Federal Court rules that stiff driving posture is suspicious behavior

[satimy]

http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/cindy-lee-westhoven/


A federal appeals court has ruled that driving one’s hands at the “ten-and-two position” is reason enough to pull someone over for further investigation. No traffic laws have to actually be broken Additionally, the court ruled that facial acne is reason enough to suspect the driver is a drug smuggler.


are judges really this bad, I'm no lawyer but this just seems incredibly stupid. Could Obama fire these judges if he wanted to?

[obdigore]

Actually, that is pretty biased.

The Ruling of 'enough 'evidence to pull her over was based on

1) Location (this is a tiny 'locals' road that is apparently used by smugglers because of the lack of border patrol checkpoints)
2) Out of State Plates (again, this road is apparently only used by locals)
3) Her stiff posture and that she sped up after passing the cop going the other way.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...oodposture.pdf

The ruling is essentially that 'although these factors when viewed in isolation my be consistent with innocent travel... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion'.

Her activity after being pulled over is super shady as well.

[satimy]

Actually, that is pretty biased.

The Ruling of 'enough 'evidence to pull her over was based on

1) Location (this is a tiny 'locals' road that is apparently used by smugglers because of the lack of border patrol checkpoints)
2) Out of State Plates (again, this road is apparently only used by locals)
3) Her stiff posture and that she sped up after passing the cop going the other way.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs...oodposture.pdf

The ruling is essentially that 'although these factors when viewed in isolation my be consistent with innocent travel... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion'.

Her activity after being pulled over is super shady as well.

she had a small amount of marijuana, thats hardly drug smuggling.

[obdigore]

she had a small amount of marijuana, thats hardly drug smuggling.

Irrelevant. The stop itself was deemed constitutional because of her speed (70mph in a 60), her location, her plates, and her demeanor that the officer could judge.

As I noted, it is grouping all the factors together that make the stop legal.

PS -> Border Control Agents can't stop you for speeding unless you are doing 25+ over.

Edit: I wrote 'can stop you for speeding', corrected to 'can't' as I had meant to write.

[Aldred]

Well, I didn't think the police would really need much of a reason to pull someone over. Just saying "they looked suspicious" would be enough wouldn't it? Having a reason to search the car without a warrant would be another matter entirely though. She refused to be searched voluntarily, as she's allowed to, so they brought a sniffer dog along. It smelled drugs - grounds for a search - so they did the search and found some drugs.

Seems the guy was right to be suspicious then, even if it was a very minor crime.

I do completely agree that having your hands in the correct position shouldn't be suspicious at all! But the judge mentioned his reasoning at the end, which I mostly agree with.

If you check out some of the other threads on here in the last few months, believe me, there are far far worse decisions being made in courts than this one.

[TheGravemind]

What the hell? I always drive like that. I thought that was proper technique. wtf

[obdigore]

What the hell? I always drive like that. I thought that was proper technique. wtf

You drive with your elbows locked?

Oh wait, the 'lolpolicestateusa!!!!!!one!' site forgot to mention that, didn't they.

[satimy]

Irrelevant. The stop itself was deemed constitutional because of her speed (70mph in a 60), her location, her plates, and her demeanor that the officer could judge.

As I noted, it is grouping all the factors together that make the stop legal.

PS -> Border Control Agents can stop you for speeding unless you are doing 25+ over.

Does that seem right to you?

1) Location (this is a tiny 'locals' road that is apparently used by smugglers because of the lack of border patrol checkpoints)

I would try to avoid checkpoints as well, it seems like a hassle.

2) Out of State Plates (again, this road is apparently only used by locals)

this seems inconsistent with the logic that it was a "drug smugglers" route, if its used by smugglers than it can only be "only used by locals" if all of those drug smugglers are locals.

3) Her stiff posture and that she sped up after passing the cop going the other way.

Have you ever been pulled over, I have and I get nervous as hell. People being intimidated by police isn't uncommon. As for the she "sped up" after the cop passed her, how the fuck would he be able to know that? Did he hear her engine rev, or does he somehow posses the sense to notice a car speeding a whopping 10 miles per hour while passing it in the opposite direction?

[Deleted]

I don't trust a link that says 'policestateusa', sounds not biased at all...
Stiff up a lip you illuminati conspiracy theorists!!

[belfpala]

The ruling is essentially that 'although these factors when viewed in isolation my be consistent with innocent travel... taken together they may amount to reasonable suspicion'.

So basically, "we didn't like the look of that car and made up a thing."

Go courts, go.

[obdigore]

Does that seem right to you?

1) Location (this is a tiny 'locals' road that is apparently used by smugglers because of the lack of border patrol checkpoints)

I would try to avoid checkpoints as well, it seems like a hassle.

You would add 100 miles to your trip to avoid a single border patrol checkpoint?

2) Out of State Plates (again, this road is apparently only used by locals)

this seems inconsistent with the logic that it was a "drug smugglers" route, if its used by smugglers than it can only be "only used by locals" if all of those drug smugglers are locals.

Are you purposely oblivious? Its a tiny one lane either way road used by locals, and drug smugglers.

3) Her stiff posture and that she sped up after passing the cop going the other way.

Have you ever been pulled over, I have and I get nervous as hell. People being intimidated by police isn't uncommon. As for the she "sped up" after the cop passed her, how the fuck would he be able to know that? Did he hear her engine rev, or does he somehow posses the sense to notice a car speeding a whopping 10 miles per hour while passing it in the opposite direction?

I don't get nervous when I'm around police officers, border control agents, or anything else. Your whining about technical knowledge that an officer is supposed to have is just that. Useless whining.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying your shitty 'ZOMGPOLICESTATEUSA' link leaves out, as most shitty sites like this do, important details, that I mentioned above. It wasn't 'because her hands were 10 and 2', or just because of her 'stiff driving behavior'.

Try to be more honest in your thread title and don't link shitty sites and maybe we wouldn't have to have useless debates like this. I linked the actual court case. You can check it out for yourself.

- - - Updated - - -

So basically, "we didn't like the look of that car and made up a thing."

Go courts, go.

I dunno, I mean, I'd personally expect border patrol agents to know more about drug smuggling trends/routes/activity than I do. If they don't, somebody somewhere is fucking something up. Just like I should know more about my specialization then they should.

[satimy]

You would add 100 miles to your trip to avoid a single border patrol checkpoint?
Are you purposely oblivious? Its a tiny one lane either way road used by locals, and drug smugglers.


I don't get nervous when I'm around police officers, border control agents, or anything else. Your whining about technical knowledge that an officer is supposed to have is just that. Useless whining.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm saying your shitty 'ZOMGPOLICESTATEUSA' link leaves out, as most shitty sites like this do, important details, that I mentioned above. It wasn't 'because her hands were 10 and 2', or just because of her 'stiff driving behavior'.

Try to be more honest in your thread title and don't link shitty sites and maybe we wouldn't have to have useless debates like this. I linked the actual court case. You can check it out for yourself.

- - - Updated - - -



I dunno, I mean, I'd personally expect border patrol agents to know more about drug smuggling trends/routes/activity than I do. If they don't, somebody somewhere is fucking something up. Just like I should know more about my specialization then they should.

The "shitty site" had a link to the court case as well, that doesnt mean it wasn't a shitty decision that anyone that cares about liberty or freedom shouldn't be concerned about. I apologize if me worrying about the rapidly growing trend of anti-privacy court decisions and the increasingly militarization of police forces offends you.

[obdigore]

The "shitty site" had a link to the court case as well, that doesnt mean it wasn't a shitty decision that anyone that cares about liberty or freedom shouldn't be concerned about. I apologize if me worrying about the rapidly growing trend of anti-privacy court decisions and the increasingly militarization of police forces offends you.

The only thing I'm offended by is the intellectual laziness in the positions you espouse.

[satimy]

The only thing I'm offended by is the intellectual laziness in the positions you espouse.

You mean like some cop being a power tripping dickhead and making up a bunch of shit that some idiot judge slurps up to bust a pot smoker. It is intellectually dishonest to try and justify this court ruling.

[Deleted]

You mean like some cop being a power tripping dickhead and making up a bunch of shit that some idiot judge slurps up to bust a pot smoker. It is intellectually dishonest to try and justify this court ruling.

Its intellectually dishonest to make an elephant out of a musquito and claim that the police is comming to get you.

The "shitty site" had a link to the court case as well, that doesnt mean it wasn't a shitty decision that anyone that cares about liberty or freedom shouldn't be concerned about. I apologize if me worrying about the rapidly growing trend of anti-privacy court decisions and the increasingly militarization of police forces offends you.

The increasingly militarization of the police force is because everybody and their mother seems to have an automatic rifle at home and sees it as their right, ignorant about the fact that the free distribution of weapons allows criminal syndicates to engage in an arms race with the police.

It has nothing to do with 'the commies' trying to get you.

[satimy]

Its intellectually dishonest to make an elephant out of a musquito and claim that the police is comming to get you.

- - - Updated - - -



The increasingly militarization of the police force is because everybody and their mother seems to have an automatic rifle at home and sees it as their right, ignorant about the fact that the free distribution of weapons allows criminal syndicates to engage in an arms race with the police.

It has nothing to do with 'the commies' trying to get you.

So you think this is an isolated incident?

and automatic rifles are really rare

[Manhands]

Step 1: Start a website that caters to public fear.
Step 2: Hire people to comb through stories with the intent of spinning toward said fear.
Step 3: Profit.

I'm going to quote the case that was linked:

As Ms. Westhoven drove past him, Agent Semmerling noticed she had a “stiff posture” and her arms were “straight and locked out” at a “ten-and-two position on the steering wheel.” ROA at 75. He also noticed the truck had an Arizona license plate and dark tinted windows. Although Ms. Westhoven did not appear to be speeding, Agent Semmerling decided to turn around to follow her and to run a registration check. He caught up with her after driving for a couple of miles at 95 miles per hour, indicating she had increased her speed 10 or more miles per hour. She then abruptly hit her brakes to slow down when Agent Semmerling was behind her.

[Deleted]

So you think this is an isolated incident?

and automatic rifles are really rare

I don't know and I don't care.


Much less rare then in countries where the police force doesn't have to be militarized.

[Waniou]

Why are people trusting the website that is clearly distorting what the source says? Seriously. It just shouts dishonesty.

From the article:

First was the driver’s upright posture. The female driver was sitting up straight with her hands properly located on the upper part of the steering wheel. This was viewed as suspicious activity.

From the court report:

Agent Semmerling noticed she had a “stiff posture” and her arms were “straight and locked out” at a “ten-and-two position on the steering wheel.

That's not the same as "sitting up straight". When I drive, even when I've got my hands at 10-and-2, I'm not sitting stiffly with my arms locked.

From the article:

Secondly, the agent claimed that the truck’s tinted windows were suspicious. It remains unclear how the agent saw driver’s posture through the “suspicious” tint.

A later bit in the court report seems to point towards only the rear windows being tinted:

Agent Semmerling could not see inside the back of her vehicle due to the tinted windows.

From the article:

He saw that Mrs. Westhoven had “acne” on her face and claimed that it was grounds for suspecting her to be a methamphetamine user.

From the court report:

Agent Semmerling noticed Ms. Westhoven appeared to have scarring and acne on her right cheek, indicating to him she might be a methamphetamine user.

Emphasis mine.

There's more in the court report that the article entirely leaves out, such as her general nervous demeanour (Which isn't grounds alone for suspicion, I'm sure most people get nervous around cops) but like the judges said, taken as a whole, it looks pretty suspicious and is reasonable suspicion.

Don't trust biased websites that are clearly changing what their sources are saying. If your case has any merit, you don't need to be dishonest to make it.

[obdigore]

You mean like some cop being a power tripping dickhead and making up a bunch of shit that some idiot judge slurps up to bust a pot smoker. It is intellectually dishonest to try and justify this court ruling.

So now we have a conspiracy here, where this 'power tripping dickhead' makes up a bunch of shit that 'a large number of local, appeals, and SC judges slurp up', right?

I guess everyone is stupid but you Satimy.