I NEED HELP! A STATE TROOPER STOLE MY WALLET AND ARRESTED ME!

[Double T]

If the officer tells you to step out of the vehicle, I would advise following their directions.

In my experience, if someone is fishing for info, don't give them any bait.

If you haven't broken any laws, you shouldn't have to get out of the vehicle without them telling you why.

There is a huge difference between cooperating, and sacrificing your rights, and subsequently your "freedom" in certain instances.

I've been followed by a trooper and pulled over for a bogus "reason" when I was delivering a pizza by a bar at 130am. Trooper said I was being pulled over for the light on my plate being out (it wasn't). I was being cased and given a bogus reason to see if I was drunk. "What are you doing here this late?" Um, whatever the **** I want bc it's a free country. Thankfully, I knew he was fishing and he knew that I knew. I got a verbal warning

Any time you step out of your vehicle, you are being detained and you should know WHY you are being detained. Our city LEO like to post up near the strip of bars and pull people over. I've been pulled over several times for fishing expeditions, each and every time they were told to pound sand. I have one ticket, and that was for speeding in a park in the dead of winter 34 in a 20.

I really despise this type of "fishing", and IMO it borders on entrapment...though that defense would never fly if someone were guilty. If they are really worried about drunk driving...instead of waiting outside to pull people over, how about working as a taxi service? Sounds like the officers are bored and need something productive to do

I'm not cop bashing, just if they wanna go fishing they should go to a reservoir

 

[TheEngineer]

I'm not looking for the OP to answer this, but im curious...

What if a civilian in this same situation had been lawfully carrying? It doesn't sound as if the LEO was very cooperative (based on the OP's account)...i think it would have definitely made things a little stickier. OP said the LEO removed his knife from him...

Trooper Davis then commands I exit the vehicle where he pats me down. He took my DPX Hest folder from my front pocket and my wallet from my rear.

What would he have done if it was a LC9 (or equivalent) instead? LEOs (or anyone who knows) chime in here...is removal of a "suspects" personal property normal procedure in situations like this?

 

[PX4me]

Epic fail for posting the experience on a forum. Even the lawyers here have told you to delete and lawyer up yet you keep whining about "truth".

Nobody gives a rats ass about the truth, especially the "justice" system, and you've just served up the prosecutor's case on a silver platter.

Good luck with that.

 

[ghuns]

Maybe undeserving of the treatment rcvd but it's rare that something good happens after midnight.

Yeah, heaven forbid a husband and wife go out for a night on the town, kid free, and not make it home before curfew.

I know, like blaming the rape victim for wearing a bare midriff.

Yeah, pretty much. Oh yeah, I forgot. His wife littered, give 'em both the freakin chair.

I get sick of hearing stories like this where tax paying, law abiding members of society are harassed by agents of the .gov. Then somebody pipes up with, well, if you weren't doing x, y, and z... Screw that. If you want to give the wife a ticket for littering, fine. Do it and move on. If the OP's story is even half way close to what really happened, there is no justification for any of the treatment he received.

If you blow a .000, AND show nothing on a blood test, you should get a free ride home, your vehicle returned to you, and a heartfelt apology from the LEO.

It's easy to tell the OP to shut up and hire a lawyer, but please keep in mind; most decent people go through life with very little interaction with the legal system. It is natural to assume that if you know that you are in the right, you will prevail. It's sad that we have to find out the hard way that it's not always the case.

 

[MikeDVB]

Certified chemical tests can be breath, blood, urine. No one uses urine anymore.

Ok, better question - would the certified chemical test be performed at road-side?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, I'm going to try and clear up some of the misinformation in the replies to this post.


Per SCOTUS, during a lawful traffic stop the officer can order you in or out of the car per their discretion and without having to explain why. PA vs Mimms.

There was no fishing necessary here. Throwing burning material from a vehicle is against IC code (IC 35-45-3-3). The OP is apparently driving while suspended, which is an arrestable offense (9-24-19-X, X varies depending on driver's license status).

You can refuse to participate in SFSTs, or the roadside tests, without legal penalty. Standardized tests are a reliable indicator IF the officer knows what he's looking for. Especially the nystagmus test, which is about 75% reliable in detecting an intoxicated driver. SFSTs by themselves are proof of nothing, they are simply part of the investigation, looking for clues as to impairment. What you can't refuse (well, you can but there's a penalty) is a certified chemical test. The officer chooses, you don't, if its blood, breath, or urine. I don't know anyone that still uses urine. See IC 9-30-6-7 if you have questions.

Also, an earlier statement in this post that they must arrest you to administer a certified chemical test is wrong and they don't have to "arrest you or let you go." You can be detained for the test on probable cause without being arrested. You can be released after the test and then a warrant issued for you once results return, for example. I've done this with driving under the influence of drugs, such as a woman who drove into the side of a church. I knew she was high, I just didn't know on what, so I took her for the blood draw and then followed up later.

IC codes 9-30-6-5.5 and 9-30-6-6 are the relevant codes for who can process blood draws, but I'm no expert on this part of the process as I've never seen it done immediately. We have to send the tubes to crime lab and have them tested there. Results take days to weeks, depending.

Finally, I wasn't there so I'm not going to try and judge the truthfulness of the original post. What I will say is I'd be real careful accusing someone of theft, because if I was that officer and I hadn't stolen your wallet, I'd give real consideration to suing you for slander.

 

[BuddieReigns]

Would it be slander or libel?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Ok, better question - would the certified chemical test be performed at road-side?

Not in Indiana.

IC 9-30-6-5 sets forth the requirements for a certified breath test. Portable devices don't meet these requirements, and are basically just another clue in the investigation.

Police cannot do blood draws in Indiana, so this also won't take place roadside. Note that some states have certified officers as phlebotomists and do allow police to do their own blood draws. I have no idea if this is conducted roadside or in a more controlled environment.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would it be slander or libel?

Libel, since its written. Defamation is the "main" heading, with slander or libel being the subcategories.

 

[MikeDVB]

Not in Indiana.

IC 9-30-6-5 sets forth the requirements for a certified breath test. Portable devices don't meet these requirements, and are basically just another clue in the investigation.

Police cannot do blood draws in Indiana, so this also won't take place roadside. Note that some states have certified officers as phlebotomists and do allow police to do their own blood draws. I have no idea if this is conducted roadside or in a more controlled environment.

Thanks.

I'm quite often the DD which is my only real reason for wondering any of this. There's a good chance I could be leaving a bar [after having nothing to drink] and then become subject to such an investigation just due to time and place [late night, seen leaving a bar parking lot in a car].

Nothing in that is illegal, but I'm sure officers that sit and wait for last call at the bar know they have a good chance of getting a drunk driver by waiting there or they wouldn't do it.

 

[BuddieReigns]

Libel, since its written. Defamation is the "main" heading, with slander or libel being the subcategories.

Would they still have to prove actual malice?

 

[kickbacked]

If all that is true i think that cop took it to a level where he should lose his job. Was your license really suspended? Could you sue the newspaper for defamation of character?

 

[Scutter01]

What I will say is I'd be real careful accusing someone of theft, because if I was that officer and I hadn't stolen your wallet, I'd give real consideration to suing you for slander.

Would they still have to prove actual malice?

If all that is true i think that cop took it to a level where he should lose his job. Was your license really suspended? Could you sue the newspaper for defamation of character?

Per another thread (and take it for what it's worth):

This is Indiana friend. The law for slander/libel reads :

"100% OF WHAT YOU ARE SAYING/WROTE HAS TO BE WRONG. NOT 99.9999999%
"YOU MUST KNOW THAT 100% OF WHAT YOU SAY/WROTE IS WRONG. NOT 99.9999999%
"YOU MUST BE SAYING IT TO CAUSE HARM TO THE REPUTATION"
" YOU MUST PROVE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WAS CAUSED TO YOU."

It cost me $360 in legal fees to learn that. If even ONE of the above is missing you are out of luck. My attorney told me in 30+ years of practicing law in Indiana he has NEVER seen someone win a slander/libel case here.

 

[Kutnupe14]

If all that is true i think that cop took it to a level where he should lose his job. Was your license really suspended? Could you sue the newspaper for defamation of character?

How exactly could one justify suing the newspaper?

And somebody help me here, "what" exactly is there to sue about? A misplaced wallet?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Would they still have to prove actual malice?

Not as I understand it, malice isn't mentioned anywhere in the relevant IC. Like any civil case, you would need to show damages, in this case that your reputation was damaged. An allegation of a felony is certainly damaging to one's reputation.

IC 34-15 is the relevant IC if you're interested further.

Keep in mind I'm not a lawyer, and civil law is far from my expertise.

**upon further research**

http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/indiana-defamation-law

-----------------------------------------
Defamation Per Se

In Indiana, a communication constitutes defamation per se if it imputes:

criminal conduct;
a loathsome disease;
misconduct in a person's profession or occupation; or
sexual misconduct.
Branham v. Celadon Trucking Services, Inc., 744 N.E.2d 514 (Ind.App.2001). In an Indiana claim involving defamation per se, the plaintiff does not need to prove actual damages.


----------------------------------------------------
Defamation Per Se

Some statements of fact are so egregious that they will always be considered defamatory. Such statements are typically referred to as defamation "per se." These types of statements are assumed to harm the plaintiff's reputation, without further need to prove that harm. Statements are defamatory per se where they falsely impute to the plaintiff one or more of the following things:

a criminal offense;

a loathsome disease;

matter incompatible with his business, trade, profession, or office; or

serious sexual misconduct.

 

[Trigger Time]

Ok, I'm going to try and clear up some of the misinformation in the replies to this post.


Per SCOTUS, during a lawful traffic stop the officer can order you in or out of the car per their discretion and without having to explain why. PA vs Mimms.

There was no fishing necessary here. Throwing burning material from a vehicle is against IC code (IC 35-45-3-3). The OP is apparently driving while suspended, which is an arrestable offense (9-24-19-X, X varies depending on driver's license status).

You can refuse to participate in SFSTs, or the roadside tests, without legal penalty. Standardized tests are a reliable indicator IF the officer knows what he's looking for. Especially the nystagmus test, which is about 75% reliable in detecting an intoxicated driver. SFSTs by themselves are proof of nothing, they are simply part of the investigation, looking for clues as to impairment. What you can't refuse (well, you can but there's a penalty) is a certified chemical test. The officer chooses, you don't, if its blood, breath, or urine. I don't know anyone that still uses urine. See IC 9-30-6-7 if you have questions.

Also, an earlier statement in this post that they must arrest you to administer a certified chemical test is wrong and they don't have to "arrest you or let you go." You can be detained for the test on probable cause without being arrested. You can be released after the test and then a warrant issued for you once results return, for example. I've done this with driving under the influence of drugs, such as a woman who drove into the side of a church. I knew she was high, I just didn't know on what, so I took her for the blood draw and then followed up later.

IC codes 9-30-6-5.5 and 9-30-6-6 are the relevant codes for who can process blood draws, but I'm no expert on this part of the process as I've never seen it done immediately. We have to send the tubes to crime lab and have them tested there. Results take days to weeks, depending.

Finally, I wasn't there so I'm not going to try and judge the truthfulness of the original post. What I will say is I'd be real careful accusing someone of theft, because if I was that officer and I hadn't stolen your wallet, I'd give real consideration to suing you for slander.

So how long can a person be "detained" and drove somewhere under an officers control without it being called an arrest? Seems like a real bad grey area to me. I like some others here do not drink, but I'm still not going to submit to potentially flawed or inaccurate roadside testing and I'm gonna be REALY upset if I'm "detained" in handcuffs for a long drive to get my blood drawn (which I will submit to reluctantly because I don't want to lose my license). It's just scary now knowing the police can detain someone and remove them from the original stop site without arresting them.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So how long can a person be "detained" and drove somewhere under an officers control without it being called an arrest?

As long as is reasonable to conduct the investigation, same as any other detention.

 

[Trigger Time]

If all that is true i think that cop took it to a level where he should lose his job. Was your license really suspended? Could you sue the newspaper for defamation of character?

This is what I'm wondering too is if his license was suspended. If so, other than being dicks by not allowing the wife to record video or losing the wallet, I don't see what his beef is gonna be? Also not securing your car isn't cool. But taking your wife to a safe place where she couldn't drive while possibly intoxicated seems right.
Any smart person wouldn't throw out a lit cigarette butt period and especially knowing a cop is following you. Also if he arrested you for license suspension and it really was then that's legal and right. If he decided to test you for Alcohol or drugs as a extra step once your already under arrest then I don't see a problem there either.
I don't see a cop risking his freedom or career to steal a measly $300.

 

[Trigger Time]

As long as is reasonable to conduct the investigation, same as any other detention.

So If you detain a person are you supposed to read them their rights? Or is that only for an arrest?
By the way thanks for clearing some things up. There's so many complicated laws and such that its almost impossible for a citizen to know when they are being done right or wrong. That's why I won't talk or consent to anything. It's not that I have anything I knowingly do wrong it's what am I maybe doing that I don't even have a clue is wrong or illegal. It's nuts all the laws and even cops can't keep them all straight. Who could?

 

[VUPDblue]

So how long can a person be "detained" and drove somewhere under an officers control without it being called an arrest? Seems like a real bad grey area to me. I like some others here do not drink, but I'm still not going to submit to potentially flawed or inaccurate roadside testing and I'm gonna be REALY upset if I'm "detained" in handcuffs for a long drive to get my blood drawn (which I will submit to reluctantly because I don't want to lose my license). It's just scary now knowing the police can detain someone and remove them from the original stop site without arresting them.

The detention can be as long as is reasonable to conduct the investigation. You think it's scary? You agreed to that when you obtained a drivers license in the state of Indiana.