This may be an extreme comparison but I feel like I could go get a blown glass pipe and smoke topps out of it and get some of the same looks... Although still perfectly legal lol
pulled over for vaping
- Thread starter Emyllis
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
wow sorry you had such a bad experience, my moms job requires her to work in court a few times a mnth, she actually vapes in court lol.
Had a similar experience a few months back. There I was driving home from work puffin away on my SD MKII when I pass a cop at an intersection. I make eye contact, give him the ?How ya doin officer freindly? nod, and continue on about my merry way puffin like a feind. Not two seconds later this cop is in my tailpipe he is so close. I figure OK he got a call and ignore him, Nuh~uh sure as tax increases he flips on his lights and I pull over. Stomp, stomp, stomp, He comes up to the car, Now I haven't stopped vaping this whole time so the the car is just absolutely hotboxed in this humid envroment. So when I roll down my window its like a wall hitting this trooper in the face (HAH) he scrunches up his face and proceeds to ask me with no preamble, introduction, or otherwise ?Where are the drugs, the drugs in the car, I KNOW there are drugs, where are they huh?, you want this this to go easy?, where are the drugs?. 20 minutes later he's ?Done? with me and gives me stuff back and leaves. Be careful out there all.
Again you jump to conclusions. I have a great deal of respect for GOOD cops. I have a problem cops with an ego problem, or even worse flat out dirty cops. You should too, they give you guys a bad name.
And that's great. But the point is and remains, this certain officer went too far. After realizing this person was not breaking the law, he should have stopped there and sent him on his way. But he didn't. He searched his car with the intent of discovering anything that might have led to an arrest. It's this kind of over zealous behavior that give all of you a bad name. And trying to justify it doesn't help any either.
It was your post in #131 that set the tone for me.
I didn't jump to anything I'm not trained to jump to, LOL. And all I ask is that you and others do the same. People really do not understand law enforcement. Oftentimes all they know is "call 911" with no idea all that goes into the response, the training, the reasons for those things, etc. Coupled with "don't hurt/shoot/TASE/spray" him...even though the call was generated by someone who couldn't stop the threat he/she called about, but they think they are experts as to how the call should have been handled.
Having said that, happy vaping. Common sense goes a long way.
I didn't jump to anything I'm not trained to jump to, LOL. And all I ask is that you and others do the same. People really do not understand law enforcement. Oftentimes all they know is "call 911" with no idea all that goes into the response, the training, the reasons for those things, etc. Coupled with "don't hurt/shoot/TASE/spray" him...even though the call was generated by someone who couldn't stop the threat he/she called about, but they think they are experts as to how the call should have been handled.
Having said that, happy vaping. Common sense goes a long way.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
You do realize that this officer determined that the OP was not breaking the law by *investigating*, right? Is that a foreign word now?
While we're at it, what is your level of expertise for critiquing officer response?
Right, I agree he had cause to pull him over and investigate due to a suspicion he might have been using drugs. But it was established he wasn't. And at that point, he should have been free to go. But the officer, in an over zealous attempt to find anything illegal, wanted to search the car. And that was too much.
Oh brother. From the info given in the OP, the search was legal as well.
It was only legal because consent was given. But that consent was given only under duress. Legal and fair are the differences we are discussing. Just because it was technically legal, doesn't mean the officers actions were fair. If the FDA bans e-cigs, it would technically be legal, but that doesn't mean that it is fair. Does it?
Sigh, you are missing the point here........
The search was legal, because the OP allowed it. We are just advising him (and others) that you don't have to surrender your fourth amendment rights just because an officer asks you to. And there was no reason for that officer to request to search his car, period. If the officer had *any* probable cause to suspect either illegal activity or that his safety was in question, he wouldn't have had to *ask* to search his car in the first place. It's that kind of over zealous approach to law enforcement that causes distrust and attitudes like you've read in this thread.
You must be part of the approaching 0% that support Obama..seriously your level of misdirection is fatiguing. I need to hit the hay.
By the way, consent given under duress is not "legal." Time for you to get some sleep too, LOL.
So now you are just being blatently insulting. And you just proved my point for. When a LEO uses their athourity to pressure someone into giving consent, that IS duress.
Yeah, that was just....bad. But not surprising.
You see, I've known a handful of officers in my lifetime so far. One is my best friend from childhood. I've had a chance to do some ride-along's with him and hang out a bit. And one thing I've learned is that there are two types of cops. One is observant and looks for trouble. The other tries to find it. To the second kind, there are two types of people...those who are cops and civilians.
Thankfully these second kind are in the minority. But they give all a bad image and with the way the police force is, they don't get weeded out. Instead, they get stuck on patrol their entire careers where this attitude is allowed to fester. Not a good thing for what is generally the type of officer the public most often deals with.
Actually, not to split hairs here, but the search WAS legal and no consent would be required. Seeing the vapor clouds, and no cigarettes, it's a logical conclusion that the OP would be using .......... That is probable cause, and no consent is needed in that instance.
If you read the OP's original post, the officer didn't ask for permission to search, they stated "I have reason to believe you are driving under the influence of ............. please step our of your vehicle so I can search it." At that point the OP explained what the PV was, and the cop performed the search. I don't see that there's an issue here. You can't believe everyone's story that you pulled over, or you'll never get anything done because EVERYONE has an excuse for everything.
After the officer completed his LEGAL investigation, he returned the PV and sent the OP on the way. The only issue that I would have with this stop depends on the officer's tone when they told the OP "You can be on your way now but in the future, avoid using this thing while driving if you wish to have no further issues such as this. Have a nice day."
If it was meant as a "Hey, you didn't do anything illegal but it's hard to tell that in the split second that we have to make a determination as you drive by. If you want to make sure you aren't pulled over again then I wouldn't use that in the car in the future." then I have no problem with it. If, however, the officer said it in a "Don't use that again, you've been warned" tone, then he overstepped his boundaries there.
Edit: This reasoning was supplied to me by a good friend of mine who happens to be an excellent police officer.
If you read the OP's original post, the officer didn't ask for permission to search, they stated "I have reason to believe you are driving under the influence of ............. please step our of your vehicle so I can search it." At that point the OP explained what the PV was, and the cop performed the search. I don't see that there's an issue here. You can't believe everyone's story that you pulled over, or you'll never get anything done because EVERYONE has an excuse for everything.
After the officer completed his LEGAL investigation, he returned the PV and sent the OP on the way. The only issue that I would have with this stop depends on the officer's tone when they told the OP "You can be on your way now but in the future, avoid using this thing while driving if you wish to have no further issues such as this. Have a nice day."
If it was meant as a "Hey, you didn't do anything illegal but it's hard to tell that in the split second that we have to make a determination as you drive by. If you want to make sure you aren't pulled over again then I wouldn't use that in the car in the future." then I have no problem with it. If, however, the officer said it in a "Don't use that again, you've been warned" tone, then he overstepped his boundaries there.
Edit: This reasoning was supplied to me by a good friend of mine who happens to be an excellent police officer.
Last edited:
The police act stupidly again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and AGAIN!
Pfffft..!
Pfffft..!
Yep, until you need one, and then all of this LEO hate goes right out the window.
Incorrect, There was NO EVIDENCE of illicet drug use, only his susspicion of it. The device was explained, and he could have used a test kit on the juice possibly. But there was no other evidence of drug use.
- Status
Similar threads
