User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.8351 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Friday, September 19, 2008
MLB: Police pull over Nyjer Morgan for heavily tinted windows
“When you try to peel the film off the glass, the top layer will usually pull right off leaving the second layer behind. This second layer will not peel off, it will just flake and tear like a price tag!”
Morgan offered to bring three Dodgers players—Russell Martin, Joe Beimel and Delwyn Young—back to the Westin hotel after all had been at a nearby restaurant after the Pirates’ 6-2 loss to Los Angeles on Tuesday. Just after leaving the parking lot, Morgan was pulled over by a city policeman on West General Robinson Street, which runs along the third-base side of the stadium.
According to Morgan, the officer informed him that the tint on his vehicle windows was too dark and violated the state law.
“I was texting in the back seat and before you know it, we’re sitting on the curb and it’s like, what’s going on right now?” Martin said. “It was kind of cold and we’re sitting there and I was just trying to get to the hotel to get some rest.
“I guess we fit the description pretty good—we’re in Pittsburgh, young, African-American driver, nice car. It was embarrassing.”
Thanks to E-ferto
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Champions League Knockout Stages Begin
(295 - 9:10am, Mar 24)
Last: jmurph
Newsblog: Rhys Hoskins suffers torn ACL in Phillies' spring game | ESPN
(2 - 8:57am, Mar 24)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(1 - 5:18am, Mar 24)
Last: kirstie819
Newsblog: Baseball’s Most Valuable Teams 2023: Price Tags Are Up 12% Despite Regional TV Woes
(5 - 3:02am, Mar 24)
Last: kirstie819
Newsblog: OT - 2023 March Madness thread
(64 - 11:41pm, Mar 23)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread
(1278 - 9:31pm, Mar 23)
Last: spivey
Newsblog: MLB Pipeline: Ranking all 30 farm systems
(10 - 9:31pm, Mar 23)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: OT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2668 - 8:39pm, Mar 23)
Last: /muteself 57i66135
Sox Therapy: Yoshida In The Spotlight
(32 - 7:54pm, Mar 23)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)
Newsblog: Reggie Jackson: Former commissioner Bud Selig blocked me from buying A's
(20 - 7:20pm, Mar 23)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(25 - 6:04pm, Mar 23)
Last: Hombre Brotani
Newsblog: The Shift is dead in MLB. But is the ‘two-man outfield’ next? And will it work? [$]
(5 - 3:42pm, Mar 23)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Spring training OMNICHATTER 2023
(149 - 2:06pm, Mar 23)
Last: Snowboy
Newsblog: Braves option Grissom to minors, clearing Arcia to start at SS
(12 - 1:34pm, Mar 23)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: MLB making small changes to pitch clock rules, memo says
(14 - 10:41am, Mar 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper
(295 - 9:10am, Mar 24)
Last: jmurph
Newsblog: Rhys Hoskins suffers torn ACL in Phillies' spring game | ESPN
(2 - 8:57am, Mar 24)
Last: Steve Parris, Je t'aime
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(1 - 5:18am, Mar 24)
Last: kirstie819
Newsblog: Baseball’s Most Valuable Teams 2023: Price Tags Are Up 12% Despite Regional TV Woes
(5 - 3:02am, Mar 24)
Last: kirstie819
Newsblog: OT - 2023 March Madness thread
(64 - 11:41pm, Mar 23)
Last: My name is Votto, and I love to get Moppo
Newsblog: 2023 NBA Regular Season Thread
(1278 - 9:31pm, Mar 23)
Last: spivey
Newsblog: MLB Pipeline: Ranking all 30 farm systems
(10 - 9:31pm, Mar 23)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: OT: Wrestling Thread November 2014
(2668 - 8:39pm, Mar 23)
Last: /muteself 57i66135
Sox Therapy: Yoshida In The Spotlight
(32 - 7:54pm, Mar 23)
Last: jacksone (AKA It's OK...)
Newsblog: Reggie Jackson: Former commissioner Bud Selig blocked me from buying A's
(20 - 7:20pm, Mar 23)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns
Newsblog: Ohtani fans Trout to seal Japan's 3rd Classic championship
(25 - 6:04pm, Mar 23)
Last: Hombre Brotani
Newsblog: The Shift is dead in MLB. But is the ‘two-man outfield’ next? And will it work? [$]
(5 - 3:42pm, Mar 23)
Last: Walt Davis
Newsblog: Spring training OMNICHATTER 2023
(149 - 2:06pm, Mar 23)
Last: Snowboy
Newsblog: Braves option Grissom to minors, clearing Arcia to start at SS
(12 - 1:34pm, Mar 23)
Last: Howie Menckel
Newsblog: MLB making small changes to pitch clock rules, memo says
(14 - 10:41am, Mar 23)
Last: The Yankee Clapper
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
I expect an apology will be demanded from the Pittsburgh PD any moment now.
from the article:
"The Pennsylvania Motor Vehicle Code seems a little loose in its explanation on what would be an appropriate level of tint for vehicle windows and doesn't cite a specific percentage, but precedent shows that a tint higher than 70 percent has often resulted in state citations.
Asked on Wednesday how dark his windows are, Morgan was not sure on the percentage.
When the officer asked Morgan to step out of the car, the Pirates' outfielder admitted he got agitated and lost his temper. Morgan said that all the players were searched. Morgan's SUV also was searched.
According to Morgan, the officer that first pulled him over called for backup -- about three other police cruisers -- during the search process. "
People seriously can't see a problem with at least the illegal search?
On what? Enforcing the law?
How did the cop know you were an african american if the windows were tinted too darkly?
Who said the search was illegal?
The guy is about the most useless sack of intestines in the majors.
but yeah cops do indeed like to #### with people i can attest to that
That's 30 percent tint. It has to allow at least 70% of light through.
According to the PA AG (at his website), At night it'd be harder to see through tinted glass, but that excerpt doesn't say the standard of being able to see inside is different in day vs. night. So if the cop can't see in, he has a legitimate* reason to pull someone over.
But that won't stop the guy in the back seat who was oblivious to the whole situation from hinting it was some kind of racial profiling. Of course, that brings the obvious question: did he really think that's what happened? Apparently not. Then why mention it?
* Legitimate in terms of evaluating whether the law has been violated or not. Whether this is a good law, or a legitimate use of the cop's time, is another issue.
I don't know if the officer provoked any of the agitation, but has anyone ever heard of a case where someone lost their temper with a police officer and nothing came of it?
I do not think cops suck. I know a (very) few. I think like any group with power, they have troubles treating people well in circumstances that do not involve the specific mandate of their power, I guess.
I think DWB happens but I also think it seems that people attribute DWB to every single time a B gets pulled over.
What did she do while you watched TV?
No doubt, that's not why most folks tint their windows - but I definitely noticed the difference when my next vehicle had no tint.
For the record, I did get pulled over the tinted windows in the first care -- and got a ticket -- but the cop skipped the court date and the ticket got dismissed.
I blame the BTF libertarian clique and their anything goes philosophy. If we had a well-regulated BTF, things like this wouldn't happen.
I'll do both -- umps suck!
Your point is taken though. I think these kinds of things strike right to the core, as opposed, say, to a slumpy Pat Burrell taking pitches right down the middle, which is annoying but not all that meaningful to society.
Whereas a thread about Bedard is having his labrum done, that appeals to maybe Mariner fans, Orioles and a few generalists. Espcially this time of year, when it's interesting but 100% irrelevant for a fan of any team that's in a pennant race. Met fans, for example, would be a lot more interested in hearing about Maine's return that Bedard's operation.
Threads like this get more posts because a huge number of us, at one point or another, have run into cops who we believe treated us or someone we know closely in an unfair manner. As a result, there's a fairly personal sense of involvement in these cases.
Most cops are good people, and my personal dealings with them have always been about as pleasant and non-confrontational as they could be. On the other hand, the one who attempted to conduct an illegal search on my lawyer brother, and refused to provide any identifying information when challenged, was a jerk attempting to abuse their authority. And the group of cops in my area who assaulted the person who videotaped them drinking while in uniform on public property were also jerks attempting to abuse their authority.
No, I think he meant that cops suck, which they do.
True that.
Especially Phil Cuzzi.
Hey, I laughed.
I've never been asked to get out of the car or had my car searched during a traffic violation, but I've also never lost my temper at a cop pulling me over.
I've recently had intereaction with a number of umpires, and I have to say that they really don't suck at all. I'm sure there's a bell curve working as in every population, but I've met a lot of other professions where the suckiness is FAR more pronounced.
IF YOU BUILD THE THREAD THEY WILL COME
(I don't mean the umpires, of course.)
given that PA police departments are notorious for illegal searches, and that there's no remedy whatsoever to an illegal search that doesn't result in an arrest, and given that the PA police departments as a whole have a pretty damned bad record when it comes to racial profiling and how they treat young black men compared to, say, young white women, yeah- i'm pissed about this. as much that 4 men who at worst committed a moving violation as the fact that many middle class white professionals here are drowning in privilege without even realizing it and immediately leaping to the conclusion that this brother was clearly in the wrong and as such he doesn't have any right to complain how he's treated by the police.
edit: hell, there's no real remedy even if you get arrested, even without charges the arrest will stay on your record and never truly comes off. but man do i ever have a ton of stories about Pennsyvania police and illegal searches. one of my favorite is when 4 17-18 year olds broke down on the highway on their way back from the movies. the police showed up, handcuffed them all, and tore the car apart. then held them on the side of the road for 3 hours, and finally just left them there. after confiscating their cellphones and telling the towtruck they called to go away. fun times! they didn't find anything, either.
Umpires will always be perceived to suck, because they don't get any cred for anything they do right and any and all mistakes will be hysterically reacted to by one set of fans. Also a lot of correct decisions will be lambasted by the injuried party.
So why do your job well if there isn't any upside? Better make capricious decisions and really #### around with players and fans, then at least you'll have some fun while being booed.
Hey, I laughed.
I did too.
Anyone see Always Sunny in Philadelphia last night?
It doesn't sound like they had probable cause. A bunch of ballplayers coming off work? #40 is exactly right. the "fear for their own safety" line is a crock when used as a global excuse instead of the much tougher probable cause standard.
Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. "Libertarian clique"? I'd like to meet them some time ...
The rape van was a pretty good gag.
Russell Martin was about to yell "Wild card, #######!" when they got pulled over.
I think umps are really quite good on calls on the bases (out/safe, fair/foul, caught/trapped). The quality of work on balls and strikes varies wildly from ump to ump and night to night.
My biggest beef with umps is the Joe West "look at me, I'm in charge" stuff.
Trio (is that the "third" version of "Ditto"?).
Fixed.
Just kidding, Kev.
Despite the fact that it was a new car without plates (do the cops seriously pull over everyone for having tinted windows on a new car without plates?), it really seems like the cops were just out hassling guys for DWB.
And then there's this:
Beimel, who is white and used to live in a Pittsburgh suburb, said he was once pulled over in the area because he had tinted windows.
The combination of tinted windows with no license plates certainly gives reason for suspicion that the cops were just doing their job. In this situation, every explanation is possible. As has been said, some people assume that DWB never happens, and some people assume that DWB is always the explanation anytime anyone who is B is pulled over.
I prefer them to cameras. By more orders of magnitude than there are bad calls.
Timothy McVeigh was pulled over for driving a car with no license plates, searched, and arrested for carrying a concealed weapon.
Driving without license plates is absolutely a good reason to be pulled over - probably a lot better than having tinted windows. I'm amazed at how many people I see driving around doing exactly that.
#32: Hey, I laughed.
#42: I did too.
#48: Trio (is that the "third" version of "Ditto"?).
And I make it a barbershop quartet. But a funky one!
(I also laughed at #35.)
They certainly do a good enough job, on the whole, to obviate the use of instant replay.
because they suck. I saw a pitch right down the middle (confirmed by K-zone) called a ball last week. Presumably because the catcher had to move to catch it. That should fool umpires in high school or Little League. Not the guys who are supposed to be the best at their jobs. Right down the middle! That's just one example, which means little on its own, but it's hardly on its own.
I think umps are really quite good on calls on the bases (out/safe
you must be kidding. On any out/safe call that isn't blindingly obvious, they get it right maybe 50% of the time. They're guessing! Why not hire monkeys, or flip a coin. Not to mention they treat everything like a force play. Doesn't matter if the tag is missed - ball beat him, he's out.
Really ? Can you link me up to that study, I must have missed it. IOW, MY subjective observations and opinion differs from yours on this matter. ;)
As for the Cops thing:
I wasn't there, and there's not enough info here for me to really form a solid opinion. I've had the crap beaten out of me by a couple of Cops when I was a teenager, ironically during the only moment in time between ages 14-18 that I wasn't doing anything wrong at all. I've also had my arse saved by a Cop more than once. Some people good. Some people bad. Cops = people.
I don't think this is true at all. I think umpires are "right" 99+ percent of the time on safe/out calls on the basepaths, and it's not because 98% of them are "blindingly obvious".
Safe/out on the basepaths is something that umpires do very well in general.
But yeah, the tinted windows were the first thing I thought of when I saw this thread.
I'm a white, and I've only been pulled over by Canadian cops, so I am clueless as to the reason why American cops make you get out of the car and search it.
I'm a brown dude with an obviously Muslim middle name. I get randomly selected for searches at airports, and there always seems to be a closer eye on me than on other passengers. The scrutiny seems to be a lot milder when I travel with my white wife and baby son. I don't really mind - rarely takes more than a minute of my time - particularly when I'm as worried about airport security as the next guy.
Am I being complicit with profiling, just being a good citizen, or both? I don't really know.
I think I'm voting for you in November.
Hey, I laughed.
I'm white and I have had cops attempt to search my car, and said no.
Hey, I laughed.
Make it two!
BLB: i've had clients both white and black who've refused to give permission for a search. the search usually happens anyways. also, when the cop says something like "get out of the car." and while you're standing with your hands on the hood and he says "i'm going to search your car now, ok?" usually it doesn't sound like a request. I'm still having trouble with the PC, and while the stop may have been ok in and of itself, the search in my mind does not appear to be.
Thats the crux of the problem. Not enough people know their rights and the cops certainly aren't going to inform you of them.
My posts may give the impression that I don't think cops suck. They do. I'm just playing devils advocate. At best, this situation sounds very shady.
First thing I did upon seeing this thread was Ctrl+F, "Sunny". The cops are lucky Morgan had left his hot plate back at the hotel!
Isn't that why you tint?
Please give credit where credit is due. I melted that thread into a union trashing with the very first comment.
I've been to three Best Buys, a Borders, and a Circuit City (man, that place sucks), and every single one has been sold out of season 3.
Thats the crux of the problem. Not enough people know their rights and the cops certainly aren't going to inform you of them.
My posts may give the impression that I don't think cops suck. They do. I'm just playing devils advocate. At best, this situation sounds very shady.
I'm not really contesting the stop at this point, though I personally don't believe it was kosher. The search bothers me, especially if Nyjer had the documents in his glove compartment and his license on him. Just because someone isn't aware that they can tell the cops to not search their car doesn't mean it's OK for the cops to search the car. It's still a violation of the 4th amendment, and I'm disappointed with how cavalierly people seem to dismiss the concerns or, worse, view it as within the cops purview.
And stop talking about umps, damnit. It's not that common that a BTF thread is right in my wheelhouse. Criminal law is all i got! (well, and asylum law, but that only applies to defecting Cubans and there aren't many arguments over whether they should get asylum on BTF).
So its a 4th amendment violation if the cop asks "do you mind if I search your car?" and they say "ok"?
I'm honestly asking; what have the courts found? From my fairly limited reading on the subject, the courts have ruled you basically lose most of your rights when you get behind the wheel.
When I saw your name at THT, I assumed you were Italian. I guess that's what I get for going to Catholic school.
I've said for many years that I can't imagine being black and, upon any slight, any rudeness or coldness, any inconvience at the hands of a white person, having to wonder whether I'm a victim of racism. I've met many rude, mean, inconsiderate, and vile white people in my life, but never would it occur to me that they behaved that way because they hate me for my skin color. I just assume they're jerks, or they didn't get enough sleep last night, or something.
I'm sure DWB happens. But given the number of times I've heard white people complain about being pulled over "for no reason", I think a fair number of the perceived cases of DWB are simply the same thing except with a pretty big assumption attached.
No, its a 4th Amendment violation if they prolong thestop beyond the time it would otherwise take. At which point it becomes an illegal detention. Asking the question is not a per se violation. There use to be a doctrine that a question beyond the scope of the stop was improper but that is not the modern rule in effect in most jurisdictions.
(EDIT: If the officer knew there was no violation than any additional period of time is a prolongment.)
From my fairly limited reading on the subject, the courts have ruled you basically lose most of your rights when you get behind the wheel.
THe courts have ruled that you have less of an expectation of privacy in your motor vehicle, not that you lose all rights.
The courts would say no. However, it largely depends on how people are asked. Generally the court gives very wide leeway towards law enforcement officials, there was once a situation where they upheld a search on a Greyhound bus after telling people they'd have to get off the bus if they didn't consent to a search, but then there are other times they've thrown out a search like on another Greyhound bus when a police officer squeezed overhead baggage on his way down a bus during a sweep for illegal immigrants, felt a brick like object, asked if he could search the bag, got an ok, and found drugs. So the law isn't entirely non-schizophrenic on the federal level. In PA the laws are a bit more friendly towards defendants, but when it comes to searches they're still pretty lenient on how the cops can ask to search, or when they're allowed to search in a first place.
Further, the police usually use "for their own protection" as their cause for a search, which doesn't require consent. In a case I think Scalia wrote the opinion for, someone in a car can have their car searched for weapons if they're in the car at the time the cop arrives. This search can't go into a closed trunk, but can look everywhere else. All the cop needs is to fear for his own safety. Of course, this means we commonly have terrified cops when there's no cause to be, and during their search for weapons they find, hey presto, some drugs.
When did he ask to search, before or after the violation?
What was his reason for requesting the search?
Is there any reason to believe the rental car is not lawfully being driven by the drivers?
How fast where they going (could they be lawfully detained for the speeding)?
If he issues a citation, then asks to search and has no additional probable cause of other criminal activity then you have a good argument for an improper detention.
That leads to a practical question, what did he find? Most cops that find open containers or contraband, will,
"... traffic stop ... excess of the posted rate of speed ... Upon approaching the vehicle, I smelled the strong and distinct odor of marijuana"
That can get you over the PC hump with most judges in these parts.
EDIT: There is also a doctrine that the detention was consensual, but that may go to what actually happened with the detention, whether the persons could be detained, etc.
Cops also pull out "driver nervous...lots of luggage in the back...unusual traffic patterns. THere are lots of ways to manufacture PC.
He hypothetically didn't give a reason to search. Other than being a redneck jerk.
No real reason to think the car was not lawfully being driven. It had out of state plates.
His search was successful, hypothetically.
Again, it depends on the circumstances, although the issue is ancillary to the 4th amendment issue of whether the cops can ask the rental car agency for permission to search (which they can, although in PA at least constructive possession would become harder to prove with a rental car). The big question is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would consider themselves under arrest. So if they were handcuffed, had everything in their pockets taken and put in an evidence baggie, and put into the back of a squad-car, and then someone talked about taking them down to the station, it'd be more likely that a reasonable* person would view themselves in that situation as under arrest. If that's the case, the police officer would need probable cause to keep them. If they're just waiting by the side of the road and allowed to move around but not leave, the detention is more likely to be seen as kosher. But really, it all depends on what judge you have.
* The reasonable person is one of the most asinine constructs in legal theory. What the heck defines a reasonable person?!
No, in a thread like this you really need Eraser-X
Just watch me and do what I do.
(Hey, I avoided snarking on Kevin with this comment, didn't I?)
The big thing is that the SCOTUS ruled that a Terry frisk at a car stop means the police officer is allowed to search the car itself, which to me is one of the things that makes me want Scalia to get off the court ASAP. If a person is in the back of a squadcar (as they are during these car searches in most police protocol) they sure as heck can't get to a handgun in the console, much less one in the hatchback trunk.
His search was successful, hypothetically.
Then the hypothetical testimony might look like this:
"At _________ time, will on patrol at __________, I noticed a vehicle with out of state plates exceeding the posted rate of speed, driving in an area known for drug use, and moving erratically. Upon approaching the car, the driver seemed nervous, and [anything that can be said about noncooperation or disorientation]. As he rolled down his window, I smelled the strong and distinct odor of _______ coming from the driver and about the vehicle. I asked the driver and passenger to exit the vehicle. At this time I did __________. Upon noticing that the vehicle was not the property of the drivers, I impounded the vehicle until permission for a search could be obtained from the lawful owners. At which time, I detained the driver and passenger. Based on my observations of __________, I felt that releasing the car to their custody would pose a danger to public safety."
It might be different in different jurisdictions, but the best advice to these hypothetical persons would be to retain legal counsel to determine what arguments could be made in their jurisdiction and the probability of success in those arguments. Those hypothetical persons should not try to deduce strategy from an internet message board.
Most important, I must state that none of this should be construed as legal advice, nor should anyone have an expectation of privacy or privilege on anything posted herein.
Those hypothetical persons should not try to deduce strategy from an internet message board.
yes.
Most important, I must state that none of this should be constituted as legal advice, nor should anyone have an expectation of privacy or privilege on anything posted herein.
yes. and nothing i should say should be construed in any way as legal advice, nor am i able to give any legal advice until I pass the bar at the end of 3L this year.
The Pirates front office:
We're only making plans for Nyjer
We only want what's best for him
Were only making plans for Nyjer
Nyjer just needs this helping hand...
Unless your name is Todd Palin. Or, really, any Republican for that matter.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main