Operation Rolling Thunder: The Shocking Truth Behind Spartanburg's Traffic Stops
A 21-month legal battle unveils the dark side of South Carolina's annual traffic crackdown.

This is part one of Operation Shakedown, a series about heavy-handed traffic enforcement tactics and property seizures in Spartanburg County, South Carolina. Click here to read part two.
In Spartanburg County, South Carolina, on Interstate 85, police officers stop vehicles for traveling in the left lane while not actively passing, touching the white fog line, or following too closely. This annual crackdown is called Operation Rolling Thunder, and the police demand perfection.
Any infraction, no matter how minor, can lead to a roadside interrogation and warrantless search. However, a 21-month fight for transparency shows participating agencies play loose with South Carolina's Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), which requires the government to perform its business in an "open and public manner."
Motorists must follow state laws with exactness. But the people in charge of enforcement give themselves a pass.
Deny, Deny, Deny
The drawn-out FOIA dispute started on October 11, 2022, less than one week after a five-day blitz that produced nearly $1 million in cash seizures. Our public-interest law firm, the Institute for Justice, requested access to incident reports for all 144 vehicle searches that occurred during the joint operation involving 11 agencies: The Cherokee, Florence, Greenville, and Spartanburg County sheriff's offices; the Duncan, Gaffney, and Wellford police departments; the South Carolina Highway Patrol, Law Enforcement Division, and State Transport Police; and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Our intent was simple. We wanted to check for constitutional violations, which can multiply in the rush to pull over and search as many vehicles as possible within a set time frame. South Carolina agencies have conducted the operation every year since 2006, yet no one has ever done a systematic audit.
Rather than comply with its FOIA obligation, Spartanburg County denied our request without citing any provision in the law. We tried again and then recruited the help of South Carolina resident and attorney Adrianne Turner, who filed a third request in 2023.
It took a lawsuit to finally pry the records loose. Turner filed the special action with outside representation.
Key Findings
The incident reports, released in batches from March through July 2024, show why Spartanburg County was eager to prevent anyone from obtaining them.
- Over 72 percent of vehicle searches during Operation Rolling Thunder in 2022 produced nothing illegal. Officers routinely treated innocent drivers like criminals.
- Carrying any amount of cash is legal, but officers treated currency as contraband. The records describe no single case in which officers found a large amount of cash and did not seize it. All money was presumed dirty.
- Officers pressured property owners to sign roadside abandonment forms, giving up claims to their cash on the spot.
- South Carolina residents mostly got a pass. Officers focused on vehicles with out-of-state plates, rental cars, and commercial buses. Over 83 percent of the criminal suspects identified during warrantless searches lived out of state. Nearly half were from Georgia.
- Black travelers were especially vulnerable. Nearly 74 percent of the suspects identified and 75 percent of the people arrested were black. This is more than triple the South Carolina black population of 25 percent.
Working in the Shadows
While these records shine a light on police conduct, still more secrets remain.
By policy, the Spartanburg County Sheriff's Office and partner agencies do not create incident reports for every search. They only document their "wins" when they find cash or contraband. They do not document their "losses" when they come up empty.
Thanks to this policy, Spartanburg County has no records for 102 of the 144 searches that occurred during Operation Rolling Thunder in 2022. Nowhere do officers describe how they gained probable cause to enter the vehicles where nothing was found. The police open and close investigations and then act like the searches never happened.
This leaves government watchdogs in the dark—by design. They cannot inspect public records that do not exist. Victims cannot cite them in litigation. And police supervisors cannot review them when evaluating job performance.
Even if body camera video exists, there is no paper trail. This lack of recordkeeping undercuts the intent of FOIA. Agencies dodge accountability by simply not summarizing their embarrassing or potentially unconstitutional conduct.
The rigged system is rife with abuse. Available records show that officers routinely order drivers to exit their vehicles and sit in the front seat of a patrol car. If people show signs of "labored breathing," "nervousness," or being "visibly shaken," the police count this toward probable cause.
Officers overlook that anxiety is normal when trapped in a police cruiser without permission to leave. Even people who value their Fourth Amendment right to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" can break under pressure and consent to a search.
If travelers refuse, officers can bring K9 units to the scene for open-air sniffs. Having no drugs in the vehicle does not always help. False positives occurred during Operation Rolling Thunder, but the lack of recordkeeping makes a complete audit impossible.
Intimidation, harassment, and misjudgment are easily hidden. The police tell travelers: "If you have nothing to hide, you should let us search." But when the roles are reversed and the public asks questions, agencies suddenly want to remain silent.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments 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 and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Obviously , what's taking place in that state has nothing to do with public safety but revenue generation and of course an element of racism.
As long as there are people with bad intentions and allowing themselves to become corrupted ,who become cops along with a court system that's equally as bad, things like this will happen again and again.
Speed traps, some of them so notoriously bad, AAA has had to rent billboards to warn drivers. Some villages lost their incorporation. In another town, in Florida, Waldo City the entire police force was fired and that town nearly lost its incorporation.
I support good honest traffic enforcement that saves lives and prevents property damage, not highway robbery.
As usual, the real solution is victim prosecution. Third parties, like cops and prosecutors, have entirely different motives. Immunity for mistakes, whether intentional and accidental, is really just a subsidy, same as punishment for mistakes is a tax, and everyone knows you get more of what you subsidize and less of what you tax.
Some guy speeding or driving recklessly or with a broken taillight or not signalling? Document it by dash cam. Of course, traffic court judges are as deferential to cops as all other judges, but if it's a complaint by an ordinary civilian, and the loser pays, traffic court might be a little less rigged.
Loser pays is a joke.
If the citizen loses, now the police can soak them twice.
If the police lose, the citizen just pays for it anyway (in the form of taxes). The police lose nothing.
“You’re in a heap a trouble, boy.”
"Over 72 percent of vehicle searches during Operation Rolling Thunder in 2022 produced nothing illegal."
The other points are concerning, but I don't see the problem with this one. If over 27 percent of searches are finding illegal material, I think that's a pretty strong support for searching. (Well, if the law in question is BS, then no, but if we're talking illegal guns and trafficable amounts of drugs, then yes.)
I'd be interested in a more detailed report of what Rolling Thunder was finding.
On another subject, it sounds like I'll be losing my grandfathered commenting status soon - see you all around the internet!
On another subject, it sounds like I’ll be losing my grandfathered commenting status soon – see you all around the internet!
What have you seen regarding this? The disclaimer looks the same as it's been since "the change."
The only relevant question, if you ask me, is whether there was actual probably cause for these searches or if it was just using the pretext of traffic violations to search as many people as they could get away with. It doesn't matter at all what the statistical likelihood of finding something illegal is. All that matters is the specific circumstances of each stop and whether sufficient justification for a search was present. My bet is that it was almost entirely fishing expedition.
How comfortable would you be with cops barging into your house to conduct a search because "27% of house searches turn up something illegal"?
All cops are Revenuers, and what's prohibited is everything.
How would you even know if there is a problem if you don't make them keep records ? I know the cops are in on it, but what is making everyone else complicit in this scheme ? Who is getting a cut of the take ?
I’m sure the Big Guy is getting his 10%.
In Spartanburg County, South Carolina, on Interstate 85, police officers stop vehicles for traveling in the left lane while not actively passing
If they'd just stuck to that, I might have had to support them.
I would be a volunteer to help stop that.
Yeah, "Volunteer Lane Rangers" are annoying and, can be dangerous.
If they had, I'd be sending them money voluntarily.
typical red state behavior. troglodytes
Yes. So much better than blue states having cashless bail (or no charges at all) for thieves, rapists and murderers. This place is soooooooo much worse than Chicago, NYC or LA.
Seriously, do you ever think before you say such stupid things?
Don't feed trolls.
You undermine your (legitimate) arguments when you abuse statistics.
Regarding the percentage of black drivers stopped (74%), the appropriate comparison is not the percentage of blacks living in South Carolina, but rather the percentage of black drivers driving that section of road (which we aren’t told).
And your error is even worse as you point out that police gave a bit of a pass to drivers with South Carolina tags, focusing their efforts on out of state drivers, making the ratio of stops to South Carolina blacks residents even more irrelevant.
Articles like these are to help cement Reason’s TRANSformation into a far left propaganda machine. Hiring Emma Camp was another such step.
Do you think they are stopping drivers to take census on the I-85 & I-26 to satisfy your need to deny racial bias ?
I’m not denying racial bias (I don’t know if there is or isn’t, and I’m guessing neither do you), I’m saying the author’s use of those particular statistics doesn’t establish racial bias.
Any infraction, no matter how minor, can lead to a roadside interrogation and warrantless search.
No it can't. The only thing that can lead to either of those things is consent.
Officers routinely treated innocent drivers like criminals.
Yea, they do that. The more appropriate word is "suspects" - but it's neither here nor there.
Cops are allowed to go on fishing trips. Whether or not you bite at their hook is up to you.
Officers pressured property owners to sign roadside abandonment forms, giving up claims to their cash on the spot.
Just refuse.
South Carolina residents mostly got a pass. Officers focused on vehicles with out-of-state plates, rental cars, and commercial buses.
Yea, because they're less likely to contest any potential charges. But, again, whether or not you contest them is up to you.
Black travelers were especially vulnerable. Nearly 74 percent of the suspects identified and 75 percent of the people arrested were black.
Black motorists are also highly more prone to things that can justify a pretextual stop. Busted lights, expired tabs, missing plates, and the like.
So, spare me the "driving while black" nonsense. The fact that you even brought it up telegraphs that your argument doesn't have a lot of meat to its bones, such that you had to shore it up a little with the racial outrage angle.
They only document their "wins" when they find cash or contraband. They do not document their "losses" when they come up empty.
Well why would they? That serves no purpose whatsoever.
Nowhere do officers describe how they gained probable cause to enter the vehicles where nothing was found.
Only a handful of ways they could have, and "the suspect consented to it" is far and away the most likely.
Available records show that officers routinely order drivers to exit their vehicles and sit in the front seat of a patrol car.
Say no. I mean, do that just on general principle. "Go get in my car," hell no. That is sketch af.
Call 911, let them know where you are and who is making the demand, and demand a supervisor and an attorney immediately.
Not difficult.
This leaves government watchdogs in the dark—by design. They cannot inspect public records that do not exist. Victims cannot cite them in litigation.
Yea, but the flipside is true as well. You can absolutely leave them in the dark just the same.
If you're arrested and put in an interrogation room, you can sit there silently in response to all their questions. Or, better yet, you can say the single word, "Lawyer."
The whole reason for police interrogation is because they've got you made for something they can't quite prove. So, they put you into a room to try and get you to give THEM the evidence they can't find on their own.
You do NOT have to contribute to their efforts to convict you. You are not obligated to give them anything.
The problem with this garbage article is it panders to a willfully ignorant society. It screams "Rife with abuse! ACAB!" while not putting any onus on the individual citizen to know and exercise their rights.
This is why Losertarianism is such a clown show. You constantly screech about freedom and liberty and independence - but you want none of the responsibilities or accountabilities that come with them. Even one as simple as, "Just know what your rights ARE!"
You screech a tirade against cops, but you ignore the fact that these citizens are MORONS who ALLOW themselves to be trampled on. Why don't you losers EVER ask the people you market this nonsense to the very simple question:
If you don't know your rights, how would you EVER know if someone took them away?
Losertarians NEVER ask that question of anybody they try to convince of anything.
fuck off, or "unalive" yourself, bootlicker.
Language.
Also, it's not about licking boots. It's about understanding how your rights work.
You clearly don't. They're not magical protective shields that insulate you from harm ever happening. They're guarantees that your rights are absolute and that wrongs to them will be redressed.
If a rapist came and violated your rights in the most heinous way imaginable, would your argument be "rapists shouldn't be rapists!" I mean, it'd be valid if it were - but it wouldn't change the reality of it all (except for the fact that ordered society does need cops, and thus some people SHOULD be cops). No, your argument would be that a harm/wrong has been done to you - your rights violated as a result - and that it deserves redress.
That's how this all works, Trog. I'm surprised you're at a place like this without even that baseline understanding.
You must be new here. Most people here do not understand how rights work and how to maintain them. They do not understand that ignorance comes with a price. Everything you wrote is spot on.
This is how your advice works.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IX8rKjo46WA
How'd that work out in the end for the cops? We didn't get to see that part, did we.
(Also, lmao at the "this is my livelihood" crocodile tears. Come on lady, if it were your livelihood, you'd take better care of it.)
Any infraction, no matter how minor, can lead to a roadside interrogation and warrantless search.
No it can’t. The only thing that can lead to either of those things is consent.
That’s assuming the cops follow the law. It may shock you to learn that they sometimes don’t. And when they don’t police unions and QI kick in and protects them. So they feel empowered to break the law more.
Cops are allowed to go on fishing trips.
Actually they’re not. You need things like reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The “I pulled a guy over for a busted taillight and he was nervous” doesn’t constitute either when wanting to search someone’s vehicle.
Officers pressured property owners to sign roadside abandonment forms, giving up claims to their cash on the spot.
Just refuse.
And the cops find or invent a way to arrest you. Or they keep you detained until they bring in a canine unit to signal a false positive your car and search anyway. And you agree that the cops target out of state motorists, who are very likely to not want their vacation ruined by having to spend part of it in an out of state jail cell. So the cops can pile layers of duress and coercion on motorists, then claim “Well, he consented to the search”.
Black motorists are also highly more prone to things that can justify a pretextual stop. Busted lights, expired tabs, missing plates, and the like.
How does the race of a motorist factor into this? Show your work.
They only document their “wins” when they find cash or contraband. They do not document their “losses” when they come up empty.
Well why would they? That serves no purpose whatsoever.
Untrue. Recording successes and failures serves to illustrate the efficacy of your tactics. If 90% of what they did led to nothing, they’d want to know that in order to try something that might be more effective at rooting out crime. Unless, perhaps, the goal is not to root out crime, but to clandestinely engage in it under the color of enforcing the law.
Say no. I mean, do that just on general principle. “Go get in my car,” hell no. That is sketch af.
Call 911, let them know where you are and who is making the demand, and demand a supervisor and an attorney immediately.
Not difficult.
Sure, refuse an officer’s commands and then reach for a cell phone they’ll later claim to have mistaken for a gun. Easy peasy!
This leaves government watchdogs in the dark—by design. They cannot inspect public records that do not exist. Victims cannot cite them in litigation.
Yea, but the flipside is true as well. You can absolutely leave them in the dark just the same.
Whoa, something we agree on! Don’t Talk To The Police
Of course, to do that you might be risking your job and everything you own, but since the vast majority of society is independently wealthy I don’t know why “Losertarians” are so up in arms about cops doing targeted searches of vehicles and scooping up whatever cash they find.
That’s assuming the cops follow the law. It may shock you to learn that they sometimes don’t.
Well of course it's assuming that. Why wouldn't it? We're talking about the legitimacy of what's happening when everything's on the up-and-up.
Assuming otherwise would be like talking about a suspect that was savagely beaten by a cop with a phonebook. Obviously that's not proper procedure, and that cop has gone off the rails.
That's not the issue here. They're on the rails, we just don't like where that track goes.
Actually they’re not. You need things like reasonable suspicion and probable cause. The “I pulled a guy over for a busted taillight and he was nervous” doesn’t constitute either when wanting to search someone’s vehicle.
But if he says, "Can I search your vehicle," and you reply, "Sure," - you've given him everything he needs to make it legitimate.
And the cops find or invent a way to arrest you.
Let them. Mildly inconveniencing, but sometimes exercising your rights is like that.
And you agree that the cops target out of state motorists, who are very likely to not want their vacation ruined by having to spend part of it in an out of state jail cell.
Well that's a cost/benefit analysis that has nothing to do with the cops.
So the cops can pile layers of duress and coercion on motorists, then claim “Well, he consented to the search”.
Yea, but they're not wrongful layers of duress or coercion. The cop isn't depriving you of your rights, he's getting you to abdicate them of your own volition.
Don't let him.
How does the race of a motorist factor into this? Show your work.
I didn't bring it up. Take that one up with Reason.
Untrue. Recording successes and failures serves to illustrate the efficacy of your tactics. If 90% of what they did led to nothing, they’d want to know that in order to try something that might be more effective at rooting out crime.
That could be said of virtually any investigative tactic. A body is found in the street, there's 200 witnesses that were there. Maybe a handful have a useful contribution as a witness. 90% of interviews would lead to nothing - but the 10% that DO lead to something make the entire process worth the effort.
The same could be said for CSI. A murder has occurred in an alleyway. So, they're going to run the scene on the alleyway, its walls, its exits, their surrounding areas, etc. 90% - heck 99% - is probably going to be meaningless trace that tells us nothing. But that 1% could be what helps narrow down suspects. Makes it worth the effort.
Sure, refuse an officer’s commands and then reach for a cell phone they’ll later claim to have mistaken for a gun. Easy peasy!
Oh come on. This isn't the movies.
"Officer, I am highly concerned about the situation I'm in. I'm going to reach for my cell phone [or, better yet, my hands free controls on my steering wheel] very slowly and very carefully. Feel free to cover me if it makes you more comfortable. Or, radio in the request yourself. Let me know when it's OK to move."
This notion that the average traffic cop is some kind of hidden maniac waiting to go blasting on uncooperative motorists is nonsense. Exceptions, not rules.
Of course, to do that you might be risking your job and everything you own
Another cost/benefit analysis.
By the way:
If you’re arrested and put in an interrogation room, you can sit there silently in response to all their questions. Or, better yet, you can say the single word, “Lawyer.”
Except the police are not arresting you, they're just taking your money under civil asset forfeiture. You DON'T have a right to a lawyer in that situation since you're not being charged with a crime.
It doesn't mean you're compelled to obey though either. You can stonewall them. At which point, they can either give up their fishing trip, or actually arrest you - at which point you lawyer up.
Where did I say you were compelled to obey? You're never compelled, you're just coerced. Or cajoled. Or if that fails they bring in a canine unit to walk around the car, claim the dog alerted, and then your consent is no longer needed. And then they take whatever you want, including possibly the car, and leave you where they found you with your rights supposedly intact. No arrest, so no lawyer.
You’re never compelled, you’re just coerced. Or cajoled.
Nancy Reagan buddy. Just say no.
Or if that fails they bring in a canine unit to walk around the car, claim the dog alerted, and then your consent is no longer needed.
Correct, but you're glossing over some important points. Namely, that a dog hit will provide the basis for probable cause to get a search warrant issued. And since it's a random motoring stop, there's no exigency to the situation meaning Johnny Law can call it in, get it issued, and print a copy from his cruiser to hand to the motorist.
And even if there were exigency, all it would justify is the detention of the motorist (or even just his vehicle) to await issuance of the search warrant. Not the search itself.
There's also law that works against the dogs, if you're unreasonably detained to wait for the arrival of a dog to sniff you out (which is most like what you're suggesting here) . That can constitute a search in and of itself.
But again, you gotta know your rights and how to exercise them. Most people don't. I, for one, lose no sleep over them giving themselves up to the cops on account of their own ignorance.
And then they take whatever you want, including possibly the car, and leave you where they found you with your rights supposedly intact.
How many times in all of reality has that actually happened? I mean, really. Come on.
But again, you gotta know your rights
What rights might those be when the police are not arresting you and no prosecutor is accusing you of a crime? Even Miranda rights are not invoked until an arrest takes place.
There’s also law that works against the dogs, if you’re unreasonably detained to wait for the arrival of a dog to sniff you out (which is most like what you’re suggesting here) . That can constitute a search in and of itself.
Tell it to the judge after the prosecutor invokes Qualified Immunity. QI allowed a couple of police officers to take $225,000 during a search and keep it. Did you miss that article on Reason? If so, here it is:
https://reason.com/2019/09/20/court-rules-fresno-police-accused-of-stealing-over-225000-protected-by-qualified-immunity-and-cant-be-sued-fourth-amendment/
What rights might those be when the police are not arresting you and no prosecutor is accusing you of a crime?
The right to say no to a cop who asks to search your vehicle.
If it's getting that bad, you do something very simple: roll up your windows, lock your doors, keep your hands in plain sight, and wait for him to call for backup and call in a warrant request. What's he going to do, bash through the window and drag you out bodily? Good luck defending the Axon and Dashcam on that.
QI allowed a couple of police officers to take $225,000 during a search and keep it.
Allegedly.
And you're not exactly citing reputable sources here bud. Two dudes running an illegal gambling outfit, and Reason? Come on, you'll have to do better than that.
But, I like you Chip, and I give your arguments a lot more latitude than I do most of these knuckle-dragging morons - so I went and I read the actual court opinion. And to your point about QI - the story you're citing is about cops properly exercising a valid search warrant, seizing a bunch of stuff, and then lying about what they seized to pocket what they (allegedly) omitted on their reports.
But the issue before the court wasn't the alleged theft. It was whether the seizures were proper under the warrant and under 4A - which they were. Hence, QI applied. It wouldn't be until a few years later that the State sewed up that quirky little loophole. So, it's moot now (at least in Cali).
If it’s getting that bad, you do something very simple: roll up your windows, lock your doors, keep your hands in plain sight, and wait for him to call for backup and call in a warrant request. What’s he going to do, bash through the window and drag you out bodily? Good luck defending the Axon and Dashcam on that.
"Suspect disobeyed a lawful order to exit the vehicle."
I think you’d be surprised exactly what the police can get away with. Forcibly removing people from vehicles is not a big deal for them. And police unions are wealthy enough to have very skilled lawyers on the payroll, specialized in defending the police from accusations of abuse under a wide variety of circumstances. IF you get arrested (and assuming you survive the arrest, of course), you have a right to … an overworked public defender, who won’t take up your lawsuit against the cops because that’s not his job; his is to defend you from the charges the cops bring. If you want to file a lawsuit, you have to shell out for a lawyer of your own to take up that case separately. Or if you’re incredibly lucky an organization like the Institute for Justice will take up your case.
What’s he going to do, bash through the window and drag you out bodily? Good luck defending the Axon and Dashcam on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNBfXr2b5fA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvfz7bZl9rI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGsgAB-u3Ps
First one - plainly being placed under arrest and resisting.
Second one - lol, you might want to look into the backstory on that one. (Sovereign Citizens lmao, they're adorable. And so many open warrants on this one!)
Third one - ahh yes, one of those "mostly peaceful" types acting on the orders of their recently sainted fentanyl martyr. Make sure to get it on camera, lady! This could be your winning lottery ticket!
You're picking such perfect examples here, Chip.
AT: What’s he going to do, bash through the window and drag you out bodily? Good luck defending the Axon and Dashcam on that.
Chippah: Here’s three different examples of that exact thing happening.
AT: Well they all deserved it.
Yes, they all DID deserve it - because you're intentionally conflating people who are actively being arrested, and resisting that arrest.
That's not the same as pulling over Joe Motorist from out of town on a lane violation, and then bashing his window and dragging him out because he won't cooperate with the traffic stop.
Yes, they all DID deserve it – because you’re intentionally conflating people who are actively being arrested, and resisting that arrest.
“Suspect disobeyed a lawful order to exit the vehicle.”
So the second the cop tells you to leave the vehicle after you rolled up the windows and locked the door to make your 911 call, you'd do so? Otherwise, your traffic stop becomes an arrest, and the cops will happily rip your car in half if that's what it takes to extract you. The public defender you'd have a right to would only help in trying to make a claim that it wasn't a lawful arrest, but you'd have to pay a lawyer if you wanted to become a plaintiff.
“Suspect disobeyed a lawful order to exit the vehicle.”
And why would anyone do such a thing in the first place? What do you hope to gain from it right there in that moment?
I’m pretty sure that not cooperating with a traffic stop is grounds for arrest.
It depends on what we're talking about when we say "cooperate." I got pulled over once. I got my cards ready ahead of time, and rolled my window down about quarter-inch right before I stopped, put it in park and splayed my hands on the wheel at 10 and 2 and kept my gaze forward. He asked for the usual, so I pointed to my dash where all my cards were neatly prepared, and them slipped them through. "Do you know why I pulled you over?" Nod. "You're not going to talk to me?" Shake head. "You're not even going to look at me?" Shake head. ".... OK."
Then he wrote up my ticket, "I'm citing you for blah blah blah, you can pay the fine or contest blah blah blah." I signed it, took my copy and cards back, and let him pull back into traffic before doing the same (though, had he flashed his lights or whooped the siren, I would have rejoined traffic then). I later contested the ticket and had it dropped when he didn't show up for court.
I cooperated fully. But I did not contribute anything to his investigation beyond what I'm obligated to under the terms of my license to operate a motor vehicle. I controlled the situation without panicking or becoming belligerent, kept him at ease with my hand placement and body language, and gave him no reason to suspect anything other than the traffic violation for which I was detained.
If he wanted to go on a fishing trip, he'd have to have more than "pulled over for speeding, suspect was uncommunicative but cooperated in full." I didn't offer anything beyond that.
The problem Chip, is that so many people think that they're going to solve the issue right there on the street. Nobody likes getting pulled over, but they're not going to make it any better for themselves by escalating the situation. The goal should be de-escalation - and most cops will appreciate your doing so.
Instead, Team ACAB wants to pretend like such a thing will never happen because apparently they think anyone in a badge is a hair-trigger maniac cop that can't wait to crack skulls.
That's just not operating in reality, Chip.
“Suspect disobeyed a lawful order to exit the vehicle.”
And why would anyone do such a thing in the first place?
Because they were following your advice. I'll repost it for you.
If it’s getting that bad, you do something very simple: roll up your windows, lock your doors, keep your hands in plain sight, and wait for him to call for backup and call in a warrant request. What’s he going to do, bash through the window and drag you out bodily? Good luck defending the Axon and Dashcam on that.
That’s not the same as pulling over Joe Motorist from out of town on a lane violation, and then bashing his window and dragging him out because he won’t cooperate with the traffic stop.
I'm pretty sure that not cooperating with a traffic stop is grounds for arrest.
Spartanburg Chief of Police and Deputy Chief are black, as was the previous Chief (who was actually the Public Safety Director).
At Spartanburg Sheriff’s Department, only 14% of the deputies are black.
OTOH
https://www.goupstate.com/story/news/2020/10/27/spartanburg-law-enforcement-struggles-improve-diversity-within-workforce-sc/6022243002/
“I only hire the most qualified candidates,” [Sheriff] Wright told the Herald-Journal in a meeting inside his office. “It’s not a Black thing or a white thing. It’s a This-is-what-you-have-to-have thing.”
Asked by the Herald-Journal what recruiting strategies his office is taking to attract more Black deputies, Wright said it’s “racist” to target one race over another.
“We want more diversity too, but to hire someone just because of their skin color whether it be white or Black is racism” Wright said “I hire on the content of character, not the color of your skin.”
He notes that his deputies must be a U.S. citizen of at least 21 years of age who have never been convicted of a felony, a domestic violence crime or any criminal offense that carries a sentence of a year or more in jail.
Finding minority cops is a challenge
Law enforcement agencies everywhere struggle to find enough minority officers.
Of the 701,000 sworn police officers in the United States in 2016, 71.5% were white, Bureau of Justice Statistics data show, compared to an estimated 60% of the population.
In South Carolina, of the 130,000 men and women with a badge, 17 percent are Black, according to the state’s Criminal Justice Academy. By comparison, the state’s population is 29 % Black, according to census data.
Seems a lot like lack of probable cause to me in those searches.
But you know, people who say “Okay” when officer asks to search need to maybe study up on their rights.
Operation Rolling Thunder is only the tip of the civil asset forfeiture iceberg in Sherrif Chuck Wright's Spartanburg. Y'all need to get in touch with former Spartanburg County Deputy Russell Lynch. This is the kind of story Radley Balko would have turned into a multi-part investigation. You didn't even mention the Ford Raptor Chuck seized as his personal vehicle, let alone the 10s of millions he continues to seize year-round and spends on himself and his department.
"Intimidation, harassment, and misjudgment are easily hidden. The police tell travelers: "If you have nothing to hide, you should let us search." But when the roles are reversed and the public asks questions, agencies suddenly want to remain silent."
Well, yeah. They ~do~ have something to hide.
The police tell travelers: “If you have nothing to hide, you should let us search.”
Okay, Officer, let's go to your house so I can search it for contraband. You have nothing to hide, right? I'll let you know if I find any contraband there, you just hang in the car.
I'm all for law and order, but traffic stops can be a hugely intimidating event - the Police are armed, you are not, and they have all the power. You can refuse requests and refuse to answer questions, but that means you're detained indefinitely. You can refuse a search, but that means they bring a dog in and the dog magically signals something. Asking property owners to sign roadside abandonment forms, giving up claims to their cash on the spot, I didn't know about that and seems very sketchy. Yeah, there are bad guys on the roads - problem is, they're after numbers of DUI, no matter how slight, and personal drug arrests, not violent criminals. And value seizures.
Bottom line - I live in the Greenville SC area and when operation rolling thunder is in effect, I only drive during the day for necessities, eat dinner at home, only drink anything at home when in for the evening, and never drive when dark unless its work related. I know if I got pulled over, I'd eventually be fine - but only after lots of time of presumed guilty until proven innocent and potentially a torn apart vehicle they wont put back together.
Thos looks entirely like an interstate drug ring runs through the State and they intermittently confiscate the proceeds. The high rate of actionable offenses, the willingness of "offenders" to walk away from cash make it seem like too organized and somebody else's issue. Change the laws and this all goes away as cashapps can replace cash without risk of jail from the paper trail.