Man Without Cellphone Ticketed For Talking On Cellphone While Driving

We don’t have a problem with police officers enforcing laws that prohibit people from driving and talking on their cellphones at the same time. Where we draw the line is at the application of this law to a man who didn’t even have a cellphone in the car with him.

A man in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada says he was pulled over while driving with his wife last Friday. The police officers gave him a $199.80 ticket for violating the rules about driving while cellphone-chatting, but the man says neither he nor his wife were carrying — or even own — a mobile phone.

He pleaded with the officers to search the car to make sure he hadn’t stashed a phone out of sight.

“I told them, ‘Do whatever it takes. There’s no phone in here; never has been. I don’t know anything about the phone.’ But they won’t have it,” he told CBC News. “They were just going crazy, going to arrest me, and they were nasty to my wife as well.”

Adding insult to injury, when they went to the local police station to complaint about the allegedly bogus ticket, the man says another officer laughed and suggested that the ticket had been written to fill a quota.

So all that’s left for the man to do now is fight the ticket in court.

“We’re not going to stand for this. It’s just not right,” he says. “[This] is a lot of money for anyone, but especially when you didn’t do it.”

Cellphone ticket baffles senior with no phone [Yahoo News Canada]


Edit Your Comment

  1. Cat says:

    Manatoba, Canuck, yuk, yuk…

  2. az123 says:

    How do you prove you don’t own a cell phone… Not that I think the guy in the story is likely telling anything but the truth here, but given the number of companies and ability to get “burner” cell phones, is it even possible to prove that you do not own a cell phone?

    • Guppy06 says:

      “Innocent until proven guilty.” He doesn’t have to, it’s the crown’s job to prove he does own one.

      • regis-s says:

        So nobody should ever pay a fine for a traffic violation because the government has to prove it? I’m not sure it works that way. As far as I know if a cop shows up in court and says he saw you do something that’s usually good enough for the judge. How would they ever prove you ran a red light, or stop, sign or made an illegal turn? I’m pretty sure every cop car doesn’t have cameras pointing in all directions to record what’s going on.

        I’m not sure about Manitoba but here in BC I think it’s classified as “distracted driving”. Which would cover a lot of activities other than using a cell phone.

        • Republicrat says:

          Lower standard of evidence for traffic court. Traffic fines can be taken to regular court where standard evidence rules apply. You usually end up having to spend a lot of time and money on that, so it ends up never being worthwhile, even if you are really innocent.

          That’s “justice” for ya.

    • vastrightwing says:

      He doesn’t need to prove he doesn’t own one. The state needs to prove he does own one and that’s easy. Then the state needs to prove a call was going on during the time of the ticket. All of this is super easy to establish. All the state has to do is to ask AT&T or Verizon or Sprint as we all know, they all roll over for law enforcement so it won’t be a problem. If the state can’t find a record of them with a cell phone.. case dismissed.

      • StarKillerX says:

        Unless maybe the officer claims to have witnessed the phones use?

        Tickets are done this way on a regular basis, even if the cop uses a radar gun as far as I know there is no proof other then the word of the officer that you were in fact speeding.

        • SporadicBlah says:

          Some newer radar/laser are equipped with cameras to record visual evidence of the infraction. Also some older radar/laser units can be wired into the newer dash cams to record visual evidence. The radar speed is displayed in the camera monitor as well as on the unit itself. My family builds police cars :)

          • StarKillerX says:

            Yeah, I know, although I’m unsure what percentage of department use something like that, but I know it’s not all and even those that do the camera only looks ahead so if the patrolman sees someone go through a redlight unless it’s right in front of his car it wont be recorded.

      • cparkin says:

        The province…has to prove it. This is traffic court. The guy will have to show up to plead his case to a judge, the cop probably won’t show up. The ticket will get thrown out. More just a waste of the guy’s time. The province isn’t going to go to the trouble of getting Bell/Telus/Rogers/Virgin/Wind’ s records over a $200 ticket.

        Ah Winterpeg, the Slurpee capital of the world.

        • blueman says:

          The province has all the proof it needs:

          PROSECUTOR: Officer, what did you witness on the day of…

          OFFICER: I witnessed the defendant talking on a cellphone while driving.

          PROSECUTOR: Thank you, no further questions.

          They could claim he had borrowed one, had a throwaway phone, etc. They don’t have to prove that he has an account with a provider. If the cops want to lie he’s pretty much screwed.

        • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

          No, Winterpeg is the STEEKER capital of the world. You’ll definitely give blood there every month there’s something that resembles summer. Small wonder they’re still in a state of euphoria now they have an NHL team there again. What else do you do in Winnipeg in the 11 months of the year you’re not smacking mosquitos off your body?

        • scoosdad says:

          You can bet with all the media publicity, the cop WILL show up.

      • yurei avalon says:

        This is Canada…. more like Rogers, Bell etc have to be asked. I don’t know if they roll over like the US companies do.

        • FacebookAppMaker says:

          If certain bills in the HoC get passed, police and RCMP will be able to obtain any information about them from ISP’s and phone companies without a warrant.

      • Missing in Vlissingen says:

        Does it matter if he owns a cell phone? Because it is possible to use one even if you don’t own one. If the cop says, I saw him using a cell phone, then perhaps the guy was using a cellphone that belongs to someone else. (I don’t believe this, BTW.)

        Too bad the cop didn’t search the car when invited. That might have resolved the issue.

      • bluline says:

        What state? This happened in Canada.

        • Republicrat says:

          The ‘state’ is a generic term for the government. It has nothing to do with the USA’s concepts of states.

      • dorrdon says:

        It’s in Manitoba, so you have to substitute
        Tellus, MTS, Virgin, Rogers, Wind, Chattr, FIDO, Koodo & a slew of others.


        AT&T or Verizon or Sprint.

    • Gertie says:

      The burden of proof is on the state.

      • borgia says:

        If only it really worked that way. I knew a coworker that got a ticket for a non-standard muffler. The law prohibits a muffler with an increased diameter over factory size. She went to court asked the police officer what the factory muffler size for a mitsubishi mirage was and he did not know. The court did not provide any proof of a violation and she was still found guilty only based on the ticket. She was even told by a lawyer in the court room that it was absurd that she was still guilty without any proof of her doing anything wrong.

        • Snoofin says:

          I wish that was the law everywhere. I absolutely HATE those stupid mufflers that sound like chainsaws that the kids get on their crappy Civics that they spend $1000 on and then spend $20k putting hideous garbage on them when they couldve just bought a nice car for 20k.

          • shepd says:

            But each sticker is worth 5 HP!

          • nonzenze says:

            And I absolutely hate smug assholes driving in their Priuses and Insights. Should I make peace with the fact that not everyone has the same taste in cars that I do or should I start a campaign to use the legal system to harass everyone whose taste I don’t find acceptable?

            Hate all you want but once you move from hating to imposing, all bets are off.

      • shepd says:

        If only it worked that way in Canada. When it comes to cars, it’s a privilege and the government works hard here to make sure you know that’s the case.

        Here’s a fun one: We have a toll road that only works with license plate cameras or transponders. If they bill you, you have to pay. If you do not pay, the government will refuse to renew your license plate. And you are, by law, only permitted to fight the ticket via arbitration (you may NOT go to court). You are only permitted these reasons to go to arbitration:

        The toll was already paid in full;
        The amount of the toll is incorrect;
        The vehicle, plate, and/or transponder of the vehicle in question was stolen at the time the toll incurred;
        The driver in question is not the person responsible for the toll under Section 13(1) of the Highway 407 Act. (Good luck on that one)

        That’s it. If someone copies your plate it isn’t stolen, so no defense. If their plate recognition screws up, that’s not a valid defense. To make it more fun, you must pay within 37 days, whether or not you are going to arbitration, or you may not get a renewal. It typically takes several weeks to get the letter in the mail that you owe money, and they often have the wrong address and purposely drag their heels on trying to tell people (and if you’ve changed plates, you may never know–One person here at work got dinged $8,000 for $3,000 worth of charges from around a decade ago–they have higher than credit card interest rates):

        Canada has Habeas Corpus via the charter of rights, but it is entirely suspend-able under the same charter for “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” That doesn’t mean we have to be at war. It just means if you can convince a judge it’s OK you win.

    • Charmander says:

      “He pleaded with the officers to search the car to make sure he hadn’t stashed a phone out of sight.”

      It would be hard to prove you don’t have a cell phone, but this should account for something, I would hope.

      • SJActress says:

        Would’ve been easier to prove if he’d recorded the stop on his cell phone.


    • Mackinstyle1 says:

      I dunno about where you live but in Canada you’re innocent until proven guilty.

      In court it’ll be thrown out pretty fast when the guy says he doesn’t even own a cell phone and the officer has no evidence to suggest otherwise.

      • shepd says:

        No, that’s not how it works for these offences. This will be either a strict or, more likely, absolute liability offence.

        When you come into court for this type of offence, you are basically presumed guilty. The crown simply needs to prove there’s a 51% chance he’s right and you’re completely screwed.

        Trust me, I’ve been there. I had a parking ticket for 13 minutes over. I managed to prove, to the judge’s satisfaction, that there was a possibility the officer’s watch was not set properly and/or inaccurate (it had been synced to the time on their computer, which may/may not have had NTP running). The judge said there was still some chance the officer was close enough, and due to absolute liability, I was guilty unless I could actually PROVE the watch was inaccurate (the officer did not need to prove her watch was indeed accurate). As I had only proven the watch could have been inaccurate, but didn’t prove it actually WAS, he chose to assume it was.

        I believe the US doesn’t have absolute liability, but you DO have strict liability.

    • Dallas_shopper says:

      You can’t prove a negative.

  3. GreatWhiteNorth says:

    I heard the elderly man on the radio this morning. He was not impressed with the ticket. However, this description leaves out the mention (from the police) that they followed the man and his wife for a couple of kilometers with the police car’s overhead lights flashing and it took him that long to notice them. There may be something more to this story.

    • Sarahlara says:

      Elderly? That could be it.

    • hush404 says:

      Ahh, so it was just the officer’s slip up. Instead of giving the man a ticket for talking on a cell phone, he should of issued him a ticket for being a danger to other motorists by being a clueless fart.

    • little stripes says:

      Hard of hearing? That’s not illegal. Probably not very observant, either.

  4. dolemite says:

    Yeah, I wouldn’t be begging them. I’d be like “ok, well see you in court officer. You present the evidence I was talking on the cell phone I don’t own, and I’ll be there to verify those facts.”

    • StarKillerX says:

      And how exactly do you prove you don’t own a cellphone?

      • dolemite says:

        I don’t have to prove I don’t own it, I just have to slap whatever he says down that says I do own it. “Well…I saw him.” “Do you have a picture? The phone in question? A bill? Where I come, from you need evidence and proof someone committed a crime, not just your word against mine.”

        • longfeltwant says:

          I agree with most of what you said, but you made a common mistake.

          Receiving a ticket is not prosecution of a “crime”. There is a difference between “speeding” (when you get a ticket) and “criminal speeding” (where you get arrested). Jaywalking is not a “crime”. Failing to stop at a stop sign is not a “crime”. Because they are not “crimes”, you are not afforded the same protections as a criminal (go figure). That’s not to say you don’t have rights, but it is a mistake to apply your knowledge of “crimes” to these other circumstances, which I think are called “civil offenses”.

          I see SO MANY PEOPLE make that mistake in internet forums, that I feel compelled to correct them. Someday you may need this information. Teach your children, too.

          • StarKillerX says:


            Excellent and informative post, who the hell let you onto the internet, please leave immediately! lol!

            Seriously though, you are 100% correct, tickets are handled this way all the time. When you get a ticket for speeding, by radar gun, pacing or the officer estimating your speed when it comes to the courtroom there is rarely any proof besides the officer’s word that you were in fact speeding.

            • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

              Which is exactly what is wrong with the system. Especially when today, as noted above, there are so many easy ways to record what the officer sees, we shouldn’t be so reliant on eye-witness accounts from a person who is compelled to lie, assume, or exaggerate in order to fill a quota that if not filled might cost him their job or rank.

              • StarKillerX says:

                We aren’t, at least to the extent we were in the past, but getting something like cameras into all cars wont happen overnight, and as I pointed out the camera only records what’s directly in front of it, which isn’t necessarily where all, or maybe even most, infractions take place so courts will still have to rely on police witnesses in many cases.

                Also let’s not forget that the entire “being compelled to lie” cuts both ways since those ticketed have a good reason to lie as well.

                • Cor Aquilonis says:

                  Why put cameras on all cars when we can just tack a camera onto all officers? Just stick a little video device on their shoulder. It wouldn’t cost much and would back up their claims, unless, of course, their claims are bogus…

  5. Guppy06 says:

    First cop ever to decline an invitation to search a vehicle.

    • PhiTauBill says:


    • kenj0418 says:

      If they are old enough that they don’t own a cell phone, I’m guessing the officer knew he was only going to find pictures of their grandkids and some hard candy.

      Besides, he needed to get back out there writting bogus tickets to hit the quota.

  6. kella says:

    Fire the cop, and throw him in jail for 30 days for writing a false ticket. “Filling a quota” is a terrible excuse for abuse of power.

    • StarKillerX says:

      So, this man making a claim is justification for firing and imprisoning the officer, but the officer claiming he witnessed the cell phone use is meaningless? Yep, no bias there. lol!

  7. longfeltwant says:

    Fire the officers, or admit your department is corrupt. Your move, sheriff.

    • StarKillerX says:

      Or possibly support your officers unless their is a reason to believe they are lying about what they saw.

      • penuspenuspenus says:

        Cops don’t lie. They just see things differently than everyone else (especially when there are no cameras around).

  8. There's room to move as a fry cook says:

    Hopefully there is dash cam footage that can resolve this dispute.

  9. Hitchcock says:

    Is what they were cited for actually “No talking on a cell phone” or is it like in California where the “anti-cell phone” law actually makes it a crime to drive distracted, whether by a cell phone or something else? My guess is they were too busy gabbing with each other to pay attention to the road and were driving so poorly that it caught the officer’s attention. GreatWhiteNorth mentions that the police followed them with lights flashing for several kilometers before they noticed, which I think also proves they were distracted and posing a risk to other motorists.

    • StarKillerX says:

      According to the link posted by IfThenElvis right above your post two officers stated that they were 2 meters from him when they witnessed him with a cellphone to his ear.

    • KashmirKong says:

      The man claimed that he didn’t realize the cop car was flashing its lights at him as he hadn’t done anything wrong.

    • KashmirKong says:

      The man claims he didn’t realize the cop car was flashing its lights at him as he hadn’t done anything wrong.

  10. Lyn Torden says:

    Your excessive Canadian tax dollars at work!

  11. BurtReynolds says:

    When in college in Upstate NY I was pulled over one night by a member of an unnecessary town police force. It was dark and raining, and I was always careful to go the speed limit through the town’s limits since these cops were often bored.

    So I get pulled over and he comes up to my window and informs me I’ve been pulled over for talking on my phone. I explain that I don’t have my phone, it is at home on my desk. I was just going to Wegmans for some groceries. His response “You sure?”. Like the OP, I offer him the opportunity to search my vehicle, and assure him he won’t find a phone. His next question “Well what were you doing then?”. I replied, “I don’t know”. He shines his flashlight on my registration, then my student parking pass, and asks if I am a student…I say yes.

    Finally he apologizes for pulling me over and lets me go on my way. Luckily the cop who pulled me over was able to swallow his pride.

    • Jawaka says:

      An unnecessary town police force?

      Who would you call if your car was stolen?

      • HogwartsProfessor says:

        Methinks he left out a word.

      • ScottG says:

        LOL – being from Upstate NY myself (ironically near a University and a Wegmans too) there are a lot of police force overlaps. We have the State police, county sheriff, and multiple town police forces. And a lot of these places the neighboring town is right next door – you drive and don’t notice a difference in housing density, the only clue is a small sign telling you that you left one town and are entering the next. Plus a lot of towns are now consolidating and merging, so yeah he means “unnecessary town police force” in the most literal sense.

      • BurtReynolds says:

        Scott G is exactly right.

        The town I am referring to is 4.6 square miles. They had their own local government, police force, and fire dept. In addition there is a county sheriff with good coverage in the area, and a city PD patrols down the street.

  12. StatusfriedCrustomer says:

    Guess #1 – he was fiddling with his hearing aid and the cop thought it was some in-ear cell phone device

    Guess #2 – Elderly people are so bad at understanding how to use cell phones, they don’t even know how to not-use one properly.

    • dollym100 says:

      Guess number three, He was as ageist as StatusfriedCustomer about people and they both deserve the contempt and ridicule that I am sure they receive quite often.

  13. Important Business Man (Formerly Will Print T-shirts For Food) says:

    Oh this is great! I was pulled over once because “one of my passengers threw trash out of my sunroof.” Not only was I the only person in the car, but I don’t have a sunroof! I didn’t get a ticket though, so I guess there;s no real story here.

  14. ned4spd8874 says:

    Reminds me of my Livonia, Michigan PD run ins. The last time, I got a ticket for not stopping at the stop sign when I was leaving work. But I did. The problem was that the stop sign was way back from the road and blocked by a hill and trees.

    I tried to explain to the officer that I did indeed stop, but he wasn’t having it. I tried to fight it in court, but the judge took the officer’s side. I even brought in photos of the area to show that his view would have been blocked, but the judge said it didn’t matter.

    Livonia Michigan is a corrupt city in my opinion. I no longer work there and I avoid driving through it at all costs now!

  15. Princess Beech loves a warm cup of treason every morning says:

    “… another officer laughed and suggested that the ticket had been written to fill a quota”

    HAHA. Yeah. Sounds similar to the time I got pulled over doing the same thing 10 other guys were doing. By that I mean just passing a car that was obstructively parked on a crowded 2-lane road. He pulled 2 cars over (including mine), and was in the process of ticketing me, when the other car (parked behind mine) just sped off. I pointed out to the officer that the other dude he pulled over was gone.

    He shrugged and just said, “well… we can’t catch them all, you know.”

    It took all my will to keep myself from kicking him.

  16. WalterSinister2 says:

    On the plus side, he now has a story that will get him out of jury duty on any case with a police officer testifying.

  17. GuyGuidoEyesSteveDave‚Ñ¢ says:

    Is there a difference if I’m fiddling with my iPod trying to get a wifi signal from the bus in front of me vs. being on a phone?

    • dollym100 says:

      So we should judge him for all the things he might have been doing? Have you any idea how ridiculous that theory is. Or did I misunderstand you comment.

    • Fonsworth says:

      If you live in British Columbia, Canada if your’e fiddling with anything be it an ipod or a phone and it’s more than one button touch [this is only for fully licensed drivers] you get a ticket. If its hit “talk” and talk, you’re okay unless you’re a newer driver with an N or L permit. It must be hands free though if you do use it after the one button.

      If you get caught at a traffic light it also applies, many people don’t think it does, but you still see people doing it. Manitoba has some pretty shitty parts so the cops could be lying then again, its from the CBC who will sensationalise anything consumers come to them with. In some stories if they know it will generate lots of comments, they also LOVE to leave out key pieces of stories.

  18. pika2000 says:

    In short, you are guilty when the law enforcers say so. Shut up slaves. Even funnier, nobody is outraged. We are good obeying slaves.

  19. voogru says:

    Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.
    -Lindsey Graham

  20. mcgyver210 says:

    This just proves LEOs need to be held to a higher standard of the law when that abuse their power, Lie, Cheat, Steal etc.

    If this is true this Leo is a disgrace to all good LEOs & needs to be FIRED.

  21. wynterbourne says:

    Tickets like this aren’t anything new. It comes down to what you say versus what the officer says, and normally the officer wins.

    Many years ago I was pulled over in a suburb of Fort Worth for driving without a seat belt. According to the officer he’d seen me driving the opposite direction down the road without one. In his own words, as he wrote the ticket, I must have turned around in the street before he made it to me and slipped my seat belt on before he stopped me.

    The biggest problem with his story? The car had automatic seat belts. You couldn’t put the key in the ignition without the seat belt moving into position.

    He gave me a $150 ticket. I was going to fight it but I figured out that the amount of wages I would lose, due to the amount of time necessary to initiate and attend a hearing, would be significantly more than the cost of the ticket.

  22. Netstar says:

    If that driver had the dual camera that I use in my vehicle, he would beat the ticket with no problem. My camera continuously films both the front view and interior view of my vehicle to prove I was wearing my seat belt and not on the cellphone. Law enforcement uses a video camera and so do I. It helps level the playing field.

    The camera already saved me from being charged in an accident and made the other party pay $2,200.00 in damages. You can call me crazy or paranoid. I consider it an invaluable tool in protecting yourself in situations like this driver. I never drive without it.

  23. donovanr says:

    All Canadian police need to wear tamper resistant Cameras that have the severest penalties for any tampering. The footage must be made available within 24 hours of anyone on film requesting it at no cost.
    To use their own crap logic; if they don’t have anything to hide then they won’t mind at all.
    If the couple’s story is as they say the cop’s job wouldn’t exist 5 minutes after this hitting youtube.

  24. SavijMuhdrox says:

    People using cellphones make for horrible driving conditions.

    I really hope this excuse of “Nuh-uh i didn’t do it” does not hold water in any court, because it will start popping up everywhere.

    But then again, in this day and age, doesn’t every cop car with a donut also have a camera?

    As much as i can’t stand today’s society of people lying thru their teeth all the time, i would think the police should easily have the guy on camera using his phone

  25. atomoverride says:

    he had a GM vehical with onstar, you can make calls using onstar min. vs. using your cell phone.

  26. Aking0667 says:

    To all the people asking how to prove you don’t own a cellphone. Call each carrier that services the area and ask for written information of proof that you do not have an account with them. When they all send back negatives there’s your proof.

  27. chicagojay says:

    Only in America.

    • Jay911 says:

      Um, for very broad definitions of America, considering this was in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.

  28. shepd says:

    Canada’s cellphone laws are absolutely heinous. In Ontario, next year nobody will be allowed to use a CB radio or HAM radio (well, at least not the usual Push-To-Talk ones). Because we all know that truckers using CB radios and licensed HAMs are the biggest threats to the road. Accidents all day long!

    Funny thing is, I find more people now doing the most unsafe usage of their phones, in their lap, under the wheel to try to avoid detection.

    Don’t even get me started on the smoking ban for privately owned trucks. Yes, if you own your own truck you may not smoke in it… What a stupid place this is.

    Good luck fighting that charge, chances are it’s absolute liability, so all the Judge needs to believe is that there’s a 51% chance the officer is telling the truth and you’re guilty. You’d need to have been videotaped not using the phone to get out of it. :-(

  29. axiomatic says:

    Never visit Manitoba, Canada. Got it.

  30. Dr. Shrinker says:

    I’ve been pulled over for flashing my brights at an oncoming police car even though the 2 passengers with me swore right along with me that I had done no such thing. (It was an older car with the switch on the floor which makes a loud clicking sound…unavoidable to hear. Also, why the hell would I flash brights at an oncoming police car???) Primarily an excuse to search a 19-year-old’s car on a Friday night, I think (they even made us open the pizza box my roomate was holding in his lap)

    In Chicago I got a parking ticket for parking in a school drop-off zone (off limits between 8:00 and 3:00 on school days). Problem was, the ticket was given on a school holiday (Columbus Day, if I recall)…sent it in to contest by mail with a succinct note showing the date on the ticket was NOT a school day. Came back 2 months later rejected with no explanation and now tripled because so much time had gone by.

    The system is corrupt.

    • shepd says:

      Don’t let the cops search without a warrant or at least a direct order, and I bet that regulation doesn’t actually say “school day” in the law itself. It probably defines something such as Monday to Friday from September -> June. Doesn’t make it right, but it does make it uncontestable if school is out for a day during those months. They’d probably be able to give you one on Christmas Day if it fell on a weekday. :-(

      Here’s our school zone bylaw, as an example:

      “On the opposite side of any highway adjacent to school property, between the
      hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., from Monday to Friday inclusive.”

      So, yep, if you were there doing that on Christmas Day, you get a ticket.

      And you wonder why I’m a libertarian.

      (Hmmm, seems my city lets us pay meters with US change! Interesting!)

      • Fafaflunkie Plays His World's Smallest Violin For You says:

        (Hmmm, seems my city lets us pay meters with US change! Interesting!)

        Always a bonus when CAD > USD, IMHO.

    • chelan78 says:

      It is not illegal to “flash your lights” at anybody, in most states, so the entire stop was bogus and the driver has a possible administrative claim for discipline by the officer’s superiors if not an actual claim for violation of his or her civil rights, 42 USC ¬ß 1983.

      It is also not legal for them to search the vehicle without your consent or warrant, unless you have been placed under arrest prior to the search. That’s the law.

  31. PsiCop says:

    Actually I have no problem believing cops would lie about a stop in order to write a ticket. Not far from me, a cop in Torrington CT was found to have completely fabricated whole stops. At least 29 of the people he stopped were able to show that he couldn’t possibly have stopped them.

    Of course, Torrington cops insist they have no “quotas.” They say Connecticut law prohibits them. But curiously, if any police department were violating that law, who would go after them for it … hmm, could it be, “other cops”? Why would they stop the practice of enforcing quotas?

    It’s a terrible thing to say, I suppose, and maybe it’ll make me sound paranoid, but I really don’t think police can be trusted.

  32. JoeTaxpayer says:

    The linked article quotes the guy as saying “”I got to go to my cellphone provider and make sure that they’re sending me records,” he said. “It’s going to cost me to print up all the information.””

    Huh? Prior he states he owns no phone, now he’ll pay to pull the bills? Fishy to me.

  33. wildgift says:

    NWA said is: FTP.

  34. kimmie says:

    There was a newspaper article in San Jose about a guy being pulled over for using a cell phone but he was actually eating a large pickle. He was finishing the pickle when the officer pulled him over, so he no longer had the evidence.

  35. MrTreoZ says:

    No way! A cop giving a bogus ticket just to make quota? This obviously wasn’t in Mayberry.