Arkansas Blog

Wonder if the Ledge will step in. Don't localities only have those powers assigned them by the Ledge? Maybe this one should be taken away.

"Presumably, this gives cover to any jerkwater outpost along a freeway that would like to set up shop on the four-lane to look for "probable cause."

And you will find plenty on the stretches in Crawford and Franklin Counties. Mulberry and Ozark have to pay the bills somehow, and random interstate pullovers, given you are guilty as charged in court 100% of the time there, are quick money makers for towns with the freeway covered by parts of the city limits, especially when there is little to nothing north of the freeway in both of those towns cases.

Theodosius - doubtful. Oklahoma passed some speed trap laws a few years ago due to small towns on the freeway or major roads like US 69 making 60+% of city revenue on speeding tickets (DBI probably knows Moffett, Oklahoma, and their speed trap that got shut down (and subsequently the town went bankrupt).

Wonder if the Ledge will step in. <<

Theo, as anon noted you're stepping on sacred ground. Ain't gonna happen. Too many leggies are too dependent upon local goobers and not the other way round. leggies had their take home lunch boxes cleaned a few years back by a court ruling.

It's not on the I state system but if you're in West Washington County near Elkins beware. In less than one mile there are FIVE, count them , 5 different speed limit signs in the city of Elkins which features one main street. It's a money maker for them.

Why does no one speak of Damascus? Traps in Tyronza and Gilmore seem to be popular on-line complaint topics, but Damascus seems to me to be the largest speed trap in Arkansas. There's at least 2 brand new Dodge Chargers and a Durango, and those are just the ones I've laid eyes on simultaneously.

To the business owners in Damascus: I make it a point to boycott all Damascus area businesses, preferring Marshall (whose cops may flash a light at you if you're doing 10-20 mph over limit) or even St. Joe. I do occasionally stop to pee at the gas station north of Damascus, and I make sure I get a little on the seat.

I know all too well about Elkins. Stupid little pissant town that it is.
Back in the 80's, I got stopped there for going 58 in a 55. The cop was sitting at the city limit sign and clocked me well outside city limits.
Since he was already giving a ticket, I asked him how he could give me a ticket for something that occurred outside of his jurisdiction. He said to me: "Sorry about that boy, but I read my radar gun wrong. You were really going 65 mph. Would you like me to check the readout again?".
Once he gave me the ticket I asked to see his radar gun calibration logs. He refused and started laughing at me. He then told me to fight the ticket in court, not that I had any chance of getting it overturned and now he was going to be watching out for me since I was a troublemaker.

"Presumably, this gives cover to any jerkwater outpost along a freeway that would like to set up shop on the four-lane to look for "probable cause."

-------------

I don't think the decision addresses to the right of muncipalities to *ticket* -- and, hence, collect from -- speeders on the interstate. And that's the point of speed traps.

"Probable cause" is relevant to the constitutional issue of illegal search, but not the local (i.e., state law) issue of whether or not a driver can be given a valid, payable speeding ticket by a particular officer under state law.

So if Barney Fifes of the interstate wants to stop and search speeding drivers *without* being able to give them the tickets that help swell the local town's coffers (a matter controlled by the state police and state law), I guess the decision says they can: the speeding in the presence of the officer being the commission of an offense that gives rise to probable cause for a search.

Yet, probable cause for a search is not authority to issue a valid speeding ticket under state law.

So maybe local officers can stop speeders, but I'm not sure there's much *pecuniary* incentive to do so, except when the local officer is, well . . . Barney Fife.

Now, whether local officers want to speed their time profiling interstate drivers for Driving While Black or Driving While Hispanic is a serious issue regarding abuse of authority, but it's not a speed trap issue.

ARK. BLOG: Dang, a real lawyer steps in and trumps my ill-informed rant. You may be right, TAP. It's not clear from this decision. The speeding ticket was dismissed, (doesn't say why) but the search was upheld. Lucky for the motorist, it turned up no contraband. But, even if this doesn't give rise to formal speed traps, it certainly gives wide latitudes to local cops to stop anyone spotted above the speed limit for whatever that stop might yield. It's kindly scary.

TAP is right here--the Eighth Circuit does not have the authority to determine Arkansas law, and the case deals with an allegation that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment because the officer lacked authority under state law to make the stop. In fact, the opinion acknowledges that "Limbocker lacked the authority under Arkansas law to make traffic stops and arrests on the Interstate." That lack of authority, however, did not lead to a violation of the Fourth Amendment under the Eighth Circuit's reasoning because the Fourth Amendment does not incorporate state restrictions on police activity.

ARK. BLOG: Thanks for more lawyerly input. I noted the agency's lack of highway authority in original post. (I think my problem is mainly with the exaggerated headline.) But I do have this question: Given the unlimited right under this decision to stop and search on probable cause -- and speeding has now been so defined even for an agency without interstate enforcement authority -- what charges lawfully may be filed by those officers as a result of other things discovered in that stop? None? Some? All? No traffic violations? No vehicle violations? Drug violations? Weapons violations? Minors in possession? Etc.

TAP, are you saying that someone speeding equals probable cause to search the person and vehicle?
I find that very hard to believe.
Of course, we have to trust the cops to actually be upholding and adhering to the law. That is a big stretch in my experience.

I was driving a rental truck (big 18' UHAUL type thing) from LR to Boston and as soon as I crossed over into TN I has a State Trooper pull me over. He said that I was going 75 in a 55. Totally impossible since the van had a 58mph speed limiter on it and I had documentation to prove it. He asked me some questions and then said that he wanted to search my truck. I was in a hurry so I told him I would give him permission to search it only if he apologized to me for pulling me over without just cause and for trying to insinuate that I was hauling drugs. He laughed and said OK. I then let him search the truck. He found nothing, gave me my license and started to walk off. I told him he owed me an apology. He was not happy about that, but he did apologize.

I have had similar issues with Arkansas and Massachusetts State and local police.
It is kind of hard to trust the 'Boys in Blue' when you see so many fabricated stops with intimidation to search a vehicle.
Yup, no trust here.

The "county cops" as the Sheriff's department is called around here, are just itchin' for some grant money so they can get in on the State Police's freeway action. Not those small time speeders, but the drug couriers that enrich St. Francis and Crittenden counties while keeping dope off the streets of Chicago or points east. Driving While Hispanic is a huge red flag; add some California or Texas plates and you'll likely get a chance to meet the drug dog.

Regardless the reason you were pulled over, it gives the locals a chance to enrich their local law enforcement coffers through upping the probability of seizure of drug money, which departments often get to keep. NPR was reporting pretty thoroughly on this issue within the last few weeks, of course reporting several instances of improper seizure where restitution was ordered.

When a single officer can pull down over 1 million in one stop - and double a small department's annual budget, as has happened a few times - you're obviously going to have a conflict of interest in regards to proper determination of probable cause leading to property searches.

RE: Max's question to Gaddis' post -
I don' t read the opinion to give an "unlimited right under this decision to stop and search on probable cause." Rather, if such a search happens, there is no federal civil rights violation. While I may disagree, that's what the Court said.

As for what charges could be filed by the officers involved, I think the answer is none - and that's probably why in this case the speeding charges were dropped. Since the stop was in violation of Arkansas law, any subsequent search is tainted under State law and any drugs found, for example, would not be admissible under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. The drugs being the "fruit" of the search.

Perhaps Rose (the speeder) should have filed suit in State Court and asserted violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, instead of the 4th Amendment.

Two previous posters pointed out the real issue here which is the seizure of drugs and assets. And how does the Patriot Act affect all of this?

"...even if this doesn't give rise to formal speed traps, it certainly gives wide latitudes to local cops to stop anyone spotted above the speed limit for whatever that stop might yield. It's kindly scary."

Justice....or Just Us????