Arrested for reckless driving, vehicle illegally searched?

[Crimson524]

Hi everyone, I'm new here and have just a couple questions regarding myself being recently arrested for "reckless driving"

I was driving home from work on Wednesday after I just started a new job. It is about an hour commute to/from work. My GPS re-routed me through a small, hilly town around some country roads. I was kind of speeding through, and kinda bumped through a stop sign (There was nobody around, so I didn't see anything wrong with a quick rolling stop). I started accelerating and going about my business when all the sudden, I looked in my rear view mirror and see a police SUV flying up behind me. I immediately knew that I needed to pull over, so I pulled over in a neighborhood on my right. I got my license and registration out and was respectful to the officer when I handed it to him. He asked me if I saw him, I obviously did not and I told him that. He then went back to his car and told me to step out of mine. Right there on, I was very confused. Was expecting a speeding ticket from him, but he made me get out of my van. He then proceeded to tell me to turn around and handcuff me. He didn't read me my Miranda rights, he searched me and put me in the back of his police cruiser. He then was having a hard time reading my plates, from what I could read over his police radio.
I am from Indiana, just recently moved to Illinois for a job less than a month ago. I then saw that he was calling a tow truck to have my van towed. He then had another officer come up and search my van without my permission. I was trying to figure out what my speeding warranted my van to be ripped apart and searched top to bottom.

The tow truck finally showed up and my van was put on the back of it. At this point, I'm just completely confused as to if I'm being punk'd or not. I'm still trying to figure out why I'm being arrested. He said I was going 75 in a 45 (I'm still having a hard time believing that, seeing as how I had just accelerated from a stop sign) and said I was going 51 in a 30, and that I ran a stop sign. I didn't see half of the speed limit signs change, otherwise I would've been a bit more cautious. He then was making a big deal about me working in Illinois being an Indiana resident and also wrote me a citation for not claiming residency in Illinois. I'm still trying to figure out how he can prove that, seeing as how I have no physical address here yet. They tore up the carpeting in my van (I have pictures to prove it) threw my expensive suits all over the place and threw all of my crap everywhere. The officer was completely unprofessional and was treating me like I was going to assault him or something. I was completely calm the entire time. He then proceeded on the drive back to the police station to text and drive on his phone, also answering his phone and talking to a friend. In Illinois, you have to be hands free while driving. I was a little baffled at the irony of how he can text and drive, but arrest me for "reckless driving". We then got to the police station and he said something along the lines of "assaulting an officer is a criminal offense in Illinois, and I know you're angry, but it's just a ticket, if I was in your shoes, blah blah blah" I was trying to figure out where he got off thinking that, because I was 100% calm the entire time.


I felt like my fourth amendment right was completely violated, I was embarrassed in front of a bunch of people in a neighborhood, treated like a criminal, and most of all, this is going to cost me a ton of money now, and a reckless driving charge that I don't need on my clean driving record. I haven't had a speeding ticket or any other violations since 2010. I didn't think this would've came to this, otherwise I would've recorded the entire thing.

Do I need to hire a lawyer? I feel this was completely unprofessional and unlawful what happened. I have talked to a couple different police officers, and they said that all of this was "completely unlawful"

Any advice would help. I walked away with four citations and a court date, having to pay $150 (10% of my bond) and $150 to get my van out of the tow yard. I also was late to work the next day, because the place they towed my van to was closed after I got out of the police station.

Thanks!

 

[adjusterjack]

The best advice that I can give you (based on reading lots of traffic stories) is plead not guilty to all of the citations, insist on going to trial, and maybe you'll be offered a plea bargain where some of the citations get dismissed and others, hopefully the reckless driving, gets reduced.

Whether you hire a lawyer or not is up to you but it couldn't hurt to consult with one. It's likely that a lawyer will get better results than you could on your on. You certainly don't want a reckless driving conviction on your record because that often allows an insurance company to cancel immediately and that drives you into a high risk classification that cost you two or three times the insurance premiums you were previously paying.

Now for your misconceptions.

Miranda - Not necessary if the police don't intend to use your statements against you. In a traffic stop what the police witnessed is enough to convict you.

The search - Speeding and running stop signs could give the police reasonable suspicion that other crimes may be indicated. But even if the search was illegal, if you aren't being charged with any crimes as a result of the search, all you have is the ability to file a complaint with the head honcho, who has probably encouraged his officers to treat scofflaws that way.

Lesson for the future: Pay more attention when you drive and obey the traffic laws. You pretty much brought all this on yourself.

 

[justalayman]

Adjusterjack is 100% wrong about the reasonable suspicion issue. It requires probable cause or some exigency to permit a lawful search of a vehicle. Whether they had such and were allowed to search your vehicle will be based on all the facts of the case which I don't have


An inventory search incident to an arrest is always a possibility so that brings in whether the events leading to the arrest justified the arrest. Being an out of state resident makes it more likely you would be arrested but isn't the only factor that would generally be involved but..

This sounds excessive for a search incident to an arrest anyway.


I would suggest a chat with a lawyer.

 

[NIV]

There does not need to be any cause, probable or reasonable, to search the vehicle. The first justification, depending on timing and facts, would be a search incident to arrest. (Gant may be implicated to disallow the search.) The second justification has to do with an inventory search. There is plenty of case law out there that does not require an inventory search to take place in the tow yard. There are requirements, of course, but it is unlikely a police department does not have a policy of inventory searches in this day and age so the inventory will probably fly as a reason.

 

[justalayman]

There does not need to be any cause, probable or reasonable, to search the vehicle. The first justification, depending on timing and facts, would be a search incident to arrest. (Gant may be implicated to disallow the search.) The second justification has to do with an inventory search. There is plenty of case law out there that does not require an inventory search to take place in the tow yard. There are requirements, of course, but it is unlikely a police department does not have a policy of inventory searches in this day and age so the inventory will probably fly as a reason.

If the arrest is atypical for the violation it can be argued the arrest was merely a pretextual action to allow the search.

Beyond that the problem I see is the "ripping the van apart searched from top to bottom". That goes beyond the allowance of an inventory search or search incident to an arrest. Of course the statement may be a bit hyperbolic but unless the search performed can be covered under either of these to reasons, probable cause would be required to perform a search.

Since apparently nothing was discovered and our justice system puts no value on our rights in most cases, any suit stemming from this would likely award nothing more than nominal damages.

 

[NIV]

If the arrest is atypical for the violation it can be argued the arrest was merely a pretextual action to allow the search.

U.S. v. TRIGG 878 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1989)

Another potentially relevant objective factor would be the usual police practice in the area. See United States v. Guzman, 864 F.2d 1512, 1515 (10th Cir. 1988); United States v. Miller, 821 F.2d 546, 549 (11th Cir. 1987). Under this standard an arrest would be unreasonable if the usual police practice in the area is not to arrest an individual for a particular offense.
The "usual practices" approach is designed to prevent the arbitrary exercise of police power. See 1 W. LaFave supra at 94-95. This approach, however, is not really a response to the problem of pretextual arrests. Under a "usual practices" standard an arrest made for an improper reason will be valid so long as the decision to arrest for a particular offense is not a departure from the norm while an arrest made for proper reasons will be invalid if the decision to arrest for the particular offense is a departure from the norm. Rather the "usual practices" standard represents a far reaching check on the discretion of individual police officers to effect custodial arrests.
The Supreme Court has held that the discretionary exercise of police power may be unconstitutional in certain circumstances. In Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979), the Court held that discretionary license check stops of automobiles in the absence of probable cause to believe or reasonable suspicion that the driver has committed some offense are unreasonable under the fourth amendment. 1The Court, however, has never indicated that the discretionary exercise of the arrest power, a power that is contingent upon a prior determination of probable cause, is constitutionally significant. 2In fact, in Gustafson, the Court expressly stated:

Though the officer here was not required to take the petitioner into custody by police regulations as he was in Robinson and there did not exist a departmental police establishing the conditions under which a full-scale body search should be conducted, we do not find these differences determinative of the constitutional issue [citation omitted]. It is sufficient that the officer had probable cause to arrest and that he lawfully effectuated the arrest and placed the petitioner in custody.​

Given this language in a Supreme Court opinion, we, as an intermediate appellate court, do not feel empowered to evaluate the reasonableness of a particular arrest based on the arrest's conformance to usual police practices. Rather, we believe that the reasonableness of an arrest depends upon the existence of two objective factors. First, did the arresting officer have probable cause to believe that the defendant had committed or was committing an offense. Second, was the arresting officer authorized by state and or municipal law to effect a custodial arrest for the particular offense. If these two factors are present, we believe that an arrest is necessarily reasonable under the fourth amendment. This proposition may be stated in another way: so long as the police are doing no more than they are legally permitted and objectively authorized to do, an arrest is constitutional. See United States v. Causey, 834 F.2d 1179, 1182 (5th Cir. 1987) (en banc).

 

[Crimson524]

Thanks for the advice so far, I really appreciate it. I'm going to consult with a lawyer today and see what we can do about it.

 

[Zigner]

Thanks for the advice so far, I really appreciate it. I'm going to consult with a lawyer today and see what we can do about it.

Do about what? Did the search cause you any damages?

 

[Crimson524]

Do about what? Did the search cause you any damages?

Technically, yes. He ripped my carpet up in the back of my van, which I transport show dogs around in, and I rely on to keep crates in place, now I have to replace the carpet.

 

[Zigner]

Technically, yes. He ripped my carpet up in the back of my van, which I transport show dogs around in, and I rely on to keep crates in place, now I have to replace the carpet.

File a claim with the City (that's the first thing you have to do.) Call the police department and ask them for a claim form.

 

[justalayman]

U.S. v. TRIGG 878 F.2d 1037 (7th Cir. 1989)

Fair enough but the search involved still goes beyond what is allowed under a search incident to arrest or an inventory search. Unless there was probable cause for the search, given the extent of
The search, it would appear to unlawful.