Pretexts and Lies
“But … that’s pretextual! And … the officer lied!”
So what?
Wait … what? Am I promoting lawlessness by police officers?
We’ve been discussing reasonable suspicion. Let’s extend the analysis in the context of a traffic stop.
As long as an officer has reasonable suspicion to believe someone has committed a traffic offense, he can stop the car even if he has another subjective intent for the stop. (Exception – if that intent is based on an impermissible unconstitutional purpose, such as a stop based on race – it becomes an illegal stop).
Moreover, the police officer is not obligated to tell you the truth about the real underlying purpose of the stop.
Let’s look at an example: The “Walled-Off” traffic stop.
The DEA and FBI are conducting a joint investigation into a cartel narcotics trafficking operation. As part of that investigation, they are up on a lawful wiretap approved and signed by a federal court judge.
The wiretap is a secret.
The agents learn from the wire that a courier is transporting 5 kilos of meth laced with fentanyl from a supplier in Atlanta to a secondary supplier in Chattanooga. They want to intercept the drugs without revealing the existence of the wire.
The content from the wire provides probable cause to stop of the car, but agents don’t want to reveal the real reason why the car gets stopped.
They coordinate with local police on a task force to have police follow the car and wait for the driver to commit a traffic violation. They explain that the wiretap revealed information that this car would be transporting drugs.
After crossing into TN, police follow the car on the highway and see the driver change lanes without signaling.
They stop the car. Driver asks why he was stopped. Officer says he failed to signal before changing lanes. This is a pretextual stop. And although true that the driver didn’t signal, that isn’t really the reason for the stop. So the officer is lying - or at least only telling a half truth.
The officer’s partner runs a drug dog around the car, and the dog alerts, giving officers probable cause to search, where they find the 5 kilos.
Successful walled-off stop prevents the cartel from knowing they are being listened to…
Extra tidbits: The knowledge of the agents – and independent probable cause — may be imputed to the officers making the stop, who relied on the agent’s representations. This is called the “collective knowledge doctrine.”
Moreover, even if the agent’s knowledge amounted only to reasonable suspicion, it may provide the officers with sufficient justification via the collective knowledge doctrine for calling a drug dog to the scene to continue their own investigation.
What you do in the streets echoes into the courtroom.
#policingpontifications
Vid: Even if you’re polite enough to use your turn signal when being chased by the police like this person was, they might still be able to stop you! 😆
