pulled over the finer points

[OrneryPiper]

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.

I don't think there is a big deal, this thread just gave people with a beef, and a flare for the dramatic, an opportunity to express their views on the police. The thing I don't understand is why, if you believe you are oppressed you don't file an official complaint. If you have been mistreated why not deal with it in a proper, mature faction, perhaps there is a reasonable answer?

I think sullying the police (or any other group for that matter...) on XMTS, preticularly when there are so many police and police pipeband members is inappropriate.

[Zardoz]

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

Casting a wide net on this forum are we?

[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.

[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....

[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!

[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.