My friend, the first time I was pulled over was for not stopping at a stop sign for 3 seconds. The state I was in, clearly stated in it's statutes that the vehicle was to "come to a complete stop".Kwil said:If something keeps happening, you should look for the common factor.dwightsteel said:I didn't mean to imply that a lack of seatbelt would warrant a full car search. I merely meant to imply it gives them cause to pull you over. Once you're on the side of the road, the cop can and will get away with whatever he wants. If you think I'm being overly paranoid, then I can refer you to me. I can think of three different times, in three different cities, where I was pulled over for random variances (ironically, none of them having anything to do with my lack of seatbelt) and in each of those instances, the police claimed they smelled marijuana in the car or alcohol on my breath, and not on any of those occasions were any of those claims true. As a matter of fact, the single time they made the alcohol claim, they didn't even bother to do a field sobriety test. He merely used it as an excuse to search my car. I fully believe that the biggest part of the reason that this has become law was to help circumvent the 4th amendment. You're absolutely right, I don't like the idea that this law get abused, and believe me, it does. But the fact still remains that with the safety standards on new model cars increasing with the rapidity they are, this law is an 80 year-too-late solution to a problem of self control.
Different officers. Different cities. Different times. Common factor = you.
How badly do you drive?
The second time was because a police officer told me that I was going 37 mph in a 35mph zone. The third was because while I was turning a corner, my wheel went maybe an inch over the hard yellow line.
There wasn't a legitimate stop in anyone of those incidents, and I was searched all three times. They had no grounds to even giving me a ticket, because had they, I would have sued for harassment.