I don't understand why I was pulled over.

[harmonica]

I was driving with two people who were from out of town. As we stopped at a red light, I pointed across the street to an old city landmark. A few street turns later, I was pulled over. The officer asks us for all our IDs and my registration, and we complied and gave them to him.

He then asked what I was doing making signs out the window, of some sort. I wasn't sure what he was talking about, so I asked him when was this, and what I was doing exactly. He said I made some sort of sign, with my arm at (so and so ) street. I remembered I pointed to the landmark, at the street he mentioned, and that's what I told him. That I was showing my friends from out of town, it.

He then took our papers, went back to his car and was on the radio, in his car for around 20 minutes, from after a few minutes had passed, I started timing it. He then came back gave it all back, and told us to have a nice day.

Now I looked it up in the law library books, and asked a law school acquaintance of mine, and there is no law that forbids pointing out a landmark, or pointing out a direction to go. So why was this a big enough deal to stop a car for over 20 minutes? Don't get me wrong, I am very pro police and admire them, but this feels like possible intention harassment or even taking pleasure in wasting other people's time, who has not committed any offense. Unless I missed something?

[Citicop]

No, Harmonica... there's no law that prohibits pointing out a landmark, or pointing out a direction to go. If you searched for "illegally pointing out landmark" you probably wouldn't find anything.

However, many jurisdictions have laws against "extending a hand (or arm) outside a vehicle for purposes other than signalling."

If the officer was polite and professional, I really don't know why you would jump to "harassment or taking pleasure in wasting other people's time" as the first explanation that came to mind...

-Citicop.

[harmonica]

Well it I jumped to wasting people's time, and possible harassment because the whole thing did take 22 minutes, and in the end served no purpose. I think that if one is going to take up that much of someone's time, there should be a point, otherwise it can be logically interpreted as wasting people's time, and therefore could more logically constitute as harassment, especially after the error (my hand pointing), was already cleared, and no more reason to take up more time.

[ChesCopPodz]

It's called fishing. It's what we do when we're not busy with calls and stop people for any and every violation to see what we come up with in the hopes that I find a warrant or suspended driver.

Extending an arm out a window is technically a turn signal. If your state is like mine, you made a turn signal, then didn't turn- a violation. Once a violation has been committed, the officer has the right to check your license and driving record. 22 minutes for a stop isn't unreasonable, especially if the computer system is on the fritz, or dispatch is running slow. The officer (who was most likely fishing), stopped you for it, found nothing when running your license, and "cut you loose" so to speak.

"Harassment" is everyone's favorite buzzword when dealing with the police isn't it? It doesn't matter what your explanation was. Just because it cleared up why you did it, doesn't take away the officers right to run the checks that he did.

What amazes me most is the legwork you put in after a stop in which you didn't get a ticket. I can think of a bunch of things I'd rather be doing with my time than using that time to try to figure out why I wasn't given a ticket.

[harmonica]

Oh I see. Well then I admit I made a violation then. No problem admitting it here. And yes the harrassment is the wrong word. I didn't mean it the stereotypical way it's used in these matters. Unreasonable is a better word I should have used.

I agree cops have the right to run checks. Didn't mean to imply that I wasn't. It was just the long amount of time that concerns me. However, what amount of time would be unreasonable? Just asking out of curiosity cause I wanna be fair. I mean say, you a fellow officer, was off duty, and pulled over by another officer, for an accidental error, in the same league mine. That's no problem to be pulled, perfectly legal and nothing wrong with it.

But say the officer, took, 30 minutes or, 1 hour, or 3 hours? Say you were 3 hours late, on getting it your own wedding because of it, or something just as important, or more. Would you consider that to be unreasonable, not even just a little? If the officer's computer was on the fritz, couldn't he just take down my information, give me my papers back, and let me go... Then later, when the computer was back up and running, he could then access my information and see if there is anything wrong?

Since he has my info, he knows where to find me in case anything comes up. Do officers ever feel guilty if a delay can cost something, such a missed appointment, and then money waisted, or just more harm being done than good in general? I mean of course you don't feel guilty if you have something on her person, and the computer is working fine, but if you don't know, and the slow computer is costing the person money?

[mcsap]

The standard for me to stop you is Reasonable Suspicion. If all I have is RS that you committed some sort of an offense, I can stop you.

Once I have that out of the way , I have the legal authority to check you and your friends out. Running people from out-of-state takes longer than running them locally. I will also run your driving record and your car registration and insurance. The time constraint placed on me ( legally ) is 2 hours.

You consider it a waste of time because YOU know you are legal. I consider it an investment of time because I don't know if you and your pals are the next Bonnie and Clyde team. I can and do find people with warrants , expired this and suspended that all from simple traffic stops. People that are wanted , people who don't have a license and if in a crash with a legal person will take off. People with drugs and guns etc.

Sure , cops like to go fishing. All we need is that RS that a violation was committed and we can fish, fish , fish. By doing this sort of traffic enforcement we FIND stuff. Stuff that we wouldn't have found if we sat there and only stopped the most blatant of vioaltions.

I stopped a car for a registration light once and got a 1/2 pound of MJ.

We do this to get " bad " people off of the street so good people aren't effected by them.

Good people like you.

[Kimble]

So what book/screenplay is this one for?

[Joeyd6]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the police, with reasobable suspicion can delay you for a reasponable amount of time. Start to finish with 3 people...22 minutes is well within reason. Figure four minutes while at your car to start......that is 18 minutes left......5 minutes on each person and making the appropiate notes.....three minutes to give you your stuff back.

Maybe you don't realize it, but maybe you pointed at a known drug location or prostitution point, etc....

[harmonica]

Okay that's fair. I just didn't think it counted as reasonable suspicion to point out a landmark or something. As far as I know there is no location for criminal activity there since it's more of a touristy place, right next to city hall. But who knows. My friends were from out of state so the computer would not have taken longer because of that. They just lived in a different city. I have been pulled over before, and not minded, because I felt glad that the police were doing there duty, and I was glad to comply. Since I didn't know realize that the pointing caused reasonable suspicion in this case, I didn't know what to think at first.

So out of curiosity, when it comes to fishing, would it be more progressive to run the license plates of 15 people that go buy in 20 minutes, rather than just holding a single car for 20 minutes? That way you go through more fish without having to hold onto pull overs perhaps?

[Kimble]

As far as I know there is no location for criminal activity there since it's more of a touristy place, right next to city hall. But who knows.

As you stated, as far as you know. Doesn't mean that's absolutely the case or not.

So out of curiosity, when it comes to fishing, would it be more progressive to run the license plates of 15 people that go buy in 20 minutes, rather than just holding a single car for 20 minutes? That way you go through more fish without having to hold onto pull overs perhaps?

Maybe in one of our books or screenplays where real life isn't happening, but in the real world not all police cars have in-car computers (yes, even in 2011 this is the case), and just like any computer technical issues can occur. In a perfect world things happen fast without problems, but this is the real world and having to wait about 20 minutes on a traffic stop is not unreasonable.

[mcsap]

Okay that's fair. I just didn't think it counted as reasonable suspicion to point out a landmark or something. As far as I know there is no location for criminal activity there since it's more of a touristy place, right next to city hall. But who knows. My friends were from out of state so the computer would not have taken longer because of that. They just lived in a different city. I have been pulled over before, and not minded, because I felt glad that the police were doing there duty, and I was glad to comply. Since I didn't know realize that the pointing caused reasonable suspicion in this case, I didn't know what to think at first.

So out of curiosity, when it comes to fishing, would it be more progressive to run the license plates of 15 people that go buy in 20 minutes, rather than just holding a single car for 20 minutes? That way you go through more fish without having to hold onto pull overs perhaps?

And I have done that. But I would then only stop cars with registration violations. The other way I can stop anyone that I have RS to believe that they committed an offense. I go " tag fishing " all of the time when I work the road. Late night at a convenience store is a GREAT place to run plates

[pac201]

I was driving with two people who were from out of town. As we stopped at a red light, I pointed across the street to an old city landmark. A few street turns later, I was pulled over. The officer asks us for all our IDs and my registration, and we complied and gave them to him.

He then asked what I was doing making signs out the window, of some sort. I wasn't sure what he was talking about, so I asked him when was this, and what I was doing exactly. He said I made some sort of sign, with my arm at (so and so ) street. I remembered I pointed to the landmark, at the street he mentioned, and that's what I told him. That I was showing my friends from out of town, it.

He then took our papers, went back to his car and was on the radio, in his car for around 20 minutes, from after a few minutes had passed, I started timing it. He then came back gave it all back, and told us to have a nice day.

Now I looked it up in the law library books, and asked a law school acquaintance of mine, and there is no law that forbids pointing out a landmark, or pointing out a direction to go. So why was this a big enough deal to stop a car for over 20 minutes? Don't get me wrong, I am very pro police and admire them, but this feels like possible intention harassment or even taking pleasure in wasting other people's time, who has not committed any offense. Unless I missed something?

He answered your question...

[Reapp]

Okay that's fair. I just didn't think it counted as reasonable suspicion to point out a landmark or something. As far as I know there is no location for criminal activity there since it's more of a touristy place, right next to city hall. But who knows. My friends were from out of state so the computer would not have taken longer because of that. They just lived in a different city. I have been pulled over before, and not minded, because I felt glad that the police were doing there duty, and I was glad to comply. Since I didn't know realize that the pointing caused reasonable suspicion in this case, I didn't know what to think at first.

So out of curiosity, when it comes to fishing, would it be more progressive to run the license plates of 15 people that go buy in 20 minutes, rather than just holding a single car for 20 minutes? That way you go through more fish without having to hold onto pull overs perhaps?

I guess the point you are missing is that it doesn't matter what you said you did, it matters what the officer thought you did. The courts have consistently held that an officer may stop a person or vehicle if he has a reasonable belief that a crime has been or will be committed, doesn't matter that he may have been mistaken (that falls under the good faith doctrine).

[scott715us]

However, what amount of time would be unreasonable?

That's up for a court to decide. Based on the information you provided, twenty-two minutes isn't unreasonable. I've never timed a traffic stop, so that's interesting.

[harmonica]

Okay thanks. I understand that 22 minutes may not be unreasonable for since I am the one who stuck my hand out. The one committing a possible offense, the driver. However, what if one of the passengers with me say had a doctors appointment, and as a result of the cop running his papers, he ends up not making the appointment in time, and still has to pay.

I understand that the person committing the offense, has to face the consequences, but when you do it keep an innocent bystander held up and money is lost as a result, such as in a case like that, would you feel that it was unreasonable or any compensation may be in order? It just seems that maybe it's unreasonable for the persons who didn't do anything wrong per say.