…broken tail light. Every stop has a probable cause — not every cause hides a crime.
5 Likes
No one states that it does, though, techniquely, if you are in violation of a law, is that not a crime?
3 Likes
You are correct, it still doesn’t change the FACT that the police will lie for an excuse to pull you over.
Tint, license plate light, crossing the FOG line… and many other “offenses” that are NEVER enforced except as excuses to pull somebody over. It now becomes targeting…
2 Likes
It’s not targeting, it’s intuition that something else may be up.
Here’s an example: I was pulled over just outside Amarillo, Texas. It was a very foggy night, and while driving through the city, I had turned on my rear fog lights to protect from being rear ended; these lights are brighter red than the normal red running lights. After clearing the fog outside the city limits, I had forgotten to turn them off. The trooper said he noticed my brake lights were on, and “just wanted to check that I wasn’t having an electrical problem.”
I knew exactly what he was checking, and it wasn’t my electrics. He suspected I was driving under the influence, since riding the brakes is often an indicator of drunk driving. The stop was respectful (in both directions), and when he realized I wasn’t in any way DUI, off I went. He didn’t even check license and insurance.
Was I targeted? Absolutely not. He was doing his job.
6 Likes
And if I’m swerving all over the street or driving on the sidewalk… come on! Intuition is not an objective standard and not allowed in court. YOU targeted-- perhaps not, the paralyzed man in the video-- probably.
1 Like
I’m no lawyer, but it’s my understanding that a traffic infraction is considered a civil violation, not a crime. Thesaurus thing…consult local listings.
3 Likes
Depends on the severity, i.e., DUI, reckless driving, etc.
3 Likes
Well and it’s not always the officer’s observation either. Many times the public calls with the complaint and are willing to sign a complaint against the person for whatever, after witnessing they fill out a statement and sometimes even sign the ticket if one is issued.
So can’t always blame the Police…
4 Likes
AFAIK, LEO suspects window tint violation, can pull him over and cite him for that or check with meter. If during the check something is witnessed that points to another violation or crime that is allowed to be used as evidence. Without any directly witnessed evidence, LEO can ask for permission to search vehicle, without it he cannot search. I do not believe a history of past behavior is probable cause for the search.
5 Likes
You may have hit the nail on the head. The LEO indicated that a dog search was warranted. You can bet that issue will be part of “the rest of the story”!
4 Likes
I always had the idea that window tint would be a popular PC because:
- it is an “always available” criteria not reliant on driver behavior (like speed, lanes, signals);
- it is more subjective so “wrong” is not an automatic foul within broad limits (unlike broken lights, missing plates);
- objective measurement requires close access to both sides of the window(s) in question (allowing more observation of interior).
Oh, and… - illicit behavior is one reason people might want more privacy (although simply “hunch” is more likely to get you “profiling” than “probable”).
But I’m not in that line of work, so just speculating…
1 Like
3 Likes
While I still had out of state tags the Oklahoma Highway Patrol stopped me one night and said my left rear turn signal wasn’t working. After they ran their check, I told the cop my control panel on my dash didn’t show any errors. He had me turn on my turn signal and said it looks like it’s working now and forget the warning ticket. The following article explains the targeting done in many areas of the state and why.
More than 30 states have instituted reforms in recent years to protect people from civil asset forfeiture, such as shifting the burden of proof to the authorities. Others like New Mexico, North Carolina, Nebraska and Maine have abolished it all together.
But Oklahoma is not among the states to take significant action to curtail the practice.
It has among the worst civil forfeiture laws in the country, according to the Institute for Justice, a Virginia-based public interest law firm that releases reports grading state forfeiture laws. Oklahoma earned a D-minus grade in the latest Institute for Justice report, which cited the low bar for confiscating cash and the large incentive created by the seized money going directly to the law enforcement agencies themselves.
The government just has to show by a preponderance of evidence, or more likely than not, the property is connected to illegal activity, said Dan Alban, a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice. That’s a very low burden of proof. It effectively places the burden on the property owner to prove their own innocence.
Canadian County straddles Interstate 40, a major drug trafficking corridor that runs from California to the North Carolina coast. The county sheriff’s office and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol devote substantial resources to combating it. But civil liberties lawyers and local defense attorneys argue that law enforcement uses the focus on drug interdiction as cover for stopping and searching vehicles on flimsy pretenses.
William Campbell, an Oklahoma City-based defense attorney with expertise challenging civil forfeitures, said in any other context the officers, who are known to target cars with out of state license plates, would be seen as common highway robbers.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re innocent or anything else, said Campbell. They’re going to do whatever they’re going to do generally in the dark, on the side of the road in the middle of nowhere where you as the citizen are completely at their mercy.
District attorneys fund their offices with this money, he added. When the DA is making half a million or more off of these stops, how can they be an honest broker on whether these stops are good? They have no incentive to stop this.
6 Likes
It is so typical of these thugs to play games, not obey authority and resist. How many priors does this one have?
It would have been simple for him to say he needed help and would appreciate the officer’s help getting out of the car.
He knew he ordered and purchased illegal tinting just hoping for a moment like this. I have no pity for him.
5 Likes
Check this video out… this mother with her 3 month old set up these US marshals just to make them look foolish… just like these young mothers to disrespect law enforcement.
3 Likes
Might be me but I do not see how/what the mother did to make them look bad. To many times they enter wrong apartment/home and in some cases it ends badly for the peoples.
They need to make sure they have correct information be they make entry.
5 Likes
It was a sarcastic remark to Mike270. We don’t know people’ motives and shouldn’t make blanket judgments. But, yes, this scenario does happen too much, sometimes with an innocent person being killed.
3 Likes
Good point. Now do a few videos of criminals killing innocent victims. Cops make mistakes, we get it. Time for some post retirement therapy and maybe a fishing boat and a fishing pole. Being wound too tight after a career of dealing with criminals every day can make the best of people jaded. It’s normal PTSD.
Stay safe out there @Elza1
3 Likes
This thug is a career criminal.
The following is an article found on the Internet that was written be Carlos Miller.
The Ohio cops who pulled a paraplegic man out of his car by his hair last month after stopping him for dark tints have tried to justify their actions by claiming the driver had a “history” of previous drug arrests.
But a look at the history between the Dayton Police Department and the driver, Clifford Owensby, show that it is the cops with a much more questionable past.
After all, Dayton police have seized almost $40,000 in cash from Owensby in three different traffic stops over his tinted windows since 2008 on the claim it was drug money, according to an investigative report by the Dayton Daily News.
But the only drugs they found that belonged to him during those traffic stops was a bag of weed weighing 3.5 grams which has a street value of less than $50 – a minor offense in a state that decriminalized possession of less than 100 grams of cannabis back in 1975.
Dayton police have justified the cash grabs by claiming their drug-sniffing dogs determined the money had been “in close proximity to illegal drugs,” according to the YouTube video posted by the city of Dayton which includes the body cam footage of the latest incident.
But studies have shown that up to 80 percent of cash circulating at any given moment contains traces of drugs.
Besides, it is not uncommon for cops to train their dogs to give false positives, especially when it can lead to asset forfeiture, the profitable practice of seizing money from citizens on the unproven claim that it was derived from illegal activity.
From a Constitutional perspective, it is legalized armed robbery because it places the burden of proof on the citizen to prove the money is legal, providing a lucrative loophole for cops to seize money without even a warrant, much less actual evidence.
And the Dayton Police Department is one of several Ohio law enforcement agencies that have enriched itself through asset forfeiture over the years, according to a 2015 Cincinnati Enquirer article.
In 2015, the Institute for Justice gave Ohio a grade of “D-“ for its unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws, which have allowed Ohio law enforcement agencies to rake in millions of dollars over the years from innocent citizens.
Two years later, Ohio passed a law that requires a conviction before police can seize property or cash valued at less than $15,000.
The Viral Video
Dayton police seized $22,450 from Owensby on September 30 after pulling him over on the basis he was leaving a “suspected drug house.” They then justified the stop by claiming the tints on the windows of his BMW were illegal but they were only able to determine that after one of the cops used a device to measure the amount of light allowed through.
Rather than write him a citation for illegal tints and allow him to be on his way, Dayton police ordered Owensby out of the car to allow a police dog to conduct a “free air-sniff” to search for drugs.
That was when Owensby told him he was paraplegic and unable to step out. Owensby asked for a supervisor in the hopes to diffuse the situation.
But the cops forced him out the car by his hair and onto the street in an incident captured on video that has been reported widely.
However, what has not been discussed widely is how the cops seized more than $20,000 from him that day but only had enough evidence to cite him for a couple of traffic infractions; the illegal tints and having an unrestrained child in the back seat, his 3-year-old son.
On Monday, a judge found him guilty on both citations and ordered him to pay $300 in fines, according to the Dayton Daily News.
Owensby’s attorney, James Willis, told reporters after the trial that he plans to file a lawsuit against the police department for civil rights violations during the traffic stop.
History with Dayton Police
An online search through Dayton Municipal Court and Montgomery County Court public records show Owensby has a long string of arrests and court cases dating back to 2002. Most appear to be for small amounts of marijuana or cocaine as well as for traffic violations including driving with a suspended license or having illegal tints.
In 2005, online records show he was convicted of felony cocaine possession after police found between five to ten grams of cocaine on him.
In 2006, he was convicted of felony marijuana possession after he was found guilty of possessing between 200 to 1,000 grams of marijuana which is not more than 2.2 pounds. The following year he was arrested for possession of a firearm while having a previous drug conviction.
In 2008, he was pulled over by Dayton police for illegal tints and police ended up seizing a bag of weed from a female passenger as well as $10,000 in cash from Owensby on the same claim that it was in proximity to drugs.
The same thing happened in 2015 after police pulled him over for illegal tints and found 3.5 grams of marijuana on him which led to them seizing $7,100 from him shirt pocket.
In 2016, he sued Dayton police to recover the $10,000 they seized in 2008 but the case was thrown out of court because police claimed they gave the money to the United States Drug Enforcement Administration, according to court records which you can read here.
According to the Dayton Daily News:
IN A 2015 CASE, OWENSBY WAS PULLED OVER FOR HAVING DARK WINDOW TINT. POLICE RECORDS SAY OWENSBY WAS TAKEN OUT OF THE CAR SO A K-9 OFFICER COULD DO A FREE AIR SNIFF. WHEN OFFICERS PATTED DOWN OWENSBY FOR WEAPONS, THEY FOUND $7,100 IN CASH IN HIS POCKET. THE DOG ALERTED TO DRUGS, AND POLICE SEARCHED THE CAR AND FOUND 3.5 GRAMS OF MARIJUANA. OFFICERS SEIZED THE MONEY BECAUSE THE DOG ALERTED THAT IT SMELLED LIKE DRUGS. HE WAS CITED FOR TINTED WINDOWS AS WELL AS MISDEMEANOR MARIJUANA POSSESSION.
OWENSBY FILED A LAWSUIT AGAINST DAYTON POLICE IN 2016 TO RECOVER $10,000 THAT WAS SEIZED FROM HIM AFTER A 2008 TRAFFIC STOP. IN THAT CASE OWENSBY WAS PULLED OVER FOR HAVING DARK-TINTED WINDOWS AND A BAG OF MARIJUANA WAS FOUND ON A WOMAN IN THE CAR. OWENSBY SAID THE MONEY WAS HIS SAVINGS. POLICE CONFISCATED IT BECAUSE IT WAS IN PROXIMITY TO DRUGS.
MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT JUDGE DENNIS ADKINS DISMISSED OWENSBY’S LAWSUIT SAYING DAYTON POLICE HAD HANDED THE MONEY OVER TO THE U.S. DRUG ENFORCEMENT AGENCY SO IT WASN’T IN HIS COURT’S JURISDICTION.
IN THE INCIDENT LAST MONTH, POLICE CONFISCATED $22,450 FROM HIS VEHICLE, SAYING A POLICE DOG INDICATED THE MONEY HAD BEEN IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO ILLEGAL DRUGS. OWENSBY SAYS THE MONEY IS HIS SAVINGS.
In 2015, online court records show he was convicted for possessing less than 100 grams of marijuana, indicating he is more of a consumer than a trafficker.
Even though police pull him over on a routine basis, according to his dozens of court cases over the years, the most serious of all his offenses appear to be the drug and gun felonies from almost 15 years ago.
It is only after those convictions that police started seizing his money during traffic stops but have failed to find anything more than a bag of weed that was most likely his personal stash.
That is the “history” police used to justify dragging him out by his hair after pulling him over for illegal tints.
1 Like
Not trying to be insulting… but the comment “Cops make mistakes” is a horrible comment. IF you or I make that same “mistake” we go to prison, the officer gets vacation.
Did you know that departments (actually taxpayers) pay out more than 3 billion dollars-a-year for officer misconduct?
2 Likes