Stopped in motor home for going too slow on I-80

msmith1199 wrote:

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Here is Judge Hick's ENTIRE court decision. Read it and find the slant. This basically says that the entire stop was wrong and he gives ALL of the facts concerning the stop.
Judge Hick's decision about this stop

Please keep up. I never said the Judge was slanted in this case. My slanted comment was regarding authors of two articles that were clearly slanted.

\

I'm keeping up and you are obviously upset because every written article supports the judges decision that the LEO's were wrong in their handling of the incident. Here is an interesting statement by one of the deputies as part of his reason for stopping the motor home:
Deputy Fisher also observed that the rear window of the motor home was obstructed by the blinds or curtains that were closed.

You have to be kidding. Do deputies really pull people over in Class A motor homes because their rear window, if they have one, has the curtains closed? Did this guy think that a motor home has a rear view mirror and that you need the rear window to see what is behind you?

Why he was stopped:

Nevada State Trooper Greg Monroe
(“Monroe”) observed Gorman driving in the left westbound lane along I-80 just outside of Wells,
Nevada. Monroe Depo. at 46:18-21, 47:21-24. Monroe told Gorman that he stopped Gorman for a
“left-lane violation” because he was driving slowly in the left lane and traffic had backed up behind
his motor home. Id. at 46:3-9. Gorman responded that he was driving in the left lane to avoid
being stuck behind slow moving trucks in the right lane, and that he planned to move back to the
right lane as soon as possible.

rgatijnet1 wrote:
Here is Judge Hick's ENTIRE court decision. Read it and find the slant. This basically says that the entire stop was wrong and he gives ALL of the facts concerning the stop.
Judge Hick's decision about this stop

Please keep up. I never said the Judge was slanted in this case. My slanted comment was regarding authors of two articles that were clearly slanted.

dodge guy wrote:
As I said there is an important piece of information missing in this story. And that is how did the first trooper know he had all that cash? That is what I haven't read about yet. And it doesn't matter either way. He did nothing wrong other than driving slowly (which probably just meant he was driving slower than the traffic around him), and that was probably the speed limit anyway, considering its normal to see upwards of 20mph over the posted limit!

Like I said there is one important piece of information missing!

In the documents I read it doesn't say how the officer knew he was carrying cash. He didn't conduct a search so his information was not enough to reach the level of probable cause, but something gave him that idea. In the next traffic stop they used a K9 that alerted on the motorhome and then they got a search warrant and found the cash.

As for why he was stopped to begin with, it was because he was driving too slow in the fast lane of the freeway and traffic was backing up behind him because of truck traffic in the slow lane. Anybody who drives a Class A motorhome knows that's a real good way to get pulled over.

rgatijnet1 wrote:

msmith1199 wrote:
Every forfeiture story from the sources you are quoting is slanted, that is obvious. Were the cops wrong in that case? I don't know, I'd have to see the facts of the case. It was back in 1992 when the forfeiture laws were different and it was causing problems. But posting links to obviously biased reporting doesn't help your cause.

So basically you are saying the QUOTES from Judge Hicks are slanted. That doesn't do much for your credibility.

Said no such thing. Wasn't even talking about that case. Was talking about the 1992 case that links were posted about.

Here is Judge Hick's ENTIRE court decision. Read it and find the slant. This basically says that the entire stop was wrong and he gives ALL of the facts concerning the stop.
Judge Hick's decision about this stop

As I said there is an important piece of information missing in this story. And that is how did the first trooper know he had all that cash? That is what I haven't read about yet. And it doesn't matter either way. He did nothing wrong other than driving slowly (which probably just meant he was driving slower than the traffic around him), and that was probably the speed limit anyway, considering its normal to see upwards of 20mph over the posted limit!

Like I said there is one important piece of information missing!

msmith1199 wrote:
Every forfeiture story from the sources you are quoting is slanted, that is obvious. Were the cops wrong in that case? I don't know, I'd have to see the facts of the case. It was back in 1992 when the forfeiture laws were different and it was causing problems. But posting links to obviously biased reporting doesn't help your cause.

So basically you are saying the QUOTES from Judge Hicks are slanted. That doesn't do much for your credibility.

Every forfeiture story from the sources you are quoting is slanted, that is obvious. Were the cops wrong in that case? I don't know, I'd have to see the facts of the case. It was back in 1992 when the forfeiture laws were different and it was causing problems. But posting links to obviously biased reporting doesn't help your cause.

Every forfeiture story must be slanted according to the police and government and they are always right.