pulled over the finer points

[Tobus]

Don't see the big deal, I get a flash from the county deputy sheriffs I know around here every once in a while, just to say hi, or usually ask how my Dad is doing.

Not the same thing, not by a long shot...

[Woodsheal]

Personally, I'd cut the officer some slack. His enthusiam to get some kilt info overcame the "letter of the law," but no big deal in my book....

[rmccool]

The law and court precedents clearly state that an officer must have probable cause to detain you. Mere suspicion that something "doesn't look right" is not probable cause unless there is actual (demonstrable) suspicion that a legal infraction has been committed. I know it happens every day, but it shouldn't. This is not supposed to be a Police State where citizens must submit to random harassment by their overlords.

Actually, that's not quite correct, at least not in the US. To make a physical arrest, or to issue a citation or summons (or whatever your jurisdiction calls a written order to appear in court to answer to a minor charge), an officer must have probable cause to believe that you've committed an offense. The US Supreme Court determined in 1968 (in Terry v. Ohio) that an officer merely needs reasonable suspicion to justify stopping you and detaining you for a relatively short time in order to determine whether or not you're up to no good. Such stops are technically called "investigative stops," but most officers know them as Terry stops, after the style of the case that declared them to be legal. To make a valid investigative stop, the officer must be able to articulate specific behavior or characteristics that led him or her to suspect that you might be engaged in illegal activity, but they don't need anything close to the level of evidence (probable cause) needed to actually place a criminal charge.

With that said, and as others have pointed out, there are two plausible explanations for the officer's conduct (as described by the OP):

1. The officer was abusing his authority for purely personal reasons. As Scout noted, that's a big "no no," and something that could (and should) lead to disciplinary action, though a single unjustified traffic stop is unlikely to get an officer anything more than a reprimand in most law enforcement agencies. (A pattern of unjustified stops is another issue entirely.)

2. The officer was suspicious of you for some reason, but didn't want to acknowledge the real reason for his interest in you. That's fairly typical in law enforcement, since people who aren't criminals often get quite irate when told that an officer suspected them of being involved in criminal activity. The officer may well have thought that telling you that he was interested in your kilt was less likely to lead to a negative reaction from you than would telling you that he first thought you might be intoxicated, a potential robber, etc., etc.

We have our share of cops who break the rules, just like any other profession, and it could have been a case of either bad attitude or lousy judgment on the part of the officer. Or, he could have been suspicious of you for some other reason and then decided not to tell you the real reason for the stop once he realized that his suspicions were unfounded. The world may never know. The good news is that, at least so far, wearing the kilt isn't illegal...

[Tobus]

rmccool, excellent explanation. I think we're getting hung up on terminology, though. You are correct that "probable cause" is not the same thing as "reasonable suspicion", and I should have used the latter term rather than the former, but I think the rest of my post holds true. The officer must, as I said before, have actual (demonstrable) suspicion that a legal infraction has been committed. Terry v. Ohio requires a minimum standard of "specific and articulable facts" that warrant such suspicion. Not just a general feeling of "this guy looks suspicious". That was the point I was trying to make, and again, you are absolutely correct that "probable cause" was not the term to use, since it has specific legal use elsewhere.

[sin2001]

Wow had no idea I would open a can of worms lol. All I can say is there was no harm in him stopping me. could be bad judgement. but i'm ok and he is to so thats all that matters.

[rmccool]

Tobus, I'm glad that you didn't take offense at my explanation - after re-reading it, it comes across as a bit overly academic. That's just one of the hazards of spending almost a quarter century in the public safety field... one gets too easily hung up on technical definitions. My intention was to point out that while (as you correctly noted) the officer must be able to articulate specific facts that led him or her to reasonable suspicion, the legal standard for making a traffic stop isn't really all that high, at least in most parts of the US.

With that said, I hope I didn't run the thread too far off the tracks.

[Father Bill]

In every calling, there are those whose egos lead them to think that they are beyond the rules and laws. When I was a teacher, there were those who thought they knew everything. They never did. As a priest, I know a lot of colleagues who think they know God's opinion on everything.

The difference is that the police carry guns and handcuffs and can make life very difficult. For that reason, it is reasonable for the public to hold an expectation that they be reasonable and not in any way misuse or abuse their authorities over the general public whom they are supposed to serve. Those who cannot operate within those parameters put into jeopardy the trust which gives the true authority to the one with the badge.

Seems reasonable to me!

[Zardoz]

OrneryPiper; "people with a beef, and a 'flare for the dramatic'"

Casting a wide net on this forum are we?

[sailortats]

I think we need to realize too, that cops are human beings just like the rest of us. Yes, it probably was against the rules to stop sin2001 as he did, but that being said, it is possible that this particular cop has had a long time interest in kilts and that sin2001 was the first person he had ever seen actually wearing one. The temptation for him to finally see one up close was just too much and hence the stop. It is good to see that it ended on amicable terms.

[Moski]

Sometimes we get some descriptions that are really weak and have to check then out. The standard for traffic stops in Pa is reasonable suspicion. Sometimes things check out or turn out to be "de minimus " infractions within the officers discretion to drop. No one likes to hear that they were under any suspicion so its easier to deflect with a subject the citizen appears to be interested in. Some people have been known to make a fuss based on a laymans understanding of legal theory and fictions. Some only gleaned from telly. Deflect and move on and they get a "guess what" story to tell rather than a heartache.

Of course if it was only about the kilt he was dead wrong and his actions were unprofessional and unacceptable. Period.