Dariof

The CHP did everything correctly.

1. Stopped a driver for reckless..misdemeanor and arrestable..no problem with cuffing at all.
2. Cuffed the driver because of the misdemeanor but also for officer safety, as perhaps alcohol was involved (misdemeanor is the lawful reason).
3. Searched the car incident to what was going to be a legal arrest for the reckless and prior to impounding the vehicle
4. Ran the suspect for warrants/prior convictions.
5. Had consent to test for DUI (probably needed consent because of no outward appearances after observing the suspect for a few minutes....smell, nystagmus, slurring, etc.
6. No alcohol found per the breathalyzer.

At this point, the CHP made a decision not to arrest and immediately released the suspect. He could have just as easily arrested the driver and towed the vehicle. If the driver had any priors, he would have probably gone ahead with the arrest.

This was an understanding officer, but really after the stop, had to at least issue a citation. He was nice enough to make it at a speed so as to qualify for traffic school.

One more aspect to this.......an officer can search the immediate area of the driver without a warrant if they are looking for driver's license or registration, or have some other type of Probable Cause. Anything they find in searching for the driver's license or registration is considered retrievable and admissible in court. So, if there are drugs or a weapon in your glove compartment, well, you know.......

Yes, I am an attorney, and also do a whole lot of work on the police side of things.

jrgordonsenior

Marty some interesting points.... A;though he didn't ask, I had no problem letting him search my car knowing there was nothing there and he was specifically looking for booze or drugs. Now if I had been carrying a weapon I would have made it very clear that he was searching without m permission. Remember, I'm clocked at 105 and anything that puts me into a better light is OK with me. He patted me down and cuffed me to assure his safety. Again under the circumstances I had no objection.

I posted the story to highlight powerful a good attitude can be. Well that and a clean record and breathlyzer.....

Dariof

What the officer would have done if you refused consent to search is searched anyway, then continue with the misdemeanor arrest and impounding your vehicle.

He had you at every move (just like a chess game) and you handled it perfectly.

You had the right CHP stopping you, and it was his desire to be as compliant with you as you were with him.

Great job.

500

A potentially very negative situation turned into a somewhat postive one...which is always a good thing in my book.

nyca

the search of the car is BS, that this type of search is done routinely just goes to show you that the 4th amendment has been shredded.

typically, if you refuse a search - the drug sniffing dogs or some other ploy is used to establish "probable cause" to allow it.

ChipAZ

This post Reminds me of a Dragnet episode.

jrgordonsenior

Very funny.... And on that note here's Jack Webb with Johnny Carson for those of you who might not have seen this wonderful 1968 clip. Enjoy....

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F4RIBhQIkII

PS: Chip can you find your car on the Google satellite in Capiton, NM?

4thporsche

YES, puts everything into perspective and people should learn from this post.

Dr 997

Interestingly, this was probably the best outcome given the circumstances, but you got there doing all the things you're "not supposed to do" like admitting guilt, giving an explanation, etc. if you had taken the more traditional advice and showed any resistance at all or questioned the cop, you would have gone to jail, probably...

JEC_31

People tend to get overzealous about speeding drunk drivers - or what appears to be a speeding drunk driver - after they've seen firsthand, up close, and on far too many occasions, the grisly deaths of innocent people.

Proof:

MartyB

I'm well aware of searches incidental to arrest, or "inventory searches", but I've never heard of one being done just because the cop knows he COULD arrest the person, and in the case above we would have to assume that excessive speed alone is considered reckless driving - I don't know. Not arresting someone sort of obviates the need to "inventory" their property for their own good, no? I do realize that I am arguing academically here rather than pragmatically and that refusing a search, breathalyzer, (fill in the blank) often results in an arrest, often for something petty, so I'm not suggesting that one should always stand on principle forsaking liberty, especially if one has nothing to hide. But it still sounds to me like the search was unlawful. I have been wrong a time or two before, however. Here is an interesting read.

http://nevadalawjournal.org/pdf/camachoVsState.pdf

uzj100

Bottom line, IMHO, is that this guy's car could have been impounded and establishment of the legality of the search would have taken place at a later point in time--right? Seems going to traffic school beats having your car impounded.

Dariof

Going to traffic school beats:

Car impounded
Misdemeanor arrest and probable conviction
Attorney's Fees
Points on Driver's License
Insurance Fees

This cop did this person a huge favor, and still people are saying the search was illegal, the cop was over-zealous, 4th amendment rights are gone, etc. What's even more pathetic, is these people who want to "hang a cop" because he was doing his job (Remember, the cop wasn't driving at over 100MPH) have absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

I guess no good deed goes unpunished is the theme of what people are trying to turn this thread into.

If this does go to court, the cop will testify exactly as to what happened, that he gave the motorist a huge break, and then traffic school will also be denied.

I would go to traffic school and buy this cop dinner if I ever saw him again.

4thporsche

I agree... some of these comments defy basic common sense.

Soulteacher

I don't think you can generalize it like this. Over the past 12 months, I got stopped four times: I admitted speeding twice and was let off both times; I argued against the accusations also twice - once speeding and once running a red light - and ended up in traffic court for speeding (the red light I really had not run and the cop admitted he might have misjudged my position).

Not sure if this is relevant, but the three times I was let off I had gotten stopped by a regular cop; the one time I went to court it had been a traffic cop. I believe the former are more understanding/forgiving/cooler than the latter.