Question for all police officers, deputies, troopers, etc.

[Rookie]

In my experience, that's just as useful as complaining to the ******* officer.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

An officer out actively looking for criminals in the inner city may take a slightly different approach.

See? The traffic stop is OFTEN not a traffic stop.

Stop . . . running . . . your . . . bacon . . . holes!

You are not doing anything wrong. Relax, it's just an infraction.

Really I think if I ran a handgun training school/class I would have traffic scenarios drilled for half a day.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

See, You can write a ticket for someone being a douche but what recourse does the average Joe have when the LEO acts douchey? just sit there and take it. (is "douchey" a word?)

Write the Chief. Cross examination in traffic court (some judges raise eyebrows at police behavior). Sue (depending).

Remember what your dad told ya? Don't wrestle with the pig cause you both get dirty and the pig likes it? Yeah, that.

Be quiet. Take the douchy behavior and eat it. It's just an infraction don't let him goad you.

 

[Denny347]

Clarification question: is the operator of a motor vehicle required to hand over those documents without having been informed why you stopped him?

Follow-up: if someone refused to give you the documents without first being informed of the reason for the stop, how would you proceed?

There is no rule. I've never had an issue because I've never withheld my reason. However, it is generally taught to get the paperwork first THEN give the reason because you don't want to sit there and argue the stop while trying to get ID and a registration.

 

[Denny347]

See, You can write a ticket for someone being a douche but what recourse does the average Joe have when the LEO acts douchey? just sit there and take it. (is "douchey" a word?)

No...I write a ticket for an infraction. My decision COULD be tied to your attitude. I cannot write a ticket for being a douche...that's not a charge.

 

[88GT]

There is no statute that says a driver has to be informed why they were stopped before they have to identify themselves. I tell people why I stopped them so I don't get the refusal too often. If they continue to refuse to identify themselves they may face arrest, depending on how far they want to take it.

Thanks for the info. Is there a specific statute that requires an operator to provide these documents during a traffic stop? I'm not asking for the sake of being antagonistic. I'm trying to square it with the idea that we don't have to provide ID under certain circumstances. And simply being stopped doesn't seem to meet the threshold. At least not until the LEO discloses why the operator was stopped. So I'm not saying the stop is wrong/illegal. But the operator being stopped can't know that unless/until the LEO discloses it. Which makes the requirement to disclose the operator's identity upon request, without being told why, questionable, IMO. I'm trying to understand what looks like a contradiction.

 

[Denny347]

Thanks for the info. Is there a specific statute that requires an operator to provide these documents during a traffic stop? I'm not asking for the sake of being antagonistic. I'm trying to square it with the idea that we don't have to provide ID under certain circumstances. And simply being stopped doesn't seem to meet the threshold. At least not until the LEO discloses why the operator was stopped. So I'm not saying the stop is wrong/illegal. But the operator being stopped can't know that unless/until the LEO discloses it. Which makes the requirement to disclose the operator's identity upon request, without being told why, questionable, IMO. I'm trying to understand what looks like a contradiction.

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

 

[88GT]

IC 34-28-5-3.5
Refusal to identify self
Sec. 3.5. A person who knowingly or intentionally refuses to provide either the person's:
(1) name, address, and date of birth; or
(2) driver's license, if in the person's possession;
to a law enforcement officer who has stopped the person for an infraction or ordinance violation commits a Class C misdemeanor.

I assumed such a statue existed. For the record. I've probably seen it a time or 10 too.

But I guess my question gets a little more real world practical. Yes, if you stop me for an infraction, I have to provide. Here's where I'm having the problem. You've stopped me, and it's for a legitimate infraction/ordinance violation. You ask for my information, but don't tell me why you've stopped me.

I suppose the question really comes down to this: does the LEO making the stop have to inform the individual of the reason for the stop before the individual can be held accountable to the IC you posted? I don't see how you can require compliance if the LEO hasn't disclosed the reason for the stop. FOr how else is the individual to know that his compliance is required?

If I'm walking down the street window shopping and a LEO asks me for my ID, I don't have to provide it just because he asked, do I? He has to articulate a justifiable reasons for the request, and that reason better align with the legally allowable reasons proscribed by law.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Write the Chief. Cross examination in traffic court (some judges raise eyebrows at police behavior) . Sue (depending).

Remember what your dad told ya? Don't wrestle with the pig cause you both get dirty and the pig likes it? Yeah, that.

Be quiet. Take the douchy behavior and eat it. It's just an infraction don't let him goad you.

I've seen someone try to bring up an officer's attitude in traffic court (and no, it wasn't me), and the prosecutor objected to it no being material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation. The judge sided with the prosecutor. I would think most prosecutors would nip that in the bud fairly easily.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

On my phone; short version. It is not required I inform you nor is it up to you to comply or not. Thousands of traffic stops and it's only been an issue once. They were arrested for refusal to id; and picked up a resist charge. Convicted in trial. Appealed. Conviction stood.

 

[Bunnykid68]

On my phone; short version. It is not required I inform you nor is it up to you to comply or not. Thousands of traffic stops and it's only been an issue once. They were arrested for refusal to id; and picked up a resist charge. Convicted in trial. Appealed. Conviction stood.

I think 88 was more interested in the scenario about just walking down the street and not driving.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I think 88 was more interested in the scenario about just walking down the street and not driving.

Is there a specific statute that requires an operator to provide these documents during a traffic stop?

1 character.

 

[Bunnykid68]

If I'm walking down the street window shopping and a LEO asks me for my ID, I don't have to provide it just because he asked, do I? He has to articulate a justifiable reasons for the request, and that reason better align with the legally allowable reasons proscribed by law.

On my phone; short version. It is not required I inform you nor is it up to you to comply or not. Thousands of traffic stops and it's only been an issue once. They were arrested for refusal to id; and picked up a resist charge. Convicted in trial. Appealed. Conviction stood.

This is the one I saw and you were quoting the other one

 

[Captain Morgan]

I've seen someone try to bring up an officer's attitude in traffic court (and no, it wasn't me), and the prosecutor objected to it no being material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation. The judge sided with the prosecutor. I would think most prosecutors would nip that in the bud fairly easily.

So, an officer's attitude is not material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation, yet the majority of officers on here say the attitude of the person being pulled over can determine whether that person gets a warning or a citation. Double standard?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, an officer's attitude is not material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation, yet the majority of officers on here say the attitude of the person being pulled over can determine whether that person gets a warning or a citation. Double standard?

how does is material to a traffic violation that's being contested in court?

 

[jsharmon7]

So, an officer's attitude is not material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation, yet the majority of officers on here say the attitude of the person being pulled over can determine whether that person gets a warning or a citation. Double standard?

Why don't you just take the high road if you feel the officer is being a jerk?

 

[Denny347]

So, an officer's attitude is not material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation, yet the majority of officers on here say the attitude of the person being pulled over can determine whether that person gets a warning or a citation. Double standard?

Life is sometimes not fair. This is one of those times.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

how does is material to a traffic violation that's being contested in court?

Depends. It usually comes in on cross or defendant's direct.

If the prosecution starts objecting to questions regarding police behavior, we know there is a problem and press even harder.

 

[Indiana Camper]

So, an officer's attitude is not material to the facts related to the issuance of the citation, yet the majority of officers on here say the attitude of the person being pulled over can determine whether that person gets a warning or a citation. Double standard?

It seems you're missing the point that the citation is not for the person's attitude. It's for the traffic violation that they committed. In theory if the officer didn't like your shirt that could be a determining factor in you getting a ticket or warning. But that has nothing to do with the infraction. In court the judge will only care about the crime or infraction it's self most likely.

 

[Captain Morgan]

It seems you're missing the point that the citation is not for the person's attitude. It's for the traffic violation that they committed. In theory if the officer didn't like your shirt that could be a determining factor in you getting a ticket or warning. But that has nothing to do with the infraction. In court the judge will only care about the crime or infraction it's self most likely.

I fully understand the citation is for the infraction. You've missed my point that the officer decides whether to issue a ticket or warning based on whether the person is respectful or a jerk. However, the cop is free to be respectful or a complete dick and it has no bearing on the decision of whether the ticket sticks or is thrown out