POLICE STOPPED ME: 4 false accusations and no crime!
Discussion
(this is related to another topic)
Had an encounter with a police officer on the A41 on a monday at 6.40am.
Wanted to do me for speeding at 60 mph on a 50 limit, and said that it was the reason why he stopped me.
Of course he was wrong. The unrestricted sign on a 'dual carriage way A road' means, if you're in a van the speed limit is 60 mph.
Asked me to switch the engine off and put the keys on the dashboard, which I did, but locked the doors by pressing the central locking button before dropping them.
Then he starts opening the van door without asking permission or anything. Since the door was locked he inserted his arm over then opened window and opened the door from the inside. Immediately I pushed him off, yanked the door from him, locked myself inside, rolled up the window, and told him off as he had no reason nor permission to gain access to the vehicle which is part of your human rights.
If he suspected drugs or anything he would have said so and then it would be up to me to allow him in, waiving my rights.
Anyway, he said he needed to search the vehicle because he had reasons to believe the van had been stolen.
And I said "No you don't. And you don't have my permission to gain access to this vehicle."
I did ask where he got that idea and he said I was driving erratically and that was the reason why he stopped me.
I denied that straight away. I had overtook him while he was cruising behind an electric milk delivery vehicle doing 15mph(3-4 lane roundabout), and after that I made sure I knew where he was and watched him changing lanes behind me without ever using the indicators. That means I was well aware of what I was doing.
He wanted me to provide identification. After his erratic behavior of accusing me of 3 different things without proof, I refused to provide my ID.
He then started talking on the radio saying that he had an uncooperative stop and that he caught me doing 70mph.
Oh man, was I screaming out the window saying "So now it's 70??? Earlier on it was 60. What are you going to make up next??"
After his radio request for help, he gave me a police caution where he said anything I'd say could be used as evidence against me.
It is my understanding that " A Police Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences."
I did not admit to anything, in fact I proved him wrong so far.
Anyway, I was asked to get out of the vehicle. After resetting my phone, I exited and immediately locked the van behind me putting the keys in my pocket. The first thing he did was try to open the van. I had told him he had no reason to search the van nor you're given permission to do so. I kept my mouth shut.
He said he needed to find out if it was stolen. He asked me my name again. I didn't answer. He said I wasn't answering his questions.
I asked if he wanted me to speak or to stay quiet. After all he just said everything I say could be used as evidence against me! Not a real incentive to make me talk, is it? (right to silence)
Then he insisted I had to provide ID, to which I argued I didn't, and that's what a 'producer' is for.
He said I was being arrested on section 25. I replied while leaning against the van and crossing my arms: "No I'm not! I know my rights."
He replied "Right now you have no rights."
I challenged him to say that to my phone while I was recording him and he said he would. But as soon as I got the phone taking video and instructed to do it again he placed his hand on the phone saying it was against his human rights to be filmed. (I now know that you can film your own self and nobody has the right to stop you from doing so, and I strongly recommend you do so!)
He wouldn't allow me near his car, because it would upset his dog. (Yes it was a dog unit)
By now I realised he had nothing on me so I tried to calm things down and tried to get him on the grass verge where it would be safer. He refused saying that I might run away towards the bushes. So I went around between him and the traffic, and he insisted I stayed against the van.
I asked if he thought I was going to run towards the cars.
There was no reason for me being there and I told him. He replied he caught me speeding to which I had to clarify again that he was wrong. 60mph in a van isn't illegal where we were!
I admit I did all i could to annoy him as much as he was annoying me. I was screaming in his face waiving my hands in the air saying "If you don't know the code, why are you stopping people?" ( He did falsely accuse me of speeding.)
And he suspected the van had been stolen. Again, absolutely no reason to stop me.
Then he insisted that my driving was erratic. I asked how.
He asked "How do you explain what you did over the Hampten bridge?"
I asked "What did I do? I wanna hear this."
He hesitated as if he was making something up, and then he said I had lost control of the vehicle.
Ok, for real? That was a 50mph. I had just overtaken him, I knew he was there, and I stuck to the limit.
Trust me on this, you can do that bridge in lightly loaded Iveco Daily at 70 mph in heavy rain. So how can I lose control if it's only 50mph on a dry road? And knowing that there's speedometer over-reading, my real speed was actually 46-47mph.
And I told him more than that, I even told him that someone with an advanced driving course knows that you are meant to use the whole road to increase your visibility to oncoming traffic around bends (and that is regardless of lines). I knew he was there, so I didn't even step on any lines (but used my lane to increase the visibility around the bend and hit the apexes).
"So, you got nothing. I get it!", said I.
He then said he had reasons to suspect I was driving under the influence of alcohol and that we were waiting for his colleague with a breathliser test. (That's the fourth accusation.)
I thought this guy is a joke. But he didn't know I had a surprise for him.
Anyway, almost instantly, a traffic cop shows up, young guy, friendly, tall and thin, dark haired, smiley. I greeted him in a nice way.
Now that another police officer was present, I provided ID.
The test is brought out. The police officer that stopped me instructs me how to use the test, so I did but pushed too hard and ran out of lungs before it was done (it was my first time blowing anything). He laughed, and in a nice way instructed me to blow a bit slower this time until I heard the click.
That I did, and when I heard the click, and while the device was doing it's magic I said "For the record, I do not drink, I do not smoke, I don't even drink caffeine or have ever done any drugs" which is the honest truth about boring ol' me!!! (Don't take any medicine when I have a cold! It's mostly pint glass after pint glass of hot water and honey for me, kills the cold in 2-4days!)
He laughed, but when the results came up he made a throat/nasal sound in disappointment.
While he was completing his Hertfordshire Constabulary Stop Form, he said it was a caution.
I told him I wanted to have a chat when he was done, and I told him speeding doesn't kill. (I've sent emails to government members asking the question "What's the exact number of accidents that are caused by speeding?" and nobody has the answer. Either I don't get a reply, or keep getting sent to someone else in circles.)
He replied that he used to be a nurse and that he knows it does. He was 40-50 years old, Irish, and wearing a Police uniform, I felt there was no point in saying anything else to him.
There was a more relaxed environment in the end, and I did shake his hand before leaving. I apologised for giving him such a hard time, and he said I was only being argumentative. I felt I deserved an apology from him, I wasn't speeding after all.
Now that I bored you to death, I must say I believe I've got the right to complain. It's the fourth encounter with the police I have and they have no proof and reason to stop me. And then try to intimidate or scare me, or start their game of "gotcha!" questioning until you incriminate yourself.
This happened in the later days of summer/autumn of 2006. I'm still waiting to be de-arrested. ( I know the exact date, just don't want to incriminate the Officer publicly at this time.)
I swear all this happened exactly as described and genuinely affirm this to be true. It happened and it's fact. Can use it as my statement. A friend of mine who is a police officer has informed me of my right to make a formal complaint and pointed out the many irregularities performed by the stopper.
All the best,
Peter
PS- I'm not against the Police. I believe they have a difficult job, and I'm sure they go through a lot. Unfortunately, I'm against people acting retarded and not using their brain or thinking emotionally. And that point, they stop being a Police Officer. And now they're bringing tazers into the UK, so more of our freedoms will soon be gone and the military state wins another battle. They say it's non-lethal. They say a lot of things, don't they? Your boss is not your mother. The Police isn't either, nor is the Government!
(C+E driver, no points, advanced driving course taken,no criminal record. Just 33 years old and long hair. Quickly growing intolerant to bullying and abuse.) )
And that's my rant done.
Had an encounter with a police officer on the A41 on a monday at 6.40am.
Wanted to do me for speeding at 60 mph on a 50 limit, and said that it was the reason why he stopped me.
Of course he was wrong. The unrestricted sign on a 'dual carriage way A road' means, if you're in a van the speed limit is 60 mph.
Asked me to switch the engine off and put the keys on the dashboard, which I did, but locked the doors by pressing the central locking button before dropping them.
Then he starts opening the van door without asking permission or anything. Since the door was locked he inserted his arm over then opened window and opened the door from the inside. Immediately I pushed him off, yanked the door from him, locked myself inside, rolled up the window, and told him off as he had no reason nor permission to gain access to the vehicle which is part of your human rights.
If he suspected drugs or anything he would have said so and then it would be up to me to allow him in, waiving my rights.
Anyway, he said he needed to search the vehicle because he had reasons to believe the van had been stolen.
And I said "No you don't. And you don't have my permission to gain access to this vehicle."
I did ask where he got that idea and he said I was driving erratically and that was the reason why he stopped me.
I denied that straight away. I had overtook him while he was cruising behind an electric milk delivery vehicle doing 15mph(3-4 lane roundabout), and after that I made sure I knew where he was and watched him changing lanes behind me without ever using the indicators. That means I was well aware of what I was doing.
He wanted me to provide identification. After his erratic behavior of accusing me of 3 different things without proof, I refused to provide my ID.
He then started talking on the radio saying that he had an uncooperative stop and that he caught me doing 70mph.
Oh man, was I screaming out the window saying "So now it's 70??? Earlier on it was 60. What are you going to make up next??"
After his radio request for help, he gave me a police caution where he said anything I'd say could be used as evidence against me.
It is my understanding that " A Police Caution can be only given to an adult who has admitted guilt for an offence. The Police Caution is administered where that person could have been charged or prosecuted for the offence and is only given for minor or less serious offences."
I did not admit to anything, in fact I proved him wrong so far.
Anyway, I was asked to get out of the vehicle. After resetting my phone, I exited and immediately locked the van behind me putting the keys in my pocket. The first thing he did was try to open the van. I had told him he had no reason to search the van nor you're given permission to do so. I kept my mouth shut.
He said he needed to find out if it was stolen. He asked me my name again. I didn't answer. He said I wasn't answering his questions.
I asked if he wanted me to speak or to stay quiet. After all he just said everything I say could be used as evidence against me! Not a real incentive to make me talk, is it? (right to silence)
Then he insisted I had to provide ID, to which I argued I didn't, and that's what a 'producer' is for.
He said I was being arrested on section 25. I replied while leaning against the van and crossing my arms: "No I'm not! I know my rights."
He replied "Right now you have no rights."
I challenged him to say that to my phone while I was recording him and he said he would. But as soon as I got the phone taking video and instructed to do it again he placed his hand on the phone saying it was against his human rights to be filmed. (I now know that you can film your own self and nobody has the right to stop you from doing so, and I strongly recommend you do so!)
He wouldn't allow me near his car, because it would upset his dog. (Yes it was a dog unit)
By now I realised he had nothing on me so I tried to calm things down and tried to get him on the grass verge where it would be safer. He refused saying that I might run away towards the bushes. So I went around between him and the traffic, and he insisted I stayed against the van.
I asked if he thought I was going to run towards the cars.
There was no reason for me being there and I told him. He replied he caught me speeding to which I had to clarify again that he was wrong. 60mph in a van isn't illegal where we were!
I admit I did all i could to annoy him as much as he was annoying me. I was screaming in his face waiving my hands in the air saying "If you don't know the code, why are you stopping people?" ( He did falsely accuse me of speeding.)
And he suspected the van had been stolen. Again, absolutely no reason to stop me.
Then he insisted that my driving was erratic. I asked how.
He asked "How do you explain what you did over the Hampten bridge?"
I asked "What did I do? I wanna hear this."
He hesitated as if he was making something up, and then he said I had lost control of the vehicle.
Ok, for real? That was a 50mph. I had just overtaken him, I knew he was there, and I stuck to the limit.
Trust me on this, you can do that bridge in lightly loaded Iveco Daily at 70 mph in heavy rain. So how can I lose control if it's only 50mph on a dry road? And knowing that there's speedometer over-reading, my real speed was actually 46-47mph.
And I told him more than that, I even told him that someone with an advanced driving course knows that you are meant to use the whole road to increase your visibility to oncoming traffic around bends (and that is regardless of lines). I knew he was there, so I didn't even step on any lines (but used my lane to increase the visibility around the bend and hit the apexes).
"So, you got nothing. I get it!", said I.
He then said he had reasons to suspect I was driving under the influence of alcohol and that we were waiting for his colleague with a breathliser test. (That's the fourth accusation.)
I thought this guy is a joke. But he didn't know I had a surprise for him.
Anyway, almost instantly, a traffic cop shows up, young guy, friendly, tall and thin, dark haired, smiley. I greeted him in a nice way.
Now that another police officer was present, I provided ID.
The test is brought out. The police officer that stopped me instructs me how to use the test, so I did but pushed too hard and ran out of lungs before it was done (it was my first time blowing anything). He laughed, and in a nice way instructed me to blow a bit slower this time until I heard the click.
That I did, and when I heard the click, and while the device was doing it's magic I said "For the record, I do not drink, I do not smoke, I don't even drink caffeine or have ever done any drugs" which is the honest truth about boring ol' me!!! (Don't take any medicine when I have a cold! It's mostly pint glass after pint glass of hot water and honey for me, kills the cold in 2-4days!)
He laughed, but when the results came up he made a throat/nasal sound in disappointment.
While he was completing his Hertfordshire Constabulary Stop Form, he said it was a caution.
I told him I wanted to have a chat when he was done, and I told him speeding doesn't kill. (I've sent emails to government members asking the question "What's the exact number of accidents that are caused by speeding?" and nobody has the answer. Either I don't get a reply, or keep getting sent to someone else in circles.)
He replied that he used to be a nurse and that he knows it does. He was 40-50 years old, Irish, and wearing a Police uniform, I felt there was no point in saying anything else to him.
There was a more relaxed environment in the end, and I did shake his hand before leaving. I apologised for giving him such a hard time, and he said I was only being argumentative. I felt I deserved an apology from him, I wasn't speeding after all.
Now that I bored you to death, I must say I believe I've got the right to complain. It's the fourth encounter with the police I have and they have no proof and reason to stop me. And then try to intimidate or scare me, or start their game of "gotcha!" questioning until you incriminate yourself.
This happened in the later days of summer/autumn of 2006. I'm still waiting to be de-arrested. ( I know the exact date, just don't want to incriminate the Officer publicly at this time.)
I swear all this happened exactly as described and genuinely affirm this to be true. It happened and it's fact. Can use it as my statement. A friend of mine who is a police officer has informed me of my right to make a formal complaint and pointed out the many irregularities performed by the stopper.
All the best,
Peter
PS- I'm not against the Police. I believe they have a difficult job, and I'm sure they go through a lot. Unfortunately, I'm against people acting retarded and not using their brain or thinking emotionally. And that point, they stop being a Police Officer. And now they're bringing tazers into the UK, so more of our freedoms will soon be gone and the military state wins another battle. They say it's non-lethal. They say a lot of things, don't they? Your boss is not your mother. The Police isn't either, nor is the Government!
(C+E driver, no points, advanced driving course taken,no criminal record. Just 33 years old and long hair. Quickly growing intolerant to bullying and abuse.) )
And that's my rant done.
Right, trying to do this now from memory (as it was such a long post 
). The Road Traffic Act allows any vehicle on the road to be stopped by Police. Simple as that. The Act then says that the Officer can require prodction of driving licence, insurance and MOT and failure to do so is an offence.
If no production is made the Officer can request the drivers date of birth and failure to give this is an offence. As the Officer needs to know whether the driver has such documents he will need name, DOB etc. Failure to prove these/provide false/suspected false details can result in the drivers arrest so that the Officer can assertain at the Police Station the state of play with the driver.
The caution can be given when the Officer wishes to question a suspect about a suspected crime. The caution is also given when a person has been charged with an offence.
As has been said already - act like an arse and be treated like one. If you are refusing to talk to the Officer he can suspect the car is stolen/your are disqualified/have no insurance etc and could have forced entry to the car to arrest you. He didn't do this so you are quite lucky.
). The Road Traffic Act allows any vehicle on the road to be stopped by Police. Simple as that. The Act then says that the Officer can require prodction of driving licence, insurance and MOT and failure to do so is an offence. If no production is made the Officer can request the drivers date of birth and failure to give this is an offence. As the Officer needs to know whether the driver has such documents he will need name, DOB etc. Failure to prove these/provide false/suspected false details can result in the drivers arrest so that the Officer can assertain at the Police Station the state of play with the driver.
The caution can be given when the Officer wishes to question a suspect about a suspected crime. The caution is also given when a person has been charged with an offence.
As has been said already - act like an arse and be treated like one. If you are refusing to talk to the Officer he can suspect the car is stolen/your are disqualified/have no insurance etc and could have forced entry to the car to arrest you. He didn't do this so you are quite lucky.
Beggarall said:
OK - and I know this is being discussed in another topic about being "dragged from your car" - but what exactly are your rights in this situation and what is the law?
You have the right to expect the officer to act within the law.
Unless you know the laws from which he is deriving his powers to deal with you in that situation, you don't know the extent of his powers in relation to dealing with you there, or what the minimum required from you in order that you don't commit an offence by failing to comply is.
Edited by vonhosen on Sunday 20th January 10:58
vonhosen said:
a 2 person game where the other person has said 'let's play a game' but won't tell you the rules and is acting as the referee as well as your opponent.
vonhosen said:
Unless you know the laws from which he is deriving his powers to deal with you in that situation, you don't know the extent of his powers in relation to dealing with you there, or what the minimum required from you in order that you don't commit an offence by failing to comply is.
So in the OP's situation above, what laws would the officer have been deriving his powers from? what was the extent of those powers? and what was the minimum required of the OP to not commit an offence by failing to comply. What would YOU have done using which laws etc, in the same circumstances?stackmonkey said:
vonhosen said:
a 2 person game where the other person has said 'let's play a game' but won't tell you the rules and is acting as the referee as well as your opponent.
vonhosen said:
Unless you know the laws from which he is deriving his powers to deal with you in that situation, you don't know the extent of his powers in relation to dealing with you there, or what the minimum required from you in order that you don't commit an offence by failing to comply is.
So in the OP's situation above, what laws would the officer have been deriving his powers from? what was the extent of those powers? and what was the minimum required of the OP to not commit an offence by failing to comply. What would YOU have done using which laws etc, in the same circumstances?Search could be done under section 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act to check for stolen property i.e. see if the car is stoel and entry could be forced under section 17 of this act.
Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act is for the request/production of driving docs. Failure to provide details/the docs can get you arrested under sect 25 PACE as the BiB needs to assertain if you have the docs/suspects you have provided false details and the arrest is there to allow slow time enqs back at the ranch. Entry can be forced to arrest.
HTH
wasted years said:
stackmonkey said:
vonhosen said:
a 2 person game where the other person has said 'let's play a game' but won't tell you the rules and is acting as the referee as well as your opponent.
vonhosen said:
Unless you know the laws from which he is deriving his powers to deal with you in that situation, you don't know the extent of his powers in relation to dealing with you there, or what the minimum required from you in order that you don't commit an offence by failing to comply is.
So in the OP's situation above, what laws would the officer have been deriving his powers from? what was the extent of those powers? and what was the minimum required of the OP to not commit an offence by failing to comply. What would YOU have done using which laws etc, in the same circumstances?Search could be done under section 1 Police and Criminal Evidence Act to check for stolen property i.e. see if the car is stoel and entry could be forced under section 17 of this act.
Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act is for the request/production of driving docs. Failure to provide details/the docs can get you arrested under sect 25 PACE as the BiB needs to assertain if you have the docs/suspects you have provided false details and the arrest is there to allow slow time enqs back at the ranch. Entry can be forced to arrest.
HTH
stackmonkey said:
vonhosen said:
a 2 person game where the other person has said 'let's play a game' but won't tell you the rules and is acting as the referee as well as your opponent.
vonhosen said:
Unless you know the laws from which he is deriving his powers to deal with you in that situation, you don't know the extent of his powers in relation to dealing with you there, or what the minimum required from you in order that you don't commit an offence by failing to comply is.
So in the OP's situation above, what laws would the officer have been deriving his powers from? what was the extent of those powers? and what was the minimum required of the OP to not commit an offence by failing to comply. What would YOU have done using which laws etc, in the same circumstances?Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff