Arrest, Search, Seizure, Warrant pulled over and searched without cause or reason

Status
Not open for further replies.

PintoLover

New Member
I was recently pulled over and searched illegally without cause or reason (obstructed tag) when I returned to my home state (MO) I took high resolution photos showing that the tag was not obstructed and then filed the following complaint with the Thomas County Undersheriff: (any advice would be helpful)

RE OBSTRUCTED LICENSE PLATE PULLOVER BY OFFICER TOM****** BADGE *** 3-3-10 1917 HRS

I COLLECT FORD PINTOS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. ON THE ABOVE DATE AND TIME, MY FRIEND AND I WERE RETURNING FROM ST GEORGE UTAH WITH A YELLOW 1972 FORD PINTO RUNABOUT ATTACHED TO THE BACK OF MY 1986 DODGE PICKUP.

THE PHOTOS WILL SHOW THAT WE WERE PULLING THE CAR PROPERLY WITH A TOWBAR AND A 2 INCH BALL. THE PHOTOS WILL ALSO SHOW THAT WE WERE USING PROPER MAGNETIC LIGHTS AS WELL.

MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL, THE PHOTOS WILL CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE LICENSE PLATE WAS MOUNTED PROPERLY AND WAS IN NO WAY OBSTRUCTED OR HIDDEN FROM VIEW.

WE WERE TRAVELING ON I-70 AND WERE PULLED OVER BY OFFICER GRAHAM, COMING TO A STOP IN A REST AREA NEAR COLBY KANSAS.

THE OFFICER TOLD US THAT HE STOPPED US BECAUSE THE REAR LICENSE PLATE WAS OBSTRUCTED FROM VIEW AND ASKED FOR BOTH OF OUR LICENSES AS WELL AS THE REGISTRATION AND PROOF OF INSURANCE AND PROOF OF WHERE WE GOT THE FORD PINTO FROM.

THE OFFICER PLAYED A LITTLE GAME WITH US BY ASKING:
"WHERE ARE YOU COMING FROM" - ST.GEORGE UTAH
"WHERE ARE YOU GOING? - EL DORADO SPRINGS MISSOURI
"WHAT ADDRESS IN EL DORADO SPRINGS MO?" - …ETC

I PROCEEDED TO TELL HIM THE FULL ADDRESS INCLUDING ZIP CODE AND TELEPHONE NUMBER.

HE RESPONDED SARCASTICLY "IS THAT IT OR DO YOU HAVE ANY MORE NUMBERS FOR ME?

WE SHOWED THE OFFICER THE ACTUAL EBAY AUCTION WHERE WE BOUGHT THE CAR FROM. THIS CLEARLY PROVED TO THE OFFICER WHAT WE WERE DOING AND WHY WE WERE IN KANSAS AND ON I-70.

HE THEN TOOK OUR INFORMATION TO HIS CAR AND WAS THERE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES. WHEN HE RETURNED HE GAVE MY FRIEND A WARNING FOR A "OBSTRUCTED LICENSE PLATE" AND THEN SAID "HAVE A NICE DAY", WALKED 3 STEPS AWAY FROM THE TRUCK LIKE HE WAS GOING BACK TO HIS CAR, TURNED AROUND AND CAME BACK TO MY TRUCK AND BEGAN TO ASK US IF WE HAD ANY DRUGS, LARGE SUMS OF MONEY, OR GUNS IN THE TRUCK.

WE SAID NO.

HE THEN DEMANDED TO SEARCH THE TRUCK BY SAYING "DO YOU MIND IF I SEARCH YOU AND YOUR TRUCK?"

WE THEN COMPLIED WITH THE OFFFICER'S DEMANDS BY STEPPING OUT OF THE TRUCK AND STANDING ABOUT 20 FEET AWAY FROM IT IN THE FREEZING COLD.

KEEP IN MIND THAT WE WERE IN A PUBLIC REST STOP AND THAT A CROWD WAS FORMING TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON.

THE OFFICER THEN PROCEEDED TO RIFLE THROUGH ALL OF OUR PERSONAL BELONGINGS NOT REALLY CARING TO PUT THINGS BACK. HE TURNED ON MY FLASHLIGHT AND DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO TURN IT OFF. HE JUST THREW IT BACK ON THE SEAT.

HE THEN PROCEEDED TO OPEN THE PULL THE SEAT COVER UP AND THEN OPENED THE HOOD OF THE TRUCK.

THE CROWD THAT HAD FORMED NO DOUBT THOUGHT WE WERE AMERICA'S MOST WANTED AS WE WERE CERTAINLY BEING TREATED AS WE WERE.

WHEN HE WAS DONE WITH THE TRUCK HE LOOKED OVER AT US AND DEMANDED WITH A SMILE, "DO YOU MIND IF I SEARCH THE PINTO AS WELL?"

WE COMPLIED WITH THE OFFICER'S DEMANDS BY NODDING OUR HEADS.
THE OFFICER THEN PROCEEDED TO RIFLE THROUGH THE PINTO IN THE SAME MANNER AS THE TRUCK AND PULLED THE SEAT COVERS OFF.

ALL THIS TIME HE WAS MAKING CONDENSENDING COMMENTS LIKE "THIS PINTO IS RUST FREE" AND "THEY MUST HAVE REALLY NICE PINTOS IN UTAH"

AFTER HE WAS DONE DISREPECTING OUT PERSONAL PROPERTY HE THEN CALLED US OVER TO THE DASHCAM IN HIS CRISIER AND BEGAN TO VERBALLY DISREPECT US PERSONALLY.

FOR EXAMPLE HE SAID TO MY FRIEND:
"THE REASON I ASKED (DEMANDED) TO SEARCH YOU IS BECAUSE "NORMAL RESPECTABLE PEOPLE" DO NOT TRAVEL FROM STATE TO STATE WITH NO LUGGAGE."

"WE HAVE A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH PEOPLE LIKE YOU RUNNING DRUGS, WEAPONS, AND OTHER ILLEGAL ITEMS THROUGH OUR STATE. "

WHEN MY FRIEND RESPONDED MY SAYING THAT HE HAS BEEN DRIVING OVER 30 YEARS AND IN THAT TIME HAS NEVER BEEN TREATED LIKE THIS, THE OFFICER RESPONDING BY SAYING:

"I TREATED YOU LIKE THIS BECAUSE YOU ARE A CRIMINAL WITH AN EXTENSIVE CRIMINAL HISTORY"

HE THEN TURNED TO ME AND TOLD ME THAT MY DRIVERS LICENSE WAS "FAKE AND INVALID" I ASSURED HIM IT WAS NOT.

HE THEN TREATED ME LIKE I WAS SOME SORT OF FOOL BY ASSURING ME THAT IT WAS INDEED FAKE AND INVALID AND THAT I HAD NO LEGAL PRIVILEGE TO DRIVE.

THE OFFICER THEN JUMPED BACK INTO HIS CAR AND TOOK OFF LIKE A ROCKET OUT OF THE REST STOP EVEN THOUGH THE REST STOP WAS FULL OF PEOPLE.

BASED ON THE ABOVE INFORMATION, HERE ARE THE ELEMENTS OF MY FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST OFFICER GRAHAM:

1.) WE WERE PULLED OVER ILLEGALLY AND WITHOUT REASON AS CLEARLY SHOWN BY THE PHOTOS.
2.) AFTER WE STOPPED WE WERE BOTH VERBALLY DEMEANED AND DISRESPECTED BY THE OFFICER
3.) THAT THE OFFICER CONDUCTED AN ILLEGAL SEARCH OF OUR BELONGINGS
4.) THAT THE OFFICER WITHOUT REASON AND WITH CLEAR INTENT LIED OR OTHERWISE ATTEMPTED TO DECEIVE ME BY MAKING UP A STORY AND ACCUSING ME OF HAVING A "FAKE AND INVALID" DRIVERS LICENSE.
THIS IS A CLEAR CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATION.

BY THE WAY, THE STATE OF MISSOURI HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY ARE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF ISSUING FAKE DRIVERS LICENSES OR ANY OTHER FAKE DOCUMENTS FOR THAT MATTER.

THEE STATE OF MISSOURI HAS CONFIRMED THAT MY LICENSE IS REAL AND VALID AND HAS AN EXPIRATION DATE OF ********

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME
 
You should have stuck to your NO and called his bluff!

This occurs all too regularly on our Interstates.

When you relented, the search wasn't illegal, at least on it's face.

You gave a tacit approval to his Gestapo-like practices.

See what happens with your letter to the Undersheriff.

In the meantime, call him and ask him if he has the video from the officer's car on the day in question.

That should illustrate that your tags were not obscured, and this clown was fishing!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I do not know where you are from, but a question that begins with, "Do you mind if ..." is clearly NOT a "demand" as far as the rest of the country is concerned. Certainly, it will not be a demand as far as the legal system goes.

As far as the license plate being obscured, there will be no real way to prove that the pictures you took were a fair representation of the conditions and status of the plate from the officer's perspective at the time of the contact. Unless he has a dash cam that counters your claim of an unobstructed plate - or admits to making it up - that claim is a push.

Since no criminal allegations appear to have been made, no court matter is forthcoming. That leaves the personnel complaint. At this point, the undersheriff or his/her designee can look into your allegations. Aside from the unprofessional attitude and rudeness, I don't see that there is any true cause of action here that you could substantiate in court.

With luck, the officer will be counseled on his roadside manner. But, as a manager, I would be reluctant to rein in officers from asking for consent to search so long as they do so properly.
 
HE THEN DEMANDED TO SEARCH THE TRUCK BY SAYING "DO YOU MIND IF I SEARCH YOU AND YOUR TRUCK?"

WE THEN COMPLIED WITH THE OFFFICER'S DEMANDS BY STEPPING OUT OF THE TRUCK AND STANDING ABOUT 20 FEET AWAY FROM IT IN THE FREEZING COLD.


That right there is the end of your complaint.
As for the plate, if any portion of it is obstructed so that it can not be read entirely from about 20 feet or so, then it is obstructed. On many pickups the trailer hitch is mounted in such a way that it obstructs the plate. This may not be the case here, but it is very possible there was a legitimate obstruction. "obstruction" is a fairly liberal term.
 
I do not know where YOU come from, but if you expect me or anyone else on this forum with an IQ over 50 to believe that a "friendly Request" from an officer to search you or your vehicle is not a DEMAND then you are a fool. :no:

Just try saying NO and see what happens.

The problem here is that if you or a member of your family would say NO to a "friendly request" to search their car or person IT WOULD GIVE THE OFFICER THE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT HE NEEDS TO DO THE FOLLOWING:

1.) DETAIN YOU FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES IN THE FREEZING COLD FOR A SUPERVISOR OR A CANINE UNIT TO ARRIVE. :eek:

2.)FORCIBLY SUBJECT YOU AND YOUR PROPERTY TO A SEARCH BY A TEAM OF CANINE OFFICERS.:eek:


If you are very, very lucky you will at the very least be humiliated for however long it takes for the dogs to arrive and sniff your crotch and the rest of your belongings.

And if the dog gives any sort of false positive your car and belongings will be impounded for "further investigation"

As for you, you will be stuck on the side of the road at the very best, and in jail if you protest to any of this.


You really have your nerve to say that a "friendly request" is different than an demand:mad:
 
I do not know where YOU come from, but if you expect me or anyone else on this forum with an IQ over 50 to believe that a "friendly Request" from an officer to search you or your vehicle is not a DEMAND then you are a fool.
Legally, such a request and your compliance is going to be seen as consent. Unless he had his hand on his gun and threatened you in some other way, or otherwise indicated you had no choice, ASKING if he could search and you getting out of the car will be seen as consent.

Just try saying NO and see what happens.
And what do you think would happen? Can you point to some objective act or statement by the officer that would indicate that you had no choice but to give in? If not, then your acquiescence without objection will almost certainly be seen as consent.

The problem here is that if you or a member of your family would say NO to a "friendly request" to search their car or person IT WOULD GIVE THE OFFICER THE PROBABLE CAUSE THAT HE NEEDS TO DO THE FOLLOWING:
Legally, not, it would NOT give the officer "probable cause" for a further detention. The fact that he had clearly concluded his prior contact and you were free to go on your way was likely his way of indicating that this request was not a prolongation of the detention. Had you said, "No" and had he then held you there for no other reason to wait for a dog without sufficient, articulable probable cause (and I don't see that he had any at that point) then you would have had a nice lawsuit, or, at the very least good grounds to suppress any evidence that might have been uncovered.

Most officers are trained now to clearly end the contact before they ask for consent to search for that very reason.

You really have your nerve to say that a "friendly request" is different than an demand
No, I have a great many years of experience and practice with the law to know what is seen as consent and what is not. Nothing you wrote would indicate anything other than consent unless you left the threats and arm twisting out of your original post.
 
I am trying to understand your point of view and appreciate your being patient with me, but the officer made it clear that he had the probable cause that you spoke of when made my friend stand before his dashcam and stated:

"The reason I asked to search you is that "normal people" do not go from state to state without luggage."

and again:

"I also made this request because you are a "criminal with a extensive criminal history"" (an open container ticket at age 19 and DUI 17 years ago)

Is it not true that if we would have said no we would have been detained??

Also, what business does this officer have lying to me in the presence of his dashcam by saying that my license was "fake and invalid" ???
 
I am trying to understand your point of view and appreciate your being patient with me, but the officer made it clear that he had the probable cause that you spoke of when made my friend stand before his dashcam and stated:

"The reason I asked to search you is that "normal people" do not go from state to state without luggage."

and again:

"I also made this request because you are a "criminal with a extensive criminal history"" (an open container ticket at age 19 and DUI 17 years ago)

Is it not true that if we would have said no we would have been detained??
As I recall from what you wrote, the officer made those statements AFTER had received consent to search and had conducted the search and not before. You will note, again, the language that he "asked" and "made a request" as opposed to made a demand.

There is certainly a difference between consent freely given and consent that is coerced. But, nothing that you have written thus far indicates to me that the search was not, legally, consensual.

That is not to say that his later demeanor and attitude was appropriate or professional, but that the cause for the search was your consent through acquiescence if not outright agreement.

Now, had you declined to grant consent, the officer would have been forced to detain you further under reasonable suspicion to believe criminal activity was afoot (which might be tough to articulate since he just let you go!) ... or, he would have to articulate probable cause to justify a search. Your refusal to consent to a search is NOT probable cause. Neither is a lack of luggage. However, with sufficient training and experience, and some articulable probable cause to include several elements of a recognized criminal profiling (in this case of drug traffickers, I imagine), the officer just MIGHT have been able to make such an articulation. However, your refusal would have compelled him to pony up that probable cause either at a court proceeding or in an internal investigation. As of now, he does not have to make such an articulation, he need only point to your explicit or implied consent to the search.

Also, what business does this officer have lying to me in the presence of his dashcam by saying that my license was "fake and invalid" ???
He was either not familiar with the license provided and his dispatch could not come up with a record on it, or he was full of bluff and bluster.

The problem with out of state licenses is that if the style changes, they may become unfamiliar to officers in nearby states. Likewise, if an officer runs the license by number or even by name and date of birth, the neighboring state may be slow to respond with anything. In my state it is not uncommon for us to get a result that says there is no match from Oregon, then, 15 or 20 minutes later, a result might come in indicating that the person does indeed have a license. The same sort of delay between the communications of the two state systems or via NCIC may cause a breakdown and resul ina false "no record" response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top