Complaint Review: Maricopa County Sheriff's Department in East Mesa - Mesa Arizona

The original poster should be aware of what her husband was charged with, why isn't that information being shared? The officer didn't attempt the stop until after the officer had clear view of the rear of the car (and it's illegal tailpipe light and the 3-day restricted use tag). A car with a 3-day restricted use tag has no business being on the street at 10:30pm at night, that by itself is probable cause for a stop. The following describes the permitted use of a 3-day restricted use tag: A Restricted Use 3-Day Permit allows a person to operate an unregistered vehicle or a vehicle with a suspended registration from the present location of the vehicle to a specified destination. The Restricted Use 3-Day Permit is valid only for the following purposes: Emissions Testing Vehicle Inspection Application for Title and/or Registration Vehicle repair to comply with Emissions or Inspection A 3-day restricted use tag isn't permission to drive the car around for 3 days. It's permission to take the car directly to the emissions testing location and back, permission to take the vehicle directly to an inspection and back, permission to take the vehicle to the DMV for title/registration and back and permission to take the vehicle to a repair shop and back. However, that isn't going to be enough to get you taken to jail and as the original poster doesn't want to tell us what, exactly, her husband was charged with I think it's safe to assume that it involved something more serioius than having an illegal tailpipe light on the car.

The original poster should be aware of what her husband was charged with, why isn't that information being shared? The officer didn't attempt the stop until after the officer had clear view of the rear of the car (and it's illegal tailpipe light and the 3-day restricted use tag). A car with a 3-day restricted use tag has no business being on the street at 10:30pm at night, that by itself is probable cause for a stop. The following describes the permitted use of a 3-day restricted use tag: A Restricted Use 3-Day Permit allows a person to operate an unregistered vehicle or a vehicle with a suspended registration from the present location of the vehicle to a specified destination. The Restricted Use 3-Day Permit is valid only for the following purposes: Emissions Testing Vehicle Inspection Application for Title and/or Registration Vehicle repair to comply with Emissions or Inspection A 3-day restricted use tag isn't permission to drive the car around for 3 days. It's permission to take the car directly to the emissions testing location and back, permission to take the vehicle directly to an inspection and back, permission to take the vehicle to the DMV for title/registration and back and permission to take the vehicle to a repair shop and back. However, that isn't going to be enough to get you taken to jail and as the original poster doesn't want to tell us what, exactly, her husband was charged with I think it's safe to assume that it involved something more serioius than having an illegal tailpipe light on the car.

The original poster should be aware of what her husband was charged with, why isn't that information being shared? The officer didn't attempt the stop until after the officer had clear view of the rear of the car (and it's illegal tailpipe light and the 3-day restricted use tag). A car with a 3-day restricted use tag has no business being on the street at 10:30pm at night, that by itself is probable cause for a stop. The following describes the permitted use of a 3-day restricted use tag: A Restricted Use 3-Day Permit allows a person to operate an unregistered vehicle or a vehicle with a suspended registration from the present location of the vehicle to a specified destination. The Restricted Use 3-Day Permit is valid only for the following purposes: Emissions Testing Vehicle Inspection Application for Title and/or Registration Vehicle repair to comply with Emissions or Inspection A 3-day restricted use tag isn't permission to drive the car around for 3 days. It's permission to take the car directly to the emissions testing location and back, permission to take the vehicle directly to an inspection and back, permission to take the vehicle to the DMV for title/registration and back and permission to take the vehicle to a repair shop and back. However, that isn't going to be enough to get you taken to jail and as the original poster doesn't want to tell us what, exactly, her husband was charged with I think it's safe to assume that it involved something more serioius than having an illegal tailpipe light on the car.

I don't think that the above report was false, but I do think there are what the law would call "material omissions." Why was the husband jailed? Why was a warrant subsequently issued? Nobody can make an accurate determination as to the validity of this report without that information. Additionally, the absence of such information makes this report an obviously one-sided, most likely highly inaccurate tale. Compound that with the fact that the reporter wasn't even present when the traffic stop took place, and is relaying second-hand information based on her husband's account of the stop. I can only speculate as to what really happened, and what the husband has been charged with. It is highly unlikely that if he had valid title to the vehicle, regardless of whether it was or wasn't properly registered, that he would have been jailed and charged on an erroneous vehicle theft charge. A simple VIN check can clear up that situation. It is also highly unlikely that he would have been jailed for mere lack of proper registration. Were there outstanding warrants? Was something actually found in the vehicle? Did he assault the police officer? I've been pulled over several times, and no cop has ever needed to remind me that I should respect him, but this officer apparently felt that this was necessary for some reason. At any rate, we're not getting the full story. Without the full story, this report lacks the substance necessary for credibility. By the way, failure to give consent to a search cannot be used to support a finding of probable cause allowing for a warrantless search. It is an extreme violation of the Fourth Amendment for a police officer to conduct a warrantless search based solely (or even in part) on a subject's failure to consent.

As William in Goodyear pointed out the blue light displayed to the rear is in violation. Yes other people have various lights to the front and rear in violation of this, people also speed, run stopsigns, etc also. Stores sell lots of illegal items and most packaging also states that by using it you accept the terms of their product which could mean it's unlawful in your area to check with the local laws/ordinances. The officer could have been parked back a bit when he saw your husband pass by him activating brakes, that probably caught his eye and thus he followed your husband. Something else happened in this stage though that led the officer to be inquisitive and do the t-stop. If the plates return as invalid, expired, or fictious via the MVD system then that is PC for an arrest and also in turn search of the vehicle. Thats just the way things are. You may say hey illegal search!, Part of procedure is to search a vehicle for inventory and towing purposes, this is so if you have an expensive cd-player or schoolbooks and they turn up missing it points torwards the Tow company. Your husband was processed and booked into the county jail, the Judge can adjust a bond amount as needed , whether the evidence supports the claim or not comes up in the trial, the only thing that a judge needs to see is the report dictating the charges and then it's hashed out via the legal system. It's impossible to leave the vehicle on the side of the road so it was towed to a contract company that law enforcement agency utilizes, they have their own operating hours in which they allow persons to discharge their vehicle. It may be that there was a mis-understanding here, but I also believe there was more that attracted the deputy to your husbands vehicle - namely some sort of driving behavior. Is there any loud exhaust (grapefruit launcher) on the vehicle? Anything that makes you stand out amongst the masses gets you attention sometimes from a Law Enforcement officer. Best bet, seek the help of a Lawyer for his criminal trial, if things happened as you described file a complaint with the Sheriffs Officer, however if it turns out you are lying then you could be charged with filing a false report.

Well it is now April, 2003 and the fines are not paid, the warrants have been issued, the license and registration suspended. I find I must repeat myself on the location of the light in question on my car. IT WAS NOT A TAIL LIGHT OR BRAKE LIGHT OR RUNNING LIGHT OR PARKING LIGHT. It was a light on an afterburner on the muffler of my car. The muffler under the car. And it would ONLY light up when the brakes were applied. Now I have seen myself, many, many times, different colored lights on cars and trucks. I've seen black lights around license plates, I've seen blinking black lights around license plates. I've seen different colored lights on windshield wipers. I've seen vehicles with huge rear speaker boxes trimmed in colored neon. Blue and purple being the most popular. Strobe lights flashing in the cabs of trucks. Christ, some of the new headlights I've had coming head on to me have had a green, blue and yellow color to them. Not to mention the blinding effect they have on my eyes. I don't know if ya'll were paying attention during the holidays but I must have seen two dozen cars and trucks with blinking Christmas lights ALL OVER them. Around windshields, up and down the entire vehicle. Wreaths hanging and blinking on the front grills. Now what the hell was up with all that? Or am I to believe that it is ok for some and not another? It is ok part of the year but not the rest? It's ok in one town but not another? Why the hell are they being sold in EVERY STORE THAT CARRIES ANY TYPE OF AUTO PART? I think a little uniformity is in order here. Being pulled over because a cop is in a bad mood, or needs to meet his quota, or just because he is board and wants to mess with someone and your the unlucky one that gets the cop that can see the back of your car when he is in front of you is just another scam to collect revenue for this sad, sad, city. I mean they have to do something since every year the s****.. These brave, brave souls that patrol Main St., Broadway, Southern, University, Power Rd., etc. instead of patrolling the alley's, and behind buildings, and the sleazy hotels where they just might get hurt. Be proud of yourselves Mesa, P.D.....NO ONE ELSE IS!

Well it is now April, 2003 and the fines are not paid, the warrants have been issued, the license and registration suspended. I find I must repeat myself on the location of the light in question on my car. IT WAS NOT A TAIL LIGHT OR BRAKE LIGHT OR RUNNING LIGHT OR PARKING LIGHT. It was a light on an afterburner on the muffler of my car. The muffler under the car. And it would ONLY light up when the brakes were applied. Now I have seen myself, many, many times, different colored lights on cars and trucks. I've seen black lights around license plates, I've seen blinking black lights around license plates. I've seen different colored lights on windshield wipers. I've seen vehicles with huge rear speaker boxes trimmed in colored neon. Blue and purple being the most popular. Strobe lights flashing in the cabs of trucks. Christ, some of the new headlights I've had coming head on to me have had a green, blue and yellow color to them. Not to mention the blinding effect they have on my eyes. I don't know if ya'll were paying attention during the holidays but I must have seen two dozen cars and trucks with blinking Christmas lights ALL OVER them. Around windshields, up and down the entire vehicle. Wreaths hanging and blinking on the front grills. Now what the hell was up with all that? Or am I to believe that it is ok for some and not another? It is ok part of the year but not the rest? It's ok in one town but not another? Why the hell are they being sold in EVERY STORE THAT CARRIES ANY TYPE OF AUTO PART? I think a little uniformity is in order here. Being pulled over because a cop is in a bad mood, or needs to meet his quota, or just because he is board and wants to mess with someone and your the unlucky one that gets the cop that can see the back of your car when he is in front of you is just another scam to collect revenue for this sad, sad, city. I mean they have to do something since every year the s****.. These brave, brave souls that patrol Main St., Broadway, Southern, University, Power Rd., etc. instead of patrolling the alley's, and behind buildings, and the sleazy hotels where they just might get hurt. Be proud of yourselves Mesa, P.D.....NO ONE ELSE IS!

Well it is now April, 2003 and the fines are not paid, the warrants have been issued, the license and registration suspended. I find I must repeat myself on the location of the light in question on my car. IT WAS NOT A TAIL LIGHT OR BRAKE LIGHT OR RUNNING LIGHT OR PARKING LIGHT. It was a light on an afterburner on the muffler of my car. The muffler under the car. And it would ONLY light up when the brakes were applied. Now I have seen myself, many, many times, different colored lights on cars and trucks. I've seen black lights around license plates, I've seen blinking black lights around license plates. I've seen different colored lights on windshield wipers. I've seen vehicles with huge rear speaker boxes trimmed in colored neon. Blue and purple being the most popular. Strobe lights flashing in the cabs of trucks. Christ, some of the new headlights I've had coming head on to me have had a green, blue and yellow color to them. Not to mention the blinding effect they have on my eyes. I don't know if ya'll were paying attention during the holidays but I must have seen two dozen cars and trucks with blinking Christmas lights ALL OVER them. Around windshields, up and down the entire vehicle. Wreaths hanging and blinking on the front grills. Now what the hell was up with all that? Or am I to believe that it is ok for some and not another? It is ok part of the year but not the rest? It's ok in one town but not another? Why the hell are they being sold in EVERY STORE THAT CARRIES ANY TYPE OF AUTO PART? I think a little uniformity is in order here. Being pulled over because a cop is in a bad mood, or needs to meet his quota, or just because he is board and wants to mess with someone and your the unlucky one that gets the cop that can see the back of your car when he is in front of you is just another scam to collect revenue for this sad, sad, city. I mean they have to do something since every year the s****.. These brave, brave souls that patrol Main St., Broadway, Southern, University, Power Rd., etc. instead of patrolling the alley's, and behind buildings, and the sleazy hotels where they just might get hurt. Be proud of yourselves Mesa, P.D.....NO ONE ELSE IS!

You said that the blue ring on the rear of the car was not illegal. Allow me to point you to the specific statute to show you that it is just that... illegal take a look at 28-931.B: 28-931. Lamp colors A. Front clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the front or on the side near the front of a vehicle shall display or reflect an amber color. B. Rear clearance lamps and those marker lamps and reflectors mounted on the rear or on the sides near the rear of a vehicle shall display or reflect a red color. C. All lighting devices and reflectors mounted on the rear of any vehicle shall display or reflect a red color, except that: 1. The stoplight or other signal device may be red, amber or yellow. 2. The light illuminating the license plate or the light emitted by a backup lamp shall be white.

Here's what the Arizona Revised Statute has to say about impounded vehicles. And YES very definately YES I am responsible for these fees if I wish to get my car back. Whether I can afford to pay them or not. Not to mention I have to pay for Sunday, December 8th, 2002 even though the yard was closed to the public all day and I had no access to my vehicle even though I had the money to get my car out. Now as of today, December 9th, 2002 I have a $135.00 bill to pay. On top of that when I questioned the impound yard staff as to why I am charged for the day that they were closed and my vehicle was unobtainable their response was, "because we contract with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Dept. and thats the way they told us to run our operation. CAN YOU SAY SHEEP???? Per A.R.S. 28-3512 C. The owner is responsible for paying all towing and storage charges related to the impoundment of the vehicle and any administrative charges established pursuant to section 28-3513, unless the vehicle is stolen and the theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. If the vehicle is stolen and the theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency, then the operator of the vehicle at the time of impoundment is responsible for all towing, storage and administrative charges. D. The impounding agency shall release a vehicle to a person, other than the owner, identified on the department's record as having an interest in the vehicle before the end of the thirty day impoundment period if all of the following conditions are met: 1. The person is a motor vehicle dealer, bank, credit union or acceptance corporation or any other licensed financial institution legally operating in this state or is another person who is not the owner and who holds a security interest in the vehicle. 2. The person pays all towing and storage fees related to the impoundment of the vehicle unless the vehicle is stolen and the theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. If the vehicle is stolen and the theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency, then the operator of the vehicle at the time of impoundment is responsible for all towing, storage and administrative charges. 3. The person presents foreclosure documents or an affidavit of repossession of the vehicle. E. Before a person described in subsection D of this section releases the vehicle, the person may require the owner to pay charges that the person incurred in connection with obtaining custody of the vehicle, including all towing and storage charges that are related to the impoundment of the vehicle and any administrative charges that are established pursuant to section 28-3513. F. A vehicle shall not be released after the end of the thirty day impoundment period except on presentation of the owner's or owner's agent's currently valid driver license to operate the vehicle and proof of current vehicle registration and, if the driving privilege of the person driving the vehicle was suspended due to a previous conviction for driving under the influence pursuant to section 28-1381, subsection K, paragraph 4, section 28-1382 or section 28-1383 and an ignition interlock device was required to be installed on the vehicle, on presentation of proof of installation of a functioning certified ignition interlock device in the vehicle. The impounding agency, storage yard, facility, person or agency having physical possession of the vehicle shall allow access to the impounded vehicle for the purpose of installing an ignition interlock device. The impounding agency, storage yard, facility, person or agency having physical possession of the vehicle shall not charge a fee for providing access to the vehicle or for the installation of the ignition interlock device. G. The storage charges relating to the impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to this section shall not exceed five dollars for each day of storage. H. The impounding agency shall have no lien or possessory interest in a stolen vehicle if the theft was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The impounding agency shall release the vehicle to the owner or person other than the owner as identified in subsection D of this section even if the operator at the time of impoundment has not paid all towing, storage and administrative fees. I. For the purposes of this section, "certified ignition interlock device" has the same meaning prescribed in section 28-1301. 28-4837. Towing and storage costs A. The public agency employing an officer who has removed or causes the removal of a vehicle under this chapter is not liable for the cost of towing or storing the vehicle if the officer acts under color of the officer's lawful authority. B. The owner of a vehicle that is removed or caused to be removed under this chapter is liable for any reasonable costs incurred in towing or storing the vehicle.

Jill, I personally don't think this is the whole story. Yes, I do believe that some of this happened, but there is definately more to it. But, that is besides the point of this post. Arizona state law (I'm not sure of the ARS) will NOT allow an impound yard to hold your vehicle if you can not pay the storage fees and all that garbage. So, if you don't have the money to get your car back tomorrow, go anyway, because they HAVE to release it to you. Now, keep in mind that they will of course tell you otherwise because they want their money, but just let them know that you know the state law and that should make them reconsider. Also keep in mind that you are STILL responsible for the fees and you will be receiving bills from them. And, if you do a bit mroe research on Arizona law you will find that these lights you speak of ARE illegal to have on while the vehicle is in operation. It's not illegal to have them on your car, hell, you could have a set of police bar lights on the top of your car, it's only illegal to turn them on while driving. It's a distraction to other drivers and is a cause of many accidents. That's why the neon lights under cars have been ruled 'for show only' meaning you can't use them while driving. As far as the cop saying 'you can't just go online and buy temp. tags', well, if he REALLY did say that then you just have an ignorant cop and that charge will obviously be dropped; if, once again, you're telling the WHOLE story. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that 'if an officer asks for your concent to search your vehicle and you say NO that that in itself is probale cause.' Probable cause for what? They have to establish probable casue BEFORE they can search your vehicle, and saying no to the search does NOT establish probable cause. It may piss the cop off, it may make him wonder what's in there, but it establishes nothing. Now, this is where I may be wrong, but I do believe that since your husband was techincally under arrest, that gives the officer the right to search your car. Hope this helps, and I'd love to hear the rest of what really happened. Please post it below.

Jill, I personally don't think this is the whole story. Yes, I do believe that some of this happened, but there is definately more to it. But, that is besides the point of this post. Arizona state law (I'm not sure of the ARS) will NOT allow an impound yard to hold your vehicle if you can not pay the storage fees and all that garbage. So, if you don't have the money to get your car back tomorrow, go anyway, because they HAVE to release it to you. Now, keep in mind that they will of course tell you otherwise because they want their money, but just let them know that you know the state law and that should make them reconsider. Also keep in mind that you are STILL responsible for the fees and you will be receiving bills from them. And, if you do a bit mroe research on Arizona law you will find that these lights you speak of ARE illegal to have on while the vehicle is in operation. It's not illegal to have them on your car, hell, you could have a set of police bar lights on the top of your car, it's only illegal to turn them on while driving. It's a distraction to other drivers and is a cause of many accidents. That's why the neon lights under cars have been ruled 'for show only' meaning you can't use them while driving. As far as the cop saying 'you can't just go online and buy temp. tags', well, if he REALLY did say that then you just have an ignorant cop and that charge will obviously be dropped; if, once again, you're telling the WHOLE story. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that 'if an officer asks for your concent to search your vehicle and you say NO that that in itself is probale cause.' Probable cause for what? They have to establish probable casue BEFORE they can search your vehicle, and saying no to the search does NOT establish probable cause. It may piss the cop off, it may make him wonder what's in there, but it establishes nothing. Now, this is where I may be wrong, but I do believe that since your husband was techincally under arrest, that gives the officer the right to search your car. Hope this helps, and I'd love to hear the rest of what really happened. Please post it below.

Jill, I personally don't think this is the whole story. Yes, I do believe that some of this happened, but there is definately more to it. But, that is besides the point of this post. Arizona state law (I'm not sure of the ARS) will NOT allow an impound yard to hold your vehicle if you can not pay the storage fees and all that garbage. So, if you don't have the money to get your car back tomorrow, go anyway, because they HAVE to release it to you. Now, keep in mind that they will of course tell you otherwise because they want their money, but just let them know that you know the state law and that should make them reconsider. Also keep in mind that you are STILL responsible for the fees and you will be receiving bills from them. And, if you do a bit mroe research on Arizona law you will find that these lights you speak of ARE illegal to have on while the vehicle is in operation. It's not illegal to have them on your car, hell, you could have a set of police bar lights on the top of your car, it's only illegal to turn them on while driving. It's a distraction to other drivers and is a cause of many accidents. That's why the neon lights under cars have been ruled 'for show only' meaning you can't use them while driving. As far as the cop saying 'you can't just go online and buy temp. tags', well, if he REALLY did say that then you just have an ignorant cop and that charge will obviously be dropped; if, once again, you're telling the WHOLE story. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that 'if an officer asks for your concent to search your vehicle and you say NO that that in itself is probale cause.' Probable cause for what? They have to establish probable casue BEFORE they can search your vehicle, and saying no to the search does NOT establish probable cause. It may piss the cop off, it may make him wonder what's in there, but it establishes nothing. Now, this is where I may be wrong, but I do believe that since your husband was techincally under arrest, that gives the officer the right to search your car. Hope this helps, and I'd love to hear the rest of what really happened. Please post it below.

Jill, I personally don't think this is the whole story. Yes, I do believe that some of this happened, but there is definately more to it. But, that is besides the point of this post. Arizona state law (I'm not sure of the ARS) will NOT allow an impound yard to hold your vehicle if you can not pay the storage fees and all that garbage. So, if you don't have the money to get your car back tomorrow, go anyway, because they HAVE to release it to you. Now, keep in mind that they will of course tell you otherwise because they want their money, but just let them know that you know the state law and that should make them reconsider. Also keep in mind that you are STILL responsible for the fees and you will be receiving bills from them. And, if you do a bit mroe research on Arizona law you will find that these lights you speak of ARE illegal to have on while the vehicle is in operation. It's not illegal to have them on your car, hell, you could have a set of police bar lights on the top of your car, it's only illegal to turn them on while driving. It's a distraction to other drivers and is a cause of many accidents. That's why the neon lights under cars have been ruled 'for show only' meaning you can't use them while driving. As far as the cop saying 'you can't just go online and buy temp. tags', well, if he REALLY did say that then you just have an ignorant cop and that charge will obviously be dropped; if, once again, you're telling the WHOLE story. I'm not sure what you're talking about when you say that 'if an officer asks for your concent to search your vehicle and you say NO that that in itself is probale cause.' Probable cause for what? They have to establish probable casue BEFORE they can search your vehicle, and saying no to the search does NOT establish probable cause. It may piss the cop off, it may make him wonder what's in there, but it establishes nothing. Now, this is where I may be wrong, but I do believe that since your husband was techincally under arrest, that gives the officer the right to search your car. Hope this helps, and I'd love to hear the rest of what really happened. Please post it below.

My husbands bond amount was lowered from $1031.00 to $320.00. Why? Maybe, just maybe the judge found NO PROBABLE CAUSE for my husband's initial stop last night. Maybe the judge questioned how an officer could pull over a vehicle for something he saw in the rear of the car when he was traveling ahead of the car. Go Figure ! Now, my car is still impounded. After calling this morning to find out how much it will cost to retrieve my vehicle I am again very frustrated. I was told that the impound was closed this fine Sunday the 8th of December, 2002 and that it would not re-open until 10:00 am on Monday, December 9th, 2002. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Isn't that convenient? Now I'll be told I owe from Sunday, midnight through Monday 10:00 for my car when it should NEVER have been towed in the first place. NO PROBABLE CAUSE ! What are they all in this together???????