 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / March 2007Driving too slow no reason for stop
Driving too slow no reason for stop Ohio court tosses DUI conviction BY DAN HORN | ENQUIRER.COM Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says. The Ohio 1st District Court of Appeals threw out the conviction of a Cincinnati man after concluding that police were wrong to have pulled him over for driving about 20 mph below the speed limit. "Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday. Judges Lee Hildebrandt Jr. and Ralph Winkler joined in the decision. Ohio law allows police to charge motorists for driving too slow, but only if they are creating a hazard or impeding traffic. Because neither occurred in this case, the appeals court ruled, the traffic stop was unconstitutional. Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just as hazardous as driving too fast. "When somebody is driving 45 miles per hour on the expressway, it could cause a great danger to others," Deters said. "We think police have probable cause to stop someone driving in that fashion." The case began in November 2004 when Blue Ash police pulled over Brandon Bacher on Interstate 71. Police clocked him driving 23 mph below the 65 mph speed limit. The officer reported that Bacher, 25, smelled of alcohol, failed a sobriety test and complained about being stopped. At one point, he told police that he "was not driving all that fast." The officer charged Bacher with driving too slow and operating a vehicle under the influence. Bacher's attorney, Matthew Ernst, said the evidence of drunken driving is inadmissible because the traffic stop was unconstitutional. In the court's opinion, Painter noted that Bacher clearly was intoxicated and said the court's ruling should not be seen as vindication. In an unusual reference for an appeals court, Painter quoted comedian Ron White's standup performance "Tater Salad" when referring to Bacher's post-arrest behavior: "Clearly Bacher had the right to remain silent, but not the ability." http://tinyurl.com/37v9wm - "Prosecutor Joe Deters on Monday said he would appeal the decision to the Ohio Supreme Court, arguing that driving too slow can be just as hazardous as driving too fast." I guess the OH SC might be that stupid, but I'd bet they're not. ----- - gpsman > Driving too slow no reason for stop > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > > - gpsman Makes me wonder what the posted minimum is in Ohio. It's 40 in Missouri and 45 in Illinois and Indiana. If the posted minimum is less whan what the DUI guy was driving, I can see the judge's point. That does not excuse the driver's behavior. >> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to >> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says. And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen. >> "When somebody is driving 45 miles per hour on the expressway, it >> could cause a great danger to others," Deters said. "We think police >> have probable cause to stop someone driving in that fashion." Really? On some expressways in the chicago area faster than 45mph is *speeding*. Never mind that traffic is doing 65-70 > Really? On some expressways in the chicago area faster than 45mph is > *speeding*. Never mind that traffic is doing 65-70 Yes, I've seen that and that kind of situation pisses me off. If you're not a local and come upon an unusually low speed zone on a freeway you take it seriously and slow down (at least I do). If the locals however do not take the sign seriously it creates a dangerous situation because of resulting large speed differentials. So the cops should either enforce the limit or remove the sign. > So the cops should either enforce the limit or remove the sign. There's one I agree with! On Feb 27, 11:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172601769.329273.294...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, MLOM wrote: > >> Driving too slow on the highway is not reason enough for police to > >> stop someone on suspicion of drunken driving, an appeals court says. > > And so goes the claim that such stops don't happen. <snip> So you still don't see the difference between being stopped for legal cause and 'driving slow' ? He wasn't stopped 'for driving slow'. He was stopped 'for suspicion of DUI'. There is a world of difference there. The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the stop just as the judge ruled Harry K > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > was stopped 'for suspicion of DUI'. There is a world of difference > there. Driving slow was the cause for suspicion of DUI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH! > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the > stop just as the judge ruled That doesn't change the fact that over the years I've been told in this group that stops for 'suspicion of DUI' where the 'suspicion' is driving too slow don't happen. I've been told I was paranoid when I related stories of cops following me when I drove 'slowly' (aka the posted speed limit or just slightly slower) when I knew damn well they were following me waiting for the ticky-tackiest violation to pull me over for. This court case is proof what I say does happen. Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something... On Feb 27, 10:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172635499.532887.32...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is > say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something... And the local cops are the stickiest. Go through a small town some time, they treat any car that they do not immediately recognize (as in being acquainted with the driver) as a suspect of some sort. I usually am my most paranoid in Overland Park, Kansas: posted speed limit on the Interstate is 60, traffic flows 65-70, and I'm usually expecting to be stopped for 2 violations: speeding and disrupting traffic flow. That has not happened, knock on wood. Any speeding ticket is minimum $100 because it's the land of minimum $1/4M new housing construction and expect everyone to be flowing in cash. > On Feb 27, 10:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. Now you can't do much about the 'attention' in a small town, but driving in a manner that sticks out from the herd is bad. The OP is a good example of that. Harry K > Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. Now you > can't do much about the 'attention' in a small town, but driving in a > manner that sticks out from the herd is bad. The OP is a good example > of that. In other words, drive a boring car like everyone else, drive only at times everyone else drives, drive only at the speeds everyone else drives, think like everyone else, dress like everyone else, don't have anything original to say, don't do anything different or the government will stomp on you. Just give in and conform and be controlled. Except, being like everyone else also involves violating law so the government can still stomp on you if it wants. So much for land of the free, home of the brave. Brave enough to be different, brave enough to let others be different. If someone wants to drive a bright yellow art car that is painted as if picaso did it while on crack at 2am on tuesday at 5mph under the posted limit in the right lane, that's his business and should not invite interference by government's thugs just because he sticks out in a crowd. On Feb 28, 8:40 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172678026.524111.65...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. Now you [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > limit in the right lane, that's his business and should not invite > interference by government's thugs just because he sticks out in a crowd. If you wish to take it to extremes I suppose but the discussion is on driving. Harry K > Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. Where? In Nazi Germany? > > Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. > > Where? In Nazi Germany? These days it's starting to apply in the People's Republic of America. >> > Yep. The basic rule is 'don't draw attention to yourself'. >> >> Where? In Nazi Germany? > > These days it's starting to apply in the People's Republic of America. People's Republic is right.... China is the model for the future and there is chinese saying that the nail that sticks up gets pounded down or something to that effect. On Feb 27, 8:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172635499.532887.32...@k78g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Feb 27, 11:11 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Driving slow was the cause for suspicion of DUI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DUH! And you find it surprising that that has to be pointed out to you? > > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the > > stop just as the judge ruled [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is > say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something... So you _do_ see the difference. Your stories of not being stopped after 'driving slowly' show that. Noone, not even once, has claimed that driving slowly won't draw attention to yourself. When you can give a cite showing a citation reading 'stopped for driving slowly" (other than a violation of a minimum speed law), then your stance will have validity. Even your reply above shows you understand the difference between the 'cause for suspicion' and 'reason for stop'. And note that the judge threw the case because that 'cause' was insufficient. Harry K > On Feb 27, 8:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And you find it surprising that that has to be pointed out to you? What is your malfunction harry? I have been posting here for years that driving 'too slow' is suspicion of DUI. >> > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the >> > stop just as the judge ruled >> That doesn't change the fact that over the years I've been told in this >> group that stops for 'suspicion of DUI' where the 'suspicion' is driving [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> me waiting for the ticky-tackiest violation to pull me over for. This >> court case is proof what I say does happen. >> Of course that doesn't change the one in texas.... All a cop has to do is >> say it fits a pattern of drug runners or something... > So you _do_ see the difference. Your stories of not being stopped > after 'driving slowly' show that. Noone, not even once, has claimed > that driving slowly won't draw attention to yourself. > When you can give a cite showing a citation reading 'stopped for > driving slowly" (other than a violation of a minimum speed law), then > your stance will have validity. Are you on crack harry? I've never argued someone would be cited for going to slow, only that you can obey the law which is going so slow as to be suspicious and get pulled over, or drive the speed of traffic and get pulled over for violating the law. My point, as it has been for years, is that low speed limits are used as an end run around constitutional protection. It creates a situation where the governments' police forces can stop us at will, just because they want to. > Even your reply above shows you understand the difference between the > 'cause for suspicion' and 'reason for stop'. Your reply shows you don't have a clue of what I have been getting at and merely wish to be insulting. If you haven't been paying attention in the last many years, then don't bother replying. > And note that the judge threw the case because that 'cause' was > insufficient. Which isn't going to end people getting stopped for driving slower than the normal speed. Also, the previous case in this group, the judge decided it was sufficient because the driver's route and time of day matched a profile. So just make up a profile. On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172677837.358696.90...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Feb 27, 8:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 66 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It would help to use a word other than "suspicion" maybe you could replace it with "hunch." Reasonable suspicion is a legal conclusion and term of art--its definition should be detatched from the everyday meaning of the word "suspicion". On Feb 28, 11:41 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] > and term of art--its definition should be detatched from the everyday > meaning of the word "suspicion". And that is exactly what this case is about - the assertion that driving slowly (albeit legally) is *SUSPICIOUS* in the legal sense of the word. nate > On Feb 28, 11:41 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > > - Show quoted text - And it isn't--legally speaking. On Feb 28, 1:49 pm, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 28, 11:41 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And it isn't--legally speaking. Apparently, according to this decision, you are correct. However, this is a very recent decision. Plenty of police officers will disagree with it, and I have to say that although legally speaking I think that the decision is correct, out in the real world, they do have a point. anyone driving 20 MPH or more below the speed of traffic *is* suspicious (dictionary definition, not legal,) whether or not they are driving legally or no. This is, of course, why our speed limits should reflect actual road conditions. nate > On Feb 28, 1:49 pm, joel6...@gmail.com wrote:> On Feb 28, 1:33 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > nate We are not talking about the real world. We are talking about the 4th Amendment and whether under the totality of the circumstances the stop was constitutional. This is not a new issue. See fn15 of the decision. >>On Feb 28, 1:49 pm, joel6...@gmail.com wrote:> On Feb 28, 1:33 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > was constitutional. This is not a new issue. See fn15 of the > decision. It's not a new issue, but the 4th amendment is all but dead anyway. Still, it's a good decision. The fact remains, however, that this is just Ohio and that cops everywhere else will continue to consider unusually slow drivers as suspicious. It's too bad that the same reasoning could not have been applied to sobriety checkpoints. If nothing else it pisses me off to have to wait in line for half an hour just because I *might* be driving drunk - and the only reason they have to be suspicious is that I'm out late at night and behind the wheel of a car. nate  Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - But you see, the fourth amendment's exclusionary rule acts as a deterrent to unconstitutional searches/seizures. Problem is innocent citizens who are unconstitutionally stopped have no incentive to complain b/c there is no evidence to suppress. So only guilty criminals have incentive to challenge the constitutionality of the stop . . . it is certainly a two-edged sword . . . but in my view a small price to pay curtail over zealous searches. > joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Well...the judge didn't rule that 'driving slow' is not suspicious. He ruled that it takes more than _just_ driving slow to warrant the stop. Driving slow draws the attention then wandering out of lane would be enough additional...at least out here in the boonies it would. Harry K On Feb 28, 8:41 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > - Show quoted text - True but when it comes to the courtroom the judge is looking for 'probable cause' for the stop, i.e., was there a legal reason to make the stop. I really can't think of another term other than 'suspicion (of DUI say)' that fits. > On Feb 28, 8:41 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 85 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Actually the judge is looking for "reasonable suspicion" (and reasonable suspicion is a lesser standard than probable cause). And that is why, when discussing the 4th Amendment, the word suspicion has dual meanings--the legal and the everyday meaning. For legal reasonable suspicion to exist a court uses a totality of the circumstances analysis--as the court in Terry v. Ohio states "there must be some reasonable articulable suspicion that criminal activity is afoot." Only then is there reasonable suspicion as required under the 4th Amendment. NOTE that the test is a totality of the circumstanceS (plural) test, and even innocent acts can give rise to the suspicion. But driving slow is but one factor. There must be more to support the stop. On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: <brevity snip> > My point, as it has been for > years, is that low speed limits are used as an end run around > constitutional protection. It creates a situation where the governments' > police forces can stop us at will, just because they want to. An LEO can pull you over for nothing, anytime he wants. It's always been that way, and it will always remain that way, for at least as long as it might be a problem for you. So you have no point. ----- - gpsman > On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > So you have no point. not legally, he can't. If a police officer pulls you over for no reason at all, you should be able to file a complaint. nate On Feb 28, 4:22 pm, "N8N" <njna...@hotmail.com> wrote: <brevity snip> > > An LEO can pull you over for nothing, anytime he wants. > > not legally, he can't. If a police officer pulls you over for no > reason at all, you should be able to file a complaint. So? You can file your complaint and/or a lawsuit, for all the good it'll do ya. You could even "win", for all the good that'll do ya. You've still been stopped, for nothing. And Brent still has no point. ----- - gpsman > An LEO can pull you over for nothing, anytime he wants. It's always > been that way, and it will always remain that way, for at least as > long as it might be a problem for you. You wish, in your totalitarian delirium. No, he cant. Cop cars have video cameras nowadays, the cop needs to have probable cause and those video or radar recordings should show at least some evidence to back up the cops suspicions. 223rem <223rem@gmail.com> wrote in news:P72dnejlQ5BeanjYnZ2dnUVZ_o- knZ2d@insightbb.com: >> An LEO can pull you over for nothing, anytime he wants. It's always >> been that way, and it will always remain that way, for at least as [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > video or radar recordings should show at least some evidence to back up > the cops suspicions. Bull;the fact that police do DUI roadblocks demonstrates they don't need probable cause.They just pull over whoever passes by and begin their interrogation,looking for WHATEVER they can find;ABSOLUTELY NO PC! Otherwise,DUI RBs would be illegal,as they should be. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > Bull;the fact that police do DUI roadblocks demonstrates they don't need > probable cause.They just pull over whoever passes by and begin their > interrogation,looking for WHATEVER they can find;ABSOLUTELY NO PC! > > Otherwise,DUI RBs would be illegal,as they should be. Playing the devil's advocate: The difference is that in alcohol checks they stop everybody instead of singling someone out on a whim. I was only once stopped in DUI check. It was near Toronto, and the officer just sniffed me, and let me go without any conversation taking place. No interrogation took place. > I was only once stopped in DUI check. It was near Toronto, and the > officer just sniffed me, and let me go without any conversation taking > place. No interrogation took place. He didn't ask to see your papers? Check that you had made papement to the insurance industry? Make sure you weren't a member of alqueda? I think the next time I'll just do a nazi salute and say "heil bush" before I hand over my papers.... or maybe address the officer as "comrade". >> Bull;the fact that police do DUI roadblocks demonstrates they don't >> need probable cause.They just pull over whoever passes by and begin [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Playing the devil's advocate: The difference is that in alcohol checks > they stop everybody instead of singling someone out on a whim. No,the tactic is to pull over 10 cars randomly,and let the rest pass(if there are more backing up). Of course,if you happen to be the sole passerby,then you're it. But the police STILL had NO probable cause to pull you over. Whether they did it in a group or singly is not relevant. They interfered with your right of free movement. > I was only once stopped in DUI check. It was near Toronto, and the > officer just sniffed me, and let me go without any conversation taking > place. No interrogation took place. In US areas,roadblock police ask where you're going,where you came from,and often stick a alk-sniffing flashlight in your window,giving you a "Breathalyzer" test without your knowledge.And they are also looking in the car for any exposed contraband,front and back seats. They look for slurred speech,eye-response when their flashlight is shined in your eyes,along with any smell of alk or MJ. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > In US areas,roadblock police ask where you're going,where you came from, How is that any of their business? You talk from experience, or being paranoid? > > In US areas,roadblock police ask where you're going,where you came from, > > How is that any of their business? You talk from experience, or being > paranoid? The aren't even interested in the answers. They just want to hear you talking to see if you are slurring, etc. Harry K > 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote in news:P72dnejlQ5BeanjYnZ2dnUVZ_o- > k...@insightbb.com: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > at > kua.net DUI roadblocks are a thing aside from the normal. The courts have ruled they are valid but must adhere to strict requirements, i.e., _all_ vehicles must be stopped (or at least all vehicles of a class - all passenger cars for example). They can't pick and choose. Harry K > > 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote in news:P72dnejlQ5BeanjYnZ2dnUVZ_o- > > k...@insightbb.com: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes, see Michigan v. Sitz. The best chance to make a road block unconsitutional is to attack the requirement and/or selection process of the cars being pulled over. As you said, there is no picking and choosing for road blocks. A whole other issue. > ruled they are valid but must adhere to strict requirements, i.e., > _all_ vehicles must be stopped (or at least all vehicles of a class - > all passenger cars for example). They can't pick and choose. Every checkpoint I've seen involved some sort of picking and choosing. Maybe it was just a pattern, but none was really decernable other than they had too many vehicles stacked up so they let people by until space opened up. On Mar 1, 10:57 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172762969.887258.87...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > ruled they are valid but must adhere to strict requirements, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they had too many vehicles stacked up so they let people by until space > opened up. It must be random. > In article <1172762969.887258.87...@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > ruled they are valid but must adhere to strict requirements, i.e., [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > they had too many vehicles stacked up so they let people by until space > opened up. Well, yes, true. Once they start stopping, they can't pick and choose, have to stop every car until they have enough 'victims' then let traffic go and repeat. Hrry K >> 223rem <223...@gmail.com> wrote in news:P72dnejlQ5BeanjYnZ2dnUVZ_o- >> k...@insightbb.com: [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Harry K They now pull 10 cars at "random". UNLESS you are the sole auto passing by,or there's less than 10 autos when they fill up their queue. SignatureJim Yanik jyanik at kua.net > On Feb 28, 11:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: <brevity snip> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > - gpsman Legally he can't. Does it happen? Sure. Does it get thrown out of court? Yes. Is it thrown out of court often enough? Not by a long shot. When I was acting as court bailiff one day vetting the "Probable Cause Booking Sheets", I spotted one where the officer found some drugs during the 'search incident to'. I got it tossed because his only reason for the stop was "observed subject signal and make a left turn". There were other causes but that was all that he put on the sheet. Harry K Harry K On Feb 28, 8:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172677837.358696.90...@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > On Feb 27, 8:16 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > What is your malfunction harry? I have been posting here for years that > driving 'too slow' is suspicion of DUI. Correction. You have been posting for years that you could be stopped _legally_ for nothing more than driving slowly. I see that you have now modified your stance to agree with reality. I also have never argued that people _don't_ get stopped for it. > >> > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the > >> > stop just as the judge ruled [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > On Feb 28, 8:32 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 71 lines] > > decided it was sufficient because the driver's route and time of day > > matched a profile. So just make up a profile.- Hide quoted text - You do see that in the case you justs referenced the judge in effect said it took more than just driving slow?..."because the drivers route..." etc. Harry K > You do see that in the case you justs referenced the judge in effect > said it took more than just driving slow?..."because the drivers > route..." etc. Yes. But that's a factor a cop could simply make up. On Feb 28, 11:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172719531.426111.198...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > You do see that in the case you justs referenced the judge in effect > > said it took more than justdrivingslow?..."because the drivers > > route..." etc. > > Yes. But that's a factor a cop could simply make up. It isn't illegal for an officer to pull someone over--even for driving slow alone, BUT the U.S. Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio required that any evidence gained by an unconstitutional stop (the slow driving sans other indicia of impairment is considered unconstitutional) must be suppressed. So what we are REALLY talking about is whether the evidence can be used against the driver, and not whether it is legal or illegal for the officer to make the stop (because that is a misnomer). So the result is that if an officer pulls you over for driving too slow alone, absent a minimum speed limit, any evidence obtained should be suppressed (excluded)--in this case the initial stop was unconstitutional so all of the evidence (field sobriety tests etc.) was suppressed. Of course in most cases the driver is innocent and we never hear about the stop b/c there is no motivation for the innocent driver to challenge the constitutionality of the stop--i.e. no evidence to suppress. Remember most officers now have cruiser cam, so it would be hard for an officer to "make up" reasonable suspicion to stop. But in the majority of cases the officer will follow the slow driver in an attempt to adduce the requisite reasonable suspicion, that is, wait for the car to swerve, cross the center line, or anything else that might indicate drunk driving. That did not happen in Bacher. And remember the sole purpose of the exclusionary rule is to deter officers from making unwarranted/unconstitutional stops by excluded the fruits (evidence) adduced from that stop. > On Feb 28, 11:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > It isn't illegal for an officer to pull someone over--even for driving > slow alone, Bull. The government is not to detain people will-nilly, anyone with cursory understanding of our rights knows that. Trouble is, the government doesn't care about its limits and most people don't know where those limits are. > BUT the U.S. Supreme Court in Mapp v. Ohio required that > any evidence gained by an unconstitutional stop (the slow driving sans [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > or illegal for the officer to make the stop (because that is a > misnomer). unconstitutional means it wasn't legal. > In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 28, 11:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > unconstitutional means it wasn't legal. I have, at minimum, a cursory understanding of the 4th Amendment. And I respectfully disagree, unconstitutional does not equal illegal. >> In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: >> > On Feb 28, 11:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > I have, at minimum, a cursory understanding of the 4th Amendment. And > I respectfully disagree, unconstitutional does not equal illegal. Government is bound by law, what are acts prohibited by law if not illegal? If it is unconstitutional, it is prohibited by law. Actually when it comes to violating rights, there should be a stronger term than simply illegal, but even so, illegal would be part of it. > In article <1172758823.025965.76...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > >> In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Again, I disagree. There most certainly is a distinction between illegal and unconstitutional. Illegal refers most specifically to violations of statutes or codified rules. There is no law prohibiting officers from pulling a car over for going to slow, and there are no criminal sanctions for the same. But it is unconstitutional. We are clearly speaking different languages. On Mar 1, 9:52 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > In article <1172758823.025965.76...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - too slow* >>In article <1172758823.025965.76...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > criminal sanctions for the same. But it is unconstitutional. We are > clearly speaking different languages. I'm following Brent here... what is the Constitution but the ultimate law of the land? nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Ok the consitution applies to state action. So state action that is wrongful is most properly unconstitutional. Statutes and codes apply to citizens making citizens' actions illegal but not unconstitutional. And you would be hard pressed to find a decision describing a fourth amendment violation as illegal. But it might be out there. As applied to the 4th Amendment it is more correct to refer to a violation as unconstitutional--as mentioned illegal connotes a violation of statute or code, the penalty for which is usually criminal sanctions. There are no criminal santions for violating the 4th amendment. >> > Again, I disagree. There most certainly is a distinction between >> > illegal and unconstitutional. Illegal refers most specifically to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> I'm following Brent here... what is the Constitution but the ultimate >> law of the land? > Ok the consitution applies to state action. So state action that is > wrongful is most properly unconstitutional. Statutes and codes apply [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > usually criminal sanctions. There are no criminal santions for > violating the 4th amendment. Government has made countless acts of driving and parking illegal but not criminal. Illegal parking, being caught by a red light camera, and other things. All illegal, but not criminal. The government makes them non-criminal to ease the revenue machinery, but that is beside the point. It's been made quite clear that for something to be illegal it doesn't require a criminal penalty or even any penalty at all. The concept of the USA is that *GOVERNMENT* is bound by law. Its actions, the actions of its employees, etc can very well be illegal regardless if or what penalties might be imposed on individuals. Not to mention the fact that beyond a certain point, the founders intended the government to be overthrown and replaced. > I'm following Brent here... what is the Constitution but the ultimate > law of the land? He is saying that there could be a law that will be shown to be unconstitutional (by the supreme court). Acting against the law before it was struck down was illegal, but not unconstitutional in ultimate analysis. Slavery laws, for example. > Again, I disagree. There most certainly is a distinction between > illegal and unconstitutional. Illegal refers most specifically to > violations of statutes or codified rules. The Constitution (including The Bill of Rights and all the other Amendments) is law. It is in fact the supreme law of our country. It's not just a bunch of suggestions. > There is no law prohibiting > officers from pulling a car over for going to slow, There is a law against unreasonable search and seizure. Pulling someone over just for going too slow is unreasonable. If they are pulled over for violating a minimum speed limit or obstructing traffic, then it is not unreasonable. > and there are no > criminal sanctions for the same. That's irrelevant. > But it is unconstitutional. We are > clearly speaking different languages. On Mar 1, 6:52 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > In article <1172758823.025965.76...@n33g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > >> In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Yes we are apparently. I have been trying to come up with 'why' a cop would pull someone over if he has no reason to...in your instance when he was driving too slow. I can't think of an example, could you provide one? You obviously do know your law but I am having a hard time believing that something that is unconstitutional isn't also illegal - can you provide a sample? Of course I am used to lawyers being able to twist language till it squeals but... Harry K > On Mar 1, 6:52 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 59 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Sure, see 223rem's response above. Let's just put it this way unconsitutional is the best way to characterize state action that runs afoul of the constitution b/c it is not against statutory law. And illegal most appropriately refers to things like drunk driving, steeling, killing, kidnapping, and speeding (state codifications not covered under the constitution). These are illegal but not unconstitutional. Likewise there is no statute or code prohibiting an officer from pulling a person over for driving too slow--there is no criminal sanction against the officer (the state has sovereign immunity anyway). So it does not violate a statute or code. BUT it is unconstitutional. It may be symantics but it is an important distinction. > illegal most appropriately refers to things like drunk driving, > steeling, killing, kidnapping, and speeding (state codifications not > covered under the constitution). These are illegal but not > unconstitutional. Not sure I follow you here. AFAIK "unconstitutional law" means a law struck down by the Supreme Court because it conflicts with the Constitution. Laws against killing. stealing have not been shown to be unconstitutional. > immunity anyway). So it does not violate a statute or code. BUT it > is unconstitutional. That's up to the Supreme Court to decide. By default, I think, all laws are constitutional until shown otherwise. > joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > illegal most appropriately refers to things like drunkdriving, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > That's up to the Supreme Court to decide. By default, I think, all laws > are constitutional until shown otherwise. I suppose the distinction is inconsequential for this discussion. But yes insofar as legislative enactions, they are presumed to be constitutional until proven otherwise. See On Mar 1, 7:54 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: <snip for brevity> > > Yes we are apparently. I have been trying to come up with 'why' a cop > > would pull someone over if he has no reason to...in your instance when [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Thanks, that makes sense. Harry K > In article <1172755594.340229.152...@8g2000cwh.googlegroups.com>, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: > > On Feb 28, 11:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > unconstitutional means it wasn't legal. At least in common understanding it does. Gonna be interesting to see how this works out. Harry K On Feb 28, 8:09 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172719531.426111.198...@v33g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > You do see that in the case you justs referenced the judge in effect > > said it took more than just driving slow?..."because the drivers > > route..." etc. > > Yes. But that's a factor a cop could simply make up. True and it does happen. But then I have already said that both in this thread and in the past. Has no bearing on the stop being legal though. The cop lying about the cause does not change an illegal stop to a legal one. Harry K > Correction. You have been posting for years that you could be stopped > _legally_ for nothing more than driving slowly. I see that you have > now modified your stance to agree with reality. My stance is un-modified, I have argued that the status-quo is unconstitutional, that it is an end-run around the constitution. That low speed limits create a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation. But hey your mind somehow translates that to 'legal'.... get that looked into. I never felt it was legal, just the way the crooked system works. On Feb 28, 8:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1172718296.062559.4...@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, Harry K wrote: > > Correction. You have been posting for years that you could be stopped [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > hey your mind somehow translates that to 'legal'.... get that looked > into. I never felt it was legal, just the way the crooked system works. And I can see where you're coming from but reality is that your opinion doesn't change the facts. Again (and I have said this repeatedly) stops for nothing more than driving slowly -do- happen. That they are illegal any lawyer will tell you. Harry K > On Feb 28, 8:08 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > repeatedly) stops for nothing more than driving slowly -do- happen. > That they are illegal any lawyer will tell you. I have never stated otherwise. But cops get around that by relating driving slowly to a profile. burglers looking for a place to break into drive slow, drug couriers drive slow to avoid law enforcement, drunks drive slow because their perception is wacked and they want to avoid law enforcement, etc and so on. It's about making legal behavior stand out as odd and normal behavior illegal. And the cops know full well that people cannot afford lawyers for every little thing and will just make something up if they have to. Hi! > So you still don't see the difference between being stopped for legal > cause and 'driving slow' ? He wasn't stopped 'for driving slow'. He [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > The driving slow was sufficient to continue to observe but not for the > stop just as the judge ruled I've been thinking for ages that the German law is more sensible in that respect. Over here, police are allowed to stop any vehicle without any suspicion of anything. That's a "general traffic check" (Allgemeine Verkehrskontrolle). They can demand to see your license and registration, they can check your car (superficially, i.e. for non-workling lights, old tyres and such), and they can *ask* you whether you agree to a breat alcohol test. (If you don't agree, be prepared to be hauled off to the police station for a blood alcohol test, though.) They also can *ask* to search your vehicle, but I don't know what happens if you refuse that. Oh, and they can also have you follow them to a vehicle scale if they think your vehicle might be overloaded. Now, I assume this sounds quite police-state-ish to you USAnians. But consider: if they really want to stop you, all they have to do is a) make up a valid reason or b) trick you into a driving mistake that would count as one, isn't that so? IMHO it's much more sensible to get rid of that phase and just let 'em stop you if they think it's worthwhile. Yours, Erik. Signature"They've got to buy them before they can burn them." -- George Harrison about Beatles album burnings, 1966 > Hi! > [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Yours, > Erik. I have to say that I don't agree with this, although I consider many if not most of the other provisions of German traffic law sensible. Given the attitudes and opinions of traffic cops in the US if this were instituted I would expect very quickly for cops to simply begin harassing anyone they didn't like - probably people in older vehicles and those of non-white heritage in particular. Maybe it's working in Germany, I can't say, but I could never see it working here. I think our system in this regard is the best for our situation, although we are leaning too far towards the German model already (random checkpoints, etc.) nate Signaturereplace "roosters" with "cox" to reply. http://members.cox.net/njnagel > Hi! > Now, I assume this sounds quite police-state-ish to you USAnians. Indeed it does. > But consider: if they really want to stop you, all they have to do > is a) make up a valid reason True, but with the proliferation of dash-cams, it is increasingly difficult to make up something that cannot be challeneged. Further, just because they can make something up, doesn't mean we should just scrub our rights away. > or b) trick you into a driving mistake > that would count as one, How so? > isn't that so? IMHO it's much more sensible > to get rid of that phase and just let 'em stop you if they think it's > worthwhile. > > Yours, > Erik. Hi! > > or b) trick you into a driving mistake > > that would count as one, > > How so? Following (rather/too) closely and thus making the intended victim nervous should do the trick, from what I see in stupid behaviour around police cars. As in "whoa, a police car! *slams on brakes* How fast am I going anyway? 32, in a 50 zone. Well, better act inconspicuously now." :-) Yours, Erik. Signature"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side and a dark one, and it keeps the Universe together." -- Carl Zwanzig > in that respect. Over here, police are allowed to stop any vehicle > without any suspicion of anything. That's a "general traffic check" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > also have you follow them to a vehicle scale if they think your > vehicle might be overloaded. > Now, I assume this sounds quite police-state-ish to you USAnians. That's because it is. I am a little surprised that it's that way given history. > But consider: if they really want to stop you, all they have to do > is a) make up a valid reason or b) trick you into a driving mistake > that would count as one, isn't that so? IMHO it's much more sensible > to get rid of that phase and just let 'em stop you if they think it's > worthwhile. Would you give the people who lie and cheat more power? Given my very brief experience in Germany and my reading there of, cops there aren't out on the road to bring in the money for government or looking for beyond the stop busts for profit and amusement. In the USA they are, and giving them the power you suggest would create far more abuses. >> in that respect. Over here, police are allowed to stop any vehicle >> without any suspicion of anything. That's a "general traffic check" [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> also have you follow them to a vehicle scale if they think your >> vehicle might be overloaded. >> Now, I assume this sounds quite police-state-ish to you USAnians. >That's because it is. I am a little surprised that it's that way given >history. Because of the limitations placed on what can be done and how it can be done are within basic law (constitution), such things are mostly harmless. There is also a matter of a different attitude to Police in general. And a different attitude of Police to the general public. >> But consider: if they really want to stop you, all they have to do >> is a) make up a valid reason or b) trick you into a driving mistake >> that would count as one, isn't that so? IMHO it's much more sensible >> to get rid of that phase and just let 'em stop you if they think it's >> worthwhile. >Would you give the people who lie and cheat more power? They already have that power. >Given my very brief experience in Germany and my reading there of, >cops there aren't out on the road to bring in the money for >government or looking for beyond the stop busts for profit and >amusement. There is a great incentive for local governments to send the Police out on fine-collection exercises. The entirety of the lesser, on-the-spot fines goes into community coffers. That includes speeding at up to 20 km/h over the limit. The Police in general will do as requested by local government; unless they have more important things to do. Police in some areas almost always have more important things to do. Still it's not _very_ often that the car of the Bürgermeister's wife gets booked for incorrect parking in front of the town hall. >In the USA they are, and giving them the power you suggest would >create far more abuses. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. >>Would you give the people who lie and cheat more power? > They already have that power. In the USA (which is what I was refering to here) It's still not codified as such but only exists in work arounds. Giving it to them outright means they can then use their efforts and work arounds for far worse intrusions. >>Given my very brief experience in Germany and my reading there of, >>cops there aren't out on the road to bring in the money for >>government or looking for beyond the stop busts for profit and >>amusement. > There is a great incentive for local governments to send the Police > out on fine-collection exercises. The entirety of the lesser, > on-the-spot fines goes into community coffers. That includes > speeding at up to 20 km/h over the limit. Interesting... guess yee-olde traffic shakedown has spread further than I thought. >>>Would you give the people who lie and cheat more power? >> They already have that power. >In the USA (which is what I was refering to here) It's still not >codified as such but only exists in work arounds. Giving it to them >outright means they can then use their efforts and work >arounds for far worse intrusions. There appear to be difference in Germany as to what constitutes an invasion of privacy and other injuries to personal freedom. I'm not completely au fait with USA or German laws (I doubt anybody is) but the general impression I get is that the boundaries are more clearly defined in Germany than in the USA, where in the latter, bounds are set more often in case law. (i.e. law by trial-and-error) >>>Given my very brief experience in Germany and my reading there of, >>>cops there aren't out on the road to bring in the money for >>>government or looking for beyond the stop busts for profit and >>>amusement. >> There is a great incentive for local governments to send the Police >> out on fine-collection exercises. The entirety of the lesser, >> on-the-spot fines goes into community coffers. That includes >> speeding at up to 20 km/h over the limit. >Interesting... guess yee-olde traffic shakedown has spread further >than I thought. It's been working that way for a long, long time. Certainly back to the 1950's. Highwaymen, with and without badges, have been around as long as highways. Signature/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia \ / ASCII ribbon campaign | "If we let things terrify us, X against HTML mail | life will not be worth living." / \ and postings | Lucius Annaeus Seneca, c. 4BC - 65AD. > I'm not completely au fait with USA or German laws (I doubt anybody > is) but the general impression I get is that the boundaries are more > clearly defined in Germany than in the USA, where in the latter, > bounds are set more often in case law. (i.e. law by trial-and-error) And thusly the bounds keep getting pushed, so we must push back on them, trouble is few do. But standing ground personally does get cops, just like criminals to find easier prey much of the time. >>Interesting... guess yee-olde traffic shakedown has spread further >>than I thought. > It's been working that way for a long, long time. Certainly back to > the 1950's. > Highwaymen, with and without badges, have been around as long as highways. Any friday night revenue feeding frenzies? > Driving too slow no reason for stop > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > "Slow driving alone does not create a reasonable suspicion" of drunken > driving, Judge Mark Painter wrote in the court's 3-0 decision Friday. Was there any expert testimony supporting (or refuting) this? Or did the judge just pull this opinion out of his posterior? SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ "There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd > > Driving too slow no reason for stop > > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > "There's something vewy scwewy going on awound here." -- Elmer Fudd There are all kinds of reasons for 'driving slow', not just DUI. I see nothing odd at all in the ruling. Driving slow _is_ an indication that he _might_ be DUI and thus a reason to observe his driving for additional clues but by itself it is not sufficient just as the judge ruled. Harry K > > Driving too slow no reason for stop > > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Was there any expert testimony supporting (or refuting) this? Or did the > judge just pull this opinion out of his posterior? I think he's qualified as an expert on the legality of a traffic stop, to pull his opinion from wherever. The question is, is driving slowly a reasonable cause for a stop on suspicion of DUI? Obviously, the answer is no. You -could- be stopped for creating a hazardous condition, or impeding traffic, but driving 20 under the limit is no indication of impairment, since it could be just be reasonable and prudent. There is no posted minimum speed in OH, and trucks over 8000# and cars are by law separated by a 15mph speed differential, so this guy was only 8mph under that. ----- - gpsman > > >Drivingtooslowno reason for stop > > > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > - Show quoted text - This is a case of first impression in Ohio. But, see, State v. Rincon, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 99 December 7, 2006. Excerpts can be found at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1510.asp On Feb 28, 8:44 am, joel6...@gmail.com wrote: <brevity snip> > This is a case of first impression in Ohio. But, see, State v. > Rincon, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 99 December 7, 2006. Excerpts can be > found athttp://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1510.asp Nice cite. Thanks. ----- - gpsman [snip] > This is a case of first impression in Ohio. But, see, State v. > Rincon, 122 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 99 December 7, 2006. Excerpts can be > found at http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/15/1510.asp Aside from the court's decision, so far we're two for two in this thread. Slow divers have subsequently been tested and found to be drunk. SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Disclaimer: This publication is the sole property of monkey #108765 and his typewriter. It does not represent the opinions of any other primate, either alive or dead, or any descendants thereof. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Aside from the court's decision, so far we're two for two in this > thread. Slow divers have subsequently been tested and found to be drunk. You didn't hear all the examples of people who were stopped for slow driving and were not found to be drunk - because that's not news. > I think he's qualified as an expert on the legality of a traffic stop, > to pull his opinion from wherever. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Fifteen mile per hour differential, eh? Maybe they do things different in Cincinnati, but I can say for certain that here in Columbus it's ten. Sixty-five for cars, fifty-five for the big boys. As noted in the Wiki reference below, the truck limit differs on the Ohio Turnpike. I can't recall seeing that when I was up there last summer, but then I wasn't really looking at the time. That would indicate that he was in fact 13 miles under the truck limit. I don't think that number has any particular meaning in Ohio law. While the ORC to my knowledge doesn't show any particular minimum speed limit, there is a separate section that lays out the rules for minimum speeds, and his speed wouldn't violate the lower bound of the minimum speed limits permissible under Ohio law (thirty lower bound, fifty upper.) Speed limits from the Ohio Revised Code (11) Fifty-five miles per hour at all times on all portions of freeways that are part of the interstate system and on all portions of freeways that are not part of the interstate system, but are built to the standards and specifications that are applicable to freeways that are part of the interstate system for operators of any motor vehicle weighing in excess of eight thousand pounds empty weight and any noncommercial bus; Information on the Turnpike, as well as other highways http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_Turnpike State patrol article from 2001 referencing speed limits http://www.statepatrol.ohio.gov/colcolumn/2001/0105mess.html Ohio Revised Code online search http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm& cp=PORC ORC section involving speed limits http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/1d0b6/1dae6/1dbda/1dbdb? ORC section involving minimum speeds http://onlinedocs.andersonpublishing.com/oh/lpExt.dll/PORC/1d0b6/1dae6/1dbda/1dbef? Sorry to nitpick, but you misstated facts that I have to see every single day. -Steven > > > Driving too slow no reason for stop > > > Ohio court tosses DUI conviction [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I think he's qualified as an expert on the legality of a traffic stop, > to pull his opinion from wherever. I'm not referring to expertise with regard to the law. I want to know if anyone testified who has expert knowledge of behavior as affected by alcohol. > The question is, is driving slowly a reasonable cause for a stop on > suspicion of DUI? Obviously, the answer is no. No, its not obvious. If an expert on the physiological effects of alcohol states that slow driving by itself may indicate the influence of alcohol, then the answer would be yes. > You -could- be stopped for creating a hazardous condition, or impeding > traffic, but driving 20 under the limit is no indication of > impairment, since it could be just be reasonable and prudent. Without evidence of any other mitigating factors, such as snow, poor visibility or a car towing a heavy trailer, it may in fact be evidence of some sort of impairment. What if the driver had lost his/her glasses and figured they could just make it home slowly. What if the driver was having a heart attack? Any of these are circumstances that warrant further investigation. One may result in a minor citation or warning. The other, a quick trip to the hospital. Either way, the officer is justified to make contact. > There is no posted minimum speed in OH, and trucks over 8000# and cars > are by law separated by a 15mph speed differential, so this guy was > only 8mph under that. > ----- > > - gpsman SignaturePaul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@Hovnanian.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ Your mouse has moved. Windows must be restarted for the change to take effect. Reboot now? [OK] |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message