[RussP]

Originally Posted by seanmac45

New to the board and exhibiting an unusually high epic fail to reality ratio.

He's been around since April 2008. Just has a low post count.

[AtlantaR6]

Originally Posted by ca survivor

I can understand the drivers, but a LEO, I was stop for not doing a complete stop on a Yield off a expressway exit.

What color was the Yield sign? (yes, it matters) and were there any other cars coming?

[RussP]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

I've in the past been part of an Internal Investigation of 3 cops that resulted in some very black marks against them

I'm curious about that previous incident, too.

Originally Posted by dpadams6

Not your first "run in" with and civil litigation with the police? Hmmmm

He said it was an internal investigation, not litigation.

[IGotIt]

Originally Posted by ca survivor

I can understand the drivers, but a LEO, I was stop for not doing a complete stop on a Yield off a expressway exit.

I wasn't there to see exactly what happened however a yield sign is to be treated as a stop sign if there is any approaching traffic. It does not mean to merge into traffic even if there is perceived open spots available.

[SpringerTGO]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

I was asked if my concealed was loaded. pretty stupid cop and the impending civil rights violation suit will maybe edumacate him



Moderator Note: I moved this from another thread to its own for better exposure and discussion. Hopefully, it might help others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

It goes from this, to pulled over while speeding, drinking, etc. And not the first time.
I don't believe there is a lawsuit pending. Sounds like sour grapes over a justified arrest and citation.

[eb07]

Drinking, speeding, carrying a firearm. Yep, it's the cops fault. Classic.

[AtlantaR6]

Originally Posted by IGotIt

I wasn't there to see exactly what happened however a yield sign is to be treated as a stop sign if there is any approaching traffic. It does not mean to merge into traffic even if there is perceived open spots available.

If it's red and white. Yellow means merge, hence my question on its color.

[series1811]

Originally Posted by SGT HATRED

Good luck to you buck. I hope you wipe the floor with them...

I think he's going to need a little more than luck to do that with the facts he's presented.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by bucksnort1959

I was asked if my concealed was loaded. pretty stupid cop and the impending civil rights violation suit will maybe edumacate him



Moderator Note: I moved this from another thread to its own for better exposure and discussion. Hopefully, it might help others who find themselves in similar circumstances.

First, officers looking nervous on video has NOTHING to do with the legality of their actions.

Good luck with your civil suit.

I've arrested people for DWI without doing field sobriety and won. I've arrested people for DWI that later tested at less than .08 and won. Of course, BAC over .08 and DWI are two separate charges in my state. For DWI all that really matters is your level of impairment. In other words, if the officer can articulate why he had PC to arrest you, he's probably fine.

Good luck with your civil suit.

Somebody will probably chime in here that Arizona v. Gant removed searches of vehicles incident to arrest, which isn't true. The decision removed arbitrary or procedural searches incident to arrest. With a DWI there stands a pretty good chance that there's going to be evidence of the crime in your vehicle (cans, bottles, etc), and a search incident to arrest for evidence related to the crime the individual was arrested for is reasonable. Furthermore, at least in my state, an officer detecting or believing in good faith that he detects an odor of marijuana in your vehicle has PC to search.

Again, good luck with your civil suit.

Further-urthermore, if the arrest is deemed legal, the confiscation of your weapon as evidence of probably yet another crime (possession of a firearm while intoxicated...) is golden as well. I sincerely doubt the officer used the word "steal" in reference to your firearm and the wording matters. Even if he did, a joke in poor taste makes you look stupid in court but doesn't necessarily mean you lose.

Good luck with your civil suit. Seeing a theme?

Of course, the above is all written based on the assumption that you really have a pending civil suit and your post wasn't simply "I want to be one of the tough guys" internet chest-thumping.

[IGotIt]

Originally Posted by AtlantaR6

If it's red and white. Yellow means merge, hence my question on its color.

Yes I know the difference. As the poster indicated, he was written for failing to come to a complete stop which to me means it wasn't a merge sign.

[FireForged]

Heck, someone just tell me which thread the "orignial" comment which started this whole thing came from. The content of this thread is not bearing much fruit.

[rockapede]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Heck, someone just tell me which thread the "orignial" comment which started this whole thing came from. The content of this thread is not bearing much fruit.

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1449176

[RussP]

Originally Posted by FireForged

Heck, someone just tell me which thread the "orignial" comment which started this whole thing came from. The content of this thread is not bearing much fruit.

Post #1 is the "orignial" comment. The topic is about police officers, traffic stops and their inquiry about and reaction to the vehicle's occupants having firearms.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by rockapede

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/show....php?t=1449176

Thank you, sir.

[Cochese]

This thread delivers.

[NC Bullseye]

As a slight clarification on the minor derailment of this thread in regards to the colors of a yield sign.

The ONLY difference between a yellow yield sign and a red and white yield sign is age.

In 1974 the manual on uniform traffic control devices changed the color of the yield sign from yellow to white with red letters and a broad red boarder.

They BOTH mean exactly the same thing.

[cowboy1964]

Does your attorney know (and sanction) you discussing the case here like this?

And what state are you in that allows drinking while CCWing?

[jbailey8]

I'm curious about the outcome of the criminal charges(DUI, Possession of a firearm while intoxicated)? Were you found guilty? Innocent? Not charged?

I only ask because I've heard of a few people that were trying to file suits for wrong doing, but they couldn't find a lawyer that would represent them because they were found guilty of the criminal charges. If your criminal charges were thrown out of court then maybe the judge determined that the "evidence" you submitted was enough to cast some blame on the police. Idk?

[TheExplorer]

Originally Posted by faawrenchbndr

Very BAD idea to be discussing this "legal" matter here!
Do yourself a favor & let the lawyers handle this, keep your
comments off the WWW, the defense team WILL find this.

My thoughts exactly. Nothing to be gained and everything to lose.

[dpadams6]

Originally Posted by RussP

I'm curious about that previous incident, too.He said it was an internal investigation, not litigation.

Sounds like both. Internal inv. First And now civil suit/litig. The VAST MAJORITY of people go thru life and are never involved in such incidents. He being involved in two makes me want to know more of the facts on both sides. However, i'd feel pretty comfortable if I was a betting man.

[pipedreams]

[ca survivor]

Originally Posted by RussP

Did any other vehicles have to maneuver to avoid you?

He the cop, was a a red light and traffic going North bound into the ramp was even making a left turn with green arrow light in from of him, I was turning into the South bound street in a wide intersection, he was at the red light a good 50 yards away.

[RussP]

Originally Posted by ca survivor

He the cop, was a a red light and traffic going North bound into the ramp was even making a left turn with green arrow light in from of him, I was turning into the South bound street in a wide intersection, he was at the red light a good 50 yards away.

Okay, I'm confused. It was at a controlled intersection, yet you were turning through a Yield sign. Is that right?

[RJ's Guns]

I cannot imagine an attorney going forward with, what in my opinion is a frivolous and asinine claim, and definitely not on a contingency basis. I have reason to suspect that if, and that is a big if, an attorney is giving him this line of BS, the attorney is charging by the hour for the criminal matter and using this BS as a means to charge more so as to “preserve and develop” the potential civil litigation.

I do not know if the jurisdiction where the matter occurred is one where the loser pays the prevailing party’s litigation costs and attorney’s fees, but a reasonable person should be concerned about Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 11 and similar state rules require that an attorney perform a due diligence investigation concerning the factual basis for any claim or defense. Because such a defense or claim wastes the court's and the other parties' time, resources and legal fees, sanctions may be imposed by a court upon the party or the lawyer who presents the frivolous defense or claim. The law firm may also be sanctioned, or even held in contempt.

I am disgusted and embarrassed by anyone in the legal profession that encourages, in any way whatsoever, this kind of action.

RJ

[ranger1968]

I'm not seeing the "civil rights violation".......

I AM seeing a lot of ignorance of the law really is, and a lot of chest beating "I'll show those guys, I got me a lawyer" bluster.....

I am betting that either (A) the city/county will take this all the way, and the OP will lose, or (B) the city/county's insurance carrier will give him and his lawyer $3,000 to go away, so they can save their own attorney's fees in defending it....and that's not a win, that just means it wasn't worth their time to defend it, so they will throw a little money at the nusiance to make it go away.