California has a shiny new law:
As of January, California police officers are required to provide motorists and pedestrians with the reason for stopping them before asking any questions. Under Assembly Bill 2773, which was enacted in 2022 and took effect with the new year, officers are no longer allowed to begin such encounters by asking drivers the infamous question, “Do you know why I pulled you over?”
That's fine, though it seems a little deep in the weeds for the legislature to be involved. The theory is that this will reduce pretextual stops that have a history of being weaponized against Black drivers.
Maybe? But what I really want to know is why police officers do this in the first place. Are they hoping to trick you into confessing? According to a couple of random legal sites I came across, that's exactly it:
Napolitano Law: Officers have been trained to ask that question in the hopes that motorists will make statements admitting guilt or fault.
White Law: This classic traffic stop opening is a trick question that’s meant to catch drivers off guard before they have time to remember their fifth amendment rights. If people answer the question and suppose why officers pulled them over, their answers could be used against them in a court of law. For example, if someone were to say, “because I ran a red light,” the cop now has a stated confession from the accused. This kind of confession will not result in an automatic conviction, but it’s not good for the defendant’s case.
OK, fine. That doesn't seem to have much to do with pretextual stops, though. Still, if the new law puts a stop to the game playing, I'm all in favor. Just tell us why you pulled us over and then either write a ticket or let us go. Finis.
I was once pulled over. I was driving through a school zone (not a pedestrian in sight anywhere), doing 10mph in a 20mph zone, because why not be extra careful? A panda car was crawling long in the same direction in a different lane, and I overtook it.
Bam! the lights came on, and I pulled over. "Do you know what you did wrong?" No, I had no idea. "Passing in a school zone."
I observed later in the day and following days that the panda car continued to stake out the area and caught a good number of other "scofflaw" drivers like me.
If you were in a different lane (i.e. not crossing over the median), observing the speed limit, that counts as "passing?" Sheez.
Earn $280 per hour. The recruitment process may not be straightforward. With so many resources nc03 at your disposal, you can overcome any challenge. It is vital to list a wide range of job openings on job boards bc05 and search engines.
Take a look at this................................ https://dailyincome97.blogspot.com/
I once got ticketed near a school for passing in the bike lane. It was close to an intersection, but apparently not close enough. I had no idea it was illegal.
I have a friend who is a retired attorney and he does a lot of pro-tem traffic court judging. I told him about the ticket and he said, "I didn't know that was illegal either". I guess he learned it running traffic court, though.
You have bike lanes that are wide enough for cars to drive on? All the ones we have around hear are basically just the shoulder of the road where they painted a bicycle symbol.
It varies by state, but cops and traffic courts have been caught writing and enforcing bogus tickets and fines.
Apparently ignorance of the law is fine, in the case of cops ticketing cyclists for not being in the bicycle lane (not a law in any state).
Never heard or seen the phrase "panda car" before, and I will not be using it.
Heh. Sorry. I've been reading a bunch of British fiction lately, and really liked the term. I thought it was self-explanatory.
I've only been pulled over twice in my driving career, once in CA and once in NJ. Both times, I recall the cop telling me as soon as I rolled my window down why he pulled me over (exceeding posted speed limit). But I'm also a white guy, so no idea if they would have approached me differently if I weren't.
I've been pulled over probably three times in about 40 years, except for one 9-month period when I was pulled over about 20 times. That just happened to be the 9-month period when I lived in a heavily black neighborhood, and random pull-overs after 9 PM were incredibly common. In my case, I was immediately let go as soon as I rolled down the window and they saw I wasn't black, except in one case where the officer asked me where I was going. In none of those cases was there EVER an explanation of why I was pulled over other than "we're just checking." In fact, I was also pulled over once while walking and wearing a hoodie.
I guess I must have become a really bad driver for 9 months, and then gotten over it. Yeah, that's the only possible explanation.
Before it went online, I attended traffic school in CA. (I think it was a speeding ticket for me).
The instructor was a black guy who was a professional truck driver. What he said was that if the officer asks you, "Do you know how fast you were going?" it's because he doesn't know.
He described a stop he had experienced while driving his personal sedan. The officer asked that question, and he replied, not wanting to sound like he's playing dumb or disrespectful, "It must have been pretty fast because otherwise we wouldn't be talking."
In that same stop, the officer (I assume CHP) wanted to look in his trunk. His reply was really good: "Sure, as long as you tell me what it is you think you're going to find there."
The officer did not pursue it. The trunk was never examined. The reply is brilliant because it exactly mirrors the idea of probable cause. You have to be looking for something specific when you do a search.
But dang, that was artful on the part of that guy.
Definitely artful responses, as you say. But I could also see them pissing off the cop a little and making it less likely that he'd cut you some slack.
I would guess that maybe 5 percent of officers would be bothered by that statement. It might be more in some jurisdictions. Because the statement is not the moral equivalent of "up yours, pig" but simple curiousity. They all know they have to have a reason for a search, and if it's legitimate, they will tell you the reason.
I had a friend get stopped in the middle of the night in bad weather on the interstate in Oregon. He was driving through from Portland to SF. The police wanted to search him because his profile matched drug running. It was thin, and they knew it. They told him they could instead detain him for 24 hours for no reason if he preferred that.
That's hardball, for sure. My friend is not the sort of guy who throws oil on troubled waters, either. But they DID tell him what they were looking for and why.
I've had that "Do you know why I stooped you?" used on me a few times.
I've actually found a perfectly good answer for it: "No."
My understanding is that 'no' is also a risky answer because if they do have you on speeding or red light violation or whatever, saying 'no'- asmitting to not knowing - opens you up to a driving without due care and attention charge as well'. The correct response is to, politely, decline to answer. But this is somewhat confrontational .
That seems awfully far-fetched. It's hard for me to imagine that anyone has ever been charged with anything just because they answered "no" in that situation. "No" still strikes me as the safest answer.
My reply has always been "I can probably guess, but can you please tell me."
Never caused a problem.
The right answer is “Don’t you?”
It's risky even for white people to practice that kind of jackassery with cops. And for POC's it's suicidal.
Steve Lehto of the YouTube channel Lehto's aw says you should politely answer, "no" when asked, "Do you know why I pulled you over" because it's the truth.
You might have a reasonable guess, but there's no way to know for sure unless you're a mind reader.
As long as we're talking about California law, here's one proposed in January:
https://www.auto123.com/en/news/california-bill-law-speed-limiter-cars/71140/
California State Senator Scott Weiner has proposed a new bill that ... seeks to impose on all new vehicles, as of 2027, speed limiters that would prevent them from driving at more than 10 mph over the speed limit on freeways.
That is California Smart - to propose something that will piss off millions of voters* during a presidential election year. You can be sure that Fox News will run with this - and they will be telling the truth for a change!
Scott Weiner is from the Bay Area, and is doing this exactly 20 years after another Bay Area politician, Gavin Newsom, handed out marriage certificates to gay couples - something that motivated the placement of initiatives in 11 states and credibly helped Bush win re-election, who subsequently nominated Alito to the Supreme Court.
Doing edge-culture stunts in a presidential election year is a Bay Area specialty. Can't wait 12 months. Gotta do it now.
* just because the law would only apply to California, voters in other states will think "Democrats want this".
At least eight states have highways that allow travel at 80 mph. I wonder if the proposed CA law would take those into account. If not, would there be an interstate commerce liability?
When my nav app was working, it always displayed the applicable speed limit. I didn't check systematically, but I never noticed it making an error, either. Apparently digital maps include that information, so the limiter could be linked to the app and adjust to the applicable limit for the roadway and location.
I'm sure that if Newsom hadn't done his little city hall stunt that Republicans would have been stumped for ways to rile up their voters and Kerry would have won in a landslide.
I believe the police generally have no duty to provide the truth to you during an interview. Maybe that's the source of the wording in the law...
Of course it's about your admission of guilt, but to back it up they write it down in their notes about the stop if they don't have it recorded on audio/video. A lot harder to contest in court -- your own words.
“Do you know why I pulled you over?”
"Have you met today's quota that isn't a quota?"
I once read an interview in the local paper with the head of the local state patrol station. He vehemently denied they had quotas, but did say they actively used a "management by objectives" system.
Many years ago i met an Indiana state cop on a county road and he did a U turn and pulled me over. His first words were, "Do you know how fast you were going?" As it happened, cresting a hill I'd seen a flashing red light in the distance. It was on a straight, but hilly and narrow, road. Not wanting to meet a truck body wide ambulance cresting a hill at speed I'd slowed to 50 in a 55 zone. He seemed completely wrong footed when I replied just, "Yes, I do." otherwise keeping my mouth shut not knowing what was going on. He finally said the law required he show me the radar reading he was going to write a ticket from. It said 68. Then he got stupid and said it was quite a coincidence he had me at the same speed as his previous stop. I side-eyed him and kept quiet. He ended up saying I had a bad attitude but he was only going to give me a warning. Complete con.
Of course you had a bad attitude, it was in opposition to his.
"Do you know why I stopped you?"
"Did I win a prize?"
The last time I was pulled over and the cop asked me "Do you know why I pulled you over?", I told him "We've got to stop meeting like this."
I thought it was funny, but he gave me a ticket anyway.
There are a lot of links on this subject: https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/how-talk-police-when-youre-pulled-over.htm
Mostly just keep your mouth shut and obey and be polite.
Stay alive.
Family member in rural area with a beard and a pickup got a totally different question first:
"Do you have any guns in your truck?"
When he replied "no," he got this follow up:
"Are you sure?"
The left hates cops.
Anti-Israel protesters spewing anti-cop chants clashed with police at a rally outside Columbia University on Friday — leading to nine arrests over several hours.
The “All Out for Palestine” demonstration kicked off at 3 p.m. and less than two hours later protesters waving Palestinian flags could be seen in footage posted to social media scuffling with NYPD officers in the street.
“NYPD, KKK. IDF they’re all the same,” the group chanted as at least one protester was seen being detained by police.
I'm a white guy who grew up in a lily-white town in the midwest. So it's not surprising that I thought cops were basically decent. I kept thinking that right up until I got called in for jury duty. In trial I was forced to sit and listen quietly while four cops lied from the witness stand, trying to pin felony convictions on a kid who was obviously innocent. I wasn't the only juror who saw it that way - we all did. In the end we deliberated less than 15 minutes before finding Not Guilty on all charges.
That was 20 years ago. Today, with cameras everywhere, it is now abundantly documented that routine lying under oath is the *least* problematic issue with police.
It isn't just the left that hates cops. All decent people do.
I guess. Mostly I hate criminals and am ambivalent about police. But I’m a law abiding white guy so no recent interactions with the locals.
When that line was used on me a couple years ago I took it as an establish-authority-at-scene move to put me on the back foot-- "we both know you did something wrong and I'm going to make you say it out loud," like parents might do with little kids. I think it has that element no matter what tone of voice is used but sometimes it can be much more aggressive than others.
This instance was an obvious revenue grab on an isolated stretch of upstate NY interstate and of course he ticketed me. But he wrote up the wrong state of registration and after my explanatory letter to the court politely pointed this out, they changed the charge to a completely illogical one that wouldn't affect insurance. The fine, I figured, was probably less than I'd have had to pay a local lawyer to get the whole thing thrown out the way it should have been.
I don't remember that line being used in PA the one time I got stopped there, but a) they always clock you on downhills there, and b) they took payment at the scene, no courts involved. This was 30 years ago and I can still picture the trooper making the credit card impression by rubbing the side of his pen over the carbon-copy form.