Getting pulled over because of the trailer

[Roger C H]

We were stopped by a police officer at night some years ago. Having had conversations with a friend who is a police officer, I knew what to do:

Turn on interior lights, turn off engine and radio, roll down window a few inches and place wrists on steering wheel and follow instructions.

Turns out they were looking for another vehicle of the same make only a slightly different color, brown vs black.

I often wonder what the officer thought. "This guy has had experience with the law?"

http://www.askdeputycraig.com/

[Pat B Ohio]

MY husband's car was stolen by a neighbor's kid once and used over a long weekend when we were away. I asked the SP's (He was in the Navy) if they could inspect the car with a dog. We made an appointment and BINGO.....the puppy alerted. So insurance paid to have the car interior detailed 3 times. After each detailing I had "Demak" inspect the car. Third time was a charm.

If you call ahead and explain your situation, most law enforcement personnel are very accommodating. Even they thought it was a good idea.

[John Hussey]

This has me pondering the hidden accesses of my Casita as I am the third owner. I would hate to be pulled over for a routine check and the dogs sniff out and find a container of something elicit that was long forgotten by a previous owner. How might I explain that alongside the highway?

According to what I see on television the guilty always deny, deny, deny, when caught, just like I would be doing...except that I would be denying truthfully and the gendarmes wouldn't know the difference.! It's a scary thought!

[Penney H. & Mike E.]

Yes, we live in ferry land (Ha ha!) and our van, trailer, anything else we drive on the ferries gets regularly canine checked. I suspect those dogs are more than just bomb trained, but perhaps not as an in-law I know who works with a canine partner says his dog is very specific to drugs.

[Raya]

Donna,

Good point that the vehicles we buy (tug or car, etc.) have many more places to hide things and probably are more likely to harbor mysteries.

I say that because people tend to spend a greater percentage of time in regular vehicles than in campers (just given the numbers), and they probably "know" that since there are many more "normal" vehicles than there are campers, they are probably less likely to be singled out and searched in a regular vehicle than a camper.

In all the times I've crossed the US/Canadian border, I've never had them actually take a look inside my vehicle. When I brought my Boler home, they looked inside.

So the "blue sedans" are probably the ones full of stashes

Raya

PS: Not to say that it's not a legitimate concern, but I thought "Oh, right, of course" when I read Donna's post and realized that most people buy a second-hand car without a second thought about hidden drugs, etc.

[Robin G]

I actually forgot about this until I read Raya's post. Back last fall we were on our way home from a week long trip to Steam Boat area. I had taken a different way home, just for a change. Anyway it got late and decided to stay a night on the road as there was weather hitting the front range of Colorado. We stopped and asked if there was a campground around as all of the rv parks we passed were closed for the season. Got directions to a campground around Dillion Lake. Was told to head up the road to next light then turn right and follow the road over the damm and eventually I would see campground on the left. Well, got to the damm and I was turned back cause I was pulling a trailer. Had to go completely around. I remember a guy yelling out the window, boy you sure look like a terriorist. He was joking, just a local that was over the rules since 9-11. Sure I didn't like the backtracking and long detour to get to the campground, but honestly if it keeps some jerk from blowing up the damm I can make the trip around the damm. Robin

[Steveo R]

It seems to me that the singling out of these trailers as drug haulers is somehow illegal (if not illegal, then immoral). As far as i know in Canada, the police are not allowed to stop you unless you are breaking the law in some way (speeding, tail light out). So if they pull you over simply because you are hauling a trailer you have every right to deny them permission to search your vehicle and trailer. I think that if any cop did pull me over just to search my trailer, I would be asking for a badge number and calling the local detachment to file a complaint. Don't get me wrong, I think police have a tough job and I respect that, but where do you draw the line? Is that not harrassing a law abiding citezen?!

It seems as though abuse of police power is a recurring theme these days and if no one steps up to file a complaint, things are only going to get worse!

On the topic of searching your used vehicles when you buy them.. A very good idea! An ex girlfriend of mine bought a used car back in the 90's, my ex found $20,000 tucked in the back seat of the car! Now that is a good purchase of a car! But just imagine if they were crossing the border and didn't know that money was in the back seat.

[Donna D.]

It seems to me that the singling out of these trailers as drug haulers is somehow illegal (if not illegal, then immoral).

It seems as though abuse of police power is a recurring theme these days and if no one steps up to file a complaint, things are only going to get worse!

Moral rights are based on beliefs
Legal rights are based on law

Be sure to reread Roger H's explanation on page two.

Every citizen has a right to file a complaint.

I have an uncle that was a lieutenant with the Portland (OR) Police Department back in the late 1930-early 40s. History will tell us, the methods used by officers of that time versus now are very much different. He told me stories that raised the hair on the back of my neck. Officers dragging law breakers into alleys and beating the stuffing out of them, etc. And, it was a pretty common occurrence and their method of keeping crime in check. My uncle told me these stories when we were discussing the gang problem here in Portland. He thought by using the "old" methods, he doubted gangs would stick around. I'm not an advocate of police breaking the law, but he did have a point.

[Robin G]

Steve, I don't think April was saying that they singled her out just because she owned a fiberglass egg. I think it's trailers/rv's in general. I know back when we had the resort, it was the begining of the Meth lab's in Rv's. We got a huge warning from our Insurance Provider to keep an eye out as to who was coming in to use our Dump station. Could totally screw that up, so I started chargeing a heavty price for dumping. Basically if someone wanted to come thru and dump and not stay................... They payed! I would rather they go on down the road anyway. Robin

[Patrick Mc]

The law, I believe, is still defined by the Supreme Court's ruling in California vs. Carney which requires probable cause:

B. The search in question was not unreasonable. It was one that a magistrate could have authorized if presented with the facts. The DEA agents, based on uncontradicted evidence that respondent was distributing a controlled substance from the vehicle, [b]had abundant probable cause to enter and search the vehicle. Pp. 394-395. [Emphasis add]

Link to Cornell Law School summary: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...71_0386_ZS.html

Pat

[Roger H]

The law, I believe, is still defined by the Supreme Court's ruling in California vs. Carney which requires probable cause:

Pat

I'm a little confused, Pat. Apparently you have a concern, but I'm not sure what it is. Searches are based on probable cause. The issue as presented here so far is whether or not a warrant is necessary, or a search can be conducted based on one of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement.

Roger

[Roy in TO]

Not to be disrepectful Steveo,

I'd prefer if they just said they were pulling you over for a routine check and have the laws allow them to do it. You never know what is going on in the area you are driving through.

I remember getting pulled over in my '68 Chevelle on the way from Kingston to Toronto quite a few years ago under the guise of my speeding. We had a little chat about my restoring the car and what was under the hood, then talked about the marksmanship badges on his wrists. Before I left, he mentioned that I should try to keep the speed down to which I replied that he might want to get his speedo checked. I said I know I may have been going over the limit but I have a certain shimmy at exactly 72 MPH. If I was speeding as high as he said, I would have felt the shimmy twice. Once getting up to the speed he claimed and then again slowing down when he pulled me over. I jokingly said I use the shimmy as a built in speed alarm. Knowing he had been caught in a little white lie, I got a smile, a nod of the head accompanied by "have a safe drive".

By the time I hit Toronto, the news reported that the Police were looking for an escaped convict in the area and time I was pulled over. If I had been carjacked, I would have been grateful the cop pulled me over.

[Patrick Mc]

I'm a little confused, Pat. Apparently you have a concern, but I'm not sure what it is. Searches are based on probable cause. The issue as presented here so far is whether or not a warrant is necessary, or a search can be conducted based on one of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment warrant requirement.

Roger

Roger that!

What was the PC in April's case? Mr. Carney was informed of the evidence when confronted. If a K9 had alerted or suspicious activity was observed, fine.

Pat

[Donna D.]

What was the PC in April's case?

The only thing April has said as they were stopped and so was a trailer on the other side of the highway and a tug & tow was stopped just as they were leaving. Probably cause can be developed through a set of particular circumstances oftentimes unknown to the general public but is defensible before a court of law.

[Patrick Mc]

The only thing April has said as they were stopped and so was a trailer on the other side of the highway and a tug & tow was stopped just as they were leaving. Probably cause can be developed through a set of particular circumstances oftentimes unknown to the general public but is defensible before a court of law.

"Legal rights are based on law"

I'm just referring to the specific case that clarifies the law. Mr Carney was observed in his activity by DEA personnel and confronted with the victim at the scene. They did not randomly knock on doors of RVs.

Laws must be narrowly focused otherwise some localities may find that open containers in your RV are a violation.

Please remember, I just cited the Supreme Court decision that defined the rules. It was not my opinion, but I agree with it as written.

Pat

[Pete Dumbleton]

I happened to go with a friend when he was dumping a load of yard and garden residue at a place that creates mulch for gardens, walkways, etc. The office is an open construction trailer and I noticed the tires were flat -- I mentioned it to the lady and she said they had let the air out because the road they were on led back into a lot of forest and there were occasional meth-maker arrests, plus rumors of more labs -- They didn't want their office stolen to become a lab.

Penney, yes the dog training is for bombs or drugs, but not both -- If they were sniffing drugs on the ferry they'd have to build a new parking lot for the police to use; there's a LOT of traffic on that Bainbridge Is <> Seattle route -- It's the biggest route in the nation's biggest system. I constantly read in the Police Blotter in the little weekly paper and there are always people being arreste on the state highway that terminates at the ferry dock for drug possession (and drunk driving) -- Usually starts with observation of driving OR non-functioning rear lights.

[Roger H]

Roger that!

What was the PC in April's case? Mr. Carney was informed of the evidence when confronted. If a K9 had alerted or suspicious activity was observed, fine.

Pat

Pat, we don't know what the reason for April's stop was. Her supposition is that it was because she was towing a trailer, and she didn't say if she consented to the search or it was based on probable cause. If her supposition about why she was stopped is true, then stop may have been conducted initially for something as innocuous as doing an inspection check for a proper hitch, if that's legal in the jurisdiction in which she was stopped. There's certainly nothing prohibiting an officer from asking for a consent search, and it's been ruled that having dogs check the exterior of a vehicle is not a search per se, but a dog alerting on a vehicle can be probable cause to search. Us not possessing those facts however, there's no way to assess whether the stop was appropriate. And you have to remember that her being stopped may have been appropriate, but the trailer across the way may not have been, or vice-versa... each stop is its own unique set of circumstances. Begin stopped by law enforcement and being asked to allow to search one's possessions is seldom a pleasant experience, but that it's unpleasant doesn't necessarily make it "unreasonable". Once again, I frequently find a huge gap between what the public regards the law to be and how the law is interpreted and enforced by the courts and law enforcement.

As an aside, but on a related note; Three years ago, Iowa passed a law making pseudoephedrine (the active ingredient in Sudafed) a Schedule V substance, meaning that it could only be sold by pharmacists and must be kept behind the counter and ID shown to purchase it. Ephedrine or pseudoephedrine is the one ingredient that has no substitute in the manufacture of methamphetamine. Our clandestine meth lab numbers in Iowa had skyrocketed in a very short time. 85% of meth in Iowa came from Mexico, so we weren't going to make a huge difference in the amount of meth consumed, but each "clan lab" as they're known is toxic and explosive. Meth labs can be set up anywhere, and we found a disassembled lab in a box in a travel trailer here in my town. The trailer had to be destroyed because of how toxic it was.

The general public tends to have a mental picture of a meth lab as being a science-classroom type place with beakers, tubes, and bunsen burners. The fact is that they use two-liter soda bottles, rv propane tanks, and such things as lye (sodium hydroxide), lithium batteries, starter fluid (ether), red phosphorus, anydrous ammonia, hydrochloric acid, and other wonderful toxic and explosive chemicals. Adding to the mix, if a fire starts, and someone dumps water on the lithium expecting to put the fire out, the lithium will explode sending more fire more places! Clan lab fires are exciting. Just ask any firefighter.

Meth cooks (as they're known) aren't particularly concerned about the environment, and they dump their hugely dangerous and toxic trash in roadside ditches. They contaminate watersheds and dump toxic chemicals into our sanitary sewer systems that can't be easily or reliably cleaned out of effluent. Each clan lab cleanup costs between five and twenty thousand dollars. We got the pseudoephedrine schedule V bill passed over a substantial lobby against it, and it was probably the most successful law I've ever seen in protecting the public safety. We went from hundreds of clan labs and clan lab cleanups state-wide to only a hand full in less than a year. For the past several years now, I think there have been fewer than ten labs found state-wide each year. Cooks can't just steal enough pseudoephedrine any more to make it worthwhile to do a meth cook.

The meth problem obviously hasn't gone away, but the danger to the public of having a clan lab in a camper, in the motel room next to you, or having your children contaminated by a clan lab dump in your favorite park has been reduced here dramatically.

The point to all this is that we may never know exactly why April and the other trailers were stopped; or exactly what transpired to be able for officers to search, but in an effort to protect the public safety from the dangers of meth clan labs, I'd go out on a limb here and say it was probably done lawfully, and I'd venture that most, if not all, of the searches were done within the provisions of law. While individual officers may not be as well informed on their own, there's seldom ever a case where a larger-scale operation like what April described is conducted that would be conducted unlawfully.

Roger

[Patrick Mc]

Roger,

As to April’s scenario, I have no problem as to how it played out. My problem is with this part: “Her [b]supposition is that it was because she was towing a trailer…” Had the officer approached them and said, “Sorry for the incontinence mam/sir. We’ve had a huge problem in this area with [fill in the crime] and they are using small trailers such as your’s. We’d like to….”, this thread would be about facts rather than suppositions.

If actual criminals are required to be Mirandized when arrested, at the least, actual non-criminals should be given a courtesy explanation when inconvenienced.

Pat

p.s.:

I frequently find a huge gap between what the public regards the law to be and how the law is interpreted and enforced by the courts and law enforcement.

Watch out! I'm on Jury Duty this week. They call me the "Hanging Juror"!

[Donna D.]

Wonder if April asked the officer why she was pulled over. I can honestly tell you that in my experience about 90% of people don't. And only on television (or expecting a guilty reply) does an officer say "Do you know why I pulled you over."

[Roy in TO]

Had the officer approached them and said, “Sorry for the incontinence mam/sir.

"May I use your Port a potti" might have worked equally well.