Boys in the blue in Montana,
Pulled over a giant banana.
Drawn by the appeel of the yellow four wheeler,
They spun jokes deadpan and deadpanner.
That thing is so cool and I've seen it in the wild a few times.
Reminds me of Dumb and Dumber when the cops say they're following a "1985 Sheepdog, sir"
> The truck beneath the banana has now traveled more than 250,000 miles.
It is also possible to register a vehicle built from scratch, but this typically requires a lot more paperwork to do.
Who knew that abuse of privilege could be fun! But then I think it's only natural that the LEOs of a banana republic would feel a magnetic attraction to a giant banana.
> Two studies have found that at least 40% of police officer families experience domestic violence, (1, 2) in contrast to 10% of families in the general population.(3) A third study of older and more experienced officers found a rate of 24% (4), indicating that domestic violence is 24 times more common among police families than American families in general.
https://olis.oregonlegislature.gov/liz/2017R1/Downloads/Comm...
Looks like you’ve wasted about the same amount of time here as I have!
Other time I was just rolling into LA for a comic con, it was 3am and I'd been driving for about 14 hours. I was minutes from my hotel and of course here come the cops. I had to make a big detour to find somewhere safe to stop. The next day someone said "Oh, I think my buddy stopped you last night!" so I had him call his cop friend and was able to safely cuss him out from a distance :)
On the other hand I had one awesome experience with the cops in Oxnard when we put my car on the train tracks and accidentally set off the barriers and caused an enormous tailback in each direction at the railroad crossing. I thought the cops would be mad, but they were hilarious and promised to figure out the traffic snafu for us.
https://imgur.com/a/pBcLKqz (we didn't realize the barriers automatically detect stuff on the tracks)
Then an hour later when I was driving the car down the tracks again another cop walked up on me all mad and told me he was writing me a ticket for driving on the tracks, but when I read the ticket he'd written it out to Marty McFly and had a great laugh about it. Here's a pic of him booking Marty haha
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBo1DvKzRJ4
The city actually gave us permission for this and promised us there "probably" wasn't any trains using the track that day.
This was actually the first time we'd ever tried to fit the train wheels, we didn't realise they wouldn't fit over the brakes, so we had to do some disassembly to make them fit :p
It’s especially funny because the owner of the vehicle has zero problems and none of you have evidence of abuse of power but oh no, you’ve all made up your minds and ACAB.
It’s embarrassing you have all decided to stop thinking.
> Often officers simply wanted photographs.
> Other times they invented reasons to start a conversation.
> His favorite stop happened in a small mountain town in West Virginia.
> A traffic light turned red. Braithwaite stopped. The light turned green and he made a leisurely turn through the intersection.
> A few moments later, flashing lights appeared behind him.
> A police officer marched up to the banana and delivered the news.
> "'The reason I pulled you over, that light back there, you peeled out.'"
Their job is to take advantage of their authority to have fun at the expense of the time of citizens?
SCOTUS made race-based Kavanaugh Stops legal. Stipping a banana on wheels is a much lower bar
And it didn’t start there in Germany, either banana cars or death camps.
A giant banana car is the definition of unusual behavior, after all.
Society doesn't benefit from policing "Weird".
If a cop saw someone hiding in your bushes at 2am - stop and check it out, or nah?
Only in specific edge cases and definitions, which I’m guessing you don’t know. And calling it ‘illegal’ is a stretch in 95% of them. Generally worst case any evidence gathered would just be inadmissible.
After all, even if not a legal stop/detention, that doesn’t mean they committed a crime by doing it.
But tell me, do you think any of these officers would have struggled to come up with probable cause to detain the driver of a giant banana car on a public roadway? Or any other ‘suspicious’ or ‘weird’ vehicle?
Because I can think of at least 3 California vehicle codes off the top of my head that would likely apply, including CVC 26708, 24008.5, and 5201. And I’m not a cop.
And all you need is an articulable and reasonable suspicion to detain.
Stopping someone to chat (aka they can leave without penalty) is a much lower bar, though I doubt they did that.
And you never answered my question.
Which I completely agree with. But that's a very different statement.
If a cop saw someone hiding in my bushes at 2AM, that strikes me as reason to think that the person is trespassing if not worse, and would thus justify a further look. It would not be done solely on the basis of "unusual behavior."
As you note - my original point stands, and is correct.
It’s difficult to come up with ‘weird’ or ‘suspicious’ behavior that isn’t going to be reasonable suspicion of something, and that is by design.
Or we could just go to disturbing the peace or loitering eh?
I'm happy to come up with a dozen more if you lack imagination.
Similarly, there's plenty of non-weird, non-unusual behavior that legally justifies a traffic stop, such as exceeding the speed limit or rolling through a stop sign.
Because you’d definitely get threatened with disturbing the peace, entertaining without a license, or be evaluated for public intoxication or drug use anywhere else.
People generally get speeding or traffic tickets when they stick out.
You have this weird overconfident naïveté about how the world actually works. Let me guess, 20 something white male, college educated, lives in SF or NYC? Loving parents who are still together?
How many did I get?
The prioritization of a respect for authority over a respect for the rule of law is notoriously problematic in small town america in very real ways.
At even just 10 minutes a stop, that is over 30 hours of this poor man's life he has spent staring at the berries and cherries just because some entitled cop thought he deserved a photo op.
This man is driving a homemade banana car across the continent specifically because he wants the attention it garners. It's the whole point.
However we interacted as equals and I was free to refuse the conversation or end it when I wanted. I was free to set boundaries.
I would not feel the same if stopped by cops.
It's perfectly reasonable to question whether that vehicle is street legal when it passes by on the road. It would be my first thought. It looks like it's mounted on a boat trailer chassis, and the windshield appears to have questionable effectiveness at high speeds. Pulling him over to ask about it seems like they are doing their jobs. Especially when I am also a driver on the same road.
I understand your perspective, but viewing police as solely as a potential threat is not spreading whimsy.
What a privileged point of view. For a lot of people police are indeed nothing but a potential threat.
"Reasonable suspicion of a crime" is an objective legal standard that doesn't mean the same thing as "they look suspicious" or the situation itself is "suspicious" -- it means that the officer thinks that a specific articulable crime has, is, or is about to occur. They don't have to be 100% sure, and they don't even have to be correct about what the law even is, but they do have to believe a law was broken.
Being unusual by itself does not legally qualify for reasonable suspicion of a crime or infraction, because being unusual isn't a crime.
Now, the officer could be interested in the car because it is a banana, and want to stop it to take a picture of it, but they have to have suspicion of some specific violation first.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whren_v._United_States
For example:
1. "Hey that banana car looks weird" > "it doesn't look like it has turn signals" > [pulls them over] > "hey do you have turn signals", "yes", "ok my bad have a nice day" = legal, because not having turn signals is an equipment violation.
2. "Hey that banana car looks weird" > [pulls them over] > "hey is this thing legal?" = illegal, because looking weird is not a crime
A cop sees what is clearly a hand-made banana car driving past them in the other direction on the road. What do you feel like are the appropriate actions for that cop to take in those circumstances, with just the facts available to them at hand?
I’m not arguing that the cops we have do not regularly and aggressively abuse their power and violate the social contract, but I’m struggling to see how we would want a cop to behave in an ideal world in this circumstance that isn’t “pull over the banana car and make sure it’s safe.” From the sound of it, they’re not ticketing the banana car, they obviously haven’t impounded it, and knock wood, they haven’t shot the driver yet, but what would your expectation be for them in that situation?
Broadly, I agree. But there are two very distinct groups of laws that you're groping together here:
Firstly, there's federal law, which is primarily responsible for what we think a modern safe vehicle is: crash testing, airbags, backup cameras, tire pressure monitoring, antilock brakes, stability control, etc. These laws primarily apply only to new vehicle manufacturers, enter enforced against those manufactured by the federal government.
Second, there's state law. Basically, all traffic laws are under state purview, and enforcement. The safety equipment required under state law is generally extremely basic. In most states you can qualify with as little as: DOT rated tires with tread, at least two mirrors, turn signals, seat belt, headlights, tail lights, horn, a front windshield, and a functioning wiper. These are the laws that traffic police enforce.
> Let’s also assume that some of those safety standards are not immediately visible from the outside - eg, it’s difficult to tell at a glance if the frame of the banana car is a well-constructed piece of welded steel or a shopping cart.
Because state vehicle safety law is generally very basic, it usually is possible to tell from the outside whether equipment requirements are met.
Also, shopping carts are made out of welded steel. And besides, it is entirely legal to use wood in the construction of a vehicle. State law typically does not prescribe the types of materials used beyond some extreme generalities in their performance (e.g. visibility through windows, structures physically attached as opposed to being loose). Generally, state law only cares about operational safety, they don't really regulate design safety. Horrible unsafe designs that would fail a crash test are only federally illegal for manufacturers to make and sell to people.
But let's entertain your scenario for a second. Let's say that there is something about a vehicle that fails safety standards that isn't visible... legally you there's no way to pull the vehicle over for a reason that you don't know of... because you have to know of a reason to justify the stop to begin with -- you'd have to find some other reason.
Ideally, the way you'd enforces vehicle safety for these kinds of scenarios, and the way that the rest of the world handles it -- is to require vehicles to be inspected. But only 15 states have chosen to require periodic passenger vehicle inspections.
> A cop sees what is clearly a hand-made banana car driving past them in the other direction on the road. What do you feel like are the appropriate actions for that cop to take in those circumstances, with just the facts available to them at hand?
They should do everything that their state law enables them to do, including:
* visually confirming the existence of required equipment: lamps, windscreen, signals, road tires, etc.
* confirming the display of any credentials required by their state: inspections stickers (if applicable), registration stickers (if applicable), license plate (believe it or not... if applicable), etc.
... and if they don't meet these requirements, or they break other rules of traffic operation, initiate a stop and investigate further.
Some tend to think cars are a highly regulated option for transportation on professionally engineered roads that people can choose if they want. Others think that cars are synonymous with a basic right of transportation on the untamed highway, and they can do whatever they want as long as they have a plate on it.
But there's multiple realities in this country. Unfortunately, a new car that meets the latest safety standards is essentially reserved for the upper middle class. The lower middle class is driving used cars that met safety standards of a decade ago, with worn parts that may or may not get inspected before they fail. And the working poor are either struggling to afford rent in a city with public transport, or they're struggling to keep a 15-25 year old car functional, let alone compliant or safe.
But other examples in the article like "Often officers simply wanted photographs." would not be a legal reason.
Now, in practice, this is a very easy standard to meet, because even if an officer wants to pull someone over arbitrarily, they can simply follow someone until they make a very minor infraction like crossing a line improperly, exceeding the speed limit by 1mph, rolling a stop, or failing to signal... but they still have to do it.
A belief that they have violated some law. They cannot do it for these reasons, from the article:
> Often officers simply wanted photographs.
> Other times they invented reasons to start a conversation.