INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Police departments around Indiana will have to review how officers conduct traffic stops after the state appeals court threw out a marijuana possession conviction against a driver, legal experts said.
The appeals court ruled that Kokomo police didn't have grounds to stop the driver simply for not turning while his turn signal was blinking. Officers found the marijuana after the stop, but the court said this month that nothing in Indiana law makes it illegal to drive through an intersection with an activated turn signal.
[. . .]
The Indiana appeals court in the past year has also dismissed convictions for drug and weapons charges in cases in which drivers were stopped for turning too widely.
The story quotes a Noblesville police lieutenant who says he thinks "most officers" would have pulled that driver over and that now, unfortunately, cops will have to "spot a different reason" for a traffic stop. "And we hope that ... the legislators will take notice of it," he said, "make the appropriate changes to make the law as it should be."
What the hell does he mean by that? If cops are so ignorant of the laws they're supposed to enforce that they think some things are against the law that really aren't -- like turning too widely or driving through an interesection with the turn signal on -- is it really the legislature's job to make the law match their perceptions? If police need to "spot a different reason" for a traffic stop, how about somehint obviously illegal and dangerous, such as speeding or running a red light? Some pickier things might need to be on the books, but only after lengthy discussions about whether the changes would really add to public safety.
It sounds a little like police want to have myriad small things in a very big and complex traffice code. That way, most of us could be cited for any number of things on just about any driving trip we made, and cops would always have an excuse to stop a car they wanted to check out. That would make their jobs easier, but our lives less certain. Not the law's purpose.
In the meantime, is it asking too much for police to be required to know the law they're suppose to enforce? If they have trouble doing that, it's a sign we have too many laws already, not too few.
