traffic stop question

[Kalrog]

You have 10 days from the date of the offense to request in writing an ALS hearing in front of a Judge or, yes your license is automatically suspended for a minimum period of 180 days.

It is things like this that scare me.

Once convicted, I have no problem with loss of license (and much more). But to be punished for the accusation really rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Jeff White]

Kalrog said;

Once convicted, I have no problem with loss of license (and much more). But to be punished for the accusation really rubs me the wrong way.

Contact your local chapter of MADD and complain. They are the people pushing this kind of legislation. It's hard for an elected official to come out for drunk driving so the zealots who seem to have turned the organization into a temperance movement have a lot of pull in the state houses. Here is how Illinois justifies the Statutory Summary Suspension:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...0&SeqEnd=72300&ActName=Illinois+Vehicle+Code.

(Text of Section from P.A. 93‑955)
Sec. 6‑206. Discretionary authority to suspend or revoke license or permit; Right to a hearing.
(a) The Secretary of State is authorized to suspend or revoke the driving privileges of any person without preliminary hearing upon a showing of the person's records or other sufficient evidence that the person:
1. Has committed an offense for which mandatory revocation of a driver's license or permit is required upon conviction;

Note that the Secretary of State only has to receive information that driver has committed an offense, not that the driver has in fact been convicted.

Johnnybgood said;

They can (and most likley will) revoke your FOID card which means you can not own any firearms. So either Don't Drink and Drive or suffer.

Not true. Here is the relevant section of the FOID law:
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilc...tName=Firearm+Owners+Identification+Card+Act.

(430 ILCS 65/8) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑8)
Sec. 8. The Department of State Police has authority to deny an application for or to revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act only if the Department finds that the applicant or the person to whom such card was issued is or was at the time of issuance:
(a) A person under 21 years of age who has been convicted of a misdemeanor other than a traffic offense or adjudged delinquent;
(b) A person under 21 years of age who does not have the written consent of his parent or guardian to acquire and possess firearms and firearm ammunition, or whose parent or guardian has revoked such written consent, or where such parent or guardian does not qualify to have a Firearm Owner's Identification Card;
(c) A person convicted of a felony under the laws of this or any other jurisdiction;
(d) A person addicted to narcotics;
(e) A person who has been a patient of a mental institution within the past 5 years;
(f) A person whose mental condition is of such a nature that it poses a clear and present danger to the applicant, any other person or persons or the community;
For the purposes of this Section, "mental condition" means a state of mind manifested by violent, suicidal, threatening or assaultive behavior.
(g) A person who is mentally retarded;
(h) A person who intentionally makes a false statement in the Firearm Owner's Identification Card application;
(i) An alien who is unlawfully present in the United States under the laws of the United States;
(i‑5) An alien who has been admitted to the United States under a non‑immigrant visa (as that term is defined in Section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))), except that this subsection (i‑5) does not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a non‑immigrant visa if that alien is:
(1) admitted to the United States for lawful hunting or sporting purposes;
(2) an official representative of a foreign government who is:
(A) accredited to the United States Government or the Government's mission to an international organization having its headquarters in the United States; or
(B) en route to or from another country to which that alien is accredited;
(3) an official of a foreign government or distinguished foreign visitor who has been so designated by the Department of State;
(4) a foreign law enforcement officer of a friendly foreign government entering the United States on official business; or
(5) one who has received a waiver from the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 922(y)(3);
(j) A person who is subject to an existing order of protection prohibiting him or her from possessing a firearm;
(k) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of battery, assault, aggravated assault, violation of an order of protection, or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction, in which a firearm was used or possessed;
(l) A person who has been convicted of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed on or after January 1, 1998;
(m) A person who has been convicted within the past 5 years of domestic battery or a substantially similar offense in another jurisdiction committed before January 1, 1998;
(n) A person who is prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms or firearm ammunition by any Illinois State statute or by federal law;
(o) A minor subject to a petition filed under Section 5‑520 of the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 alleging that the minor is a delinquent minor for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony; or
(p) An adult who had been adjudicated a delinquent minor under the Juvenile Court Act of 1987 for the commission of an offense that if committed by an adult would be a felony.
(Source: P.A. 92‑854, eff. 12‑5‑02; 93‑367, eff. 1‑1‑04.)

(430 ILCS 65/8.1) (from Ch. 38, par. 83‑8.1)

I don't see DUI on the list of reasons they can revoke a FOID for. If it's felony DUI, it falls under the felony conviction part, but other then that, a DUI conviction won't cost you your FOID card.

Jeff

 

[thereisnospoon]

Foid????? Wt_????

Why would anyone live in a State where you had to have a "card" to buy a firearm?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Sorry, OT

Anyway, This thread makes me fear for the next generation. If you read the posts here by LEOs and others the mindset is simple....COMPLY or ELSE!

That scares the @#$% out of me!

 

[MechAg94]

Politeness is what the LEO's asked for. I don't see a problem with that. Most of the stories of people getting arrested or assaulted by police were people who asked for it. Being polite and courteous should be normal behavior, especially to people carrying a gun. In this day and age, drinking and driving is done at your own risk.

 

[Jammer Six]

Courts are what separate us from police states.

Those of you who choose to fight your battles with the police on the side of the road rather than fighting them with the people of your state in a court of law will, sooner or later, be separated from me and my descendents by Darwin.

If a cop wants you out of your car, even if he's dead wrong, you're getting out of your car.

If it's a mistake, it'll be fixed later, when the odds are all in your favor. On the side of the road, there are no odds. It's a done deal. You're getting out of your car.

That's the way those of us who support the police want it. We don't want debates, weinie measuring or other tactical contests on the side of the road, we want the police to execute their duties, and enforce the laws that our representatives have written, as they are written. If it weren't that way, the alternative is that no reasonable person would be a police officer, and we'd have a police force made up of morons. We don't want that. We want good men and women as police officers.

We also don't want bad guys driving away simply because they were able to out-debate an officer on a traffic stop, so the system has been set up so that it's not a contest. On the street, you're going to loose, and the police are going to win.

"You might beat the rap, but you won't beat the ride."

In a courtroom, the situation is reversed, and you have all the advantages.

If individual officers make mistakes in the execution of those directives, you will be given the benefit of every doubt, and you will be given every chance to right each wrong.

Later. In a court of law, with lawyers. Not on the side of the road, and never with police officers.

Get out of the car.

 

[sctman800]

Been there done that, NEVER AGAIN!!!!! Had a DUI back in 1993, ended up with the usual loss of licence, fines etc. Also 2 years court supervision and altho there was no mention of giving up my FOID card, which I kept and still have, I was told by the judge I couldn't possess any firearms. I didn't have much in the way of guns then so just moved them out and then back in 2 years later. I haven't had a drink now for over 12 years, I figure they can't bust you for something you don't do. If I am ever stopped again I WILL be sober, I will not take a FST but will have no problem with the breath or whatever test they want to give me. Then when I am found to be clean and sober I will be talking to a lawyer. Jim.

 

[38SnubFan]

Easy no hassle solution:

'Nuff Said!

Steve and Weasel, my thanks to both of you for providing your insight and showing the view from the other side of the Thin Blue Line.

Everyone has pretty much summed it up. The side of the road is not the place to argue. Be courteous, be professional, and be compliant with the officer, even if he's wrong. Like everyone else said, your attorney and the courts can handle that later. If the officer IS just being a jerk, you can always call the PD during regular business hours and file a complaint with his superiors. Trust me - they WILL be heard and handled if your complaint is valid.

I've only ever had one experience of my vehicle being searched, while driving in NJ. This was years ago, about 1994 or 1995 IIRC. I was leaving a friend's home in Mays Landing at about 10:30 PM. When I started the truck and turned on the headlights, the driver's-side headlamp had burned out. I basically already knew at that point that somewhere along the drive home I was going to be TSed. I also had replaced the transmission recently and the new tranny (out of a truck a year newer than mine) had thrown the speedo off by about 10 MPH. Sure enough, 15 minutes down the road and NJ State Police stop me. He advised me I was radared at 59 in a 50 and clocked (Certified Speedometer) at 60. He stated NJ allows 10 miles over, so he wasn't going to write me a ticket. He wrote me a Warning Card for the headlmap, understanding I was unable to replace it at that hour. Well, sure enough, another 15 minutes or less and I get pulled over again, for the headlamp. This time there were two officers who approached. I handed him my DL and vehicle info, along with the Warning Card. He saw a black box on the seat between me and my buddy and asked if it was a radar detector (illegal in NJ). I showed him it was a CB Radio by the attached mic, when my buddy tells the cop, sarcastically but rudely, "I've yet to see a radar detector with a microphone!" The officer asks us if he can "look around". I tell him I have nothing to hide and my buddy and I step out. He checks behind the seat and underneath, the glove box, the bed, and underneath the truck. He put everything back the way he found it, thanked me for my time, and explained to me that US 40 is a popular route for drug transporters between Philadelphia and Atlantic City. Once I understood why I was pulled over twice in 15 minutes about a headlamp, I was more "at ease". He even radioed ahead to other units west of us that I would be coming through the whole way to the Delaware Memorial Bridge, and that we were already TSed twice and "clear to pass". Thus, I showed him respect, and he showed me respect.

I'll admit that there are "prick cops" out there, who truly have nothing better to do than harass everyone they stop and/or approach. However, you can bet that in proportion, there are an extreme amount of "prick citizens" to every "prick cop". Also, cops are humans, and plenty of them work long hours, get tired, and get cranky just like the rest of us "Working-Class Joes". Sometimes, that Thin Blue Line can get very tiring - and very frustrating - to walk every day.

-38SnubFan

 

[armedcitizen]

I've been driving for 25+ years now so I've had a few opportunities to interact with LEO in several states. I have never been treated in a less than professional manner. I've never gotten a ticket I didn't deserve and I've not been given some tickets that I did deserve. If an officer wants me out of the car, I'm out of the car.

Now, having said all of that, if you want to delve into what your "rights" are, as opposed to using common sense, go to the ACLU website. At one point, they had a "Cop Stop" card that you could print off that tells you exactly what you are required to do.

 

[thorn726]

why is this even a thread-

You must also comply with any reasonable request from the officer during the course of the traffic stop and stepping out of the vehicle is reasonable.

i think Fedweasels description is pretty widely the way it goes.

 

[El Rojo]

In this day and age, drinking and driving is done at your own risk.

Not really, it is at the risk of everyone you run into that night. Don't drink and drive idiots.

You know I have been pulled over 4 times. 2 of the 4 the officers were at the window for no more than 30 seconds. The other two times I received a warning. I think the only reason I got out of those tickets is because I knew the law better than the officers and my quick wit and superior attitude intimidated those officers to go pick on someone else. Also I never rolled down the window more than an inch and I slipped them my cell phone with my lawyer on the other line and my DL. They immediately dropped the cell phone and license and ran back to their cars and rolled code three to another call. Right. I am the biggest, baddest, meanest Law and Order watching, self proclaimed lawyer that ever lived and no cop wants to stop and mess with me.

Wait, no, that wasn't it. I always have my license and registration ready, my hands on 10 and 2, window down, car off, and I talk politely to the officer. Imagine that.

Would I consent to a search? Probably not. If they ask if I am carrying, I have to say yes and I will produce my CCW license. Now the question is, if I didn't have a CCW, I am pretty sure the law says they can assertain if I am carrying illegally or not, meaning loaded weapon in the car. Now that I have my CCW, do they still need to get a hold of my weapon? Afterall, of course it is loaded, but I can carry loaded. Can they argue that they need to take control of my weapon for officer safety? Does that give them a right to search my vehicle? Anyone familiar with PRK or maybe your own states law care to comment? Keep in mind we are not a mandatory "inform the officer you are carrying" state.

(the one time I was pulled over while I was carrying, I didn't tell him, but finding out later from his partner who is a friend, he assumed I was because of my hands on ten and two and my knowing the drill, he thought I was LEO. My friend stayed back at the cruiser and the guy at the window didn't ask him before he came forward. Can they get me for impersonating an officer? ).

 

[bearmgc]

This may sound hokey, but, OK. Politeness is a form of respect. Police Officers have a tough and dangerous job. If I am stopped for any reason by a bonafide law officer, being polite and doing nothing to create a tense situation is my first and only response. Since I don't drink, DUI stuff is a nonissue. Hint: guns and alcohol don't mix, make a choice. One time I was driving home from work and totally exhausted from the job. I was pulled over for weaving on the road. The police officer informed me of his observation and asked me some questions. He then told me to be careful and go home and get some sleep. I was grateful for his vigilance. I don't think I could do his job, but I sure am thankful, he can.