California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffic ticket

Re:California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffi... by wavefunction on Friday January 17, 2014 @08:34PM (#7079637)

It was, maybe 3 inches lengthwise, about 2 inches off the edge along the bottom with a black background. My real contention was that I was pulled over for being poor (in my hoopty '90 626 at the time) and he saw the crack when he approached. He also didn't mention the crack until he had spent the previous 25 minutes threatening and cajoling me to tell him if I had been drinking or drugging and driving.

I wouldn't have minded this if I were pulled over for speeding and he noticed and added it to the ticket but to get pulled over for being poor, harassed and then written a ticket for the windshield crack...

Maybe that's an acceptable way for the police to pull anyone they feel like over, but there should be some sort of suspicion required. I know this is the everyday experience of a lot of people but I don't think it's acceptable for it to happen to them either.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffi... by QuantumGood on Sunday January 19, 2014 @01:47AM (#7083656)

Citing for something found isn't bad practice per se, nor is pulling over searching for statistically likely infractions. But too many officers use this argument as an excuse for bad behavior.

I've been abused in a similar manner, versus given a warning and relevant "counselling" (how to not get pulled over) from an officer with a more mentoring style.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:California woman who drove with Google Glass beats traffi... by dragonwriter on Sunday January 19, 2014 @02:22AM (#7083730)

Reasonable suspicion is required for a traffic stop; the Supreme Court has ruled that stops to check for violations without reasonable suspicion violate the Fourth Amendment.

Of course, being legally required doesn't mean it is actually the practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]