I guess that depends. What does for any reason mean? I know what you are saying, but, I do feel cops should be able to pull over anyone for any valid reason. Even if the reason is questionable. Even if they let someone else go for the same thing. It comes down to having a good reason to pull over THIS PERSON. Being in a certain neighborhood in and by itself does not meet that requirement in my book. Being in the neighborhood and pulling away from the curb where a known drug dealer just ran away, not a problem - even if you didn't see a drug by. That meets reasonable suspicion in my book.
Well in this case, the cop allegedly admitted it.
Why? I think that is an ignorant comment. Had you said generally instead of never, fine. But in general I think you should write the original just to support yourself when you go to court.
"Officer, what did you stop him for?"
"I stopped him for a broken tail light."
"Then why is there no evidence of that?" Your honor, I move that the case be dismissed."
"Granted. And officer, don't bring this bullpoo in my court room again!!!"
(OK I can dream, can't I...)
This seems to be a pooty argument. Your PC was the same regardless of whether you wrote him for it. I can't see how any reasonable judge would dismiss more often when the violation was documented.
No issue whatsoever there. In fact, I don't think anyone has an issue with this guy being pulled over. And as I said, I don't believe you are stupid enough to really believe that is our argument. I STRONGLY support you on this. As long as you have true probable cause to start, most of what comes from it is fine in my book.
