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

[rgatijnet1]

This just goes to show how things can escalate to a huge problem when you are just driving along minding your own business. Kinda hard to believe this goes on. Motor home stopped for going too slow

[dodge_guy]

Ok. Now after reading what went on it seems to me a cop or 2 were looking for their big day on the side of the highway. They got it and now look like fools! This is clearly a guy on the road taking his cash with him which is not a crime! The only crime committed was by the police and government! Crimes against a citizen of the U.S. No less!

I would like the to think the 2 officers are suspended! But I doubt it, probably out there still stealing for the government from law abiding citizens!

[msmith1199]

gatijinet, I get you don't like asset seizure. But you can't keep changing your argument. Or I guess you can, but I'm done with you. Anybody who wants to read through all this can see my position.

[dcbrewer]

The sad thing is, they are just setting their self up with a big target on their back, and it will be the good along with the bad. already started with the blacks.

[Kayteg1]

27 pages sure gives a lot for interpretation.
The way I read it, the judge got pissed by the fact that Officers as well DA lied (or not disclosure) that the 2nd stop was the result of the call after 1st stop.
Sergeant who never do traffic stops "happen" to seat on the freeway and pulls over a motorhome becouse window curtains are pulled down?
I think officers and DA took somebody for idiot and even they might have a case with some strange activity, they lost simply becouse they tough they are above the law.

[rgatijnet1]

Right from the beginning I thought the seizure of the man's funds was wrong and so does Judge Hicks. How the officer's did it was faulted by the judge.
The fact that others have sued the state because of other stops along I80 indicates that the Nevada police have a problem with following the law. I never said anything about the curtain blocking his view. I mentioned ONLY the curtain over the back window. Please read a little slower.

Based on the officer's testimony how is one to feel comfortable traveling I80, in a motor home, during the Winter, with any amount of cash in your coach? What is to protect any of us from the next seizure, especially if we do not consent to an inspection of our coach, as recommended by most LEO's on this forum?
Face it, if we are stopped at the side of the road, we have very little rights and we are left to the officer's discretion as to what he wants to do unless we act like submissive children. Any resistance to their requests, whether we have that legal right or not, seems to be just an excuse for them to escalate the encounter.

You are right about this being this judge's opinion but as the document shows, each one of his "opinions" were supported by previous court rulings as detailed after eah statement.

[msmith1199]

Be leery all you want, you are still wrong. You are mostly wrong about what you think I have said, but you are also wrong on the facts. So you think that if the officer stopped the guy for having the curtain blocking his view and for driving on the fog line, and the judge determined that the fog line violation "may" not have happened, that somehow makes it legal to drive with the curtain blocking your view? I guess I don't understand that logic.

Also if you read the 27 pages you see the judge did not fault either of the officers for their probable cause for the traffic stops. He faulted them for detaining the guy too long based only on traffic violations and an officers hunch. Is the judge right? Well you think so, even though you are confused about what the judge actually ruled. I also think the judge is probably going to be found to be right based on the Supreme Court ruling that came down while this case was being litigated. All I have ever said is the US Attorney is appealing the case and we'll see what the appellate court says. And I'm somehow evil for wanting to see what the final outcome is? You have an outcome that you think you support so you want it to stop here but the system allows for either side to appeal. If the judge in this case had sided with the Government's case would you want it to stop, or would you support the guy appealing?

[rgatijnet1]

msmith1199 wrote:
And that's the judges opinion, but it doesn't matter, there was another violation that isn't in question.

Well it's obvious what side of this argument you wish to take.
After getting all of the facts, I'll stick with the side supported by LAW and be leery of LEO's in the future.
Thanks for your input.

[msmith1199]

And that's the judges opinion, but it doesn't matter, there was another violation that isn't in question.

[rgatijnet1]

msmith1199 wrote:
"Fisher articulated two separate observed traffic violations to justify his investigatory traffic stop: (1)
he “noticed the vehicle drift to the right and drive on the white fog line,” and (2) he “further noticed the driver had the curtain pulled forward on the driver’s side window which obstructs the driver’s
view of the vehicle’s left blind area,” both in violation of Nevada law.6"

"As discussed below, the Court believes that the two traffic stops are inextricably connected and that Gorman’s total detention was unreasonably prolonged. However, the Court finds under
Heien that both stops were supported by reasonable suspicion based on the officers’ belief that they observed traffic violations. These determinations were not objectively unreasonable.7"

Read the bottom of page 11. Judge Hicks states that crossing the line occasionally is not against the law in this case. If it was, none of us would be able to drive on a windy day. The officers were looking for excuses to justify their actions, period.

[msmith1199]

Now the court thinks that touching the fog line is not a violation and you have to cross it to be in violation (that is in a footnote) but that is not relevant as you only need one traffic violation to stop somebody, and the curtain blocking the side window is enough.

[msmith1199]

"Fisher articulated two separate observed traffic violations to justify his investigatory traffic stop: (1)
he “noticed the vehicle drift to the right and drive on the white fog line,” and (2) he “further noticed the driver had the curtain pulled forward on the driver’s side window which obstructs the driver’s
view of the vehicle’s left blind area,” both in violation of Nevada law.6"

"As discussed below, the Court believes that the two traffic stops are inextricably connected and that Gorman’s total detention was unreasonably prolonged. However, the Court finds under
Heien that both stops were supported by reasonable suspicion based on the officers’ belief that they observed traffic violations. These determinations were not objectively unreasonable.7"

[rgatijnet1]

msmith1199 wrote:
And now you are being slanted in the information you are providing from the case. You have listed one item when the officer cited three different reasons for the stop, two of which were law violations. Covering the rear window is not a law violation. So lets look at all three. And this is the second stop that was made on the motorhome:

1. Fisher observed Gorman’s motor home traveling westbound with the
driver’s side window obstructed by a window curtain that had been pulled forward. (That is a law violation, you can't obstruct your side view.)

2. Fisher followed the motor home and observed it drift to the right onto the fog line three times and remain on the fog line each time for approximately 400 yards. (Another violation, not driving within the traffic lane is a illegal)

3. Fisher also observed that the rear window of the motor home was obstructed by blinds or curtains that were partially closed. (Not a law violation and I don't know why the Deputy even included this, but it doesn't matter as you only need one law violation for a traffic stop and we already have two)

But you did give us a fine example of slanted reporting when you posted on the one item and tried to make it look like the guy was stopped for having blinds on his rear window. That is exactly the techniques used by media reporters to slant a story.

You did not read the entire 27 pages did you? #2 is not illegal, at least in Nevada, for occasionally drifting across the line.

[rgatijnet1]

msmith1199 wrote:
My comments were to Skylark regarding the links he posted. Some of the articles written about the case in Nevada are slanted (by the authors of those articles) as they don't tell the entire story.

Well, I gave you the entire 27 page story as discussed in Court. It seems pretty obvious that none of the articles about this case were slanted and that all agreed with the judges decision that the second stop and the seizures were illegal. Now whether the officers agreed with the judges decision is not relevant since they were the ones not following the rules. The officers had a gut feeling, that was not PROVEN to be correct, and they seemed willing to go outside of the law to seize this man's property. This time it was a large amount but what is the bottom amount? Maybe they find a few thousand in your motor home and decide they are going to seize your money. Who can afford to bring legal action against the police for a few thousand dollars? I know, it will never happen, but it is obvious that things like this do happen. That plus the fact that there had already been several illegal stops on I80 in Nevada should not give the citizens a warm and fuzzy feeling as they travel around the USA.
I believe one deputy stated that it was unusual for an RV to be on I80 during the Winter. He obviously profiles out of state RV's on I80 during the Winter. Many people, including me, travel almost exclusively during the Winter out West on I80 and further North. I believe he was searching for excuses to justify his mishandling of the stop. I originally indicated that I did not agree with what happened. Now that I have all of the facts, I still say people should not take things for granted as they travel. Keep in mind that awhile back most of the LEO's on this forum said that we should not allow a police officer to inspect our coach during a normal traffic stop. That was one of the reasons the first officer gave for calling ahead to make the second stop.
I have a great deal of respect for most of our police officers and the job that they do but I will not become so naive to take it for granted that ALL of them follow the rules.

[ata3001]

The link takes me to a story totally unrelated to any motorhome being pulled over.

[msmith1199]

And now you are being slanted in the information you are providing from the case. You have listed one item when the officer cited three different reasons for the stop, two of which were law violations. Covering the rear window is not a law violation. So lets look at all three. And this is the second stop that was made on the motorhome:

1. Fisher observed Gorman’s motor home traveling westbound with the
driver’s side window obstructed by a window curtain that had been pulled forward. (That is a law violation, you can't obstruct your side view.)

2. Fisher followed the motor home and observed it drift to the right onto the fog line three times and remain on the fog line each time for approximately 400 yards. (Another violation, not driving within the traffic lane is a illegal)

3. Fisher also observed that the rear window of the motor home was obstructed by blinds or curtains that were partially closed. (Not a law violation and I don't know why the Deputy even included this, but it doesn't matter as you only need one law violation for a traffic stop and we already have two)

But you did give us a fine example of slanted reporting when you posted on the one item and tried to make it look like the guy was stopped for having blinds on his rear window. That is exactly the techniques used by media reporters to slant a story.