him go.
It's unclear why being a retired Marine is critical to the story...
There are two auditors in Texas that do this all the time. They will actually keep following the cops/deputies until they stop and walk up and call them out. A few have tried to pull the old "well, I will give you a ticket for driving that fast".....never worked out well for the cop/deputy.....
@@POOKIE5592 assertive nature
@@POOKIE5592 character. military service men get judged differently.
@@POOKIE5592 probably because of how loud and intimidating Marines are trained to be.
Once a police officer pull me over for going under the speed limit. She said why your going under the speed limit I answered back because you make a reckless u turn to get behind me. After questioning her about her reckless driving she said have a good night.
Lol lucky. In Indiana they pulled me and my cousin over for going 43 in a 45, and a license plate light. We were smoking a joint so they tossed his car, confiscated his muzzle loader, and gave him like 4 tickets that were all thrown out BUT the weed ticket, PLUS a night in jail. Over a joint.
They also busted the scope on his rifle and took a knife or something to the barrel and SHAVED metal off it. Also failed to file a chain of custody for it..
State did nothing about it because they don’t care and are (as we all know) apathetic and corrupt as fuck
😆😆😆👍
@@DillonWaffles Bullshit. Nobody's going to pull you over for going 2 miles under the speed limit. Over, maybe, but not under. I've been driving for 49 years.
@@edennis8578 Lol it was in the officers statement that my cousin was going under the speed limit. And it was the license plate light that was his excuse for probable cause.
Why would I make any of this up lol
@@edennis8578sure they can. Nice try though.
A random car drives by. So random in fact the cop drove with such confidence to break the law to catch up to this random. Then waits for the most minor and basic of infractions. And then immediately calls for a dog.
Yea this was obviously a stingray mission the cops don't want you to know they do. Its highly illegal.
It's just as dumb sending people to jail for victimless crimes but ordinary people don't lose sleep over it.
I'm guessing that it looked like a chance for a civil forfeiture. They do that for sport, just to screw with people's lives. They'll find any excuse for the charges, even if it's just gravel on your floorboards being suspected crack cocaine. For civil forfeitures, they don't care about the victim. They care that they'll get an attaboy, and maybe win a "most drug arrests" award.
@@BlackJesus8463 Victimless crimes? How about fentanyl laced grass? Or PCP, meth or some other surprise? Too many people wind up with brain damage or worse and it happens all the time.
@@OneWildTurkey We call those victims.
@@OneWildTurkey Your not a victim if you are a willing participant. This is why young people have no personal accountability. Too many dipshits putting the blame on a substance instead of the action of the individual.
I always found the cops going 30--50 mph over the limit catch up to someone doing 5-10 over so stupid
Cause the law say you doing 5mph over the democratically declared "safe speed" is "dangerous". It say nothing about cops doing much more and dodge traffic is dangerous. Double standard.
Yes, but they are trained to drive fast safely. They read two paragraphs in a manual and become experts in driving fast without being dangerous. They are also able to become “drug recognition experts” from similar training. Its all very complicated, you wouldn’t understand.
@@daversj yes the drug recognition officers are better then blood tests they can say someone is high even when blood tests can't find anything
In my state, driving 20 miles an hour above the limit is an automatic "reckless driving" charge, by the letter of the law.
This wasn't about the cop speeding. This was about the man's 4th Amendment rights. The "following too close" was a pretextual stop. The cop had no reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime for following this specific car.
However, when you think about time and distance, 55 miles per our is a little more then 9/10ths of a mile per minute. Unless the cop is already moving the same direction as you are, you will likely be 1/2 to 1 mile ahead of him by the time he gets rolling on the highway. Now he has a big problem if there are more exits/entrances where you can pull off or similar cars can enter. What amazes me here is the cop did not lie about following him.
About 25 years ago I was about halfway between Columbia SC and the Georgia state line on I-20. I had an unmarked police vehicle to do a u-turn in the median and had I not taken evasive action he would have hit me. No regard at all for what he was doing. This BS is why I now have a go-pro camera facing forward and another facing backward in my vehicle.
That is why almost all cop shops got rid of radar guns that can catch someone speeding in the opposite direction; some many cops would just hit the median and come flying out into traffic causing accidents.
The trooper had no probable cause to target the defendant and broke the law to make the stop. If the trooper had acted appropriately and not gone after the vehicle, the defendant would not have had his "cargo" confiscated. Shouldn't the state return the "cargo" to him? I think he should file a civil suit for the monetary value of the unconstitutionally seized "cargo."
people should start suing for hundreds of billions.
sure he did . He looked suspicious. Its in the eye of the beholder prove him wrong. The "cargo proved him right.
When an item has been identified as illegal is remains illegal regardless of how it was obtained or found. Only the liability if the owner or holder of said item can be removed. Being illegal, there is no monetary value to be returned to the owner as it should not have existed in the first place.
The cargo was burned, one hit at a time.
@@danielhoward8354 "looking suspicious" isn't PC.
This makes total sense to me. Cops are allowed to break a lot of laws when they think they're trying to catch someone who's broken the law. They are generally not allowed to break those laws 'just because'. So just like they can't just kick down random doors and arrest people they catch breaking the law, they shouldn't be able to drive recklessly and break the speed limit just to tailgate someone until they catch them breaking a law. Kudos to the WY Supreme Court
It's not ok to break the law to defend the law that or they're just really bad laws.
I agree but I’m still massively concerned with his “hunch” people get senses like this but is typically with things out of the norm or object or others your very familiar with. To just randomly decide 1 vehicle in hundreds btw I have driven that exact road and it is a very busy one at that, but I digress to pick 1 vehicle out of countless others defies all logic and probability he is not a hero cop with some sixth sense there’s probably something going on were their being tipped off or otherwise specifically targeted.
"A Hunch". Yeah, they had info - you don't get that lucky at random. He was looking for the car, missed it, and had to catch up. And they didn't want to give up their illegal means of getting info on the car carrying the weed.
Poison fruit of the poison tree born from the poison fruit.
Bingo.
You are so right I live near a sec of I-70 known for drug stops they know the vehicle is coming he just wasn't alert it got by. If you were to hear their radio traffic. He knew he missed it. And that's big problem for him if the car gets across the border to the next state. But they like the money better than the drug stops.
Entrapment
Exactly this sounds pre-planned. The cop knew exactly who he was looking for and what they had on them.
I think ultimately it had nothing to do with the officer speeding before hand, and had everything to do with the officer taking actions to pursue a vehicle without reasonable articulate suspicion, only after deciding to chase the vehicle did the officer create pretext to stop the vehicle.
The appeals court specifically mentions the speeding. Why would they put that in their opinion if it had "nothing to do with" the decision?
@@justwannasharevideo1058 The appeals court knows this is a case of parallel construction and is using the officers illegal actions to send a message that police can not commit illegal actions in pursuit of an investigation. In this case they are using the "excessive speeding" as a placeholder for "illegal surveillance", which this is no direct evidence of but it's kinda obvious taking the "totality of the situation" into account.
@@justwannasharevideo1058 Because sometimes courts make mistakes. If the officer did something illegal in his driving he should be held accountable for it, but why should an offender get away who really did break the law?
@@raybrensike42 Depends on whether the motorist was allegedly speeding 1 mile per hour over the limit, or was reasonably suspected of child molestation and/or kidnapping. Cop speeding w/o good cause can unnecessarily endanger the lives of every other motorist the cop encounters while speeding.
"Up to 111 MPH in BOTH lanes" sounds like a prima facie case of reckless driving to me! Thank God for dash cams keeping the cop honest.
You could do that on the wrong side of the road for a couple hours and not hit anything in this part of the country
If you got caught driving over 100 MPH where I live, that would be an automatic "reckless driving" charge.
@@ianbattles7290 in Wyoming that is more like doing 150. People go from Laramie to Cheyenne in 30 minutes normally
About 30 something years ago I was driving in a 45 zone on a 4 lane divided highway I was in the right lane and a sherrif's deputy was in the left lane, both doing the speed limit when the deputy decided to pull me over, claimed I was pacing him, my reply was the last time I checked it wasn't illegal to do the speed limit, I was let go.
wow I got pulled over for the exact same thing, he accused me of stalking him with intent to do harm. that lasted less than 2 mins after a supervisor showed up on the scene; then a few mins of butt kissing was done by the initial officer.
About 15 yrs ago I was on the highway in Orlando following two Orange County Sherriff's in the center of 3 lanes. Cruising along for 20+ miles. One officer takes an exit. Minute or two later, the other gets into the right lane, starts coasting, falls back, jumps right behind me and pulls me over.
"Do you know how fast you were going?"
"Sir, I was driving with traffic. And the traffic was you."
"Watch your speed, have a nice day."
In My Humble Opinion, The infraction that an officer uses to initiate a traffic stop should be MORE dangerous to traffic than the actual traffic stop. Failing that, the officer is causing more danger to traffic that the alleged driver with the traffic stop on the side of the road, and that is just stupid. They even openly admit the danger with state laws that force all drivers over to give any emergency vehicle on the shoulder an empty lane of safety (like here in Tennessee)....
Another point regarding this exact case- the reason the driver may have stayed behind the semi versus passing could have been because they may have just spotted a vehicle approaching rapidly from behind and weaving back and forth through traffic and were then concerned to change lanes or brake quickly to not follow the semi so closely. That would be my argument.
Also, if it is against the law to follow so close, then why do cops regularly tailgate cars when "investigating" in traffic? I do realize they are "seeing how you react", but why is ANY unnecessary illegal/dangerous driving OK when cops do it?
it's called fascism
the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time
this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION
they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
@@ihatecrackhead Proof?
@@ihatecrackhead I do agree with you completely.. Way to many times I have had a "private" conversation with someone about some obscure thing or product and the next day Im
hit with a bunch of advertising about this. We both are hit. And that's for advertising. Cant imagine what they do for crimes.
@@BReal-10ECill explain later, it's quite simple
My take away…..The trooper screwed up in his testimony. He failed to lie adequately about his reasons for the pursuit and stop. He will not make that mistake again. Next time he will make sure to fabricated a traffic violation to justify the initial stop. He must of been new to the job. They get better at lying under oath and in depositions with experience.
ikr
So true. I had an friend who I met at a real estate seminar, (Gary Pirosko of Denver, now deceased), who was a former cop who went to law school and became a prosecutor, then did DUI defense cases. He told us ALL cops lie even under oath on the stand. Without question.
"42 lbs of evidence" made me chuckle. "Shit, that's some good evidence, man..."
Don't you mean 39lbs?
42 LBS of evidence would make a whole lot of people chuckle.
Steve sir.
One over looked point also is a law enforcement officer is not allowed to extend a traffic stop to call in a drug dog to search the vehicle.
Between the unlawful speeding and extending the traffic stop both together makes it a definite violation of his fourth under u.s. and wyoming constitution
Isn't it a time limit? .... doesn't matter who the officer calls the officer can't keep you around waiting for the dog but calling for a dog itself is fine (so long as it doesn't extend the stop past the time limit). Don't recall what the time limit was though. I think Steve talk about it in one of his videos. Maybe I am mistaken.
I had a time once on I10, I was driving a black Yukon xl to San Antonio from Houston. My dad was in the hospital with newly found cancer. I was driving about 85+ and a state trooper pulled up on my right, we looked at each other for about 10 seconds before I punched it up to 95. He slowed down and let me go, God was with me that day. All worked out well. Thanks trooper.
Armchair legal advice: "~plagiarizing a lawyer's work is cheaper than hiring them".
-Steve Lehto 🙂
It's called precedent, and one reason lawyers cost so much is because they have to dig through all that precedent to see if any of it is helpful to your case.
I do not know why my comments are showing up here, instead of where they should be, ie. in response to a commenter in a thread above. I also don't know how to fix it. TH-cam will be youtube.
I am positive thie Trooper was never held accountable for his actions!!!
Probably held accountable for missing the guy, then having to catch up when they illegally pinged gps on phone, car or other method, and he was past the officer.
They were upset he wasn't corrupt enough, and probably more upset the guy had the 42lbs, not the cash from sale they could "civilly forfeit"
@Fred Lister :
Not held accountable by the court.
I'd bet that his superiors "held him accountable" for the "lack of vigilance" that led to him having to go 111 MPH to catch up to the 42 pounds of "evidence".
I was on a Federal Grand Jury for 18mo, every case involving drugs found in apparent random traffic stops were not random at all. The suspects were in constant surveillance the whole time. most were informed on by rival dealers. Leo's were seeking federal charges.
You should of refused to indict every one of them. Drug war has failed.
@@knerduno5942 true that.👍
Local law enforcement cant bring federal charges....
Lmao that's a cartel trick, get a mule pulled over while the u-haul full of goods drive by
Say it with me, kids! Jury Nullification!
A few years back in Hawaii, I was driving home late at night and just before my freeway exit was a merge onto that freeway from another freeway. As I approached that merge I saw a car speeding quite fast coming from that other freeway, and I KNEW he was going to fly past me on my right, just where I normally go into the right lane before my exit. So, I S-L-O-W-L-Y merged over, intentionally cutting him off from passing on my right. I was already going 65mph in a 55 zone, so it's not like I wasn't moving at a fair pace. He was a cop and his formerly unlit blue light suddenly came on once I got in front of him, so yeah, he pulled me over. As soon as he approached my van I got on him for speeding without his lights or siren and his excuse was, "I was trying to catch speeders!" I basically dared him to write me up, but he knew he was wrong and that I would have forced him into court to explain how I cut him off when he had no lights or siren (blue light was off completely, which was likely against dept policy while on duty) while I was doing 65. He ended up walking away.
Wish I had known this a couple decades ago. I was driving home one night, was lighting a cigarette and I think I crossed one of the lines for a millisec, I was really the only one on the highway. Now I did see a car coming the opposite way, it looked like a cop car but I didn't think much of it. I remember thinking he would have to do 120mph to the next exit, get back on the highway do 120mph to pull me over before I took my exit. That is what he did. Craziness
My question is, how did the officer just happen to pick the one car not breaking a traffic law that happened to have drugs in it? Sounds like some illegal parallel construction of evidence to me
Likely popped across an automated system for intel.
Wondered this myself.
Profiling
Likely, because that was the only car not speeding. When I'm on the road I always drive 5mph over the speed limit even if there is a cop passing me. That's the risk I take and I can argue in court for myself. However, it is widely theorized that you should not break the law when your breaking the law. So there is a CHANCE that when an officer witnesses a driver being hyper vigilant of the legal limits it could be due to Illegal activity. Long shot but sometimes it works like in this case.
@@donitmyself8935 but what do you pull them over for then? Not breaking the law? I don't think that's how that works
The most plausible explanation that fits the known facts is, the policeman knew the car, who was in it, and what they were carrying. For some reason, he could not use this information as probable cause, but couldn't resist the bust. The stretch of I-10 that runs through my neighborhood see about a dozen big drug busts a month because the State Police pulled over a speeding car that just happened to be carrying 50lbs of cocaine. Thirty thousand cars go by in a day and most of them are speeding, but they stop the drug runner.
When I was 19, I was going to work on a winding back road at 4:30 a.m. I came up on a lady doing 20 mph, and passed her. Never saw the cop sitting on the side of the road, but he saw me. I was flying, but a street light stopped me at the end. The cop pulled up behind me, and after the light changed and I turned right, he flicked his lights on and stopped me. He took my info, came back and told me he was giving me a ticket for passing in a no passing zone because he saw that, but he couldn't for speeding because he couldn't catch up to me! He said he did around 60 mph, but never even saw my brake lights, so he couldn't prove I was speeding. He just told me to slow down and gave me the $20 ticket. Never did slow down, but never got another ticket, either.
Not sure I ever met a cop that obeyed the law. Every single one thinks traffic laws don't apply to them.
How are you going to argue that someone should be punished for breaking the law *when you, yourself are breaking the law????*
That's pure hypocrisy!!!
There was years ago a dateline or 60 minutes story about police conduct on the NYS thruway.
A NYS trooper was clocked at 80 miles per hour in a 55 mile per hour zone.
So the reporter asked the woman trooper why she was driving so fast. She claimed that she was trained in driving faster on the road way.
The reporter then makes the point, so madam your where trained to drive at 80 miles per hour while and here's the kicker she was trained to drive at that speed while eating fried chicken 😅. She pussed out and ran back to her barracks and hid behind a closed door.
She couldn't defend her actions lol
Because cops are hypocrites who don't think they should have to obey the very laws that they enforce upon everyone else.
When I was a teen and still dumb enough to argue with cops I was in an area known for excessive ticketing so I made sure I was going 45 which was the speed limit. I saw a cop car pass from the opposite direction. I double checked my speed at that time and verified I was doing 45. He turned around, speed up and pulled me over. He asked if I knew why I was pulled over and I said no as that was the truth. He said he clocked me doing 58 when he passed and was pacing me at 60 after he turned around. I told him he was lying because I was doing 45 when he passed and kept my speed at 45 while I watched him turn around and catch up to me and he hit his lights while he was coming up behind me and never had a chance to keep pace with my vehicle. I told him I looked forward to seeing his evidence in court and was let off with a warning. I guess a warning for driving a red car while being a teen.
Sadly, some cops care more about issuing tickets than they do ensuring public safety.
It Happens Over And Over, Abuse Of Power!!!
We Need Make Dirty Cop's Accountable!!!!
Until We The People Step It Up And Not Allow OUR Law Enforcement Become The Very Criminals They Are Supposed To Protect Us From!!!
And, For All Honest Law Enforcement Officers, We Thank You!
The question that I have, and often have in cases like this, is how .... HOW, did a traffic stop for following too closely lead to a search of the vehicle? Or was the 43 pounds of contraband just sitting out in plain view?
He mentioned calling in a drug sniffing K9 which has been found verboten for just a traffic stop in a 2015 Supreme Court case. Not sure why this was not brought up.
@@knerduno5942 You're right, it should've been.
@@knerduno5942 With such a huge amount, it might actually be believable that the officer smelled it.
@@Br3ttM if so… he would not have needed the dog then!
I wonder if it was riding low in the back. 🤣🤣
Something not exactly similar happened here in Kansas. Few years ago. Someone with an out of state tag was coming in to Kansas from Colorado. A state trooper started following the person. The person took an exit, which was a dirt road, they turned right and then turned in to the driveway of a farm. While backing up to turn around, the state trooper drove past the person. The state trooper then testified that he pulled over the car because the drive, "Look at him suspiciously." The driver had a large quantity of weed with him but the whole thing ended up getting thrown out of court because, "Looking at someone in a certain manner does not constitute a traffic violation."
That's my face bruh.
They had that happen a few times right after Colorado made it legal to posses weed. They were stopping people with trailers coming out of Colorado into Kansas.
Sounds to me like the cop knew he had the weed beforehand and was looking for an excuse to make use of information he'd gained illegally.
Nice. Excellent job from the courts here in Wyoming, high standards make for better living... Now for the rest of the facially unconstitutional stuff, more can be done.
I had almost the exact thing happen back in 1978. Took it to court and proved he had to have been doing 120mph prior to knowing if I was speeding or not.
I live in the UK and I was almost knocked down by a police car while crossing the road AT A WELL SIGNED TRAFFIC CROSSING (we call them "zebra crossings - and they don't have control lights). He also did not have his lights or sirens on. I was already halfway across and citizens car had stopped at the crossing, so the police car went into the wrong lane to pass the stopped car and narrowly missed me.
Thankfully, by chance the stopped car had a dashcam and gave me the details later - I reported it to the police and the police person in question was suspended pending inquiries, and later prosecuted for endangering life of the public unnecessarily.
And this is not the only time the police have broken the law without cause - cases like this one and mine NEED to happen to keep the bad actors in the police force in line.
At least he was investigated. Here he would have been told to slow down and nothing more
@@TheFanatic340 "Stop getting caught!"
@@Azlehria what?
Reminds me of a quota chasing tactic they use here sometimes.
The cops tailgate you to try and “encourage” you to speed.
It took a min for the plate scanner to return the read. Then he pounced. They don't want to talk about the plate reader technology that is in use. They can take the loss on this case and keep mum on what is actually happening across America.
Was the cop ticketed for speeding and reckless driving? He should have been!
Reckless driving is a serious offense.
Was it 1.2, or 1-2 seconds behind the semi? Because one is a reasonable approximation the other is an inhuman level of accuracy.
I wonder if the trooper's car had a camera in it that they were able to calculate the 1.2 seconds with.
@@johnn8223 likely.
Retrospective probable cause.
I've seen a video that feels eerily like this case. A guy was stopped for following too closely. His defense to the trooper was "you were tailgating me--I was trying to put a little room between you and me, and I had no idea you were a cop." I don't recall anybody being arrested for it in the video I saw months ago, but maybe. Gotta love it when the cop is following behind at 0.4 seconds distance and then tickets YOU for following at 1.2 seconds.
Their modus operandi is tailgating you to force you to speed or get you to do something wrong so they can stop you
I ALWAYS slow down when people follow me too closely to lessen the impact if they rear-end me. I can control my distance between me and the car ahead of me. I can't control how close you follow, but I can make that unsafe distance a little safer.
Investigation needs to dig deeper into that cop. He knew what was in that car ahead of time. Most likely he us corrupt and getting kick backs from at least one criminal organization.
It was a rental car with California plates in Wyoming. It's very common for cops to target people from out of state.
I live in the area and drive that stretch all the time. The WHP will pull over anyone with out of state plates, especially states where weed is legal, for minor infractions before they pull over locals for speeding. It's not a good thing but it's how it is at the moment.
@@soulfullginger88 Those highways were paid for with federal tax dollars and cops would be out of a job if politicians had to balance a budget.
Since the stop was ruled unconstitutional shouldn't the contraband also be returned or the victim made whole via monetary compensation for the total value of the contraband? Serious question; is there an argument to be had here or will a judge just say you're lucky to not be in prison?
Pretty sure cops get to leep/ smoke/ sell it now, but idk
It's illegal to own, so even if you aren't convicted, they can't let you keep it.
There seem to be several problems with this case; the cop 'randomly' choosing to pursue a non-offender until he had a pretext to perform a stop is only part of the issue to me, though I am fairly certain we are all thinking there is more to THAT story.
More troubling, in my opinion, is the officer immediately calling for a canine unit to do a sweep; my understanding of traffic stops is that in order to be in compliance with the 4th Amendment, an officer can only keep you for as long as it takes to process the initial reason for the traffic stop and cannot legally extend the stop to fish for evidence of further wrongdoing, such as the time required to summon a canine unit. This alone should have been grounds to have any evidence removed as my understanding is this constitutes an illegal search and seizure.
Someone else said it happened before the SCOTUS ruling.
If you have to break the law to enforce the law, have to question a lot of things about law.
So the true reason for vacating the conviction was that there was no probable cause to initiate the pursuit
Charles, I don't think so. It seems like the court specifically said they were not making the decision based upon the officer's "subjective intent". It would have been more clear and predictable if your analysis was correct. I don't understand this ruling. If the cop had proceeded at 75 mph and took an extra mile or two to catch up then all would be fine?
@@IsItTrueThat the car in front of them slowed cause they saw a cop coming, closing the 2 seconds, happens all the time
this WAS A PARALLEL INVESTIGATION
they secretly report your phones activity to a cop and they find a traffic offense, THEY LIED BY OMISSION TO THE COURT. the cop already knew to pull that exact car over
see if you can foia his body and dash camera before the stop and see how he is communicating, bet some video or audio will be missing
@@ihatecrackhead No, they just saw a colorado license plate with a careful driver.
@@gholland5840 that might be true for small amounts but generally you live where it's illegal and pick it up from a legal state to take home.
I've always heard that if a cop follows you LONG ENOUGH, he'll find a reason to pull you over! THEY need to return the mans seized "evidence!" 😜
He's not getting that back no matter what, they'll just destroy it.
That would be amusing though.
1) Evidence is released to the owner.
2) Owner retrieves the evidence.
3) Police stop owner two minutes later and charge him with possession with intent to sell.
@@davidfrederick9973 yep, smoking it destroys it.
Does he get the evidence back?
I work with a retired KS State trooper. If you have an out of state plate in kansas driving on I-70. You better do everything right. They are looking for out of state plates vehicles coming from Colorado with weed in them.
state trooper: "I am going to break all kinds of laws so that I can follow this guy then pull him over the first time he does something wrong!"
Not only are drug related crimes victimless crimes, I’m glad the court agreed that the ends don’t justify the means.
Once again, the "correct" answer was finally achieved - while simultaneously the seizure represents a negotiable amount of cash that is being retained by the law enforcement agency and all costs are still responsibility of the defendant. There is nothing about safety included herein. This is a brightly uniformed poacher sitting at the side of the road picking pockets.
Well, you don't have the play the game. Just go the speed limit and don't drive like a coyboy.
@@GilmerJohn John… I’m living prove that your statement is wrong! Note: You are not right even following all laws you can still be attacked by rogue cops! In my case for years because I told them “NO” I would note move from behind the steering wheel to let my older brother drive my car… in heavy rain storm! The cops hunted me nonstop after that incident, like myself there are an awful lot of Americans citizens that are done with cops terrorizing us because they got a call or they had a hunch that someone did something wrong! My every move was tracked by cops in one county in Michigan for more then ten years! Ticket after ticket charges after charges they hunted me until I could no longer pay the ticket and court fees and ended up in jail accused of a felony which I could have proved I was innocent of but because as a teenager living on the streets I couldn’t get myself out of jail! Once there they had me I was stuck with judge forcing me to stay behind bars until I excepted their court appointed attorney or rotted behind bars! The court appointed attorney insisted that I take a plea for a reduced charge for a misdemeanor instead of a fighting a felony which I could prove I wasn’t guilty of but if I decide to fight the charge I would be force to stay longer in jail until the new trail date which would cost me my job or I could take the plea and be released the same day that I took the plea with time spent! However while attorney was telling me I could get my records expunged add another hearing and attorney fees and he also forgot to mention that if you pled guilty to a misdemeanor that was reduced from a felony your records would still show that you had a felony! I was innocent but I just couldn’t fight it no longer and took the plea! It wasn’t until twenty years later that I learned of the felony crap while buying a firearm! This bull crap charge has followed me now for more then fifty years it followed me into problems getting a job it followed me into my children schools and never did I do what they charged me for! With now being more then fifty years later I’ve never had another charge nor even a ticket! This is what happens if a cop feels like or has a hunch!!! No cops should never be able to do this at all! Ironically I still deal with this charge while every single person that had any input has been dead and gone for more than 25 years so I’m paying for something that I didn’t do because of a crooked court appointed attorney! I’m done with cops I’m done with judges I’m done with the system as a whole!
@@richardbadour1714 This happened to me but it was a misdemeanor charge, but I wanted a clean record to get into financial services. Police with a vendetta against a person have no supervision to control any misbehavior. The blue wall prevents good cops from "policing" bad or out-of-control officers. The DA had wanted to try to make a felony case just before an election to bolster his record but someone within the court system prevented a grave miscarriage of justice. I was exonerated but nearly broke because of attorney's fees. Since police and DA have unlimited funds and they could care less about the innocence of a person vs their arrest/conviction record. It is a sad day when innocence no longer matters.
This is so interesting. So a cop can follow you if they see a violation. He can also start to follow you with no violation and drive normally, and if he comes across you violating the law fine. That is established case law. Cops can pull you over for any traffic violation even if they are using the traffic laws as a pretext to search your car. But here he basically decided to pull you over for absolutely no reason, which is a violation of the constitution. How do we know the cop decided to pull you over for no reason? He drove 110 miles an hour to catch up with you. Very good judicial analysis.
Technically, they were stopped for a valid reason, but the encounter didn't begin with the stop, it began when the cop started following, or maybe when the cop first looked at them. The ruling basically says that the encounter as a whole has to be reasonable, not just the parts that happen *after* it actually becomes a traffic stop.
I watched a video recently that was actually about a State Trooper in an unmarked car responding to an emergency call. But it started with his dash cam footage which included readouts of things including speed. It showed that he would speed well over posted limits not chasing anyone, then slowdown when he would get kitty corner behind a car in the right lane. If that car did not speed up or whatever, he'd take off and speed down the road to some next random car. He did three before he got a call that made him turn around and become part of the reason for the video.
But obviously this is what he does. Speed down the highway in an unmarked hot car and try to entrap others?
Back in about 1989 I was traveling through Wyoming, saw a cop in the distance, and JUST managed to brake enough that he clocked me at only 98 mph. He gave me the option of arresting me and waiting for the judge OR handing him $100 RIGHT NOW. I opted for number 2 and never heard anything of it again.
How do the police determine he was 1.2 seconds behind the truck? At speed telling time with that sort of accuracy is very difficult for a human...how can they be so precise?
That's what I'd like to know.
Someone else posted the following too closely statute and it doesn’t actually mention anything about seconds so the 2 second rule is just the guideline.
@@thomyohansen3961 what metric is used to determine if you're too close behind someone though? It's not as if cops have sensors that can tell you exact spacing. Seems like a judgement call which probably costs people yearly. My wife, for example, has terrible depth perception which means she really has a hard time telling how far from another vehicle is. How can we guarantee the "measurement" the police take with their eyes is reliable? We can't which means that rule is unreliable. That said, if they were to use actual measurements it might be more understandable but even then we're relying on he said she said and cops tend to be believed before citizens
What you aren't hearing is that an informant told the police these guys were trafficking weed which is why the trooper decided to follow this vehicle without seeing them do anything illegal.
What happened when the trooper first saw the car that required him to travel so fast for so long to catch up the defendants car? Defendant travelling about 50/55 the trooper needed to reach 100+?
Worse than that...hwy speed limits out west are 75 to 80 mph..
Most likely had to confirm with someone that the vehicle he just observed was in fact the vehicle from an alert or "Be on lookout for" from their Drug Task Force.
That court decision made perfect sense to me. Here's another one:
My friends son had a learners permit and she was teaching him to drive. A police car came up on them, then past them. The kid was nervous and thought that if he was traveling at the same speed as he police car he was OK. The police car pulled over then turned on his lights and pull him over and gave him a ticket for speeding. The judge threw out the case, because the officer said he was pacing the driver from in front of him. The officer was the one setting the pace, not the defendant. She didn't say whether the judge pointed out that the officer was actually breaking the law by speeding himself.
DId he get his "evidence" back?
If offered, the lawyer would tell him to refuse because they would then have a legal reason to suspect that he has drugs and can get him for, and the lawyer isn't a miracle worker. But would be funny to see. I bet, there would be at least one person that would want it back if offered, regardless of what the lawyer said. Lawyers have so much trouble with keeping clients behaved and even just following the simple instruction of staying quiet. I also remember a case of when a criminal did an armed robbery at a convenient store and was going to take some alcohol, the person working said they didn't think the robber was old enough, and to prove age, the robber handed their ID, the address was memorized and given to police.
The illegal evidence is then tossed out.
If a cop detains you and he thinks you we're about to commit a crime such as stealing, then do you have to ID?
My question is what happened to the " 42 pounds of evidence"? Did have to be returned? Was it taken as a "civil asset forfeiture?
If the evidence was illegal to posses why on earth would they give it back? If they did offer to give it back why would you accept it? If you accepted it then you would again be in possession of illegal goods and be arrested for that possession. As to what happened to it.. It was likely destroyed.
Interested to see attorney argue to get cash refund for the "retail value" of the "product" illegally seized in an unconstitutional stop. 🛑
Given that it was unreasonable... can the cop's license be suspended for unsafe driving?
The oddest part about this case is that the driver who was arrested most likely has a valid case to sue the state for the monetary value of the weed they seized. It would be interesting to see the outcome if he actually did it.
It's illegal to possess, and I'm sure there are laws that address what happens to contraband if the person isn't convicted.
An illegal act does not have standing. And if you sued for the value, you would then be admitting to committing a crime. That would not be good for you.
Good lawyer. Good post. Thanks.
I am wondering if there was some type of profiling involved with that stop. You don't call the drug dog for a following too close ticket. In my younger days, I got pulled over quite a lot as a rebellious teenager and young adult. I think I have been asked if they could search my car once.
They could've been sampling the merchandise...
Colorado license plate + slow driver. You can pretty reliably find people smuggling contraband in that part of the state based on those 2 characteristics.
Decades ago I knew a young man who played in a band, and drove a VW bus because he could haul the band equipment in it. The bus was quite well-kept, as I recall, and had large Jesus slogans painted on the outside. He got pulled over many times because the cops figured the Jesus slogans were a front for something nefarious. (They weren't.)
No justification to pull the vehicle over. Must be those darn quotas.....oops I mean performance reviews.
The justification was green license plate with a driver acting particularly careful
Was this actually a failure on the part of the officer for his failure to produce cash?
This was my thought.
He caught the guy going the wrong direction, so without cash, and will be severely reprimanded for it.
Thanks
You have convinced me that this was not a silly opinion after all... Without a reasonable suspicion of this vehicle, this also seems like a violation of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. There were several vehicles he needed not drive so recklessly to observe.
“111 MPH”, says I don’t have pay for consequences, nor for gas.
Love this ruling. Bravo for judges standing up for individual rights! We need more of this in the lower states. A question I have, if the traffics stop was for following too closely, why did they need a drug dog? The cop was fishing from the get go. That kind of fishing should be illegal and punishable. If you’re driving along minding your own business and bothering no one, there’s no crime! But the police seem to be giving the extra job of bringing in revenue for the localities. You’ve already reported on some of those. This is a ridiculous and IMO an unconstitutional practice!
Gotta get victimless crimes off the books. 👍
"Why did they need a drug dog?" Having a dog sniff around the outside of a vehicle doesn't require violating private property (your vehicle) so it doesn't require any sort of warrant or legal approval. It's akin to a police officer looking over the vehicle and peering through windows, which is one of the ways they gather the evidence to request a search warrant so they can then enter the private property and do a full search.
The additional time required to bring in a drug dog for this MAY be legally unreasonable and require some sort of justification, but it doesn't constitute an illegal search, afaik. It's certainly unreasonable in a practical sense, but courts seem to assume everybody has loads of time for legal and law enforcement processes.
Everyone should have dash cams. Also always record all police encounters, and never answer questions.
Makes a lot of sense...the cops like to issues tickets to us when we pass traffic on the highway and have to speed up a tad to prevent opposing traffic.
Reminds me of a story I heard years ago, which may well be just urban legend, but here it is.
A couple from Winnipeg, Canada were on a little cross border shopping trip to Grand Forks, ND. Somehow they came into collision with a police vehicle, which would appear to be their fault. It wasn’t much more than a fender bender and neither vehicle was disabled. In fact, the police immediately received a emergency call they had to attend to, so sped off before exchanging full particulars.
The couple figured they were going to be in hot water with the local authorities, and contacted their lawyer back in Winnipeg. Their lawyer, a shrewd senior partner of a prestigious firm though for a moment and told them not to worry. When court proceedings subsequently ensued the cagey old lawyer stood up and countered the charges against his client by launching a counter suit against the police officer for leaving the scene of an accident. The judge threw the whole case out, dropping all charges.
Any Following to closely law should be in feet and NEVER in seconds. They put it in seconds to allow cops to pull ya over for any distance and this is shady.
But in feet it doesn't even make sense, and is harder to comply with. The whole point of follow distance is to give you time to recognize and react appropriately to hazards and oddities on the road, the time that takes is in roughly linear relation to the speed of travel. An appropriate distance for an 80mph road like the I-80 is through much of Wyoming, is going to be a multiple of the appropriate distance for a local 30 or 40mph road. Also, the appropriate minimum distance decreases with the speed of the flow of traffic: if the I-80 is moving at 30mph near an interchange, then the minimum follow distance will differ.
TL;DR: time is the correct way to think about minimum follow distance, and the correct way to set it out in law and legal precedents.
@@microcolonel two seconds at 55 mph is a heck of a lot different at 35 mph.
It should be in seconds and not feet. You have to give the time required for the average person to be able to react plus, different speeds stop at different rates. Like, if you are just putting along at 5 MPH, you can easily stop in about 3 inches, but for you to see that you need to stop suddenly will be around 1.3 sec. In that time it could be more around 10 ft. So, by your logic, we should give 10+ feet for cars (we can even say about 14 ft, about 1 car length).
But now let's bump that up by 10. So, 50 MPH, in 1.3 sec would be about 100 ft., but it certainly cannot easily stop in 30 inches. So do we have cars have to stay back 100 ft while on the road and moving? Cut that in half to 25 MPH and they can most certainly stop within 50 ft, they can do so in less than 30 ft. So now the distance you gave for 50 MPH is more than enough to have 2 cars traveling at half the speed to to stop in and leave over 15 ft of extra room.
This is the short form of, you don't know what you are talking about. The long form would be teaching a bit of physics, inertia, the friction coefficient of cars, human response time, weather, how the temp of the road changes the friction coefficient of cars, and a few other small things. But let's be real, if you had time for that, you would be reading up on that on your own and figuring it out.
@@imperfectlump6070 Yes, that's the whole point. Your total stopping distance is a heck of a lot different at 55 than it is at 35.
@@microcolonel I accidentally responded to you instead of the original poster. Oops.
"Laws are for thee, but not for me.." I wonder if he gets his weed back? If not, the unlawful traffic stop caused the man "economic harm..."
I am reminded of a story I heard out of a grand jury session: the charge was DUII, driving with a revoked license (DUII), and attempting to elude.
first, the judge and defendant were on a first name basis.
second, the judge asked the officer what his probable cause was, and the officer said, "I recognized him, your honor."
then the judge asked the defendant why he attempted to flee.
"I knew he recognized me, your honor."
I live in Laramie, Wyoming. These cops MAKE UP A REASON to pull you over. Believe me.
Eh, Laramie has far worse cops than Cheyenne. Laramie has the worst cops in the state.
That being said, the reason was "greenie driving slowly" - not a legal reason, but an accurate one.
This has less to do with the speed and more to do with the fact that it was obviously a pretext stop.
Pretext stops are allowed, but you can't break the law to get the pretext. Following too closely was a valid pretext for a stop, but it was invalidated by the fact that the cop had to break the law before he had pretext in order to see him following too closely.
As a Brit, I have to laugh at the ridiculous situation where you allow someone off on this constitutional point and yet still have civil asset forfeiture as legal against the same amendment! If you’re going to have just one of those in favour of law enforcement I’d suggest doing away with civil asset forfeiture would make a lot more sense.
I can only imagine how many people he illegally followed until they broke some kinda minor law. Like barely going over the speed limit or barely touching either line cause he's following them.
Considering the amount of "evidence" that was found, the cop knew it was there, and had to watch for them to commit some traffic violation as pretext to stop them. He sped because he was slow to identify the car as one he was waiting for, and wanted to catch up, instead of calling to have someone down the road watch for them.
WHAAAAT? You mean it wasn't worth putting other drivers lives in danger to keep some kids from getting stoned behind the garage?!......... Who knew?!
See, when he said the trooper was going over 100 mph to catch someone, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I was thinking maybe it was on an interstate. Nope, guy he was trying to catch was going 54, probably in a 45. Which means this happened on a state highway. This cop should get a ticket for reckless driving for sure and be suspended. That's absurd. He could've got someone killed, or totalled the cruiser that WE paid for. Unacceptable behavior
54 in a 55
@@jasonoutman420 well shit, that just makes this even dumber.
80 is an interstate. And they drive like maniacs there speed limit is over 65 most of the way across Wyoming lol
The person had Colorado plates and was going 55 on I-80 outside of Cheyenne. Speed limit was most likely 75. 95+% chance you are smuggling something from Colorado if that is the case.
I'm assuming they confiscated the 42lbs of evidence. Would they be forced to return that evidence? Obviously if they return it then they can charge the guy for possession again, but what if they have destroyed the evidence already? Would they be forced to compensate the person to the "alleged value" of the evidence? That would be a nice little windfall, because those values are always exagerrated.
Wouldn’t this throw out most cases ? (In a perfect world)
No, cause if he had probable cause, or legal Intel/evidence to give probable cause, it would probably be viewed as reasonable.
I find it strange that the court is concentrating on the smaller or less significant crime of an unreasonable traffic stop and not the gross violation of liberty being the illegal search.
Weed is legal in over half the country. Stop with the hate. You alcoholics are no better. I'd argue worse. Weed doesn't kill, drunk driving and alcohol poisoning do.
@Paul Smith if it's legal in more states than it's not, it stands to reason, most people get it from a legal dispensary. I know you're tiny brain will have a hard time with logic. You live in a propaganda bubble.
Untold crime... Translation: I don't have any real data and have to gas light and lie spreading fear. BE AFRAID!!!.... The 1980's want their propaganda back.
It's flipping legal in half the country. You honestly believe everyone in every one of those states are deranged violent criminals?
How sad are you to be so ignorantly arrogantly terrified of things you have no actual idea about?
Supervisor: 'Excellent hunch trooper!'
Trooper: 'Thank you very much sir.'
Supervisor: 'Unfortunately poor execution.'
I can only find Ben when you make it super easy...
He finds some fiendish places to hide it.
Why do i get the feeling the cop already knew this guy was a drug dealers.