Police surround car while supercharging

[bonaire]

I will note that Buffalo itself is "GM country" with a variety of GM plants near buffalo, lockport and elsewhere. They make ecotech engines in buffalo. The security guard may have had a father or he himself worked at a GM plant at some point (or even now).

1am is not that late for Buffalo. Bars close at 4am. Activity around Transit Rd, Sheridan and Rt. 5 there is somewhat active at that time of night. This is why superchargers are better off being on the highway itself - such as the Thruway rest stops. They would be better putting up 4 stall superchargers along the thruway than an 8 stall supercharger near the Eastern Hills Mall in Buffalo.

 

[mrElbe]

They kept asking what brought me to "this area" I told them that I need to charge my car at part of travelling I-90. They could not understand why I had to do it now. I asked them if I was at a gas station, if there would be a difference? They said if it was closed. I then asked him that are the supercharges closed, because they are currently lit and working correctly, with no posed hours of use. When I got there, there was another car charging, but left 5 mins later, so I was alone. I was there less then 10 mins when all this happened. I have used this charger before, so it was not like I was hunting around for it. I tried to explain about electric cars, but they felt that "they did not need to be educated". I did noticed later, that there was a mall security truck in the parking lot behind me (the supercharge is no in the mall, but the parking lots are next to each other separated by a grass strip) so I suspect that he called to cops.

That is even worse if the mall security called the cops. The mall security guy(s) should know about the Supercharger there. But on the other hand, you don't get the brightest people to do the night shift.

 

[andrewket]

They kept asking what brought me to "this area" I told them that I need to charge my car at part of travelling I-90. They could not understand why I had to do it now. I asked them if I was at a gas station, if there would be a difference? They said if it was closed. I then asked him that are the supercharges closed, because they are currently lit and working correctly, with no posed hours of use. When I got there, there was another car charging, but left 5 mins later, so I was alone. I was there less then 10 mins when all this happened. I have used this charger before, so it was not like I was hunting around for it. I tried to explain about electric cars, but they felt that "they did not need to be educated". I did noticed later, that there was a mall security truck in the parking lot behind me (the supercharge is no in the mall, but the parking lots are next to each other separated by a grass strip) so I suspect that he called to cops.

If you look at the SC detail page on Tesla's website you'll likely find it says open 24/7.

 

[cpa]

I will probably get chastised for saying this but the arrogant attitude of the overwhelming majority of LEOs that I encounter is something that must be addressed.

Jeff

^ ^ ^ Sad, but true. It is not only their arrogance but their ignorance as well. And since cops resent being told things about their jobs by us civilians, this makes for rather unpleasant interactions. Moreover, they play Huckleberry Finn with us, which is a behavior that I abandoned when I was about 13.

I am guessing here: The cops were suspicious that the driver may have been drunk. (It was 1AM; likely not too many of us charge at that wee hour.) I refuse to believe that local cops who patrol the same area frequently were ignorant of the Superchargers. (My Huckleberry Finn reference above.) They have probably been advised that some drunk drivers find an isolated parking area away from bars to sleep off their buzz until they feel that they have sobered up enough to continue driving. So, the cops do their level best to threaten and intimidate individuals to see if these folks exhibit any outward signs of DUI. Cops need "reasonable cause" to detain or question someone, and likely charging one's vehicle at 1 AM piqued their curiosity. I am not a lawyer, but I think this is a slim reed for reasonable cause.

Or, it could have been a slow night, and they were looking for action.

 

[ernies]

@ericwol quote:

This hyper alert stuff is bull crap. It seams like it an excuse to harass people. Seattle Police has a bad history of shooting civilians.

There is no getting around that law enforcement has a way to go to clean up its act both here in Seattle and many places across the country. Maybe even ALL jurisdictions have some form of problems...they are comprised of a certain percentage of flawed individuals. However I find your insocient comment of "bull crap" to be overly broad and indefensible in that it does not represent 100% of the truth. Of course we could go back and forth with broad brushes, but I almost sense that you might have ended up being part of the problem with an overly defensive attitude. For me to CONCLUDE DESPOSITIVELY that you responded in an inflamitory manner would be equally irresponsible. So come up to Lynnwood and we can have a cup of coffee and discuss if you are in the area.

 

[AWDtsla]

^ ^ ^ Sad, but true. It is not only their arrogance but their ignorance as well. And since cops resent being told things about their jobs by us civilians, this makes for rather unpleasant interactions. Moreover, they play Huckleberry Finn with us, which is a behavior that I abandoned when I was about 13.

I am guessing here: The cops were suspicious that the driver may have been drunk. (It was 1AM; likely not too many of us charge at that wee hour.) I refuse to believe that local cops who patrol the same area frequently were ignorant of the Superchargers. (My Huckleberry Finn reference above.) They have probably been advised that some drunk drivers find an isolated parking area away from bars to sleep off their buzz until they feel that they have sobered up enough to continue driving. So, the cops do their level best to threaten and intimidate individuals to see if these folks exhibit any outward signs of DUI. Cops need "reasonable cause" to detain or question someone, and likely charging one's vehicle at 1 AM piqued their curiosity. I am not a lawyer, but I think this is a slim reed for reasonable cause.

Or, it could have been a slow night, and they were looking for action.

So, you'd be better off driving drunk, and as quickly as possible to your destination.

 

[cpa]

So, you'd be better off driving drunk, and as quickly as possible to your destination.

Not sure what you mean, but California's DUI law includes this sort of situation. If law enforcement comes across a person in a parked vehicle that is obviously drunk, that person can be arrested and charged with DUI, even though he was not observed operating a motor vehicle. There was a CHP captain who was discovered passed out in his unmarked police car by sheriff's deputies a number of years ago. He was not originally charged with DUI until the rank-and-file started filing complaints with Sacramento. But no evidence was ever collected by his supervisors who were called to the scene by the deputies. The charges were dropped during the trial. The entire situation stunk, but that is another story.

I realize that this was in New York, but I bet that many states have DUI statutes similar to California.

 

[kort677]

Just be calm, polite, and answer their questions with the minimum amount of info required.

Charging at any time of day shouldn't be considered suspicious, but if this was an unfamiliar location and you drove around slowly trying to find it, maybe driving past the same location a few times then that could have got their attention. In a case like that I'd just tell them you couldn't match the location on the map to the physical location.

when a dog feels he needs to show submission in order to survive a dangerous encounter he will urinate on himself to show submissiveness

^ ^ ^ Sad, but true. It is not only their arrogance but their ignorance as well. And since cops resent being told things about their jobs by us civilians, this makes for rather unpleasant interactions. Moreover, they play Huckleberry Finn with us, which is a behavior that I abandoned when I was about 13.

I am guessing here: The cops were suspicious that the driver may have been drunk. (It was 1AM; likely not too many of us charge at that wee hour.) I refuse to believe that local cops who patrol the same area frequently were ignorant of the Superchargers. (My Huckleberry Finn reference above.) They have probably been advised that some drunk drivers find an isolated parking area away from bars to sleep off their buzz until they feel that they have sobered up enough to continue driving. So, the cops do their level best to threaten and intimidate individuals to see if these folks exhibit any outward signs of DUI. Cops need "reasonable cause" to detain or question someone, and likely charging one's vehicle at 1 AM piqued their curiosity. I am not a lawyer, but I think this is a slim reed for reasonable cause.

Or, it could have been a slow night, and they were looking for action.

isn't it a shame that someone who is responsible enough to pull over and sleep a buzz off is a target for police harassment. when I lived in NJ I heard many stories of people being tagged with DUI charges for doing just that, their excuse was that despite the fact that the driver was parked and sleeping he was still in a vehicle and could have been driving. I find it sad how our freedoms are devolving so rapidly

 

[kort677]

Not sure what you mean, but California's DUI law includes this sort of situation. If law enforcement comes across a person in a parked vehicle that is obviously drunk, that person can be arrested and charged with DUI, even though he was not observed operating a motor vehicle. There was a CHP captain who was discovered passed out in his unmarked police car by sheriff's deputies a number of years ago. He was not originally charged with DUI until the rank-and-file started filing complaints with Sacramento. But no evidence was ever collected by his supervisors who were called to the scene by the deputies. The charges were dropped during the trial. The entire situation stunk, but that is another story.

I realize that this was in New York, but I bet that many states have DUI statutes similar to California.

I guess the captain was only careless and not negligent

 

[gotz2ride]

This hyper alert stuff is bull crap. It seams like it an excuse to harass people. Seattle Police has a bad history of shooting civilians.

Seattle City Council committee members and police officials want to broaden the role of civilians in police-shooting reviews.
The board decides whether the weapon discharge was within policy for the use of deadly force and its conclusion is considered by prosecutors who also review department shootings and by an inquest jury, empaneled by the county executive to review deaths resulting from police force.

Supporters say a more active role for citizen observers would give the public confidence in the reviews.

“This is the ultimate expression of state power, and the police department should be willing — and I think you are — to be wide open about the process that gets followed,” Council public-safety Chairman Tim Burgess told police officials Thursday.

Burgess’ committee met to discuss a report by Rebecca Roe, a local attorney and former prosecutor who serves as the review board’s citizen observer. In her July report — covering shootings in 2008 and 2009 — Roe said the Seattle Police Department’s review-board process was too lenient.

Roe wrote that the board didn’t scrutinize officers’ actions closely enough and didn’t always ask officers outright if they understood department policies. Sometimes, she wrote, the board determined shootings were justified even though significant questions were unanswered.

“The camaraderie surrounding an officer involved in a shooting is understandable,” she wrote. “However, it may erode the oversight function of the” board.

Roe wrote that she had observed a board member apologize to an officer involved in a shooting for “Monday morning quarterbacking.”

Guild President Sgt. Rich O’Neill, who also sits in on everything but the final deliberations of the board, said in an interview that he doesn’t see the reason for Roe’s recommendations.

He and the citizen observer say what they think after seeing the investigator’s report and hearing from witnesses, O’Neill said.

By the time they leave the room, he said, “there’s no question in my mind how they’re going to rule, because they are open in their discussions before we leave the room.”

Still, he said, he would be open to negotiating changes.

The push for more civilian oversight comes days before the Firearms Review Board convenes Oct. 4 to study the fatal shooting of First Nations carver John T. Williams Aug. 30 by a police officer.

The Seattle Police Officer’s Guild says it sees no need for additional civilian oversight of shootings.

Currently, one “citizen observer” attends meetings of the Firearms Review Board, a four-member board made up of high-level police officers that meets every time a police officer fires his or her gun. The observer must leave before the board’s final deliberations into whether a shooting followed police-department policy.

With all due respect ericwol unless you have risked your life for others everyday not knowing if you will see your family again, maybe don't recommend how an officer of the law should do his/her job.

 

[EVNow]

With all due respect ericwol unless you have risked your life for others everyday not knowing if you will see your family again, maybe don't recommend how an officer of the law should do his/her job.

This is not how democracies work.

 

[glenhurst]

It may be worth noting that this supercharger is right next to a bank. Both are way out toward the edge of the parking lot, that is, not near the mall building itself.

 

[AWDtsla]

Not sure what you mean, but California's DUI law includes this sort of situation. If law enforcement comes across a person in a parked vehicle that is obviously drunk, that person can be arrested and charged with DUI, even though he was not observed operating a motor vehicle. There was a CHP captain who was discovered passed out in his unmarked police car by sheriff's deputies a number of years ago. He was not originally charged with DUI until the rank-and-file started filing complaints with Sacramento. But no evidence was ever collected by his supervisors who were called to the scene by the deputies. The charges were dropped during the trial. The entire situation stunk, but that is another story.

I realize that this was in New York, but I bet that many states have DUI statutes similar to California.

By punishing drivers trying to take correct actions, they are actively encouraging drunk driving.

 

[AWDtsla]

This is not how democracies work.

I hate to break it to you.....

 

[MP3Mike]

I thought you had to have your keys in the ignition to count as DUI. (Even if it was just in ACC to listen to the radio.)

I'm not sure how that works with modern "keyless" cars.

 

[kort677]

With all due respect ericwol unless you have risked your life for others everyday not knowing if you will see your family again, maybe don't recommend how an officer of the law should do his/her job.

I'm sorry, expecting officers of the law to respect the law and respect my rights is not too much for anyone to ask for.

 

[ericwol]

With all due respect ericwol unless you have risked your life for others everyday not knowing if you will see your family again, maybe don't recommend how an officer of the law should do his/her job.

Please, my father did not fight in Europe just to have this country turn into Nazi Germany. Every officer knows the risk of their job. If they don't like it, they can go and find another job and stop whining. Every occupation has risk to fatality, it's not an excuse for them to bully and harass people who are obliviously not doing anything wrong.

Occupational fatality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[brkaus]

I thought you had to have your keys in the ignition to count as DUI. (Even if it was just in ACC to listen to the radio.)

I'm not sure how that works with modern "keyless" cars.

Depends on the state. Many have vague laws written allowing DUI charges based on "intent" to drive. If your sleeping in the back seat you'll likely be able to get charges dropped, but doesn't mean you won't be arrested. If your in a parking lot far away from everything, they may ask how you got there.

 

[DFibRL8R]

Please, my father did not fight in Europe just to have this country turn into Nazi Germany. Every officer knows the risk of their job. If they don't like it, they can go and find another job and stop whining. Every occupation has risk to fatality, it's not an excuse for them to bully and harass people who are obliviously not doing anything wrong.

Occupational fatality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wow, didn't know fishing was so dangerous. Maybe folks who fish should take up vigilante police work as a safer hobby

 

[AZ Desert Driver]

I was going to pen a snark that said something like " did YOU look like someone who needed profiling?" The action of charging the car, sleeping at 1:00 am don't seem suspicious, but if you looked the part...then some neighborhood watch guy could pull another trevon martin.
But this is a very serious conversation, and snark profiling could be insulting to many.

As to drunk driving....I heard of a fellow that crashed his car, then proceeded to drink heavily while waiting for police to arrive. They could prove he was drunk, but not while driving, only after. I think this tactic held up. {the driver WAS a LEO and knew the cracks in the system.}