Police Abuse

No Seatbelt? No Problem, We've Got a Taser, Say Indiana Cops


Once again, it's the kind of story many people wouldn't believe if there weren't video. Lisa Mahone was driving through Hammond, Indiana, when police pulled her over because she wasn't wearing her seat belt. When her boyfriend, Jamal Jones, reached for his ID as police requested, one of the cops apparently pulled out a gun. Showing more restraint than some, the cops managed to refrain from shooting Jones immediately, but they didn't take too kindly to his subsequent refusal to get out of the car. So they smashed in the passenger-side window—sending glass flying toward Jones' children in the backseat—and then used a taser on him. 

Watch the whole horrific video below if you can stomach it. Throughout it, Mahone (who can be heard but not seen in the video) insists they're scared to get out of the car, which really isn't all that unreasonable, considering.

"He just pulled a gun on us, and we don't have a gun," she says to the 911 operator she's on the phone with near the beginning of the video. Right before the cop busts in her window, she can be heard asking, "Why do you say somebody's not going to hurt you? People are getting shot by the police—" Smash! 

Jones' 14-year-old son, seated in the back with his 7-year-old sister, caught most of the September 24 incident on video:

Jones was subsequently charged with resisting law enforcement and failure to aid an officer; both he and Mahone received citations for failure to wear seat belts. "The Hammond Police officers were at all times acting in the interest of officer safety and in accordance with Indiana law," the department's cheif said in a statement. 

This week, Mahone filed a lawsuit charging the two officers involved, Patrick Vicari and Charles Turner, with excessive force, false arrest, and battery.  

NEXT: Zenon Evans Interviews the Chairman of Russia's Libertarian Party

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Once again, it’s the kind of story many people wouldn’t believe if there weren’t video

    I think that’s starting to change. I know that we here are unusual in our knowledge of police misdeeds, but:

    Right before the cop busts in her window, she can be heard asking, “Why do you say somebody’s not going to hurt you? People are getting shot by the police?” Smash!

    It seems other people know too.

    1. Oh I’d believe it without video, it’s fucking Hammond police…guys just a shade too stupid to be Chicago PD, but just as mean.

      1. Agreed, I saw ‘Say Indiana Cops’ and thought ‘Really?’.

        Then I saw Hammond and thought ‘Oh.’

      2. If I was black and had to drive through Hammond, I’d ride in the trunk. If for no other reason than it’d be commonplace.

  2. “Jones was subsequently charged with…failure to aid an officer.”

    What does this mean?

    1. He should have wound down the window for the officer wanting to Tase him?

      1. If you don’t roll down your window to be physically assaulted by an officer, you are “resisting”.


      1. Class offense.

    2. Law enforcement officers have the common law power to call upon any able-bodied man to assist them in keeping the peace or pursuing a fugitive:

      Posse comitatus (common law)

      I guess the prosecuter is trying to get creative with the law and charge Jones for failing to help arrest himself.

      1. If they didn’t deputize him, they didn’t “call on him, etc.”.

        1. Deputize him, then drum him out as a disgrace to the uniform.

          1. I like the cut of your jib.

    3. Failure to suck police dick on command.

  3. Officer safety first = cowardice.

    1. They are trained in cowardice. It is part of the Academy curriculum.

  4. “The Hammond Police officers were at all times acting in the interest of officer safety and in accordance with Indiana law,” the department’s chief said in a statement.

    Does Indiana law allow anybody to smash into cars and attack unarmed people, or just the cops?

    1. If so, I really squandered my year living in Indiana…

    2. Another part of Indiana law allows citizens to use deadly force in protecting themselves against potentially lethal aggression from police officers. I haven’t heard of it being invoked yet, however.

      1. I believe that is within their own homes only.

    3. I’d be interested to read the analysis of actual Indiana law that says all of this is perfectly legal.

      Starting with the authority, during a traffic stop, to ask for the ID of any passenger, who, as a passenger, cannot possibly have violated a traffic law.

      1. Well, since seatbelt laws often apply to everyone in the front of the car, etc., they can. It’s fucking ridiculous, but remember that that’s what these laws are created for in the first place: additional ways to make it easy for the cops to fuck with you and fine you. The wonderful pairing of authoritah and thievery. The politicians want your money and the cops want the power to make you obey, and they love to work together on that.

        1. I got a ticket for not wearing a seat belt in the back seat. Indiana cops are hardcore Revenuers.

          1. I don’t know. I always breathe a little easier when I cross from the Ohio Turnpike to the Indiana Toll Road. Enforcement in Ohio is absurdly ridiculous.

            1. That’s how my son got pulled over. After carefully obeying the speed limit all through Ohio, he laid on the gas in Indiana. Cops pulled him over and gave him a warning…lucky him, but me sleeping in the back seat sans seat belt, I get a fucking ticket.

            2. In my experience, Ohio and Georgia are the worst states east of the Mississippi. Both have bad speed traps all along I-75. I counted 11 cars stopped last time I traversed Georgia, and 13 the time before that.

        2. According to the linked article, he told the police he didn’t have ID with him. Then they told him to write his name down on paper. He said he didn’t have any paper and said they needed to give him some. And then they got pissed. I’m pretty sure you don’t have to carry ID to be a passenger in a car.

          1. If you don’t wanna get shot you do.

          2. Of course you don’t. But since when does the law have anything to do with police actions?

        3. When Minnesoda passed their seatbelt law, it was a secondary offense and they swore it would never become a primary offense. That means, they could tack on more fines if they pulled you over for speeding and you weren’t wearing your seat belt, but they couldn’t pull you over just for not being belted up.

          I think that lasted a year or two. They then went back to the legislature and had it changed to a primary offense. It is even better than crossing the fog line as a cop excuse for pulling you over. After all there might be a witness who could testify that you never swerved over the line, but a cop just has to say “I thought he wasn’t wearing his seat belt” and everything is A-OK.

          1. When Minnesoda passed their seatbelt law, it was a secondary offense and they swore it would never become a primary offense

            Every single state/jurisdiction says this every time they enact a seatbelt or texting or whatever law. Every. Single. Time. And every single time, within a few years it’s a primary offence. Because that’s what it’s for. To pull people over and fine them for more money for the state. The safety reasons are all bullshit.

            It’s amazing the extent to which the car, which has been such an amazing tool for travel, has also been able to be turned into a Constitutional protection-gutting revenue stream for the state.

            1. There was a puff piece on the news in Maryland a few years ago where they went out with a cop specifically to bust people for texting while driving. The cop in the story made a big point of showing that the best place to get people was when they were waiting at red lights, and they showed him citing multiple people for the crime of briefly using their cell phone while their car wasn’t moving. They don’t even care to justify it anymore.

            2. It’s going to be interesting to see how the state responds to the wide-spread use of self-driving cars that comply with all traffic laws to the letter. It’s going to create a large hole in many municipal budgets, and they won’t be happy about it.

              1. My guess is that it will still be against the law to be drunk and in a self driving car. They will justify it by saying that in an emergency the driver might have to take over and if they are drunk they are a menace.

                You know MADD will be seriously urinated off by the idea that people can drink and have fun in bars without worrying about a DUI. Think of the anti-smokers, but on steroids.

                1. Oh, absolutely. They are definitely going to try to fix (as Adam says above) the sudden hole in their budgets from the cops not being able to give 1) DUIs, 2) speeding/reckless driving tickets, 3) improper lane change/running red lights/etc.

                  One way they will probably try to cover it is an explosion of tickets for busted taillights, “tire tread too shallow”, all kinds of maintenance tickets that they mostly only use currently as an excuse to pull someone over to fuck with them.

                  They will also probably do as you say, but there will be massive backlash against that, because people will suddenly be able to drink at dinner and the bar again with no fear of a seriously life-fucking DUI arrest. I mean, it’s actually one of the bigger perks of a self-driving car for a lot of people.

                  1. They’ll do their best to save their revenue stream. If they can get away with convicting people of DUI for turning on the ignition and sleeping in the car, they’re going to apply DUIs to driverless cars somehow.

                    “You turned the vehicle on. Therefore you operated it.”

                    “You programmed the vehicle / told it where to go. Therefore you operated it. What if you told it to go to a school where the parking lot is full of the CHILLLLDREN?”

                    “You were operating the radio in the vehicle. That radio ultimately can trace its power to the engine. It’s in the power-stream. See the Commerce Clause for detials.”

                    “You could have drunkenly shut the vehicle off while on the roads, or taken control of the vehicle at the wrong time, thus endangering other drivers.”

                    “The driver was too drunk to ensure his driverless vehicle was functioning properly, and couldn’t have stopped it in an emergency situation.”

                    Prosecutors will get creative.

                    1. Keep in mind that the vast majority of drunk driving arrests and convictions result from stops for collateral issues, like broken/inoperative brake lights, license plate violations, or whatever the cop feels like using to justify a stop. The “drunk driving” statutes are all based on potential, rather than actual harm. It’s why they use a UBAL standard in addition to a “visibly impaired standard.” That way they don’t have to show that the person was actually driving badly.

                      If they really cared more about safety than revenue, I’d be interested in hearing why we are prohibited from driving with a .08 BAC while 80-year old drivers are no problem. I would seriously be interested in seeing the reaction times of the age vs. BAC compared and hearing why the elderly are not a danger but those with a .08 BAC are.

                    2. No shit. I just about guarantee I’m a better driver than most 80 year olds, not just at .08 BAC, but at .40 BAC.

                  2. Your license plate light is probably out. That’s the big thing they use around here lately to pull over black people.

        4. The original seat belt laws were passed via lobbying by police unions. The move of those laws from secondary to primary offense (meaning you can be stopped) were also via lobbying by police unions.

          Police Unions should be dealt with via RICO.

          1. Nuh-uh, Dunphy says police unions are on the side of the poor put upon serfs, but gosh darn it those evil legislators keep passing unjust laws over their objections, and they have no choice but to follow orders!

  5. failure to aid an officer

    I wouldn’t cross the street to piss on a cop if he were on fire.

    1. “I swear. I thought that jug was full of water, not gasoline!”

  6. The woman’s name is Mahone… you may want to fix that.

      1. No problem 🙂
        Shame I was turned down for that copy editor gig, eh? I’m even more available now than I was before.

        1. Unless your name rhymes with Mucy Weigerwald, we aren’t interested.

          1. DON’T TALK ABOUT MUCY

          2. I don’t think my name rhymes with *anything*.

            1. It certainly doesn’t rhyme with “anything.”

              It does rhyme(ish) with “strong wind.”

              1. Only when I’m pregnant.

        2. Have you been around lately? This is the first I remember seeing you in a while.

          1. I became a S/WAHM two weeks ago and just haven’t been on the computer as much, now that I have a toddler to chase around the house while I edit full-time.

            It’s been an adjustment… and I (for some odd reason) have missed you guys.

            1. I (for some odd reason) have missed you guys

              You are a troubled soul, and I wish you well with your therapy.

              Good to see you posting again 🙂

              1. Next time I go a long stretch without speaking up, I may be in jail for letting my kids play outside. Just so you know where to start looking.

                1. Just remember to break out your cellmates teeth the first night. That way you establish dominance and get yourself a tradeable asset right away.

  7. I don’t know. Fucking reading these nut punches is wearing me down.

    It is like having The Terrible Mr G on a continuous loop.


    “Alright, you know, I’m not fucking playing with any of you anymore.”

  8. Fucking pigs in a fucking police state.

  9. So then you don’t have the option of just winding your window down a crack. I knew that was bullshit.

    1. No you have that option. You just also have the option of buying a new window if you’re lucky enough to regain consciousness.

    2. yeah rolling down your window results in a less rigid surface which in turn results in a much less satisfactory spray of broken glass.

      Because that ass had his window down, the cop was barely able to get any shattered glass into the back seat. Everyone knows that the big bonus points are racked up by getting glass shards into back seat kid seats.

      1. And that bonus points are later added from every copsucker posting that the kid’s injury is the parent’s fault for assuming his or her subservient position quickly enough.

  10. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that the police can check the ID of passengers that have not committed any infraction.

    This fellow has seen on TV what has been going on with the police.
    At this point, Blacks need to be super careful during these legal contacts or something like this will happen.

    I was watching the cnn report where they had a black and a white lawyer.

    The white guy says this has nothing to do with race. The black lady said it had everything to do with racism.

    I think thqt if this fellow looked like the white lawyer, the cops would had not done this.

    1. He apparently didn’t have ID with him, which is what he told the cops. Did the supreme court say that passengers have to have ID?

      1. That is where the entire thing goes down the sewer. Why does a cop making a traffic stop have the duty to question, harrass, and arrest a passenger with no ID. According to the current ruling, I guess the police can drag my teenage daughters into the station for not having ID for my “Failure to obey traffic signal/sign”.

        1. I guess the police can drag my teenage daughters into the station

          Go on…

          1. That is pretty scary, isn’t it.

        2. You’re lucky if that’s all they do. But hey, you’re a liberal, this is what you support.

          1. I, nor any person of any political persuasion that is not a police officer, support this.

            1. Cmon, NYC Liberals love themselves some stop and frisk. How is this any different?

              1. I won’t lie. I am a big supporter of the Stop and Frisk. I know that if I were Black I would not appreciate it.

                1. So you admit to supporting a racist policy?

                2. You are clearly a troll. A true liberal would be rolling like a hog in his racist guilt.

                  1. I don’t support the criminal records these people received for being caught with drugs. I would support expunging these records.

                    I also don’t support just frisking black people as the police did.

                    1. But it is okie-dokie to stop and frisk anybody except black people for no justifiable cause other than being in public near a gropey NY cop?

    2. The Supreme Court ruled years ago that the police can check the ID of passengers that have not committed any infraction.

      Uhm, no they didn’t. if you’re thinking of Hiibel, That’s not quite the conclusion the court came to.

      *If* the state has a law mandating identifying yourself to police during *legitimate* stops – which a traffic stop would be – it still only applies to those who are being stopped ie, the driver.

      1. This is not the case.

        The case I’m referring to involved narcotics. I’ll try to find it.

    3. Since the solution is to punish the officer for this egregious abuse of power and if necessary change the law to prevent further such incidents, the racism angle is an irrelevant distraction.

    4. “I think thqt if this fellow looked like the white lawyer, the cops would had not done this.”

      When you say “if this fellow looked like the white lawyer,” do you mean “wore a suit and was well groomed,” or do you mean “white?”

      Of course anyone can claim racism. It’s impossible to falsify it. In my experience, cops tend to treat everyone pretty shitty if they judge that person to be lower class.

  11. This same filthy pigsty called the Hammond Police Department in Indiana had to fire a cop scumbag recently that assaulted his own police dog! Clearly the leadership at that thug farm breeds anti-citizen cancers like Patrick Vicari and Charles Turner.

    It is excellent that these rabid bastards were caught on camera behaving in a fashion that any brutal dictatorship would welcome- not that it matters in the long run. They’ll be given vacays and medals and more time on the job to terrorize yet more citizens.

    1. i know.
      If we as a society are going to give the police a pass for what anyone that is not a cop (or a conservative) would call excessive, we should at least fire any government official in which their action resulted in a civil law suit settlement.

      1. I call bullshit. I know plenty of liberals who apologize for cops and regard my views on LEOs as anti-government nonsense. I also read many conservative writers who are all over police brutality. There are cop-suckers and defenders of liberty on both sides.

        Shouldn’t NYC Liberals be out stopping people from serving dinner in their home for cash without a restaurant license? Or stopping black women from braiding hair without a cosmetology license?

        Spare us your Team Blue knob polishing.

        1. So I guess you don’t like my idea that we should consider firing government officials in which their action resulted in a civil law suit settlement?

          1. I think that’s a good start, but still a half measure.

          2. But doesn’t that conflict with your devotion to unionization?

            1. I don’t support the Police Union nor any other public union. At this point, I don’t support any union.

              Labor Laws, OSHA laws, FMLA, and a minimum living wage are fine with me.

          3. The should be fired.

            Out of a rail gun.

  12. I’d like a new horror franchise that is like Saw. Only the victims are all cops and no one ever escapes.

    I think the country is ready for such a feel good movie.

    1. Should that count as horror, or screwball comedy?

      1. Probably fantasy.

        1. Call it what it is – pr0n

    2. Don’t turn cops into underdogs.
      Let’s just bring back Zorro instead.

    3. I’d like a new horror franchise that is like Saw. Only the victims villains are all cops and no one ever escapes.

      Now we’re talking.

  13. Is there anyone above the age of 30 who hasn’t, having returned to the town he grew up in, discovered that at least a couple of the thugs and miscreants he knew in high school are now cops? That was my experience anyway.

    1. One of the bigger jerks in my hometown became a cop and nabbed one of our classmates for a DUI. According to a mutual friend, the douche cop pulled over the guy because “I know Rob drinks a lot and it was late at night.” It wasn’t because Rob was driving poorly. Of course he swore in court that Rob swerved over the center line.

      On the other hand one of the nicest guys in the class before me is now running for sheriff in my home town. I haven’t spoken to him in years, and I’m afraid to now because I’m worried that he has turned into the typical LEO. I’d rather remember him as the nice, happy guy from high school

    2. One from my high school, notorious for fighting (and usually losing, incidentally,) became a cop. After being (surprisingly) dismissed from the force for “psychological issues” — and one can only wonder what he did to actually be dismissed — he opened a bar.

      The bar was successful for a short time. Then, after business died out, the bar mysteriously burnt down. Hmnn.

      There was another guy from high school who was known for having a hairtrigger temper. He got in fights a lot, too. And once, at a party, a mutual friend was teasing him about something for everyone’s amusement. It really got under his skin and, of course, a fight ensued. Nothing too serious, but the bad-temper guy caught the worst of it. And while the other guy was kind of laughing about the whole thing, bad-temper guy drunkenly went into another room, where I soon discovered he was trying to load bullets (!) into a shotgun he’d retrieved. I asked him what he was doing, and he told me he was going to shoot the other guy “for picking on drunk people and starting fights.”

      We got the hell out of there, figuring it was best before the guy found some actual ammunition.

      Needless to say, that guy eventually became a cop.

  14. Well these heroes did show restraint they didn’t kill anyone.

  15. I can already see the comments on the Yahoo article for this.

    “That’s what thugs get for REFUSING a lawful order!”
    “Typical. Why have a camera unless you’re looking to start some trouble?”
    and so on and so forth.

    1. ^And that’s why this is a losing issue. Cameras or no cameras, nothing has stemmed the tide of police misconduct. And contrary to what some prattle on about, it is not simply the matter of electing more douchebag Dems to office.

      Police brutality gets bipartisan support.

      1. I wouldn’t imagine either York or Lancaster would be too stridently opposed to the low-ranking members of the Second Estate.

  16. “The Hammond Police officers were at all times acting in the interest of officer safety and in accordance with Indiana law,” the department’s cheif said in a statement.

    Procedures were followed.

    Taser deployment occurred.

  17. A jury just convicted a college girl in FLorida under similar circumstances. She was pulled over for a broken tail light…refused to lower her window, so the cop broke it.

    In the course of breaking her window, he cut his hand so naturally she was charged with that…and eventually convicted.

    1. Why do I never get jury duty on a case like that?

  18. No Dunphy, huh?

  19. Jones was subsequently charged with resisting law enforcement and failure to aid an officer

    WHAT. THE. FUCK. *takes breath to preserve sanity* I am convinced that there is no law, in any meaningful sense, in this country.

    1. There isn’t, Dunphy’s protestations to the contrary. There’s a facade, and a relentless propaganda campaign to convince the naive to believe there’s rule of law, but it’s just a cynical con to perpetuate evil and injustice. The powers that be must put up a front of adhering to the rule of law while acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. And most people are too trusting and busy to know any better, and the Dunphy’s of the world count on that.

  20. Noooooo…This has nothing to do with Racism.

    If you ask me, even as anti-cop and liberal as I am, this brotha asked for it.

    Michael Brown was shot a few months ago. Since then, several people have been killed by police. They even killed a white guy, I think.

    Perhaps Barak Obama/Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Luis Farakhan, and maybe Puff Daddy can all make themselves useful for once and go on TV and tell African Americans to Behave when around cops and do what they say. There is a much better chance of them (black people) not getting killed by the cop if they just do what they ask.

    1. That’s not a very good dunphy.

    2. They even killed a white guy, I think.

      [golf claps]

      1. [i]They even killed a white guy, I think.[/i]

        He wasn’t white, he was white hispanic. And the guy he shot was named Trayvon. He was an unarmed black teenager, the most victimized group in america other than women or maybe muslims.

    3. You will never ever get Obama and Farakhan in the same room.

      I have to agree with you when you say that this fellow asked for it. Given the current climate, if I was a black man, I would do exactly as instructed by the police and not sit there and argue with them. Practically ever person that has been killed recently with police were arguing with them.

      I support a program in which Black young men are encouraged to be at their best behavior in front of the police. It is awful what is happening to black people still.

      1. You’re not even trying, whether to dunphy or trolling or anything else.

        1. What is dunphy?

      2. This is the BEST TIME BLACK PEOPLE have ever seen in the History of Black people being in America. There is a Black President and Attorney General and lots of opportunity for BLACK PEOPLE.

        Of course there is Racism. The Tea Party is Racist. The Republicans are generally Racist. I don’t find that the libertarians, as a whole, are racist. There are many racist Democrats.

        Black people are also racist. They’ve had good examples to follow on how to be racist for 400 years.

        All they need to do to stay alive is cooperate at the time the cops stop them.

        1. It may be the best of times as you say. However, are you saying that there are no white people arguing with the police Why have they not been shot?

          And it’s always some nonsense like selling cigarettes, or a broken taillight, or no seatbelt, or j-walking.
          I use to make jokes about being arrested over j-walking. Black people are being killed over it.

          The #1 killer of blacks is blacks.
          The #2 killer of blacks is a legal contact with some form of law enforcement. We can address #2 by addressing the police misconduct.

        2. It may be the best of times as you say. However, are you saying that there are no white people arguing with the police Why have they not been shot?

          And it’s always some nonsense like selling cigarettes, or a broken taillight, or no seatbelt, or j-walking.
          I use to make jokes about being arrested over j-walking. Black people are being killed over it.

          The #1 killer of blacks is blacks.
          The #2 killer of blacks is a legal contact with some form of law enforcement. We can address #2 by addressing the police misconduct.

          1. *Gets popcorn*
            Liberals fighting…too bad both of their solutions are to just bow down and kiss the ring of authority.

          2. The #1 killer of blacks is blacks.
            The #2 killer of blacks is a legal contact with some form of law enforcement.

            According to the CDC the leading killer of black males is heart disease at 24.1%. The second leading killer is cancer at 23.3%.

            You could make an argument about the leading cause of death being homicide for black males ages 15-34. While that is a horrifying statistic, it only supports your first claim if you qualify your statement with age ranges. You second claim is simply ridiculous.

            If you took 2 minutes to perform some basic sleuthing you could have found this information.

    4. Go fuck yourself Alice.

  21. And cops wonder why Citizens rightly fear and hate them.

    Failure ton aid a cop? I will cheerfully watch one burn to death rather than piss on him.

  22. The town mayor released a statement defending the cops. Also making light of the situation on social media. See his twitter @tommcdermottjr

  23. It is so awesome that the woman is telling the operator that she doesnt want to get out of the car because cops have been shooting people. I really wish citizens uprising would help, but I guess everyone that started to stand up for themselves would just be murdered. Is there any kind of solution, I wonder?

    1. The problem there is one of scale.

      Cops are not just the biggest gang in “your” town, they’re pretty much a fully nationwide phenomenon.

      Even if one city with a really bad cop problem did have an uprising, where all the cops got killed, cops would absolutely flood that city from all over the country. All levels, from city cops, to state police, to federal law enforcement. And they would absolutely make an example of that place.

  24. It speaks volume that the driver felt the need to call 911 to report what the cops were doing to her family. I’m gonna go out on a limb and guess the 911 dispatcher didn’t send help right away, or at all.

  25. Everyone here is over reacting. Everyone needs to calm down and learn a little about the law before you talk about like you are an expert. The law says that if you are refusing to listen to a Police officer, that it is Passive Resistance. If you are passively resisting an officer from doing their job, then they are allowed by law to use hands-on force and chemical spray. If they do not have chemical spray they can use a TASER instead to subdue the suspect. If you are refusing to listen to a LEO for 13 minutes, you are passively resisting a LEO from doing their job, thus they will act in accordance with the law. If you do not have some form of ID on you; which you should have at all times, then you can be asked to exit the vehicle until a positive ID can be made to make sure you don’t have a warrant or a BOLO. That is to protect the LEOs and all people involved. Simple traffic stops like this are used a lot as an excuse to see if someone has a larger offense on them. I know of several cases were murderers and other major criminals were caught from simple stops for broken lights or no seat-belts.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.