Naveronski said:

---

InfantryAg said:

---

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

gig em 02 said:

---

It's not about what you say, it's about how you act when you say it.

---

And your skin color

---

Source?
Oh that's right, another internet myth.

---

Quote:

---

In Texas, a 1995 analysis of more than 16 million driving records by the Houston Chronicle found that minority drivers who strayed into the small white enclaves in and around the state's major urban areas were twice as likely as whites to be ticketed for traffic violations. The study found that Hispanics were ticketed most often, though blacks overall faced the sharpest disparities, particularly in the suburbs around Houston where they were more than three times as likely as whites to receive citations. Bellaire, a mostly white city surrounded by southwest Houston, had the widest disparity in ticketing minorities of any city statewide, with blacks 43 times more likely than whites to receive citations there. (Source: The Houston Chronicle)

---

https://www.aclu.org/report/driving-while-black-racial-profiling-our-nations-highways

---

1995 is about two law enforcement generations distant. Even when I worked traffic enforcement in Bryan, most stops were on white drivers. Saturday night was a different matter due to weekend clubbing and a number of bars which catered to illegal aliens on Bryan's north side. I also worked in Salt Lake City where the population is overwhelmingly (until 20 years ago) gringo and Saturday nights involved a lot of stops with Hispanic drivers. Saturday nights mean tighter enforcement in the attempt to apprehend DUIs/DWIs.
And you usually cannot tell the ethnicity of the driver at night or with tinted windows absent any other information.

Quote:

---

I then asked him for his name and some sort of identifying number so I could file a complaint, which he refused to give.

---

Did he give you a ticket? His badge number is on the ticket.

oh yea, she got a ticket, that was never going to be a question with the way she drives. I realized that his number was on the ticket after she got it. I don't frequently get them, so I had no clue

BCO07 said:

---

oh yea, she got a ticket, that was never going to be a question with the way she drives. I realized that his number was on the ticket after she got it. I don't frequently get them, so I had no clue

---

Gotcha.

Sorry you had to experience that.

I've been pulled over more times than I'd care to admit, only had one semi-bad experience with an officer who didn't believe me when I said I was sober driving home on a Saturday night/Sunday morning after being in College Station all day for a game. He called someone to do a sobriety test, which I passed easily. After that, he and the other officer relaxed completely. I figured he had been patrolling that same road all night and dealing with drunks, so he was tired of dealing with their attitudes, and he took a little bit of his frustration out on me. We all have bad days.

I'd be livid if I experience what you experienced, though.

I recognize that the overwhelming majority of cops are good people looking to do a good job. Similar to not having a bad guy sticker on the back of cars, there isn't a bad cop sticker either.

Pot Brothers at Law, look them up on YouTube. Looks like they might be scumbag attorneys and are probably serving scumbag clients. HOWEVER, they give some good advice. SHUT THE F*** UP.

Because of their STFU tagline, videos NSFW

TLDR; I wasn't trying to blow smoke or imply that a smile is a cop's Achilles heal and will prevent police misconduct. Don't be a jackass and you *generally* won't be treated like one. *Act like a jackass and you're guaranteed to be treated like one would be a better description.
...........................


In no way am I trying to deny that there are jackasses in law enforcement. Most cops don't understand or don't consider how a single negative interaction, whether legitimate or perceived, can reach a much larger audience in a heartbeat. Especially in this age of social media. And it frustrates me to no end because it typically makes our job harder.

I have no doubt that you had what sounds like an awful interaction with a cop on a traffic stop. At last check, this thread has over 3,000 views. The story of that jackass's behavior has now been viewed that many times over. It's rare that a good deed/positive interaction has that same reach.

I completely agree about the power discrepancy issue that you mentioned. I've been stopped a handful of times over the years while not at work and still get the knot in my stomach and lump in my throat.

While at work, I try to minimize it as best as I can by speaking with folks that I come into contact with as candidly and personably as possible, the same way that I hope I've come across while responding to this thread. In my experience that typically helps break down barriers and leads to better communication and positive outcome, as cheesy as that sounds.

Now, I'm also not claiming to be a saint either. I've been that ******* cop before in my younger years and can still act the role when warranted. Any cop who has directed traffic by hand for any extended period of time would agree that they've lost their temper at work. It happens. I'm not goal tending or justifying behavior but offering some perspective.

Most mid to large agencies produce a yearly internal affairs/racial profiling report that covers reported misconduct. The information is out there for those inclined to review it.

Smaller agencies tend to have smaller budgets and more limited resources/manpower and you'll likely not encounter that level of "customer service". I'm not sure what the answer to that would be in those situations.

The issue with today's media is that those reports are scrutinized, stats cherry picked, and information is misrepresented for a quick, click bait headline that isn't more heavily scrutinized by the general public.

I once sat through a two day seminar/forum put on by a national non-profit that seeks law enforcement reform. Hearing the information that was being stated openly in forums and knowing the details of that same info first hand, the information being presented to the public was disingenuous at best.

That same non-profit went door to door in certain neighborhoods attempting to gather personal stories of police misconduct in preparation for the summit. They were actually ran out of one minority neighborhood HOA-like meeting for trying to stir up resentment from the neighborhood towards the police department.

Both departments I've worked for have guidelines for investigating misconduct and providing the outcome of the investigation back to the original complainant before the case could be considered closed out.

Nothing prevents someone from following up with a complaint. Just because you never heard anything back doesn't mean nothing was done.

I forever will have a "not sustained" complaint, rather than an "exoneration" in my personnel file for the simple reason that the original complainant, a transient who was pissed off for being arrested, never followed up with their initial complaint. Internal affairs could not conduct a formal interview with him since he refused to cooperate further. Due to his lack of cooperation with the process past the initial demand of speaking with a supervisor on scene, a formal investigation couldn't prove or in my case "disprove" that I didn't do what was alleged. This was before the era of body cameras.

My point is that the overwhelming majority of law enforcement contacts are neutral and/or positive. Those interactions aren't shared very often and simply don't make very attractive headlines.

In an overwhelming majority of cases, if you act like a reasonable, civilized person, you can have a neutral and maybe even positive interaction with law enforcement. Even while asserting your individual rights. As someone has already suggested, it's not the content of your speech but the manner in which you're saying it.

BCO07 said:

---

I appreciate your candor and civil conversation. I sure hope that your attitude is common among cops, though I'll do my best to keep the sample size low.

I work with cops professionally in the ER regularly and they are always normal guys. The psychology of how things change when the setting changes is interesting to me. That said, I completely agree with you that the majority of my interaction with cops has been totally fine (other than when I was a punk teenager) and I could have made that more clear that the above was a one off albeit an impactful one.

---

You didn't need to make it clear that it was a one off. I'd wager that most folks who post on here don't routinely have negative interactions with the police. And on that note, thank you for all that you and your colleagues are doing on a daily basis. Especially during this pandemic.

But you hit the nail on the head when saying how impactful that stop was. I don't remember if you said how long ago that happened, but guarantee you'll remember the story forever. And that's a shame you and your family had to experience that.

Hopefully with the continued use of body cameras and expansion of "community policing", *******s will be weeded out of this profession. An ******* will still find ways to show their colors even knowing that they're being recorded. A body camera isn't going to automatically "fix" a jaded cop and it'll just take time and continued mutual cooperation.

I welcome a candid conversation with anyone and I appreciate your comments also. I'm genuinely surprised there hasn't been a lot of backlash towards me on here.. I've seen plenty of cops get lambasted on a thread after "outing" themselves and it quickly turns into a dumpster fire.

I've learned to have the mindset that I can only control myself and my actions and can't control those around me. If someone wants to be an ass to me on a traffic stop, I'm not going to let that ruin my day... or my donut.

I didn't watch these specific videos but have seen similar ones judging by your comments.

Over the course of my career, I can't count how many times someone has talked themselves out of a ticket or out of handcuffs by explaining themselves or their predicament.

But I've rarely, if ever, had someone talk themselves into a ticket or into an arrest. Typically when it gets to that point, people are caught red-handed.

Not trying to change anyone's opinion about how they wish to behave or wish to assert their rights, but just offering some perspective.

I'm a white, middle-aged, mom and I drive a white SUV with 3 kids in it. I almost never get stopped. But the two times in the last 10 years I have been pulled over I have been polite. I have never been asked a question I refused to answer. However, some people could probably benefit from that advice.

Even scumbags have the right to keep quiet.

I'm not implying that anyone should be forced to speak with the police or isn't deserving of their constitutional rights.

I'm commenting from a different perspective that offering an explanation about your conduct isn't automatically a nail in your coffin that seemingly every criminal defense attorney wants you to believe. Or that remaining quiet and refusing to answer questions will get you automatically "hauled in on suspicion of something". It's a little deeper than a couple of slick lawyers offering the advice to always "stfu" when speaking with the police.

OP_06:

Along the same lines is the stereotypical first question, " Do you know why I pulled you over?" A no answer implies ignorance of the law and a yes is basically an acknowledgement of guilt. Is "I prefer not to state either way" an acceptable response without being to much of an ass? PS I've only been pulled over three times in my life.

Break the ice and pick one

You thought I had donuts
Is one of my brake lights out?
Is this one of those candid camera pranks?
Do I owe you money?

I typically don't argue with officers any more when I get pulled over as they usually have a good reason (I was speeding).

I look at law enforcement like any other profession. You'll always find azzholes in any group.

SPF250 said:

---

OP_06:

Along the same lines is the stereotypical first question, " Do you know why I pulled you over?" A no answer implies ignorance of the law and a yes is basically an acknowledgement of guilt. Is "I prefer not to state either way" an acceptable response without being to much of an ass? PS I've only been pulled over three times in my life.

---

I think that question is a little dated from a training standpoint but absolutely realize it still gets asked pretty often. Most agencies and academies teach a 7 or 8 step approach now that outlines each step that an officer *should* take during the stop. It's meant to be a guide to maintain professionalism, keep the officer out of trouble, create an opportunity for people to explain their behavior, and from conducting court via roadside. Should generally say "you were stopped for blank, is there a reason why you were doing that?"

As far as an "acceptable" answer, I'm not trying to mandate how anyone decides to behave/answer questions when speaking with cops.

But I'll add that when I make a traffic stop, more often than not, we both know damn well why you were stopped. It's pretty easy to read people and see whether they legitimately knew they were or were not aware of whatever it is that they were stopped for.

Traffic enforcement involves behavior modification for me to properly do my job. Get that person to stop whatever it is that they were doing.

That can be accomplished with a verbal warning, a citation, or sometimes even an arrest depending on the circumstances.

I generally don't write a lot of citations except for no driver license and/or no insurance. Everything else is fair game to receive a warning. I just need an "assurance" that the behavior has been modified and the conduct will change and hopefully stop in the future. And generally honesty and open dialogue on the part of the driver helps with that.

Goes back to what I said in a previous post. Plenty of folks have talked themselves out of trouble but rarely have I had someone talk themselves into trouble. But there are certainly exceptions to that and it generally involves an awful attitude and that person failing to adequately display that their behavior will change.

Can you reply to their question with a question? For example, "why did you pull me over?"

Quote:

---

But I'll add that when I make a traffic stop, more often than not, we both know damn well why you were stopped.

---

Agreed. I just don't like to make an admission, even if I know I was going a little fast. Thanks for the response and what you do. And, sorry for the thread derail.

Props to OP for watching COPS. Might I add that The First 48 and Lone Star Law are incredible shows as well.

Sure you can. If I understand you correctly, you're saying the conversation would go like this:

Cop- Do you know why you were stopped?
Driver- why did you pull me over?

If the above is correct, you could say "No... why did you pull me over?"

Both provide the same outcome since you asking why you were stopped implies that you don't know why to begin with. And saying "no" before your question answers theirs, even if it's a silly question to begin with.

I think in any interaction between two people, replying to a question by ignoring the question and asking one of your own can be interpreted as argumentative, even if not intended.

Lol, I get it. It's human nature to not want to be held accountable for one's actions/admit to making a mistake. Completely understandable. I've known way too many cops that have gotten fired for lying about something they did, when the original act would've likely resulted in some type of small administrative action/punishment rather than termination. But they got **** canned for lying about it.

Two of my best friends and my brother are cops, I'm not worried a police officer is trying to 'trip me up' when talking to me. Your adversarial approach to dealing with police is a poor one imo, but you do you.

In my experience, it depends on where you are when it comes to the behavior of LEOs. In Houston, HPD officers are almost always focused on actual crimes and serious stuff. CSPD on the other hand were a bunch of juvenile criminals themselves. They bent and straight up broke the law in many cases to get the smallest infractions in the book.

Did you file a complaint when those cops broke the law or just complain about it on a message board expecting something to be done about it? CSPD has a fairly rigorous policy in regards to investigating complaints made by the public and will hammer an officers ass for *legitimate* misconduct.

And in regards to casting a wide net over an agency, there are a few officers in that agency who were awarded Congressional Badges of Bravery for their actions.

There's currently an HPD officer indicted for lying on a search warrant affidavit which eventually led to cops getting shot and two citizens killed.

Point is, there are bad cops that work at every agency but rarely, in Texas at least, is an entire department full of "juvenile criminals". Don't be obtuse.

Charged with a Class A Misdemeanor before a can was even opened?

Yeah, that's piddly f'ing garbage. (and I'm usually on LEO side of things).

PrestigeWW said:

---

I actually have a great example. My first weekend at A&M I was arrested for MIP and contributing to minors. It's the only scrape I've ever had with the law in my entire life. ...

.......Everything he did screamed a dismissal. He didn't mirandize me while I was in cuffs and came to a bull**** conclusion that should have never even been conceivable as a charge. Scumbag. If it wasn't a Brazos County court it would have been thrown out before the prosecutor even let it hit the ground.

That guy was a scumbag. People that tolerate that behavior are part of the problem. They make honest people distrust law enforcement.

---

.

After reading your post, I don't understand where you think you were the victim of "juvenile criminal police misconduct". I'm not trying to minimize your story or history by any means or get into a debate with you about whether you were right or wrong or whether the cop was a jackass or not.

I'm just digesting the info you provided. It sounds like multiple agencies, at minimum CSPD and the county attorney's office, were involved in your prosecution and multiple sets of eyes looked at the facts of your case.

Local law enforcement accepts guidance from the prosecutor's office all the time in respect to what facts they want to see with each case/criminal offense.

A large portion of that depends on the issues that plague that specific county. For example, counties that see higher incidents of under age drinking/intoxicated driving will see stiffer penalties and stiffer enforcement of those crimes.

An arrest the is kosher in Brazos County may not be accepted for prosecution in Harris County and vice versa.

Lastly, I agree that in your situation a Class A misdemeanor is an excessive penalty and it doesn't "fit the crime" in the slightest. I'd wager that damn near anyone who drank in college, probably drank underage, and likely shared a 6 pack with a roommate. But that's an issue for the state legislature and not local law enforcement.

Strongweasel97 said:

---

Charged with a Class A Misdemeanor before a can was even opened?

Yeah, that's piddly f'ing garbage. (and I'm usually on LEO side of things).

---

Yes. I had to explain the charges when applying to law school. I had to pay a lawyer $5k to get it reduced to a class B (misrepresentation of age) and 100 hours of community service. At the time I only had a television idea of criminal procedure but I still asked my lawyer if the Miranda issue was relevant. He laughed at that question and said I should take it up with the Supreme Court when I get there.

I don't practice criminal law but I still took criminal procedure. That officer pretty much broke the handle off the rule of questioning without mirandizing in that situation. What I said to the officer was enough to get the contributing charge to court in Brazos county regardless of whether or not I came into contact with the other minors in the car. Absolutely BS.

I definitely agree that my story has more to do with the DA's office than CSPD. I'm just pointing out that people need to always be wary about what kind of information they're divulging with LEO.

The most common question I get when stopped is "Where are you going?" My typical response is "Home".
Further conversation goes "Where is home?" After I tell them what town the next question is essentially where the hell is that? After I show my state ID everyone relaxes we have a short conversation, I get told to watch the speed and everyone goes about their business. I don't typically speed outrageously but sometimes get caught when the speed limit drops precipitously when coming into a town or a spot on the side of the road. Anyone know where Hext is?

Did get stopped one time late at night on a Sunday when I didn't know why, answered no and was told I was "weaving" apparently a tire had crossed the white line. I suspect trolling for drunks.

PrestigeWW said:

---

In my experience, it depends on where you are when it comes to the behavior of LEOs. In Houston, HPD officers are almost always focused on actual crimes and serious stuff. CSPD on the other hand were a bunch of juvenile criminals themselves. They bent and straight up broke the law in many cases to get the smallest infractions in the book.

---

So in this post you condemn the entire CSPD as juvenile criminals and in a later post said you only had one scrape with the police and from your account one officer treated you unfairly in your opinion?

You spent four years in College Station without having parties getting broken up, heard stories of things happening with CSPD and had friends have experiences with the local law enforcement? You don't have to be getting arrested every weekend to have an opinion based of living in a community for four years.