The officer's report makes no sense. Why did he stop the car?
Larry, Glad you brought this to the public's attention. Both the driver and the officer appear out of line from this report. A few days ago on dark 202 at 4 pm, an officer pulled over a car because he was able to ID that the driver was not the owner, yet the car was not stolen. I would be outraged if I was pulled over in my wife's car simply because I did not own it. One crime does not justify another. It appears this stop was not justified. Also, I drive this rural road often wondering why local cops are hanging out where the least people are.The kid should not have been smoking, just like all the readers of this should not have smoked and driven all the times they did. He certainly should not have been drinking and driving. But this is an occasional problem, while police pulling people over without justification and fudging the reports appears to be a rampant and systematic problem which is much larger with much more negative consequence. I hope both the drivers and the officers perceived violations get flushed out and guilty parties are punished.This speaks slightly to the national citizens vs. cops with the cop killings etc. The question really is, what is justice and who is subject to it?Again, thank you for calling both this cop and the driver out! My sense is the cop's mistakes in the report writing (and his actions if accurately accounted for in the report) get the kid off as I don't believe this was a legal stop, a good lawyer and this all should go away.
How was the officer able to determine that the driver was not the owner *before* he stopped the car?
You'd be "outraged?" Really? You outrage rather easily.
Don't know. But the driver looks about 14.
Anons; it is because the system that the police use often attach a license photo of the registered owner to the file. He noted that the registered owner was not the operator (maybe it was an older gentleman or a female, both easily determined). He then states that he did some leg work and found another person from the same address that had a suspend/revoked license..most likely by photo as he wrote that he recognized said person. That is MORE than enough to establish reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle as that is the threshold needed; not probable cause.I strongly suggest that you stop pontificating about something that you clearly have limited knowledge about. You would not be stopped just because you were driving your wife's vehicle..unless he did some leg work and found you had a warrant/suspended license or the like.And I just LOVE how you just start making all kinds of assumptions and conclusions from a probable cause report and not a full police report. These reports a brief in nature to establish probable cause for the charges sought and are not a FULL report. A good lawyer will tell you the same and, as long as PC is met, it will not go away on that alone.
Ummm, the cop said that he was able to see the driver and confirmed that he had a revoked license BEFORE stopping him. Cops have computers in their cars ya know.
Do they just run plates at random and pull people over like this on a regular basis? Lots of kids drive their parents cars. What if they are of a different skin color? That is some quick computer work to get all that info and catch up to him. Something doesn't add up.
That's why Pelham cops are so good. They can drive 55 and run a computer at the same time. Don't want to miss the chance for a big time arrest.Remember kids, don't text and drive.
what a pair of idiots.
Stop implying that there was wrongdoing about something you are clearly clueless about. It does add up as IF there is strong signal then yes the information can come back very quickly. Pull over at the top of Amherst Rd and 202 and get on your iphone. The service is fast there (I often look at the reservoir up there and use my phone so I have firsthand knowledge). IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SKIN COLOR, that is your hang up. Read the damn report. Guy ran car (remember that the plate info is public knowledge AND property of the RMV). Driver was clearly not owner. Ran through RMV database and found a second male person who had an age/date of both consistent with operator. Ran him. Followed vehicle until info came up. Matched info to operator and had PC for an arrestable offence. Initiated stop and confirmed what he knew. Simple as it gets. Chincy small time misdemeanor arrest? Yup. Legal? Yup.
A traffic stop that puts you face to face with the police is no small deal. They have almost unlimited power to take away your life at their discretion and we all accept this. Outrage for any improper stop or use of force or threat there of is justified. Unjustified stops should be a felony with prison time. It is kidnapping/abduction with a deadly weapon (and an army behind them.)Hopefully, even though this kid sounds guilty, the potentially even more guilty cop will be kept honest with a good lawyer and the tools the legislature has give the citizens - the law. A cop who pulls people over without legal justification is far more of a threat to the community than a drunk driver. What is the reputation/record of the officer or the department (since this is all justification for the interaction is based on the reputation of the "suspected" driver)? Are the Pelham police known to follow the law and be fair?
Yes, they are.
Pelham has one officer for every 140 people...then three constables in addition. This is police to citizen rate of 0.71% (NIC constables) .....comparable to one of the US cities with the highest policing rates (in addition to a high crime rate), you may have heard of Washington DC. It has a police to citizen rate of 0.68%. To be clear Pelham, MA has more police per person than Washington DC. Then three extra constables. But in 25 years the only place I have seen a Pelham officer (estimated 2000 trips through the town) is on 202 parked. Pelham, approximately one officer for each 140 people. A post with no opinions.
Pelham has no public transportation that I am aware of.How -- exactly -- is someone supposed to get to the MADD classes?You can't order someone to do something (or go somewhere) that they aren't able to do by him/her/itsself -- without assistance from third parties.
You're an asshole. For obvious reasons.
The old chief would have just shot him, so much simpler.
Merry Christmas to all. Peace on earth and good will to men and women.
Post a Comment