Pulled over for no doors

[GreyFox]

She is hot but too annoying for me. I use to watch their videos but stopped because of her and her laugh.

Brace yourself for an incoming shyte storm... Yep, annoying, but most you tubers are

Sponsored

 

[Shots]

There's quite possibly more to that traffic stop, and ticket than we know. Just as media is excellent at doing, we're only given the view they want to give. Were they actually only 5 under the limit, or was it much more to it? Were they preventing people from passing while doing so? We don't know all the facts, we only know what she said. Did he get a ticket, and if so, was there more to why it was written? .
Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming she's exaggerating either, because we don't know. I'm just saying that the public is way too quick to form an opinion based on incomplete information. That and nobody seems to fact check anymore, like they did years ago. They just take peoples word for what the "facts" are.

lol. I;m not law enforcement but they either thought something was fishy and used a stupid 5mph impeding traffic law to check it out or saw a hot chick in the passenger side to check out and called their buddys. lol...t.

I suspect the other officers have a lot more to do with the first officer thinking the Jeep was stolen, than the passenger. You may think she's hot, but that doesn't mean the officer did, nor does it mean he/she is immature enough to call someone else just to look at her.
If he/she suspected the Jeep may be stolen, or something just wasn't adding up to him/her, they'll call for another unit to help make sense of it, or to take a felon into custody in a case where it is stolen.
If either of them were being hostile or argumentative, because the reason for stop wasn't acceptable to them, they may call for another officer anticipating a potential threat. It's also possible the additional officers simply stopped to check on the original one, unprompted. It happens all the time, especially in cities where multiple officers from multiple agencies are in close proximity to each other.
Who knows why there were 3 cops there, but it's awful presumptuous to assume it's simply because they want to look at a girl.

 

[Hayseed_JLUR]

Shots is on it. We are possibly not seeing the entire story - very common when people are complaining about a traffic stop. Were they actually impeding traffic?

If they were half as annoying and immature to the cops as they are in their videos that could explain a few things. My guess, there were extra police there due to a potential felony stop. They even admitted that they were "technically" wrong for not having proof they are the rightful owners.

 

[twisty]

There's quite possibly more to that traffic stop, and ticket than we know. Just as media is excellent at doing, we're only given the view they want to give. Were they actually only 5 under the limit, or was it much more to it? Were they preventing people from passing while doing so? We don't know all the facts, we only know what she said. Did he get a ticket, and if so, was there more to why it was written? .
Don't get me wrong, I'm not assuming she's exaggerating either, because we don't know. I'm just saying that the public is way too quick to form an opinion based on incomplete information. That and nobody seems to fact check anymore, like they did years ago. They just take peoples word for what the "facts" are.

I suspect the other officers have a lot more to do with the first officer thinking the Jeep was stolen, than the passenger. You may think she's hot, but that doesn't mean the officer did, nor does it mean he/she is immature enough to call someone else just to look at her.
If he/she suspected the Jeep may be stolen, or something just wasn't adding up to him/her, they'll call for another unit to help make sense of it, or to take a felon into custody in a case where it is stolen.
If either of them were being hostile or argumentative, because the reason for stop wasn't acceptable to them, they may call for another officer anticipating a potential threat. It's also possible the additional officers simply stopped to check on the original one, unprompted. It happens all the time, especially in cities where multiple officers from multiple agencies are in close proximity to each other.
Who knows why there were 3 cops there, but it's awful presumptuous to assume it's simply because they want to look at a girl.

you need to lighten up. lol

 

[TrassaE95]

FWIW - I had mirrors on. My major issue is the selective enforcement of the law. I went out of my way to talk to LEOs and they had told me it was a gray area. I now have the law in front of me and know it’s illegal. It’s garbage, but it’s illegal. So for anyone saying I was “clearly in the wrong”, I was only in that position because of the information I was given by other LEOs. I guess I could have googled it, but I figured the experts in their field would know.

It is true I didn’t get a ticket. But I was given the “option” of getting a ticket or going back to my house and putting the doors on. The cop followed me back to my house (where I hopped in my other car and left again, with the Jeep parked in my garage). I was respectful to the officer, and he wasn’t the same to me. I told him I thought it was OK because the Jeep was manufactured to have its doors removed. He told me “I could take the doors off of my explorer if I wanted to”. If this was anyone else rather than a man with a gun, I would have asked if I could grab a cooler of beer and a lawn chair to watch him attempt this. He was not what I would call professional.

Same cop called for back up when I was pulled over in my driveway for an inspection sticker that was a day past due (ironically, I was on my way to my mechanic). I have no criminal record, I am a coach in the community, and haven’t done anything to upset people in the community. I will always be respectful to LEOs. However, some of them give the vast majority of good ones a bad name.

Selective enforcement when it comes to motor vehicle laws is absolutely a thing. Speed limit, rolling stops, stereo volume, and Jeep doors to name a few. I wasn’t speeding, my radio wasn’t loud, and I didn’t commit any moving violations. In fact, when the cop raced up the road at 100 mph, i pulled over and got the hell out of the way because I thought “some serious shit must be going down”. Then he pulled in behind me. And this thread sums up what happened.

My view is LEOs shouldn’t get too upset and defend the enforcement of the law blindly if they let things slide or don’t enforce select laws. “He was just doing his job” isn’t an excuse to be a dick. I didn’t need an escort to my house.

 

[noloc45]

However, some of them give the vast majority of good ones a bad name.
.

I think with the ease of recording ability and spreading using social media, we're discovering there might be MORE than just a "few" rotten apples as a lot of people would like to believe. I have respect for LEO and I would hope that most, if not all, we're here to protect and serve the people. But Im not fooling myself either.

I do appreciate the good ones though. I grew up in a small country town and our local LEO were very involved in our schools and they taught us a LOT of valuable lessons. They saw us from K-12 and protected us in emergency situations.

Selective Enforcement:
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/former-fhp-trooper-arrested-after-having-sex-with-15-year-old

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/fl-speeding-cops-20120211-story.html

 

[Shots]

you need to lighten up. lol

Ha ha, roger that. I'm certainly not trying to sound worked up, or anything, because I'm not. Just offering alternative viewpoints.

.....Selective enforcement when it comes to motor vehicle laws is absolutely a thing. Speed limit, rolling stops, stereo volume, and Jeep doors to name a few......

Absolutely, it is. Read the first part of post #221 though (link)
Everyone keeps saying that selective enforcement is bad, but forgets that the alternative is strict enforcement. That means on everything even if it's something minor like a burned out license plate light. I wouldn't be pushing for zero tolerance on all laws.

 

[Shots]

.... It’s garbage, but it’s illegal. So for anyone saying I was “clearly in the wrong”, I was only in that position because of the information I was given by other LEOs. I guess I could have googled it, but I figured the experts in their field would know......

And I don't think most people maliciously violates traffic laws. It's generally based on bad intel, socially acceptable tolerances like 5-10 mph over, dark tint, colored lights on the hood/headlights, etc. While understandable, none of those things make a violation any less illegal. It doesn't make the person a bad person, or a bad driver. If anything it's all the more reason for the officer to be selective and issue a warning, because they understand why the person violated the law they did.
I know when I got my tint ticket I wasn't up to anything, and wasn't trying to do anything wrong. I just thought that it was a law that went unenforced if you weren't excessive with it. I was wrong, and got a ticket. Oops, I guess I learned that typically acceptable didn't mean always acceptable. I still see tint much darker than the 35% I had, but mine are legal now.

 

[JeepBaw]

Well, I got pulled over for no doors in Pennsylvania by a local cop in my neighborhood.

Sounds like you got protected and served.

 

[Shepherd12]

This thread went to hell in a handbag. But I thought of something relevant and wanted to share.

“Doors. A vehicle specified under this subchapter shall be equipped with doors of a type used as original equipment. The doors shall open and close securely unless the vehicle has been manufactured or modified to the extent that there is no roof or side.”

This is the PA law as it currently appears in the books. The letter of the law.

My Jeep currently has been modified to the extent that it has no roof. It is completely without a roof.

Furthermore: I think they are manufactured that way. I’ve seen a lot of Jeeps with soft tops, and many with hard tops, and some with sunshades. but I have never a JL with a “roof.”

 

[Shots]

I think that's what has caused the "gray area" people have mentioned. I would argue along with you that by taking the roof off it has been "modified to the extent there is no roof" and therefor doesn't require doors. I'm no lawyer, but it would seem the way to legally drive without doors would be only with the top off too. But then again there's been enough talk (not just here) about PA's issue with doorless Jeeps that it seems some officers/courts interpret that the same way we are and others aren't.
Or are the people being stopped driving with the doors off and roof on? OP did you have a roof on at the time?

 

[TrassaE95]

Roof was off. Doors were off. Mirrors were on. I was wearing a seat belt.

If anything, I think the doors off should be a secondary infraction, meaning if I get pulled over for speeding, or any other moving violation, go ahead and cite me for no doors. But if I am doing nothing else wrong, leave me alone. Just my two cents though.

I get it (now) that it was illegal. I had no idea this thread would turn into what it did. Just wanted to warn people coming through my neck of the woods, and to blow off some steam because I was upset about it. One of the main reasons I got the Jeep was because I love the feeling of no doors and no roof. I felt like that was taken away (even though I guess I shouldn’t have ridden like that in the first place).

 

[Zoobie]

I said that argument. The Sheriff knew the RCW by heart to counter that argument. He was very clear. The factory doors that were included from the factory are required. It was part of the crash protection rating. Yes, we said the doors are not a structural member. Doesn't matter. The Jeep left the factory with doors, they are required on all Washington State roads, which includes Forest Service roads and beaches.

Most cops have better things to do. I see many Jeeps in Tacoma, Seattle, Naches area with no doors. Still illegal. My job requires a clean driving record. Doors stay on.

That is not accurate, please share a link to the Washington State law that states that.

Here is a link to the Washington State mirror law, this is what needs to be satisfied when taking off your doors:
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.400

 

[wcjeep]

From the Olympian with State Patrol officer interpretation. I'm not trying to argue. The Law is the Law. Is it enforced is another issue.


https://www.theolympian.com/news/local/article159288419.html

RCW (Revised Code of Washington)

https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.37.517

Sponsored