One…Can we do the questions of “So where are you coming from anyway” and “So where are you heading” next? Neither one of those are the cop’s business and have absolutely nothing to do with the traffic stop 99.9% of the time. The sole purpose of those questions is to get you to accidentally yourself into admitting to more that they can nail you with.
The other is good luck doing anything about it if the cops decide to ask you anyway. Sure, the cop may not legally be allowed to ask that, but what are you going to do about it if he does? Are you going to be willing to endure the cop dragging the traffic stop out as long as possible, just to annoy you? Are you willing to turn what may have been a warning into a citation because you pissed off the cop? Or worse, are you ready to endure him doing everything he can to nail you with everything but the kitchen sink, and make you go through the courts to fight it?
Making a law that makes it illegal for them to ask these questions does exactly nothing if the citizens are likely to receive further punishment if they refuse to cooperate when the cop asks anyway. The power imbalance is just way, way too lopsided in favor of the cop, and attempting to exercise your rights in these situations may end up causing more harm than good if the cop decides to go on a power trip.
This seems like a strict improvement over the old situation, in a way that should be directly felt by lots and lots of people every single day.
I don’t get the urge to take a needlessly cynical take on news like this. Yes, the system is still flawed, but yes, it’s better than it was before. Take the win and move on to the next reform.
Absolutely this. If anything is going to change, we’re going to hear about those changes like this. If the reaction is always “fuck you -ACAB!” the change won’t work.
I actually strongly feel that ACAB, but I’d like to live in a society that could have fair and just policing, not one without police.
I don’t see how this is transparency. Either way, the cop can just lie.
I mean this is nonsense:
California’s new law promotes these elements of procedural justice. During a traffic stop, for example, an officer who immediately shares the reason for the stop is being transparent. This allows the motorist to directly engage with the legitimate, legal reason for the stop rather than feel as if they are being interrogated for no reason or an ulterior motive. This more respectful form of communication makes police officers more accountable to those they wield power over.
If a cop pulls a black guy over for ‘speeding,’ it’s still the cop’s word against theirs. The only difference now is that the cop doesn’t have to make the black guy guess which lie the cop is going to use.
If you’re worried enough about police integrity, have a dash cam and have it on. I’ve seen videos (rare) where the cop lied about speed and the dash cam was used to knock it down.
Even cheap ones could be used to figure out speed based on landmarks and time stamps. GPS speed would be more conclusive, though.
For that scenario all you’d have to do is pay a lawyer to file a motion of discovery, and the charges will almost certainly be dropped. You could probably talk a paralegal to do it for cheap, or your jurisdiction might allow you to file it yourself.
It costs more to gather the evidence than they’ll get from the fine.
If a cop pulls a car over for speeding, and the motorist says “because I ran a stop sign”, the cop can now give two tickets. Removing the fishing question still makes the driver’s situation better.
Add comment