Episcopal priest on road trip with interracial family shares harrowing story of police harassment

[eridani]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/03/1408406/-Episcopal-Priest-on-road-trip-with-interracial-family-shares-harrowing-story-of-police-harassment

While driving on the first leg of our road trip to Florida, with my wife, my son and my brother-in-law, I noticed a white dodge charger in my rear view, tailgating me. After a couple minutes, I moved into the left lane to let him pass. He followed me. Then he turned on the flashing lights of the, now revealed undercover car. I pulled to the shoulder.

I've been stopped by police before (always for traffic violations that were my fault.) However, several things immediately seemed unusual about this stop.

One. Two officers emerged from their car, and approached ours from the passenger side, where my brother was sitting. The lead officer knocked at his window, and asked first for his license, not mine.

Two. After checking my license as well, and the registration of our rental car, and after the officer informed me he was only giving me a warning for changing lanes without signalling (He was correct,) he asked me to step out of the car. While his partner stood by our car, he walked me back to their patrol car, and asked me what I had in my pockets (keys, a wallet, and my phone.)

Three. He asked me to take a seat in their car, and closed the door behind me. He took his seat on the driver's side, turned and began to ask me questions:

[jtuck004]

1. "And then I realized. None of these things were unusual. Not even a little bit." n/t

[Joe Chi Minh]

2. The ever-growing Nazi underbelly of the US. No wonder it's

allied itself with the Ukrainian Nazis.

[KG]

3. but, but, we don't live in a police state!

[madokie]

5. Those of us who are white don't

But you can bet your ass the POC damn sure do

[GoneFishin]

4. Scary stuff. And that was a "routine" one with no "incidents". Something has got to change.

[lobodons]

6. new law

We need to make a new law that makes it illegal for police to pull you over for no signal on lane change to let Police cars and or emergency vehicles pass.

I am sure they will come up with something else to pull you over but It is totally bogus for cops to pull you over for no signal when you are just trying to enable them to get by you Which you are supposed to do.

[Lee-Lee]

13. Did you read this link? He admits he didn't know it was a cop until after he pulled over

because it was an unmarked car.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. This story covers all the bases.

Racial profiling, 30 years of drug war, illegal searches and detainments, civil asset forfeiture and for profit policing.

[progressoid]

8. ...

[bonniebgood]

9. I guess I'm dead because it's no way in hell i would have gotten out

of the safety of my car get into your UNMARKED car. police badges and uniforms are bought of the internet. We all know they are a dangerous and deadly group of lying criminals.
Someone please tell me where this is legal to get out your car and into theirs and what reason? 'fear for your life' can't be it.

[Person 2713]

10. So you would resist police orders after being stopped for a traffic signal?

[Lee-Lee]

11. There is a huge body of Supreme Court ruleings saying drivers and passengers must exit

See Brendlin V California and Maryland V Wilson for starters.

[markpkessinger]

14. See Rodriguez v. United States . . .

. . . the most recent relevant ruling, from April of this year, The case involved a man stopped for a traffic violation. The police ran his license, and gave him a warning. Only instead of letting him go at that point, they decided to conduct an additional investigation by having a drug-sniffing dog go around the perimeter of the car. Yes, a police officer may order someone out of his or her car in the course of a stop. The Court held in Rodriguez that a stop ends at the point that an officer has either issued a ticket or a warning, and that absent reasonable suspicion, an officer, having concluded the original business of the stop, must allow the driver to continue on his or her way. He cannot prolong the stop in order to conduct additional investigation at that point, Here is an excerpt from the syllabus for Rodriguez:

Absent reasonable suspicion, police extension of a traffic stop in order to conduct a dog sniff violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures.

A routine traffic stop is more like a brief stop under Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, than an arrest, see, e.g., Arizona v. Johnson, 555 U. S. 323, 330. Its tolerable duration is determined by the seizure’s “mission,” which is to address the traffic violation that warranted the stop, Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U. S. 405, 407 and attend to related safety concerns. Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed. The Fourth Amendment may tolerate certain unrelated investigations that do not leng then the roadside detention, Johnson, 555 U. S., at 327–328 (questioning); Caballes, 543 U. S., at 406, 408 (dog sniff), but a traffic stop “become[s] unlawful if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to complete th[e] mission” of issuing a warning ticket, id., at 407.

Beyond determining whether to issue a traffic ticket, an officer’s mission during a traffic stop typically includes checking the driver’s license, determining whether there are outstanding warrants against the driver, and inspecting the automobile’s registration and proof of insurance. These checks serve the same objective as enforcement of the traffic code: ensuring that vehicles on the road are operated safely and responsibly. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648, 8–659. Lacking the same close connection to roadway safety as the ordinary inquiries, a dog sniff is not fairly characterized as part of the officer’s traffic mission.

In concluding that the de minimis intrusion here could be offset by the Government’s interest in stopping the flow of illegal drugs, the Eighth Circuit relied on Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106. The Court reasoned in Mimms that the government’s “legitimate and weighty” interest in officer safety outweighed the “de minimis” addi tional intrusion of requiring a driver, lawfully stopped, to exit a vehicle, id., at 110–111. The officer-safety interest recognized in Mimms, however, stemmed from the danger to the officer associated with the traffic stop itself. On-scene investigation into other crimes, in contrast, detours from the officer’s traffic-control mission and therefore gains no support from Mimms.

The Government’s argument that an officer who completes all traffic-related tasks expeditiously should earn extra time to pursue an unrelated criminal investigation is unpersuasive, for a traffic stop “prolonged beyond” the time in fact needed for the officer to complete his traffic-based inquiries is “unlawful,” Caballes, 543 U. S., at 407. The critical question is not whether the dog sniff occurs before or after the officer issues a ticket, but whether conducting the sniff adds time to the stop.

If the events unfolded as Father Schell as recounted them -- i.e., he was issued a warning, and only then asked to step out of the car -- then it was an unlawful prolongation of the stop, because the business of the stop had already been concluded/ Inless the officer can show probable cause for conducting a further investigation, everything that happened after the warning was issued, then everything the officer did after that point became unlawful.

[Lee-Lee]

16. As I read the story

He was told he would get a warning, and was asked the questions while in the car, probably while the officer was running his license and writing the warning, then issued the warning and sent him on his way.

[markpkessinger]

18. I think you need to read it again . . .

From the OP:

Two. After checking my license as well, and the registration of our rental car, and after the officer informed me he was only giving me a warning for changing lanes without signalling (He was correct,) he asked me to step out of the car. While his partner stood by our car, he walked me back to their patrol car, and asked me what I had in my pockets (keys, a wallet, and my phone.)

Three. He asked me to take a seat in their car, and closed the door behind me. He took his seat on the driver's side, turned and began to ask me questions:

Note the sequence:

(1) Cop checks license and registration.

(2) Cop informs driver he is only giving him a warning. (Note: here is where the cops authority to do any further investigation, including questioning, ends under Rodriguez.)

(3) Cop asks him to exit car, walks him to patrol car, and asks him to have a seat in the patrol car.

(4) Cop begins questioning him while he is in the patrol car.

The cop violated the priest's civil rights under the Fourth Amendment. Full stop.

[Lee-Lee]

25. No- the stop ends when he is handed the written warning, not when he is told that is what is coming

Just like when you are told you are getting a ticket the stop ends when you get the ticket, not when you are told you will get a ticket.

Read further down and you can see he was still checking their data on the computer and then calling it in (probably because the MDT's don't work half the time) then released him (presumably with the warning although the author leaves that out). No cop is going to issue the warning before doing basic checks to ensure the car isn't stolen, the driver has a valid license, the driver doesn't have warrants, etc so the idea that he issued the warning did all that doesn't pass the common sense test. Because last thing you want to do is pull someone over, give a warning, not check them and learn that they were wanted.


Tim McViegh was arrested because a Trooper did a routine stop, asked questions, became suspicious because the answers didn't make sense (he was claiming to be on a moving trip but didn't have a single change of clothes, for example). So he looked harder and saw an illegally carried handgun. It's basic police work. Do you want to release McViegh because in your eyes his initial arrest was not what you would find legal (despite the law saying you are wrong)?

I tell you what- you go get pulled over, and when the cop tells you that you are getting a ticket or warning tell him "this stop is over" and pull away before you actually get the paper warning or ticket. Let me know how that works out for you.....

[markpkessinger]

26. Again, from Rodriguez . . .

Authority for the seizure ends when tasks tied to the traffic infraction are—or reasonably should have been—completed.

[Lee-Lee]

27. And again , since you don't comprehend

In the authors own account the officer was still running his license and his car registration for validity and warrants as he asked the questions and after.

When those tasks, clearly tied to the infraction- were completed he was released.

Go back and reread until that sinks in.

No lawyer would ever win a case calling that a violation under Rodriguez. Very few would even be dump enough to try it in a courtroom.

Now had he done all his checks and finished writing a warning and kept questioning him, then you would be right. But even in the authors own words that's not what happened.

[yellowcanine]

20. Questions have to be traffic related if that is the reason for the stop.

Driver's license (of driver), registration of car, insurance (maybe, but often not asked unless there was an accident). The police have no right to ask for a travelogue and to see ID of passengers unless there is a non traffic related reason for the initial stop or some kind of probable cause after the stop. (A car passenger matching the description of a criminal suspect, for example)

[Lee-Lee]

12. This isn't harassment, its a typical stop

He was stopped, he was asked questions, he was let go when they decided that there wasn't cause to investigate further. Asking questions of people in a car when separated is pretty common investigative tool

He was even let off with a warning for the violation he admitted he did for goodness sake.

People who think this is harassment need to grow the fuck up. He committed a traffic violation, was pulled over, asked some questions, and let off with a warning. If they wanted to harass him they would have ticketed him, for starters.

Let me go over his bullshit bullet points-

One- a passenger side approach is the norm these days. Its safer. Nothing unusual at all about that. His claim it was unusual or odd= bullshit.

Two- once again, normal. Some officers do take a driver back to their car to write a ticket or warning. I was never of fan of this when I did the job, but some state troopers I knew did it a lot. Claiming it was unusual= bullshit

Three- the routine questions= normal. Asking those questions during routine stops is how a lot of bigger crimes are busted- I have known kidnapping, drug smuggling, human trafficking, domestic abuse etc that all were detected by simple questions at a ruotine traffic stop. Perfectly normal, perfectly legal.

Four- And? Once again normal- ask the other occupants questions to see if they agree and also to make sure there isn't something usual going on- see my above especially about human trafficking and domestic abuse. Once again, normal and happens all the time. Not harassment.

Five- And what is odd here?

Six- talk and make sure that nothing seems off

Seven- clear up small discrepancies in the story, find out there is nothing going on past the traffic stop, send him on his way with a simple warning.

[markpkessinger]

15. See my post above . . .

According to the Supreme Court's most recent relevant ruling, the cop's authority to question the driver ends at the poitn the business of the original reason for the stop has been concluded -- i.e., when the warning was issued. See Rpdriguez v. United States.

[yellowcanine]

17. No it was not a typical stop. Failure to signal - okay, either issue a warning or a

ticket. There is no need for the song and dance about where you are going, where are you stopping, are you nervous? Those questions are designed to intimidate. There was no probable cause to investigate anything so the fact that these procedures are normal for an investigation are irrelevant. Police do not have the right to investigate just because someone failed to signal a lane change.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Incorrect

Read through this thoroughly.

http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2213&context=ulj

[yellowcanine]

24. Yeah but in this case the length of the stop was clearly prolonged

by the questioning of the driver, questioning the passengers, then again questioning the driver about discrepancies. None of this prolonged questioning had anything to do with the initial stop - which could have been dealt with in the time it took to issue a warning or a ticket.

Look at the title of the review article.....
Do Questions Outside the Scope of the Original Justification for the
Stop Create Impermissible Seizures If They Do Not Prolong the Stop? (emphasis mine)

[Comrade Grumpy]

19. The typical stop is harassment. Anything beyond writing the ticket is.

Anything beyond that is simply a fishing expedition by the cops.

I don't believe in "routine traffic stops" anymore.

[yellowcanine]

22. I have been stopped a number of times over the years.

I have never been asked to recite a travelogue.

[Comrade Grumpy]

23. I have. Especially on the east-west interstates.

They are looking for dope and cash. It's like Highway patrolmen turned into just plain highwaymen.