Missouri

Motorists followed by an unmarked car with flashing police-style lights are often told to activate their flashing emergency lights and wait for the nearest well-lit area before pulling over. An attractive young female motorist who followed this advice found herself held at gunpoint, handcuffed and searched by real police officers in Greene County, Missouri last week. Just before 2:40am on June 5, twenty-two-year-old Vanessa Kimery passed through one of the state’s many speed traps. An unmarked police cruiser pulled behind her vehicle and activated its lights. Kimery immediately put on her flashers and slowed to acknowledge the vehicle behind. She then drove less than a mile to the nearest well-lit area, a convenience store parking lot. For this, Kimery was ordered out of the car at gunpoint and surrounded by three police deputies.

Kimery had feared that the unmarked car may have been driven by a police impersonator. Exactly one year ago, two women were attacked in Howell County by by a man driving a Ford Crown Victoria with red-and-blue lights mounted on the dash. Several other states have similar problems with robbers and rapists taking advantage of police use of unmarked cars to trap their victims on dark, rural roads.

This woman did exactly the right thing. Automatically pulling over for an unmarked car is way too risky. The cops owe her an apology.




  1. Mister Mustard says:

    >>She was pulled over in a speed trap for going
    >>10MPH over the limit.

    Oh yeah. I hear about that all the time. Handcuffing a cutie-pie for a $60 speeding ticket. In most places, cops don’t even bother pulling over people going 10mph over the limit. Unless they’re looking for some kind of quid pro quo, like a blow job in return for not handing out the ticket.

    I stick by my original statement: They should be waterboarded, and paraded around naked with women’s panties on their heads.

  2. natefrog says:

    #30;

    Depends on where you teach.

  3. Mister Ketchup says:

    #12 – Michael, she was in fear for her personal safety. BTW, Mustard also has the douchebag niche, are you trying to encroach?

  4. Mister Mustard says:

    >>By the way – “Mister Ketchup” – cmon – Mister
    >>Mustard already has that niche.

    Mr, K is trying to capture the niche of “watery, sugary, overprocessed crap that spews out reddish water before appearing”.

    I’d say he’s doing quite well.

    Kudos to you, Ketchup old chum. Can we expect to see your brother Mr Catsup anytime soon?

  5. Mark Parker says:

    Unmarked cars have no business pulling drivers over. If they had nabbed her for speeding, they should have coordinated with an identifiable police cruiser to pull her over.

  6. framitz says:

    #31
    Last time I got a speeding ticket the cop told me that to avoid tickets stay less than 9 miles over the speed limit. He said they don’t bother if you are 9 or less over the limit.

    I have since passed several radar traps at between 5 and 9 over the limit and never got a second glance (I usually hit the brakes and drop to the limit when I see them, but they can be tricky).

    Once recently I rounded a curve on my motorcycle at about 12 over and there was a cop on a motorcycle and he waved at me to slow down but didn’t come after me. Every now and then the motorcycle rider fellowship works.

  7. natefrog says:

    #36, framitz;

    Depends on the state.

    I’ve been given warnings twice for only doing 5 m.p.h. over the limit on the Interstate.

    I’ve also gotten a ticket for only 9 m.p.h. over on the Interstate.

  8. Poindexter says:

    No cop should ever pull anyone over in an unmarked car!

    You people that think this is a good idea, tell your mother, wife or girlfriend to stop when anyone in a white car with some “ebay special” red and blue lights in it.

    2 women were raped her in Austin, Tx. in the last 6 months with this exact M.O.

  9. morram says:

    Without calling you a damn moron Michael, I stand by what I said “these types of cops should have their family members treated to the same abuse”
    The simple fact that they had a speed trap yet used unmarked car late at night to stop motorist is a form of abuse. I’ve been the victim of speed traps and the cops didn’t pull this sort of BS with me. And give me a break, pulled over for going 10MPH over the limit? I’m surprised the cop pulled his pants up in time to stop her.
    Michael, you’re a twit licker

  10. Mister Ketchup says:

    They drive unmarked cars to save themselves this embarrassment:

  11. Mister Ketchup says:

    #39 said “Michael, you’re a twit licker.”

    I’m more inclined to think he may be a fudge packer.

  12. Dave W says:

    Good thing she wasn’t black. Or pulled over by LAPD. She’d most likely be dead.

    And they wonder why kids are scared of the cops!

    Harumph!

  13. framitz says:

    #37
    This was in Orange County CA. I don’t trust the 9 over thing, but at least based on what the cop told me and personal experience it seems to be the case here.

    I don’t intentionally test it, but every now and then I fail to see them in time. It’s illegal for the cops to hide in wait, but they come awful close to violating that rule sometimes. Best trick is motorcycle cops on the sidwalk under a tree in the shadows.

  14. Jägermeister says:

    Next time, take the bike

  15. gregallen says:

    I couldn’t detect one good (legal) reason for handcuffing that woman.

    Those cops need to be disciplined.

  16. HMeyers says:

    #19 “A bigger question here is why, as a public, are we allowing police in unmarked cars to perform traffic stops?”

    ^^ Winner!

    Writing speeding tickets is not enough of a justification for unmarked police cars.

    We don’t allow un-uniformed police officers to conduct typical police business, unmarked police cars shouldn’t be performing traffic duty.

  17. HMeyers says:

    More states should enact laws outlawing unmarked police cars performing traffic duty like what is being proposed in PA:

    http://tinyurl.com/5wnvh8

    My state already disallows this.

  18. Mister Ketchup says:

    Jäg – too funny! Dad was tea bagging too!

  19. Jägermeister says:

    #49 – Mister Ketchup

    Glad you liked it. 🙂

  20. lou says:

    More police state action

  21. Ron Larson says:

    …give her a wood shampoo

    ha ha… down in Oz, I was told that if I get arrested for anything, to expect a “Phone Book Massage” from the police.

  22. MattB5 says:

    Can someone explain to me why they NEED to use undercover cars for speed traps? I don’t think anyone should be required to stop for an unmarked car ever.

    And if they do need to use an unmarked car for some reason, why do they still use a Crown Vic. EVERYONE and their brother knows the headlight profile of a Crown Vic in their rear view mirror. I feel bad for anyone who is not a cop who drives one and wonders why every a-hole drives to slow in front of them.

  23. natefrog says:

    #53, MattB5;

    My guess is that it’s more about revenue generation rather than public safety.

  24. Sean says:

    I didn’t hear her consent to a search, that’s for sure. It hardly seems like like 60 seconds of driving constitutes probable cause for a search.

  25. rabsten says:

    @sean:

    Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court has ruled that any legitimate traffic stop is sufficient grounds to search a vehicle – or at least the interior of the vehicle. Speeding? Grounds to conduct search. Equipment citation? Grounds to conduct search. Seatbelt violation? Grounds…well, you get it. I forget the name of the case and no longer have a Westlaw account to look it up, but I came across it while preparing for a bar exam last year.

    Trunks and sealed items within the vehicle could be another matter, but don’t count on it.

    This is why I personally oppose seat belt laws. Yes, it’s stupid to drive without a seatbelt, but failure to do so should not subject you to a potential warrantless search. Your police state in action.

  26. Brian says:

    Typical bully cops.

    Why were 3 of them there? They thought she was running by what, slowing down and putting on her hazards?

    To those who say ‘no big deal’ I’d like your pathetic asses to get pulled over and held at gunpoint for no reason whatsoever.

    Normally cops are great citizens, who work hard and do their duty. Crap like this proves there are some out there who get off on playing god.

  27. RBG says:

    56 rabsten. Yes, we wouldn’t want the bad guys who kill, steal, addict and beat us up every day to have to some day face another Jewish holocaust… or is it jack-booted armies? I forget how it goes.

    RBG

  28. natefrog says:

    #56;

    Actually, they still need probable cause. A minor traffic infraction, in and of itself, is not probable cause.

  29. bobbo says:

    #59–Natefrog==I don’t know for sure but you are posting so affirmatively. Are you sure?

    Seems to me cops have a right to “view” any area the are legally allowed to be? In a traffic stop of a car, the car is in plain view and so are its open to view objects.

    It does make sense to me cops should look for dangerous weapons “in plain view?” to protect themselves and others.

    I doubt your position and comment only because of the common sense of the stated position backed up with a maybe remembered court case whereas you have only reference to probable cause which is a higher standard than reasonable suspicion==which is well above having eyeballs.

    THE REAL ISSUE here sometimes mentioned is the violtion of public service going on when unmarked patrol cars are used for routine services. THAT should be illegal.

  30. chuck finklemeyer says:

    Actually, the car was not unmarked. It had a $1,000 plus lightbar on top. And I don’t know what your concept of a speed trap is but she was stopped going south out of springfield mo about the time the local bars close while doing 10 mph over the limit. He probably thought he was walking up on a crazy, combative drunk. She did the right thing and so did they (although possibly to a lesser extent). The issue wasn’t that she failed to stop immediately, but that she drove nearly a mile. She was handcuffed until the situation got sorted out. Search was based on probable cause that she committed a crime evidenced by her failure to yield for nearly 1 mile while the deputy attempted to stop her. She could do a lot in that mile that could jeopardize the officers safety or destroy evidence. The story is factually inaccurate from the start and the ignorance of the posters only hurts. Lastly, she wasn’t that attractive!


2

Bad Behavior has blocked 5863 access attempts in the last 7 days.