Fourth Amendment Violation?

[vman2112]

Illinois

I'm from Chicago. I recently was in Olathe, Kansas on business and got pulled over for following too closely. That’s what the officer told me. According to the cop I was .97 seconds behind the car in front of me. He said I was supposed to be 2 seconds behind. He acknowledged that I was not speeding when I asked him. The speed limit was 65 MPH but he did not record a speed of travel. He asked for my license and rental agreement and I gave it to him.

Even if I were doing the speed limit, .97 seconds translates to 92 ft. (2.3 bus lengths to put into perspective). Roadways were clear and there was no impending danger that would cause the car in front of me to stop suddenly. I was not tailgating by any stretch of the imagination.

In addition to the ridiculous nature of the alleged violation (the 2-second rule isn't even a law, but a suggestion), the officer apparently called for backup. After about 5-10 minutes, another squad pulled up and the second officer spoke to the first one. I was in my car watching the whole time. He stood behind my car and just stared at me for several minutes in my passenger side rearview mirror. Then he walked up and asked me to step out of the car.

The first officer had my license and rental agreement this whole time. The second officer interrogated me behind my car, but in front of the first squad, asking about 20 questions while the first officer got information from my rental car. Only after the second officer’s interrogation, he informed me that they suspected I may have stolen the car because the rental car had expired tags. The first officer said he called the rental car company and they told him that the car “should have been on their lot” and only after further checking did they tell him that I was in fact supposed to have it.

This ordeal took almost a half hour of my life and the cop still gave me the ticket. Is this just a way for them to make money? It’s like he went out of his way to intentionally cost me money for no reason. And to add insult to injury, detain me for a half hour while he conducted an investigation. Isn’t this a violation of my fourth amendment rights? Isn’t this an illegal seizure?

Now I have to fly back to Kansas to fight this. No matter what I do it will cost me money unnecessarily.

Thanks.

 

[Zigner]

Illinois

I'm from Chicago. I recently was in Olathe, Kansas on business and got pulled over for following too closely. That’s what the officer told me. According to the cop I was .97 seconds behind the car in front of me. He said I was supposed to be 2 seconds behind. He acknowledged that I was not speeding when I asked him. The speed limit was 65 MPH but he did not record a speed of travel. He asked for my license and rental agreement and I gave it to him.

Even if I were doing the speed limit, .97 seconds translates to 92 ft. (2.3 bus lengths to put into perspective). Roadways were clear and there was no impending danger that would cause the car in front of me to stop suddenly. I was not tailgating by any stretch of the imagination.

In addition to the ridiculous nature of the alleged violation (the 2-second rule isn't even a law, but a suggestion), the officer apparently called for backup. After about 5-10 minutes, another squad pulled up and the second officer spoke to the first one. I was in my car watching the whole time. He stood behind my car and just stared at me for several minutes in my passenger side rearview mirror. Then he walked up and asked me to step out of the car.

The first officer had my license and rental agreement this whole time. The second officer interrogated me behind my car, but in front of the first squad, asking about 20 questions while the first officer got information from my rental car. Only after the second officer’s interrogation, he informed me that they suspected I may have stolen the car because the rental car had expired tags. The first officer said he called the rental car company and they told him that the car “should have been on their lot” and only after further checking did they tell him that I was in fact supposed to have it.

This ordeal took almost a half hour of my life and the cop still gave me the ticket. Is this just a way for them to make money? It’s like he went out of his way to intentionally cost me money for no reason. And to add insult to injury, detain me for a half hour while he conducted an investigation. Isn’t this a violation of my fourth amendment rights? Isn’t this an illegal seizure?

Now I have to fly back to Kansas to fight this. No matter what I do it will cost me money unnecessarily.

Thanks.

Haha - no...but thanks for the chuckle.

 

[BOR]

Stopping a motor vehicle is a siezure, yes, see Delaware v. Prouse.

For a seizure to be "reasonable", only a reasonable suspicion a traffic law has been violated is enough to justify an investigative detention, (Terry stop), and 20 minutes is not a long time and well within US SC guidelines, see United States v. Sharpe.

 

[justalayman]

. I was not tailgating by any stretch of the imagination.

I don't have to stretch my imagination at all to consider you to have been tailgating.

You were too close by all reasonable suggestions of proper driving.

And to add insult to injury, detain me for a half hour while he conducted an investigation.

Only after the second officer’s interrogation, he informed me that they suspected I may have stolen the car because the rental car had expired tags. The first officer said he called the rental car company and they told him that the car “should have been on their lot” and only after further checking did they tell him that I was in fact supposed to have it.

and it was somehow the officers fault the tags were expired? Feel lucky they didn't take the first answer and simply arrest you and take you to jail. You probably wouldn't have had to worry about returning to Kansas. They would have provided room and board until this was cleared up.

 

[vman2112]

and it was somehow the officers fault the tags were expired? Feel lucky they didn't take the first answer and simply arrest you and take you to jail. You probably wouldn't have had to worry about returning to Kansas. They would have provided room and board until this was cleared up.

I would think that my license and rental agreement with matching information would have alleviated any "reasonable" suspicion of grand larceny.

A. Extending the Routine Traffic Stop

A police officer may expand the scope of a routine traffic stop if, during the course of the stop, she uncovers new facts giving rise to a new suspicion of criminal activity. Once again, the basic components of the Terry analysis must be applied. The court must first determine whether the specific facts offered by the detaining officer suffice to establish a reasonable suspicion of further criminal activity. It must then determine whether the extended stop at any point became unreasonable due to overly intrusive investigatory techniques or prolonged duration.

To satisfy the first component of the test, the officer must present facts independent of those she relied upon to initiate the traffic stop. In this context, courts extend significant weight to inferences of specific crimes drawn by an officer upon her own experience. If the court concludes that the officer's inference of further criminal conduct was justified, it must then continue to determine whether the investigatory means used by the officer were reasonable.

B. The Reasonableness of the Investigation

The second prong of the Terry analysis makes clear that the detaining officer must use the least intrusive means reasonably available to her to verify or dispel her suspicion. If no such means exist, or if the means used fail to yield the desired results, the officer must permit the motorist to end the encounter.The Supreme Court, however, fails to offer clear guidance from which to discern the reasonableness of choosing one particular investigative method over another.

Not that it matters, but the location where I rented the car from said they received no call from the officer. I rent from there on a regular basis. It would have be a little less intrusive if he had simply asked me a couple questions himself instead of making me wait while backup showed up. They also said no tags or expired tags are quite common as they have 30 days to register when they receive new cars. That's an issue I have to take up with the agency.

 

[justalayman]

=vman2112;2578753]I would think that my license and rental agreement with matching information would have alleviated any "reasonable" suspicion of grand larceny.

well, they could have towed the car and left you in the middle of Kansas. Would you like that better?

due to the invalid registration, they had all rights to investigate it to their satisfaction. Your contract could be faked. You yourself admit you do business with this rental place all the time so who better to be able to forge a document?

Terry? You might want US v Dortch instead.

and they did not detain you an unreasonable amount of time. less than a half hour to deal with the citation and investigate the expired tag. Not an issue at all, especially since there was no additional investigation involved in the (in your mind) lengthy detention. The amount of time considered reasonable is based on the justified actions taken. In your case, less than a half hour would not be excessive, by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[LeeHarveyBlotto]

You're in the wrong place. The "we only give answers you like" forum is the second door on your left.

 

[StevenJ_420Law]

Ok, so for court, the issue before the judge is the charge of following too closely, correct? That is what will be before the court. Just for the sake of argument, lets say your argument prevails - ".97 is a perfectly reasonable and acceptable legal distance!" (and it likely wouldnt); but let's say it did -

That doesnt necessarily render the stop unreasonable. The bar for a conviction of a crime is much higher than it is for an officer to stop you and cite you. That's called justice. You can almost hear the eagle squawk or whatever.

So...

Let's say you had been arrested and there was a case involving this stop. That is where the 4th amendment might come into play. You have other better defenses than the stop itself though, such as the fact you actually didnt steal the car and can very likely easily prove it.. with which to challenge this complaint.

But you werent arrested. An arguably thorough, expedient, diligent, and accurate investigation was conducted and you were cited "only" for the original infraction and allowed to leave based on your signed promise to appear.

IMO, unless you were fighting a larceny case, nothing in your matter glares.

 

[grishid]

You don't need to go to Kansas just fight the ticket with the trail by written decoration. Call and ask for the website and get it from there and mail it to them with signature mail. This is also a chance that if the officer does not respond within 40 days i believe your citation is being dismiss if he does then u have to go.... this is the best option and for the 4th amendment no i believe they did since they had reason to believe that you were following to close and detain you for further investigation. I know its painful but some cops are asses .. talk to an attorney if you believe your constitutional rights have been violated.

 

[vman2112]

You don't need to go to Kansas just fight the ticket with the trail by written decoration. Call and ask for the website and get it from there and mail it to them with signature mail. This is also a chance that if the officer does not respond within 40 days i believe your citation is being dismiss if he does then u have to go.... this is the best option

I'm not sure I follow. Fight the ticket with trail by written documentation? Call and ask for the website? What website? I send the judge a letter requesting a continuance and sent a check to acquire a copy of the video.

Olathe's code for following too closely:
(a) The driver of a motor vehicle shall not follow another vehicle more closely than is reasonable and prudent, having due regard for the speed of such vehicle and the traffic upon and the condition of the highway.

I don't see anything about having to be two seconds behind the car in front of me.

Here is a link to a satellite view of where I was allegedly following too closely. I think it's funny that, as infrequently as these satellite photos are updated, 50% of the cars in this image that are following another car are following too closely - http://www.thezplane.com/citation/satellite_view.jpg

Also curious, neither I nor the officer signed the citation. Does that mean anything? When i asked him how he came to the conclusion I was following too closely, he told me he used a stopwatch to time me, but the ticket says no watch was used - http://www.thezplane.com/citation/citation.gif

 

[Zigner]

You don't need to go to Kansas just fight the ticket with the trail by written decoration. Call and ask for the website and get it from there and mail it to them with signature mail. This is also a chance that if the officer does not respond within 40 days i believe your citation is being dismiss if he does then u have to go.... this is the best option and for the 4th amendment no i believe they did since they had reason to believe that you were following to close and detain you for further investigation. I know its painful but some cops are asses .. talk to an attorney if you believe your constitutional rights have been violated.

This is crap. TBWD is NOT an option in Kansas. Please don't unleash your fingers until you put at least a token effort in to researching what you are spewing!

 

[Zigner]

I'm not sure I follow. Fight the ticket with trail by written documentation?

Ignore grishid. The advice given was wrong. What he suggested is NOT available to you in Kansas.

 

[vman2112]

I appreciate everyone's replies, even those implying that I'm a self-centered idiot.

This is the most ridiculous ticket (IMHO) that I've ever received in my life. The video (if audio is included) will show that the cop acknowledged that I wasn't speeding when I asked him, there was no radar or anything else used, so he doesn't know how fast I was going.

This alleged violation is so subjective in its nature. I clearly was not tailgating, being over 6 average car lengths behind the car in front of me. How can he even develop an opinion that I was following to close? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of eminent danger present that might cause the car in front of me to have to stop suddenly?

In Chicago, cops don;t give tickets for following too closely unless you actually rear-end someone, or unless you are clearly tailgating.

Being from out of town and knowing it is going to cost me money no matter what i do, I guess I would expect the cop to give me the benefit of the doubt by letting me off with a warning, unless he intentionally wanted to just cause me harm in the pocket book banking on the fact that i wouldn't try to fight it. That is an automatic conviction though and it is unacceptable.

 

[racer72]

This is the most ridiculous ticket (IMHO) that I've ever received in my life. The video (if audio is included) will show that the cop acknowledged that I wasn't speeding when I asked him, there was no radar or anything else used, so he doesn't know how fast I was going.

All the above is irrelevant. You were not cited for speeding.

This alleged violation is so subjective in its nature. I clearly was not tailgating, being over 6 average car lengths behind the car in front of me. How can he even develop an opinion that I was following to close? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of eminent danger present that might cause the car in front of me to have to stop suddenly?

How much training have you received to do your job very well? Police officers get a whole lot more training that most other folks do so they can perform their jobs correctly. As far as eminent danger, what if there was an animal a quarter mile up the road from where you were pulled over. That animal ran in front of the car you were following and the driver slammed on his/her brakes. This is an example of eminent danger. It does not have to be proven.

In Chicago, cops don;t give tickets for following too closely unless you actually rear-end someone, or unless you are clearly tailgating.

You weren't in Chicago. The one time I drove in Chicago, taking free right turns on red was illegal in Illinois. The first officer that saw me do it let me know, fortunately there was no ticket involved.

Being from out of town and knowing it is going to cost me money no matter what i do, I guess I would expect the cop to give me the benefit of the doubt by letting me off with a warning, unless he intentionally wanted to just cause me harm in the pocket book banking on the fact that i wouldn't try to fight it. That is an automatic conviction though and it is unacceptable.

That is your opinion, not fact, and I along with most others that have replied to your post agree that your opinion of the stop is extremely flawed. Your next step, if you choose to take it, would be to talk to an attorney from Kansas that is experienced in traffic court. Don't be surprised if you are told the same thing you have been told repeatedly in this forum.

Good day.....

 

[CameronNewport]

If it comes down to your word against the cop's word, then the judge will probably believe the cop. So, you're going to have to provide evidence other than just your testimony.

The other stuff about the Fourth Amendment is irrelevant. Even if there were a violation (which there wasn't), then the remedy is the suppression of evidence. Since you weren't charged with a crime related to the supposed violation of your rights, there's nothing to suppress.