The police factor
Posted by NorCal Scott on May 15, 2002 at 16:00:37: Previous Next
In my job, I have to have a clean driving record. I sometimes speed (shocking revelation!).
What's been the experience with long-haired men being stopped by traffic cops? I do drive a conservative car, and don't drive excessively fast.
Re: The police factor
Posted by John L. on May 15, 2002 at 16:48:22: Previous Next
In Reply to: The police factor posted by NorCal Scott on May 15, 2002 at 16:00:37:
: In my job, I have to have a clean driving record. I sometimes speed (shocking revelation!).
:)
: What's been the experience with long-haired men being stopped by traffic cops? I do drive a conservative car, and don't drive excessively fast.
I haven't had any problems lately. I did get a ticket once. Back in 1999 for doing 68 in a 55. The officer wrote me up for a 65 in a 55. I didn't have as long a hairstyle as I did earlier this year. I wouldn't worry about it.
-J
Re: The police factor
Posted by Rokker on May 16, 2002 at 12:04:54: Previous Next
In Reply to: The police factor posted by NorCal Scott on May 15, 2002 at 16:00:37:
I have a ton of stories I could share. In some cases, I (or we) was hassled for no reason at all. At times I (or we) provoked a stop, but were treated poorly just because of having long hair.
I had initially posted this on the buzz board when someone asked me if I'd been harrassed by the cops for no legitimate reason other than having hair.
Austin, Texas - 1987. I was driving a sports car ('86 Nissan 300 ZX) and...GASP...doing 55 miles an hour! What kind of young man does 55 in a sports car? Hmmm. Must be a druggie guy with a serious stash of some illicit substance!
After being pulled over, I dared to ask what the problem was. The cop, a Texas trooper, reminded me that HE would ask ALL the questions. He asked me to sign a consent to search form. He wanted to search my car. I had nothing to hide, but the stop was for no legitimate reason, so I refused.
Two, then three more troopers show up. One watches as the other three yell at me, calling me every name in the book. They threaten to beat me. I still refuse.
After nearly 2 1/2 hours, they get a search warrant to search my vehicle. A K-9 unit has their dog check the car out. No drugs! The dog is commanded to go again. Nothing. A third trip into the car. Nothing!
So the cops come unglued and yell because I have nothing. I reminded them that I told them I had nothing nearly 3 hours before that! I ask for their names and badge numbers, and tell them I plan to file a complaint. They harass me some more, calling me "Mr Lawyer" and other names, then I'm back on the road and on my way home. The whole scene took almost three hours.
I wrote to my congressman. Six weeks later, thanks to videotape evidence (from the patrol cars themselves), two officers lost their jobs, the judge who signed the warrant was removed from his seat, and one other officer was reprimanded. I was encouraged to sue for having my civil rights violated, but I never did.
I can share some other stories if you want.
Re: The police factor
Posted by Victor on May 16, 2002 at 15:22:24: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: The police factor posted by Rokker on May 16, 2002 at 12:04:54:
Interesting story, but what evidence do you have that your hair was the reason for the stop? If that were the only reason, in Austin, the troopers would be working non-stop. And was it really Austin? It sounds more like Round Rock.
Georgetown
Posted by Rokker on May 16, 2002 at 15:53:52: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: The police factor posted by Victor on May 16, 2002 at 15:22:24:
: Interesting story, but what evidence do you have that your hair was the reason for the stop? If that were the only reason, in Austin, the troopers would be working non-stop. And was it really Austin? It sounds more like Round Rock.
It was Georgetown, just north of Round Rock.
What else was the reason? No one else doing 55 was pulled over.
Besides, let's face it, Texas DPS troopers are the biggest jerks on the face of this planet. I've never met a friendly one....ever! They are extremely arrogant and rude, and often push their authority to the limit.
I have no "hard evidence", but the fact is that they use profiling to pull people over. That's not opinion, that's fact. And getting pulled over for doing the speed limit just to do a drug search is wrong. Nothing you nor anyone else says can justify a cop pulling over a car when that person is doing absolutely nothing wrong.
What's worse is how they abuse and misuse their authority while hiding behind the badge. They can call people names, belittle them, threaten them...you name it...all in the name of public safety.
Please...don't give me the "evidence" line. The incident speaks for itself.
Re: Georgetown
Posted by InUtero on May 16, 2002 at 16:19:08: Previous Next
In Reply to: Georgetown posted by Rokker on May 16, 2002 at 15:53:52:
Amen, Rokker.
Re: Georgetown
Posted by Victor on May 16, 2002 at 18:20:40: Previous Next
In Reply to: Georgetown posted by Rokker on May 16, 2002 at 15:53:52:
: I have no "hard evidence", but the fact is that they use profiling to pull people over. That's not opinion, that's fact. And getting pulled over for doing the speed limit just to do a drug search is wrong. Nothing you nor anyone else says can justify a cop pulling over a car when that person is doing absolutely nothing wrong.
I can't disagree with you here. However, I doubt that simply having long hair is what did it. I've been living in Austin since 1992. There are thousands of longhaired guys here. The notion that someone gets picked out simply because of their hair length is absurd. That's why I asked for the clarification on location. Still, it remains speculation on your part, and I think you should be clear on that.
I also think Austin cops are great. Of course there is the occasional bad apple, but all you can do is complain and hope the complaint gets results. It looks like your complaint DID get results, which shows that the system works.
I know you said Texas troopers, but above, you said cops, which I normally take to mean police. Austin cops get enough flak as it is, most of it undeserved.
cops doing their job.
Posted by T on May 16, 2002 at 23:35:36: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Georgetown posted by Victor on May 16, 2002 at 18:20:40:
I agree with you, Victor. I don't live in Texas, but just read his post at the bottom of the page where he whines about getting pulled over for speeding and having a broken tail light. Also, notice that he says this happened in the 80's.
Let's clarify something!
Posted by Rokker on May 17, 2002 at 12:51:20: Previous Next
In Reply to: cops doing their job. posted by T on May 16, 2002 at 23:35:36:
: I agree with you, Victor. I don't live in Texas, but just read his post at the bottom of the page where he whines about getting pulled over for speeding and having a broken tail light. Also, notice that he says this happened in the 80's.
First, I'm not whining. Let's get that straight. I just don't like injustice.
In addition to that, a tail light that's burned out is one thing. However, when it leads to a drug search, that's another. Getting pulled over and being told a tail light is out is normal and acceptable. Being forced out of the vehicle and made to wait as the vehicle is searched for drugs is in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution may not mean much to you, but it does to me.
There is an amendment that protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It is UNREASONABLE to force five peple out of a vehicle to search for drugs when the vehicle has a burned out tail light. It's also UNREASONABLE to search a vehicle and keep five people in separate police cars when that vehicle was doing 60 in a 55, especially considering the state law specified that you aren't supposed to be stopped unless you're at 10 miles over the limit.
As I admitted, there were times we brought attention to ourselves. However, that does NOT give any police officer the right to circumvent the Constitution and decide he can do whatever the hell he wants.
Our lead guitarist was harrassed for being a longhair with an earring in a nice neighborhood. He was even cuffed and arrested for no reason until the homeowner ran out and said he was a guest. He had already told the cop the same thing.
That's wrong. And if you think it isn't, you're a fu**ing mo-ron!
did you forget what you posted?
Posted by T on May 17, 2002 at 17:24:43: Previous Next
In Reply to: Let's clarify something! posted by Rokker on May 17, 2002 at 12:51:20:
: First, I'm not whining. Let's get that straight. I just don't like injustice.
: In addition to that, a tail light that's burned out is one thing. However, when it leads to a drug search, that's another. Getting pulled over and being told a tail light is out is normal and acceptable. Being forced out of the vehicle and made to wait as the vehicle is searched for drugs is in direct violation of the Constitution. The Constitution may not mean much to you, but it does to me.
: There is an amendment that protects us from UNREASONABLE search and seizure. It is UNREASONABLE to force five peple out of a vehicle to search for drugs when the vehicle has a burned out tail light. It's also UNREASONABLE to search a vehicle and keep five people in separate police cars when that vehicle was doing 60 in a 55, especially considering the state law specified that you aren't supposed to be stopped unless you're at 10 miles over the limit.
.
You're referring to the Bill of Rights. You also go on to imply that it was unfair to be pulled over for doing 96 in a 55 zone. When you're traveling 41 mph over the speed limit, that meets the requirements for suspicious activity, or probable cause. It's called reckless driving and it's an arrestable offense. People get killed from driving like that. You also admit to having drugs in the car. The ammendment you speak of is to protect innocents, not you.
.
: As I admitted, there were times we brought attention to ourselves. However, that does NOT give any police officer the right to circumvent the Constitution and decide he can do whatever the hell he wants.
.
You have no credibility when you make such statements. People like you only know 2 things about the law; (1) Unreasonable search and seizure, and (2) Freedom of speech. You have memorized these 2 phrases to pull out whenever someone questions you, knowing nothing else about the government. The fact that you don't even know that you're talking about the 4th Ammendment in the Bill of Rights speaks for itself.
: That's wrong. And if you think it isn't, you're a fu**ing mo-ron!
.
That's disrespectful. Don't get all angry with me just because you have inconsistencies in your story, which ruin your credibility.
did you forget what you posted?…yes
Posted by A. Michelson on May 17, 2002 at 23:29:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: did you forget what you posted? posted by T on May 17, 2002 at 17:24:43:
: : It's also UNREASONABLE to search a vehicle and keep five people in separate police cars when that vehicle was doing 60 in a 55, especially considering the state law specified that you aren't supposed to be stopped unless you're at 10 miles over the limit.
: .
: You also go on to imply that it was unfair to be pulled over for doing 96 in a 55 zone. When you're traveling 41 mph over the speed limit, that meets the requirements for suspicious activity, or probable cause.
.
Which is it? 60 mph or 96 mph?
.
: You also admit to having drugs in the car.
.
No, he was merely searched to see if he had drugs or NOT! This is NOT an admission to having drugs!
Re: did you read the post?...no
Posted by T on May 18, 2002 at 00:44:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: did you forget what you posted?…yes posted by A. Michelson on May 17, 2002 at 23:29:02:
Before you post such snotty statements, you should actually read the post we're talking about. It's at the bottom of this board, titled "funny story."
Have a nice day.
Re: no time to search the post
Posted by A. Michelson on May 18, 2002 at 20:01:32: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: did you read the post?...no posted by T on May 18, 2002 at 00:44:02:
: Before you post such snotty statements, you should actually read the post we're talking about. It's at the bottom of this board, titled "funny story."
It was on another thread, and I had no time to search for 96 mph. Yes, he did go 96 mph, but I doubt that he admitted to having drugs. I always REFerence where the past messages are.
Re: no time to search the post
Posted by T on May 19, 2002 at 02:02:12: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: no time to search the post posted by A. Michelson on May 18, 2002 at 20:01:32:
: I doubt that he admitted to having drugs.
One more time, READ THE POST. Or would you like me to take you by the hand, read it to you, and then pat you on the head like a puppy?
I am reading the post.
Posted by A. Michelson on May 19, 2002 at 18:00:39: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: no time to search the post posted by T on May 19, 2002 at 02:02:12:
: : I doubt that he admitted to having drugs.
: One more time, READ THE POST.
I am reading the post. First, he's pulled over for doing 96 in a 55 mph zone. Then he's pulled over for doing 65 in a 55 mph zone. By the way, it is now legal to do 65 mph, but ONLY IN SOME PARTS. In many areas, the speed limit is still 55 mph.
He had drugs, but wouldn't admit that he had them. He did co-operate with the State Trooper, and was let go.
Austin Cops
Posted by Rokker on May 17, 2002 at 12:55:02: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: Georgetown posted by Victor on May 16, 2002 at 18:20:40:
I've never had a bad experience with an Austin cop. They've all been relatively laid back and cool.
It's the backwater hick county sherriffs and the DPS troopers that are the real problem.
Re: The police factor
Posted by The Rev on May 16, 2002 at 12:04:59: Previous Next
In Reply to: The police factor posted by NorCal Scott on May 15, 2002 at 16:00:37:
: In my job, I have to have a clean driving record. I sometimes speed (shocking revelation!).
: What's been the experience with long-haired men being stopped by traffic cops? I do drive a conservative car, and don't drive excessively fast.
The situation with the police is different now than it was in, say, the 50's and 60's. With the increase in media scrutiny, cops from the beginning are constantly admonished to behave themselves. Does this mean they do? The majority are better than they used to be, but the profession is still extremely attractive to bullies. Departments have taken action to minimize the problem by demanding more rigorous background checks and, in most cases, a higher degree of education. Many departments will not even consider a candidate who does not have an AA or equivalent college experience. Education goes a long way toward opening the mind and increasing tolerance, and it shows in our police recruits.
The Rev
Re: The police factor
Posted by terry on June 04, 2002 at 00:54:45: Previous Next
In Reply to: Re: The police factor posted by The Rev on May 16, 2002 at 12:04:59:
Police judge people just the way anyone else does. The type of car, the speed, the neighbourhood, the number of people in the car, ages of occupants, how dressed, hair length, colour of skin, ethnic background, the time of day. Anything that doesn't look right to a cop will cause him to question the situation. It is no different than you meeting or seeing someone for the first time. All of the above determines whether you like, trust, dislike or disturst the person. Or in a more positive light, of all the women that you see in a day, what makes you want to get to know a particular woman/chick? Something that catches your attention, right?