Do cops always do this?

Question

if you are pulled over by a cop, and they write you a speeding ticket, is it normal for them to ask you questions such as how tall you are or how much you weigh AFTER they write the ticket and AFTER they have given back your license and everything, like when they are about to walk away?? it just seemed weird to me, i didn't think that was typical protocol... correct me if i'm wrong! thanks :)

Answer 1

I agree with citicop.  The officer may have believed that you were using another person's license.  by asking you questions like your height and weight (things you might not have memorized if the license was not your own) he can determine if you are the person on the license.

While it is not "standard procedure" for a violation stop, it is done on occasion.

Answer 2

No it is not.

Thank-you officer.

Have a nice day officer.

May I go now officer?

Are you a female?

Answer 3

It depends. Here in Ohio the driver license has all the physical information on it. Height, weight, hair and eye color. But not all states have that info listed on the license. Our traffic citation has blocks on it for the info provided on an Ohio O.L.  So some officers may ask you for the info so they can put it in the blocks. I had a person pulled over one time from Canada. Their license had the height as 168cm. I don't use metric, so I listed their height as 168cm on the ticket. Let the courts figure that one out.

Answer 4

Confirming information is typical protocol, but it is usually done before the ticket, not after. Especially if he was unsure of your identity.

My guess is after he ran you through the computer, a warrant with similar information appeared. He was using the answers you gave to compare to the warrant.

The search criteria for warrants is more vague than a drivers license check, so it is not unusual to get a "near hit", especially with a common name.

Answer 5

sounds fishy report him and make sure its recorded

Answer 6

When stopped you are being detained, all you have to do is hand the officer your license, registeration, and proof of insurance in some states. You are not required to answer anything else.

Answer 7

They can ask you that, all this information you said is in the DMV database they receive from County (radio dispatch) and they just want to make sure you are not using another person's licence. You'd be suprised how much that does happen, but I agree, it is wierd they asked after you got the stuff back.

Answer 8

Not always, but it's not unheard of.

I do it if I suspect that the person I'm dealing with is not who they told me they are.  Questions that should be simple to answer for the real person tend to trip up a liar.

Doing this after you sign the ticket with the fake name gives me evidence to use if you ARE lying, and I charge you with False Declarations.

Answer 9

This is why those popular discreet car window video cams are gaining popularity:  Not only can they be a huge help in car accidents and subsequent insurance cases---but they can also record the audio of a police officer edging near the line of malfeasance.

Your experience here seems to be the case.  The officer didn't ( yet ) act unprofessional ( and he can easily justify his questions posed to you )----but he's skating a shade TOO close to crossing lines.

You might want to be observant over the next several days and weeks--look for this officer making frequent patrol rounds your neighborhood or perhaps "tailing" you while on the road.  If the officer DOES cross the line---and u have it on tape, discreetly contact the police commander's office.

Answer 10

They ask them questions, because it is already on their

computer, and they are checking to see if you are using

someone elses drivers license.

Since You don't know someone elses, height and weight.

Your bound to give your's "first." Drive safe, please. <|:-})-{*

Answer 11

If your physical appearance doesn't match what is on your license or the officer thinks you weren't being totally truthful, they can ask you those questions.  

It may be a bit late after they write the ticket, but not unheard of.

Answer 12

Print this and beat the case I did

U.S. Constitution - Article 6

Article 6 - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

<<Back | Table of Contents | Next>>

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

U.S. Supreme Court

State Courts like Federal courts has a constitutional obligation to safeguard personal liberties and to uphold federal law. Stone v Powell U.S. Supreme Court

The obligations to give state court full effect to federal law is the same as that of federal courts. New York v Enno

U. S. Supreme Court

An administrative agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory powers.

Law Enforcement Code of Ethics

As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons to liberty, equality and justice.

I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.

†I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminal, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities.

I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement.



Bill of Rights

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article. VI. [ Annotations ]

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Traveling is a Right

For many years professionals within the criminal justice system have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state governments in the form of a permit or drivers license.

Legislators, police officers, and court officials are being made aware that there are court decisions disproving the opinion that traveling is a privilege that requires government approval.

"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience." Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 22.

("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement: stop lights, signs, etc.)

"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 179.

State Police powers extends only to immediate theats to the public safety, health, and welfare; which driving and speeding are not. Supreme Court

It could not be stated more conclusively that citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restrictions (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.

"Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to move from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." Schactman v. Dulles, 96 App DC 287, 293.

Traveling in an automobile on the public roads was not a threat to the public safety or health and constituted no hazard to the public. As such a traveler owe nothing more than due care as regard to tort or negligence to the public and the owner owed nothing or no other duty to the public e.g. the state. He and his oil having equal rights to be on the roadways and highways as horses and wagons etc. and the same right is still a substantive rule that speeding, running stop signs, traveling without license plates or traveling without registration are not threats to the public and are not arresting offenses.  U. S. Supreme Court

As hard as it is for those in law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of other’s.

Government, in requiring the people to file for drivers license, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, roadblocks, etc. are restricting and therefore violating the peoples’ common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association, in conjunction with the U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is that of the citizen’s right to travel. A spokesman stated in an interview:

"Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the ‘right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways’ is and always has been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the beliefs and opinions of our state legislators, the courts, and those of us involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming. To restrict in any fashion the movement of the individual American, in free exercise of the right to travel upon the roadways (excluding commerce, which the state legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, as well as most state constitutions.

Our system of law dictates that there is only one way to remove a right belonging to the people. That is by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted, and opted into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are legally regulated by state law, and must obtain permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling in mind before issuing citations:

"The claim and exercise of a Constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., F.2d 486, 489.

Reprinted from a special edition of "Aid and Abet" bulletin #11, P.O. Box 8787, Phoenix, AZ. 85066, by Officer Jack McLamb.

It is important to be aware of a different point of view about traffic since a near police