Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“Based on the circumstances of this case as discussed above, Trooper Carraher’s conduct violated the reasonable suspicion necessary to justify the initial traffic stop,”
Sounds wacky at first, but if you look at the totality of the circumstance, the court got it right.
I am just not understanding why the case was overturned due to the excessive speed, as opposed to an illegal stop.
I have so many questions about this that are not answered in the link:
1) Why did the trooper target the car that drove 111 mph in order to catch up to? Clearly, he knew it was likely transporting drugs, but he did not observe it speeding. He ultimately pulled it over for following too closely.
2) The passenger was charged, was the driver also charged? There is no mention of the driver.
3) If he observed the car from the median, apparently he had to initially drive in the other direction and find an exit, and then turn around to catch up with this vehicle. It seems odd to have to do that, however, so why he was driving that fast to catch up to the car is not explained.
Apparently, an officer needs justification (chasing a suspect) in order to drive this fast to pursue someone, and since he was not a suspect, he violated the law. The Supreme Court got this one right.
Initially, I was going to come in here and post condemning the Wyoming Supreme Court's opinion as being wholly inconsistent with the US Supreme Court's interpretation of the 4th Amendment's requirements for reasonable suspicion.
Indeed, it can be said that the cop certainly broke various laws in order to speed up to catch up to a vehicle whose driver was not visibly breaking any law. But how that translates into the cop not having reasonable suspicion that a crime was afoot (in this case, observing the car following too closely behind the truck) does not seem to purport with any of the Supreme Court's 4th Amendment jurisprudence that I'm familiar with. I argue that the reasonable suspicion was satisfied by the cop merely seeing the driver following too closely; reasonable suspicion has applied to what the cop observes, not to how the cop would have gotten into position to observe something assuming that the cop didn't violate a citizen's rights in doing so. If the cop broke the law in getting into position to observe a citizen breaking the law, that seems an unusual method to argue that the cop doesn't have reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop in this case.
This is one of the key questions answered by the state court:
Does Article 1, § 4 of the Wyoming Constitution provide greater protection from a pretextual stop requiring us to overrule our decision in Fertig v. State, 2006 WY 148, 146 P.3d 492 (Wyo. 2006)?
While the plaintiff did allege a 4th Amendment violation and while the Wyoming Court does address the federal constitutional claim as the suspect raised it, it was not determinative for the Court's opinion, which was resolved wholly by the Wyoming Constitution.
Where things get a bit tricky, however, is that the Wyoming Court states that it doesn't see any differences between the Wyoming Constitution's requirements for searches/seizures and the federal Constitution's requirements for the same. Thus, it is possible that the Supreme Court takes up this case on appeal to clarify the federal constitutional issue (if the state appeals), but it wouldn't change the outcome for the plaintiff here as he's protected by the Wyoming Constitution as interpreted by that state's supreme court.
I have so many questions about this that are not answered in the link:
1) Why did the trooper target the car that drove 111 mph in order to catch up to? Clearly, he knew it was likely transporting drugs, but he did not observe it speeding. He ultimately pulled it over for following too closely.
2) The passenger was charged, was the driver also charged? There is no mention of the driver.
3) If he observed the car from the median, apparently he had to initially drive in the other direction and find an exit, and then turn around to catch up with this vehicle. It seems odd to have to do that, however, so why he was driving that fast to catch up to the car is not explained.
Apparently, an officer needs justification (chasing a suspect) in order to drive this fast to pursue someone, and since he was not a suspect, he violated the law. The Supreme Court got this one right.
To #3 a lot of medians around the country are grass/have emergency vehicle turnarounds so the officer could have been sitting in the median pointing in the same direction of travel or been able to turn around right there.
I have so many questions about this that are not answered in the link:
1) Why did the trooper target the car that drove 111 mph in order to catch up to? Clearly, he knew it was likely transporting drugs, but he did not observe it speeding. He ultimately pulled it over for following too closely.
2) The passenger was charged, was the driver also charged? There is no mention of the driver.
3) If he observed the car from the median, apparently he had to initially drive in the other direction and find an exit, and then turn around to catch up with this vehicle. It seems odd to have to do that, however, so why he was driving that fast to catch up to the car is not explained.
Apparently, an officer needs justification (chasing a suspect) in order to drive this fast to pursue someone, and since he was not a suspect, he violated the law. The Supreme Court got this one right.
Like Ive said before, when it comes to drug crime...law enforcement is extremely aggressive! They will justify breaking down doors in the middle of the night to serve drug warrants!
Its PERSONAL to these cops! They fool themselves into thinking they are doing 'good work'...but actually they are contributing to the problem overall...And no one has to believe what I say, look around at any city in the country...drug law enforcement has FAILED miserably!
Perhaps we should now try something else, to get this under control? Why continue to listen to the DEA and law enforcement when it comes to solving the drug problem? they have proven they do not know what they are talking about, none of their efforts have led to positive results...but they just keep on thinking its the way to get this under control? (there is a name for that 'mentality'.)
Yep I went from "this is a stupid ruling" to being all for it as well. The officer had no reasonable reason to stop that van, and he put other lives at risk in the process.
Although one might argue that the Vehicle Code is the greatest source of probable cause (at least to get a vehicle stopped), this trooper himself created the situation of 'following too closely,' a chicken **** stop anyway if you ask me, and everything ensued from there. No can do, bro.
Do better police work next time.
Like Ive said before, when it comes to drug crime...law enforcement is extremely aggressive! They will justify breaking down doors in the middle of the night to serve drug warrants!
Its PERSONAL to these cops! They fool themselves into thinking they are doing 'good work'...but actually they are contributing to the problem overall...And no one has to believe what I say, look around at any city in the country...drug law enforcement has FAILED miserably!
While I agree that drug law enforcement has not been a rousing success (blame the Dems open border policy for a HUGE part of that), but how are cops contributing to the problem?
I have so many questions about this that are not answered in the link:
1) Why did the trooper target the car that drove 111 mph in order to catch up to? Clearly, he knew it was likely transporting drugs, but he did not observe it speeding. He ultimately pulled it over for following too closely.
2) The passenger was charged, was the driver also charged? There is no mention of the driver.
3) If he observed the car from the median, apparently he had to initially drive in the other direction and find an exit, and then turn around to catch up with this vehicle. It seems odd to have to do that, however, so why he was driving that fast to catch up to the car is not explained.
Apparently, an officer needs justification (chasing a suspect) in order to drive this fast to pursue someone, and since he was not a suspect, he violated the law. The Supreme Court got this one right.
the trooper could offer no justification for speeding to catch up to the car. that's the issue at hand and why this was overturned.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
