A simple burned out headlight was a lesson to me on how easy police can violate our rights.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
Before he said anything, I politely said, “officer I must have been exceeding the speed limit.” He politely said oh no, the reason I pulled you over was because you had a burned out headlight on the passenger side of your van. A feeling of relief overcame me and I said, “really, I wasn’t aware of that.”

Kinda hard to complain about rights violations when you openly admit guilt and incompetence.

Keep your mouth shut and if they ask you questions, just say, "I don't answer questions". That's it. You are not required to answer their questions or incriminate yourself.

You should probably brush up on your rights before you assume they're being violated.

Here's something that you may not know. You do NOT have to have had a drink to fail a breathalyzer. If you have been recently exposed to certain chemicals you can test positive. A friend of mine is a local cop. A few years ago we were working on repairing a crack in the hull of his fiberglass boat. We had finished and I asked if he wanted to go to the baseball game, he said "no" that he had to do a presentation to the Boy Scouts on DUI. I jokingly told him not to blow into the breathalyzer. The next weekend I went to help finish the boat and he asked why did I tell him not to blow into breathalyzer? It turns out that he did and blew a 0.11. He had to have his wife come get him and drive him to the hospital for a blood test. The test came back negative for Ethyl Alcohol. How ever he did have Naphtha, Toluene and Methyl Ethyl Ketone in his blood. These are what triggered the breathalyzer. Other chemicals like Methyl Alcohol, Isopropyl Alcohol, Gasoline and several others will cause a false positive. Only a blood test will tell for sure. The problem is that you are not always entitled to a blood test. The breathalyzer is assumed to be right in some areas and you are not allowed to challenge it.

A Pennsylvania Supreme Court Justice stated "We do not want a police state, and it seems we are on the precipice of becomming one in the name of DUI."

To those stating that an officer can hold you for hours on a simple traffic stop are wrong in the sense that legally they cannot hold you that long.

While they can bring a K9 to search the area around the car during a traffic stop, they can only hold you for a reasonable amount of time to do so.

The standard of reasonableness has generally been accepted as the length of time it takes to write a citation. Generally speaking, 20 minutes is the time that is used.

Anything after that, a violation of citizen's rights may be occurring.

Of course if there were several citations being written the amount of time would increase slightly.

If an officer ever holds you for longer than 20 minutes (or so) simply because you have a headlight out I would ask to speak to a supervisor immediately.

a reply to: WeRpeons

I had a conversation with a friend of mine that happen to be a lawyer, about how far the police goes when it comes in infringing citizens rights.

This what he said to me.

It is very easy for a police officer to brake the law, because they are told that they are the law and citizens has been drilled no to question their actions

Now we have to think that in this day an times, police officers are trained to handle a variety of situations, but in reality most police officers hardly have any education or require any education to become officers, then they are given big guns to carry all the time, top that with many of them having small town ego, hidden physiological problems and rage, you got the right mix for what is going on right now with the increases in happy trigger events.

Yes the officer didn't have to ask you about the drinking early in the day, but he had the right to ask for drinking prior to driving, now when he asked you about drinking earlier he was just exercising his ego power over you.

a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish

I was absolutely offended! If this is normal protocol to ask drivers if they've been drinking, I think it's wrong. It's like insinuating a person is guilty without having any evidence to the fact. If he saw me driving erratically, smelled alcohol on my breath or in the car, I can fully understand him asking the question!

He had no probable cause to ask. It's one thing if he smelled booze in my vehicle or if he noticed I was driving erratically. I was simply pulled over for a burned out headlight! I was simply being polite enough to wonder if I was exceeding the speed limit. I'm an honest guy I think police appreciate people are being honest with them.

a reply to: WeRpeons

You may have been offended but you shouldn't be - lot of drunks on the road - he's trying to weed them out to protect people like you. I get what you're saying but this is standard questioning in today's world. You can thank the real drunks for that...

No, he didn't ticket me for equipment violations. Hell how can anyone know when their front headlight or tail light goes out while they're driving? I never noticed it and he completely surprised me when he said the light was out. I even asked my wife, does it look like my headlight is out from the inside of the car and she also couldn't tell.

I would have probably been pissed off if he ticketed me for something I wasn't even aware of! The light most likely burned out during the trip home. I still feel it infringes on our rights of having NO PROBABALE CAUSE to even ask the question!

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: MongolianPaellaFish



He had no probable cause to ask. It's one thing if he smelled booze in my vehicle or if he noticed I was driving erratically. I was simply pulled over for a burned out headlight! I was simply being polite enough to wonder if I was exceeding the speed limit. I'm an honest guy I think police appreciate people are being honest with them.

Well, you were driving - at night -without having the presence to notice that your headlight was not working. And you seemed to be unaware of how fast you were going.

I would say that warrants his question fully.

a reply to: Edumakated

Not only did he ask if I had any drinks that night, he asked me if I had been drinking earlier in the morning! What? What reason did he have to further ask me if I had any drinks earlier in the morning. I wasn't the only one that thought it was odd, both my wife and sister-in-law who were in the car felt it odd that he would even ask me the second question!

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

There's absolutely no probable cause to insinuate or ask if I had been drinking let alone asking again if I was drinking earlier in the day. The police shouldn't have the right to insinuate anything without probable reason or cause. It's very similar to DUI traffic stops. They have no right to pull you over without probable cause or to search your vehicle.

no offense, i thought cops looked at vans like 'the vehicle most notorious for being involved in illegal activity'. Just driving a van puts their eyes on you...maybe I'm wrong?

red sports cars?

can you imagine wearing an eye-patch while driving a Ferrari? in the daytime!

they'd cite you for doing 40mph on a devided highway?

next time have one of your friends tied-up in the back with a gag, so when the hero rescues him/her they can laugh together over such a good prank....

oh you want to waste the departments resources on ball gags and funny pranks to upload on the internet?

some brands of headlights can use a good swift lovetap; knock some dust loose-it might start working again?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: schuyler
The officer stopped you to tell you your light was out, and then he LET YOU GO without a ticket AFTER you stupidly suggested and admitted you had been speeding! Oh, the horrors of the police state! You poor poor baby! Get yourself to a safe space and never leave again so you won't be so abused. This is outrageous! When are we going to stand up and stop this? This is obviously worth a multi-page discussion on ATS.

admitting to speeding won't get you a ticket that can withstand a challenge in court. That is just evidence of you misspeaking. Without evidence of a crime, there is no crime.

So? That's a pedantic reply to what I said in my post. Get with the program. Have a little fun with the poor guy who has had his rights trampled upon by the big bad furry cop. OK? Jesus.

a reply to: Sillyolme

No, but I would have had another reason to be pissed-off. lol How many people can tell their headlights are out unless someone notices it and tells you? It was working fine before the trip.

no offense, i thought cops looked at vans like 'the vehicle most notorious for being involved in illegal activity'. Just driving a van puts their eyes on you...maybe I'm wrong?

red sports cars?

can you imagine wearing an eye-patch while driving a Ferrari? in the daytime!

they'd cite you for doing 40mph on a devided highway?

next time have one of your friends tied-up in the back with a gag, so when the hero rescues him/her they can laugh together over such a good prank....

oh you want to waste the departments resources on ball gags and funny pranks to upload on the internet?

some brands of headlights can use a good swift lovetap; knock some dust loose-it might start working again?

a reply to: WeRpeons

No offense, but I wish I had a similar story for my burned out tail light.

They said my taillight was out then called at least 2 other cop cars. I say "at least" because one was blocking traffic by being vertical of my car, and I could see at least one more behind the car who pulled me over. They ran background checks on me, asked me FAR more than what you mentioned, and kept me there for almost an hour during rush hour traffic.

Long story short, I got almost a $200 ticket for a burned out taillight and was followed to the nearest Wal-Mart. Then they stayed in the parking lot until I physically replaced the light bulbs (I went on and replaced them all in the back).

a reply to: seasonal

You can always respectfully decline to answer.

If I respectfully declined to answer, he would have used that as a reason to think I was lying! How does a police officer have the right to give anyone a sobriety test when there is no physical outward appearance, stench of alcohol, erratic behavior or erratic driving observed? To me this is giving them way too much authority to insinuate someone being guilty of absolutely nothing.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Which I had none of above. The only tickets I've received in the 40 years of driving is probably a couple of parking tickets and one speeding ticket I received 20 years ago, lol.

a reply to: loveguy

I rarely get pulled over..but when the cop asked me if I know why "they pulled me over" I say I am not sure....politely answered..but not volunteering info!

you weren't just driving around town that was a trip , in the dark at night...you should have checked your lightsthe cop is doing his job...you didn't get a ticket....like the others said...how many drunks has that cop gotten off the road on a regular basis.....stop being so butt hurt over the whole thing..

if you can't even get out of your car to check the lights (you said your wife couldn't tell any difference thru the window),...pulling up close to the garage door will tell you if both your headlights are working and weather they are pointed correctly

a reply to: Aliensun

No, I just felt it was over-reaching a bit. I could completely understand if he had a genuine reason to ask those questions, but he didn't.

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: seasonal

You can always respectfully decline to answer.

If I respectfully declined to answer, he would have used that as a reason to think I was lying! How does a police officer have the right to give anyone a sobriety test when there is no physical outward appearance, stench of alcohol, erratic behavior or erratic driving observed? To me this is giving them way too much authority to insinuate someone being guilty of absolutely nothing.

Just a note, but there's a difference between DUI's and DWI's. DUI's have a lot of leeway for them, with them being able to charge you simply based on suspicion. I think they still have to give you a field test (the one where you have to walk the line, say your alphabets, follow their hand w/your eyes, etc). But I think you're automatically assumed guilty if you don't take it, (I know you're assumed guilty if you refuse to take a breathaliyzer test if they ask for it).

I served on a jury for a situation like that. But the driver was found not guilty because there was literally no proof of any intoxication nor of any legal or illegal drugs in her car on in her possession. But that didn't stop her from getting initially arrested or having to go to trial over it.