Posted on 12/29/2023 6:06:24 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Well officer if you don’t know then how would I know
It’s a good law. The whole “Do you know why I pulled you over?” question is a trap to try to get you to confess to something to prevent court challenges. It’s easy enough to just answer “no” to it, but not everyone does.
In all the traffic stop interactions I have had, I have always answered no when asked that question. The cop has always then given me the reason for the stop immediately after and asked for my license, registration and proof of insurance. Still, it’s a good law; for legit stops, cops generally already have PC and can easily just tell the person what the reason is. They really don’t need a confession to bolster their case.
“Actually seems like a good law for once.”
I agree, it should be standard practice. When they ask you a question such as “Do you know what I pulled you over for?” they are trying to open the door for investigation into other possible violations. As soon as you answer that question you have agreed to further investigation and answer more questions such as “where you coming from?” and “Where you going?”. Legally neither is any of their business at all.
It is fishing for a confession.
“police must have a reasonable articulable suspicion that you broke a specific law before you are required to give them your ID.
If they refuse to articulate the specific law you broke, you are not required to cooperate nor answer any questions.
Do you know why I pulled you over? Is not a reasonable articulable reason.”
Bingo, absolutely the law without compromise. I don’t care how many ignorant lies misconceptions are told around here.
First amendment audits are fun to watch as are the guys who cop watch.
My favorite to use:
“Do you know why I pulled you over?”
“Don’t YOU?”
Last time I was stopped the State officer said”I’ll tell you why after I run your license.”!
My license plate light had burned out!
“Last time I was stopped the State officer said ”I’ll tell you why after I run your license.”
Well here is the huge legal line. If you are operating a motor vehicle they have absolutely every right to ask for your license, which coincidentally also has your identification. But for the primary reason of operating legally, not for a primary reason of identification. And if you are only riding and not operating, or just walking in public spaces they have no right at all to ask for ID unless they first have reasonable articulable suspicion that you broke a specific law.
“A new California law is set to take effect in the beginning of the new year that will require police officers to inform drivers of the reason for a traffic stop before proceeding with any further questioning.”
I thought that was SOP. I have never been stopped when the officer did not announce the reason immediately.
That is why they ask not for your ID, they ask if you have an ID. If the answer is yes, 99% will willingly produce it. If the answer is no, they will ask, do you have a name and again 99% will willingly tell them their name.
“That is why they ask not for your ID, they ask if you have an ID.”
That is when you tell them you do not have to answer any questions.
Then they shoot you for not obeying an official command that you legally DID NOT have to obey.
The measure also requires law enforcement agencies to include the reasons for each traffic stop on arrest reports.
***************************************************
Duh
The things idiots come up with
They used to ask “Do you know why I pulled you over?” back in the old days.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.