So my mom said some crazy ****

[bart2278]

My mother said she thought that a law had been passed that gave cops the right to pull a person over for no reason. I find this hard to believe, and I know cops can find any reason to pull you over as it is. Is there any truth to this?

 

[printcraft]

Did mom hear that in a gun shop?

 

[bart2278]

nope lol. She couldn't remember where she heard it. I called bs but I thought I would ask my big brother, INGO, just to make sure.

 

[The Keymaster]

Depends on the cop. For the 99% of the upstanding officers out there the answer is no. There is always the 1% that will find a way even if there is no real probable cause.

 

[lucky4034]

Not officially, but you know... "Sir, you failed to stop completely back there... Did you not see the stop sign?"

 

[Kirk Freeman]

What is your mom's screen name on INGO?

My mom told me that the lifetime LTCH was going away.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Not in the US. Many countries allow any motorist to be stopped for safety inspections, paperwork inspections, etc. but stateside you need reasonable suspicion for a vehicle stop.

 

[mbills2223]

Only VUPD would do such a thing. I think it's the moderator title going to his head.

 

[Jludo]

My grandma thinks the Muslims are going to take over the country

 

[billybob44]

To set the Bait-you do THIS///...

My grandma thinks the Muslims are going to take over the country

^^^NOW that's the way to set the BAIT for the Ban HAMMER...Bill

 

[indyjohn]

Did mom hear that in a gun shop?

I see what you did there...

My grandma thinks the Muslims are going to take over the country

^^^NOW that's the way to set the BAIT for the Ban HAMMER...Bill

Spring loaded even!!! IBTL

 

[KillStick]

Check out the new window tint law, sorta sounds like they can.

 

[KillStick]

Indiana Supreme Court OKs stops for too-dark windows, even if tint is legal : Elections

 

[Jludo]

^^^NOW that's the way to set the BAIT for the Ban HAMMER...Bill

Forgive my ignorance

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Check out the new window tint law, sorta sounds like they can.

Its not new. The law was enacted in 1991 and last modified in 2003. The court case also creates nothing new. If there is reasonable suspicion for the stop, you can make the stop. If it turns out no criminal activity has taken place, that does not nullify the stop.

For example, years ago I stopped a guy for reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. He sat at a green light for much longer than typical, he was weaving in his lane, etc. Do I *know* he's drunk? No. Would a reasonable person have a suspicion that he was drunk? Of course. I pulled him over and he was sober as a judge, but he was playing with his new GPS touch screen doo-dad. If I'd smelled marijauna or saw a dead nun in his passenger seat, I could still go ahead and investigate that because I had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop REGARDLESS of the fact he turned out to be sober.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

 

[Doug]

I'm pretty sure there is always a report of a dark or light colored car or truck suspected of being stolen.
So, unless you're driving a yellow and black striped school bus, they've probably got a reason to check your registration.

 

[Tombs]

I'm pretty sure there is always a report of a dark or light colored car or truck suspected of being stolen.
So, unless you're driving a yellow and black striped school bus, they've probably got a reason to check your registration.

Just recently I was pulled over for no reason and was told by the officer that my registration had an error before I even had my driver's license or registration out.

Apparently the DMV had made a mistake. The name of the shade of silver was incorrect for the shade of silver the vin number said the car was.


Figured they'd just call it in and have a letter sent to you? Didn't seem like a reason to pull someone over.

 

[mrjarrell]

Well, there's no specific law, OP. The fact is, tho, that any cop, at any time, could manufacture or find a reason to pull you over. I'd like to think that they wouldn't commonly do this, tho. Unfortunately, it does happen in some jurisdictions. Driving while black in Carmel or Noblesville is a fairly common one.

 

[CathyInBlue]

Indiana Supreme Court OKs stops for too-dark windows, even if tint is legal : Elections

Its not new. The law was enacted in 1991 and last modified in 2003. The court case also creates nothing new. If there is reasonable suspicion for the stop, you can make the stop. If it turns out no criminal activity has taken place, that does not nullify the stop.

For example, years ago I stopped a guy for reasonable suspicion of drunk driving. He sat at a green light for much longer than typical, he was weaving in his lane, etc. Do I *know* he's drunk? No. Would a reasonable person have a suspicion that he was drunk? Of course. I pulled him over and he was sober as a judge, but he was playing with his new GPS touch screen doo-dad. If I'd smelled marijauna or saw a dead nun in his passenger seat, I could still go ahead and investigate that because I had reasonable suspicion for the initial stop REGARDLESS of the fact he turned out to be sober.

The law in question is inherently subjective in nature. Can the officer identify a person inside an automobile with darkly tinted windows? Can BBI judge that a driver's behaviour more likely than not indicates the driver is impaired, whether by alcohol or, in his case, technophilia? These subjectivities are sufficient to sustain a good faith/reasonable suspicion stop. Note that in Sanders v State, the ISC makes reference to another case, Ransom v State (unsure if it's an ISC or ICA case) where a conviction for an offense only discovered after a detention for the non-existent infraction of reversing up a street was thrown out because there is no subjectivity there. Ransom was pulled over for an infraction that objectively doesn't exist. I'm surprised that in neither ISC nor ICA decisions was there a reference to Gunn v State, which like Ransom involved possession of a handgun without a license. Gunn involved a bogus stop for a left turn violation that objectively didn't exist.

Sanders v State (ISC 49S02-1304-CR-242) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/06251301bd.pdf

Ransom v State (ICA 49A04-0005-CR-199) RANSOM v. STATE, No.?49A04-0005-CR-199., December 28, 2000 - IN Court of Appeals | FindLaw

Gunn v State (ICA 49A02-1102-CR-82) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/10241103pss.pdf