Stopped by Sheriff Deputy

[Dan_Ashley]

You got that 100% right. And if you notice some of the poster claim law enforcement background are those slinging mud at that cop. One even claimed he didn't like the term "cop". That kind of sounds like someone who never wore a badge to me. Or is trying to make points or something. (Having said that I will probably get flamed.)

Good police work is driven by good judgement. Based on the story by the OP, it sounds like the deputy displayed that.

 

[WackyDan]

My Spyder in theory is illegal from a light perspective in most states. I have the factory fogs and added Motolights down on the A arms. They are 55 watts each and yellow. I've never been pulled over, but I do recognize that with all 6 lights going I can be a bit too bright at night.

Those laws exist for a reason. Yes I have encountered many a truck with rollbars back in the day with four or five KC Daylites on them... Lite at night blinding me... Same for some jeeps and riced out Hondas.

I think though that they shouldn't be able to ticket you unless you actively running more than four of those high intensity lights at once.

 

[jcthorne]

Sadly for you, in my area you would me probaly getting a ticket for that lamp setup if you were on the street with it and the LEO wouldn't be a P****Y for citing you. You can't go running down the a public highway looking like a Christmas tree.

Six lamps were lit and the law stated no more than four (4) lamps were to be lit at any time on a motor vehicle in operation on a public roadway. I pursued and stopped the vehicle and disovered the driver of the car wasn't the owner. The driver had stolen the car and he was revoked and wanted on warrants. The car had not yet been entered as stolen as the locals were still taking the intitial report from the owners. I cuffed up the driver and put him in my cruiser and returned to the car to take charge of the little boy who I thought belonged to the guy I had in custody. The child was in the backseat had obviously been crying a lot and when I asked him what was wrong and that I wasn't going to hurt his dad, he said the driver wasn't his dad and that he hit him. It then dawned on me that there was more here than a car being driven by a revocated and wanted driver. Was I an "idiot" as you put it for stopping the car for having 6 lamps lit? Was I a P***Y as someone else said? If that's someone's definition of an "idiot" or a "P****Y" I can live with it, especially when the parents came to pickup their child and the mother hugged the air out of me with tears of joy pouring out her eyes. If something like that ever happens to someone you love or cherish I hope some sharp eyed cop that has a little bit of integrity and professionalism makes that stop.

I disagree with you on both points.

First the spyder in the photo only has 4 headlamps lit. The others are are marker lights and there is no legal limit to those. MANY 18 wheelers have literally hundreds of marker lights lit up like a Christmas tree and its perfectly legal.

Second, to pull over a driver for a minor perceived offense with the specific intent to discover what else may be going on is VERY illegal and demonstrates the typical cop thinking of any means is justified by the ends. It is NOT and the courts have repeatedly said so. SCOTUS just yesterday with the cell phone search ban. Pulling someone over because you reasonably suspect the car is stolen is one thing, pulling someone over for and extra lamp in HOPES of casting a wider net is NOT. I hope your commander gets it and reads this posting.

 

[Vidman]

Like all opinions and ....... everyone has one. BTW...all the so called markers lites on tt units are illegal in some states. They do cause a distraction.

Now let me bring a point out...Police and other emergency vehicles running their emergency lights can be an attraction to drunk and otherwise impaired drivers. Like a magnet. The last CT trooper killed was by a drunk driver who stared at the trooper's lights and ended up crossing 3 lanes of traffic and struck the vehicle at high speed. This is NOT an unusual occurrence.

I am sure the distraction of running down the road with loads of "marker lights" is unsafe. I ask that you remember your training....when going around curves look ahead to where you want to be and the bike will follow.....same with staring at an unusually lit vehicle.

Unusual lighting has it's place at shows etc.....while stationary and not running. BTW, here in CT the "Bar of off road spot light"s not only have to be covered while on the road but, as with all other accessory lighting, the switch to turn them on, cannot be within the reach of the operator. The switch thing has only been enforced by DMV enforcement officers (cops).

 

[Dan McNally]

Around hearh they call it the War of Norther Aggression. First time my boss said that I told him I don't care what you call it we still kicked your a$$. I am originaly from PA.

I spent ten of my 25+ years of active duty on assignments that were referred to as "joint duty" . . . which meant that particular command was comprised of personnel from all the military services, like U.S. Forces Korea, or U.S. Pacific Command . . . and I always had fun when I was working with guys from the south who were, in their minds, still fighting the Civil War . . . as soon as I saw the flag of the Confederacy on an office or dorm room wall, I'd remind them they were serving in the Union Army! Some of them had a very hard time comprehending that fact . . . drove them crazy! :roflblack:

 

[DJFaninTN]

just because you can pull someone over doesn't always mean you should pull someone over. and before I have to strap on the fire suit, yes I was a former leo years ago. there were some things worth pulling someone over for and some not. having too many lights on the front end of a spyder would not have been high on my list but to each his own.

i hate to admit it but there were always at least a few guys in each department who were so gun ho about stopping someone or writing tickets. it didn't take long to figure out who they were. the local police department that I have to drive through twice a day is like this. you've never seen so many cop cars in one small town decked out to the hill with every goodie a car can have.half of them don't know the law but they sure as heck will pull someone over to see what else they can find in the process.

 

[CommittotheIndian]

Second, to pull over a driver for a minor perceived offense with the specific intent to discover what else may be going on is VERY illegal and demonstrates the typical cop thinking of any means is justified by the ends. It is NOT and the courts have repeatedly said so. SCOTUS just yesterday with the cell phone search ban. Pulling someone over because you reasonably suspect the car is stolen is one thing, pulling someone over for and extra lamp in HOPES of casting a wider net is NOT. I hope your commander gets it and reads this posting.

This is a complete false statement. You should probably check your facts before making such statements. Throwing out acronyms like SCOTUS does not make your statement appear more accurate.

What you are describing is known as a pretextual stop (A "pretext" or "pretextual" stop is a stop in which the officer detains the citizen for a minor crime (i.e. traffic offense) because the officer actually suspects the person of involvement in another, mor significant crime (i.e. drug possession).) and is completely legal by the US Supreme Court. Here are my facts: [h=2]"Pretextual Stops: Whren v. U.S.[/h][h=4]Whren v. U.S. [517 U.S. 806 (1996)][/h]Plainclothes officers in an unmarked car spotted a suspicious SUV with young Black occupants and temporary tags. The vehicle remained at a stop sign for an unusually long time, during which the driver appeared to be looking into the passenger's lap. When the officers made a U-turn in order to get a second look at the vehicle, it turned suddenly without signaling and reached an "unreasonable" speed. The officers caught up with the vehicle at a traffic light, and upon approaching the driver's side door spotted two large bags of crack in plain view. The defendants were convicted and appealed claiming that the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsupported belief that they were involved in drug dealing, rather than by a desire to warn them about traffic laws.
[FONT=Lucida Grande, Lucida Sans Unicode, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that for any seizure officers need only cite valid probable cause for any offense. The ruling rejected the defendants' argument that, because the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsubstantiated suspicion of drug dealing and not a genuine concern regarding the manner in which the vehicle was being operated, the seizure was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the defendants' argument that racial profiling is encouraged when officers are allowed to pull over motorists for reasons other then the actual crime being investigated, the Court argued that "there is no realistic alternative" to the general principle that probable cause validates a seizure."[/FONT]

This technique is used by EVERY police officer in the world. This is how we catch drunk drivers. Didn't use a turn signal, drunk. Went left of center, drunk. Ran a red light or sat at a green light too long, drunk.


Now that the correction has been fixed. As for the OP. I for one (as a police officer) try to leave bikes alone. Yes we have laws about the number of auxiliary lights but the way I look at it (common sense, as one poster said) is if it makes the biker more visible for their safety, then I'm okay with it. We all know vehicle drivers don't see motorcycles or bicycles, so if adding a few extra lights to your spyder helps them see you, then I mark it up to safety improvement.

The only time I have stopped a bike for too many lights was a crotch rocket with neon underglow. While the bike was going down the street, the driver had activated the light changing feature. When the bike drove by me, the lights were flashing colors including red and blue. That rider did not receive a ticket but was strongly warned about using the flashing feature or color change while driving down the road.

Finally I do have to say, I am very pleased to see some of the opinions toward the police from the posters on this page. I do not own a spyder yet and I'm here to learn everything I can before I find one. But anymore today citizens are quick to bash the police (without facts) but it's nice to be a member of a forum with members that use common sense.

Thanks for letting me join and I look forward to future posts (including my purchase).

 

[Dan_Ashley]

Thanks for letting me join and I look forward to future posts (including my purchase).

Thank you for your service, Officer. You help make me and my community a safer, more comfortable, and happier place to live. I salute your professionalism.

Also, welcome to the family of Spyder Ryders. We have quite a few law enforcement and retired law enforcement involved with spyders. A close neighbor of mine is a retired corrections officer, and another, about 10 miles away is a retired sergeant. A guy I ride with is also retired LAPD, and his wife rydes a spyder. He is still "stuck in two wheeler-land." (chuckle). I was IOD in 1978.

 

[wyliec]

Welcome aboard, and thank you for your post.

 

[jcthorne]

This is a complete false statement. You should probably check your facts before making such statements. Throwing out acronyms like SCOTUS does not make your statement appear more accurate.

What you are describing is known as a pretextual stop (A "pretext" or "pretextual" stop is a stop in which the officer detains the citizen for a minor crime (i.e. traffic offense) because the officer actually suspects the person of involvement in another, mor significant crime (i.e. drug possession).) and is completely legal by the US Supreme Court. Here are my facts: "Pretextual Stops: Whren v. U.S.

Whren v. U.S. [517 U.S. 806 (1996)]

Plainclothes officers in an unmarked car spotted a suspicious SUV with young Black occupants and temporary tags. The vehicle remained at a stop sign for an unusually long time, during which the driver appeared to be looking into the passenger's lap. When the officers made a U-turn in order to get a second look at the vehicle, it turned suddenly without signaling and reached an "unreasonable" speed. The officers caught up with the vehicle at a traffic light, and upon approaching the driver's side door spotted two large bags of crack in plain view. The defendants were convicted and appealed claiming that the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsupported belief that they were involved in drug dealing, rather than by a desire to warn them about traffic laws.
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, finding that for any seizure officers need only cite valid probable cause for any offense. The ruling rejected the defendants' argument that, because the officers' decision to stop them was motivated by an unsubstantiated suspicion of drug dealing and not a genuine concern regarding the manner in which the vehicle was being operated, the seizure was illegal under the Fourth Amendment. In addressing the defendants' argument that racial profiling is encouraged when officers are allowed to pull over motorists for reasons other then the actual crime being investigated, the Court argued that "there is no realistic alternative" to the general principle that probable cause validates a seizure."

This technique is used by EVERY police officer in the world. This is how we catch drunk drivers. Didn't use a turn signal, drunk. Went left of center, drunk. Ran a red light or sat at a green light too long, drunk.


Now that the correction has been fixed. As for the OP. I for one (as a police officer) try to leave bikes alone. Yes we have laws about the number of auxiliary lights but the way I look at it (common sense, as one poster said) is if it makes the biker more visible for their safety, then I'm okay with it. We all know vehicle drivers don't see motorcycles or bicycles, so if adding a few extra lights to your spyder helps them see you, then I mark it up to safety improvement.

The only time I have stopped a bike for too many lights was a crotch rocket with neon underglow. While the bike was going down the street, the driver had activated the light changing feature. When the bike drove by me, the lights were flashing colors including red and blue. That rider did not receive a ticket but was strongly warned about using the flashing feature or color change while driving down the road.

Finally I do have to say, I am very pleased to see some of the opinions toward the police from the posters on this page. I do not own a spyder yet and I'm here to learn everything I can before I find one. But anymore today citizens are quick to bash the police (without facts) but it's nice to be a member of a forum with members that use common sense.

Thanks for letting me join and I look forward to future posts (including my purchase).

While the use of the acronym SCOTUS was not intended to lend credence to my argument (its pretty common) I do stand corrected on the law for stops and subsequent other offences found. I may not agree with it but I do appreciate the service our police officers perform. I have also been the subject of police action that went way too far for the situation. Fortunately I was not permanently injured or worse. That officer is no longer on the force for mine and other problems. Most officers I meet, and several are good friends, are great folks and I do treat them with abundant (perhaps overt) respect for their authority in the current situation when stopped.

Back to the original question, marker lights added to the Spyder are generally not illegal. Yes anything can be taken too far but the example photo given was a long way from that. It was actually pretty tasteful.

 

[dndfindley]

That guy is an idiot. The fender lights are marker lights, not headlights and its a shame that clown didn't have anything better to do. Almost all vehicles have marker lights at the front and rear corners of the vehicle and some vehicles have multiple.
My Audi has OEM LEDs around the headlights. I bet there are a dozen around each light.....
It really is a shame that many law enforcement communities have turned into big business harassment facilities.....

Sent from my Venue 8 3830 using Tapatalk

I agree, and I was a cop for 11 years. Law enforcement is changing and not for the better. Still a few good cops out there but their numbers are dwindling.

 

[dndfindley]

Drew, I have to disagree. The deputy was doing what he thought was right by state law. He didn't issue a ticket even though he could have and left it up to a judge to decide. I think he did the right thing.

I disagree. As a cop I would sometimes use bs reasons to stop someone in order to find out if something more serious was going on i.e. DUI, warrants, suspended DL etc. If everything was okay I wrote no citations. However I did not do that unless I thought there was a good chance of finding something. It's called profiling. I would not have stopped someone on a Spyder. The cop in question and many others today (too many) are into a power trip and/or pleasing their bosses - the public be damned.

 

[dndfindley]

Jim's point is valid... The Deputy is paid to enforce the laws.
Bad laws need to be changed; they can't be ignored!

Again I disagree. Bad laws CAN be ignored. When unreasonable laws are made, reasonable people will break/ignore them. One does so at their own peril of course, but nonetheless...

 

[dndfindley]

:gaah: I'm an X-LEO of 35 + years and back in the day that Deputy would be known in the barracks as a P*SSY................Any one can administer the Law from a book , even a Monkey , but it's the real Cops who know how to APPLY IT .....AND WHEN....AND TO WHOM...........case closed .......Mikeguyver :yikes: :thumbup:

Right on!

 

[jcthorne]

Again I disagree. Bad laws CAN be ignored. When unreasonable laws are made, reasonable people will break/ignore them. One does so at their own peril of course, but nonetheless...

There is even a legal doctrine around this. In laymans terms it says that any law that is routinely ignored by more than 20% of the population is unenforceable. This has been the basis for change of many laws. The IM240 emissions testing laws in some Texas counties in the early 90s is an example I am aware of. It went too far, folks ignored it in large numbers and just failed to have the cars tested. Large numbers of cars just did not get registered. The system failed and became unenforceable. Less than 90 days after it went into effect the emissions testing facilities were shuttered.

 

[Dan_Ashley]

There is even a legal doctrine around this. In laymans terms it says that any law that is routinely ignored by more than 20% of the population is unenforceable. This has been the basis for change of many laws. The IM240 emissions testing laws in some Texas counties in the early 90s is an example I am aware of. It went too far, folks ignored it in large numbers and just failed to have the cars tested. Large numbers of cars just did not get registered. The system failed and became unenforceable. Less than 90 days after it went into effect the emissions testing facilities were shuttered.

what is the name of this legal doctrine you speak of? I can find no reference to it in any of my Google searches. Moreover if you look only at speed limit laws, it is illegal to drive 70 in a 65. If everyone on the freeway is doing that, a traffic violation which will end in conviction exists for all the speeding drivers. Note that this argument does not discuss whether the violators should be cited. This is a hypothetical example of a contradiction to the legal doctrine expressed above.

So, with all respect, what is the name of this legal doctrine? I doubt the existence of such a doctrine.

 

[CommittotheIndian]

It looks like another opportunity for jcthorne to check his facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[HuckFin]

Again I disagree. Bad laws CAN be ignored. When unreasonable laws are made, reasonable people will break/ignore them. One does so at their own peril of course, but nonetheless...

Civil disobedience. :thumbup:

 

[wyliec]

what is the name of this legal doctrine you speak of? I can find no reference to it in any of my Google searches. Moreover if you look only at speed limit laws, it is illegal to drive 70 in a 65. If everyone on the freeway is doing that, a traffic violation which will end in conviction exists for all the speeding drivers. Note that this argument does not discuss whether the violators should be cited. This is a hypothetical example of a contradiction to the legal doctrine expressed above.

So, with all respect, what is the name of this legal doctrine? I doubt the existence of such a doctrine.

This might have something to do with it::dontknow:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/title3.html#348

 

[Dan_Ashley]

This might have something to do with it::dontknow:

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/title3.html#348

i saw nothing in that listing of statutes that remotely addresses this issue. Maybe a different link was intended????