This is why you don't have "conversations" with law enforcement. If it actually was illegal, even if you didn't know, you just confessed to a crime and they can use what you just told them against you.
ps. reality-check, this dude paid $100 to basically get across town and eventually back - this is not how most of the rest of the world lives
Good point. I try to take public transport on business (and personal) trips whenever that's reasonable (which is subset of those times when it's cheaper).
In many foreign countries, the taxi is so much easier than trying to figure out public transport that the taxi wins. In many US cities, public transport doesn't get you close enough to be reasonable alternative, even though it would be less money out of pocket.
Reality check, this dude had taken a plane and needed transport around his destination - this is very much how people live when on a trip. This is perfectly normal behavior in most of the world, especially when it's a trip for business purposes. The only change is that the price of travel varies extremely between countries.
No, I can safely say there are billions (with a b) of people in this world who could never afford to take a $100 car ride across town and back.
If you think this is normal, you are in an elite group and only use people in your group to compare to. Even if there are a million people in that group, it is still elite.
there are 330 million people in the US for whom these rates are perfectly normal. if you want to call us an elite group, those are your words. if you want us to apologize for having an advanced economy, you might be waiting a while.
and the irony is that Uber's main business model is making these rates cheaper!
(I've been to Denver once - I took a shuttle bus from the airport to my hotel on Colfax (took long way around and was not that cheap) and the public bus back to the terminal which left from the central bus station, was cheap and direct.)
Of the roughly 750 million people who caught a plane in the US in the 12 months to April 2014[1], many of them will have paid a driver to get them to and from the airport.
Arguing that they shouldn't complain about crappy service or being harassed by authorities, because billions of others can't even afford a taxi is a pretty bad argument.
Person A: "We should be demanding that our authorities look more closely at the quality of water in our town. Having it contain high amounts of flammable gasses is not ok."
Person B: "But there's billions of people in the world who don't even have clean drinking water"
It doesn't invalidate person A's argument - yes, there's lots of people without drinking water or without the $100 to spend on two taxis. Yes, we need to do something about it.
We don't, however, need to completely disregard everything else until that problem is fixed. We're capable, as a society, of dealing with multiple issues concurrently.
It depends a lot on where one's from, and/or what one's used to. I can only speak for Europe and larger cities in Eastern Asia: A rail connect from airport to downtown is commonplace, often high-speed, and is taken by the vast majority of passengers that do not have a private or hotel pick-up, including business travelers.
A fare of $100 to 'get across town', unless I was in a real hurry to make up 20 minutes of time for a really important point-to-point connection, would horrifies me, but occasionally the bullet has to be bit.
[For smaller cities without rail infrastructure, taxi/cab fares tend correspond to a lot less.]
One possibly useful data point is this is Denver Colorado and the "local" airport for Denver can be a good 30-40 mile drive depending on where your Denver side destination is located. Its entirely possible he's only paying $1/mile or so which isn't all that bad for door to door service. Or put another way the driver is only grossing in revenue maybe $30/hour and has expenses and probably doesn't earn revenue 8 hours per day anyway.
On a semi-regular basis I used to take the train to Chicago and the train station is across the street from the corporate office in the formerly named sears tower. Also historically I've taken the train to the NYC Hope conference which is also across the street from the NYC train station. Air travel isn't as convenient as taking the train or a bus...
Trains are faster than planes for short-ish inter-city journeys in many other places because (i) you can use public transport to get to the stations, (ii) you avoid the time spent on check-in and security check and (iii) trains are more frequent than planes to the same destination.
None of these is the case in Beijing. I don't know about other cities. I've taken inter-city trains from Beijing a few times. Each time, I've found the experience of getting to the station, and finding the right spot, more arduous than for international flights.
On the other hand, I do not really get UberX. What is the difference to any other taxi I order by using an app (and there are many such apps now in most cities, at least in Western Europe)?
I have used UberX too and most drivers told me that we were not accepted for Uber, so they were driving for UberX in the hope of making it to Uber later. That would also explain part of your experience, i.e., the speeding. For a professional driver, speeding, especially when driving a customer, should be an absolute no-go.
In any case, I am very sorry for your experience with the American police. I have never had any encounter with the American police but I am also afraid of having an experience like you had. And as a guest in the US, there is not much I could do but to be as obedient as possible … :(
"For a professional driver, speeding, especially when driving a customer, should be an absolute no-go."
That does not describe my experience with taxi drivers at all. They speed a lot and customers expect them to speed when they hurry somewhere. (I do not live in USA)
Agreed. I've spent a ridiculous portion of the last 4 years in taxis and liveries in the NYC metro area and a few other major cities in the US and several in western Europe. Speeding has been an absolute constant; no exceptions whatsoever. Is there actually a place where taxis do not default to pushing speeds to the highest extent possible?
Here in Amsterdam taxis speed all the time, to the extent that they are the most dangerous cars to keep an eye on while biking.
This might be due to the economical aspect of a taxi ride. The base fee starts at 7.00 euros sometimes, just for walking into the taxi. I don't have the exact fares data, but although they are earning additional money during the whole ride, for short rides it's clearly more remunerative for them to get to destination as soon as possible to be able to take another one.
In Abu Dhabi there is fleet of taxis which are "GPS controlled". The driver stayed exactly at the speed limit on an empty 4 lane highway at night for half an hour. Somebody in their operating center probably has a job to watch the drivers.
This is the more typical use case. Managers/safety officers will want a report of "who sped the most in the last X days" both in terms of highest speed and average over-the-limit driving. In extreme circumstances, such as when onboard sensors detect an impact or impending rollover, the logging can ramp up to multiple times per second. Great for insurance purposes.
Beijing taxis most often don't speed, but that has more to do with the traffic and speed cameras than anything else. I've seen cars implode at night on the ring road going 2x the limit, it is quite an experience to watch their wheels just pop off.
You definitely haven't taken a cab in big cities in US. Cab drivers always speed. It is what they do - I don't know why - but driving below 75mph is not within their realm of possibilities.
You also haven't taken a UberX ride from looks of it. If you did, you would realize that they never ever speed and are very courteous in their manners!
I know it sounds strange - that professional drivers speed like mad dogs and are at many time disrespectful while random people like you and me are better/sane drivers - but it is what it is. Uber does a great job weeding out bad drivers through their rating system - unfortunately cabs can't do that..
I use UberX when I wasn't able to book far enough in advance for Ubicab, AddisonLee thinks it'll be > 15 minutes until they can send someone, or if I need one in a hurry and there's one near by. Reliably cheaper than Hailo.
Why does it seem like so many people in authority just hate Uber? Is it the "dirty hippie" effect? Everything new is threatening and scary? What is it?
"people in authority" get payoffs from organized crime, and Uber isn't playing along nicely.
"Is it the "dirty hippie" effect?" sort of, read between the lines of the story, driver's second language is English, etc, there are two driving experiences in America, driving while white and driving while minority. The author seemed shocked to experience a fairly normal "driving while minority". I didn't find the story all that unusual from discussion with minority coworkers. If the driver was white, they would not have been hassled as per departmental policy, so there wouldn't have been a story.
Looking at the history of enforcement of Jim Crow laws, being treated as a "dirty hippie" can be considered progress in race relations. Nobody got beaten, jailed, shot, or lynched.
Can you point to any evidence that any actions in this article were caused by, exacerbated by, or in any way modified by any participants' views on the race of any other participants?
Uber is skipping some necessary steps for doing business over there (like giving yearly donations to the police pension fund and making campaign contributions).
Here's a better headline: "My Uber gor pulled over by the Denver Police, and the officer mistakenly told us Uber is illegal." Maybe not so many clicks that way, though.
I agree that this was a rather unfortunate and odd experience, but I don't see what the big deal is. The only thing that struck me as "really weird" about this is that the author called a Denver Post reporter to get live legal information while he was in the car, and that the author wrote this sentence: "Did I really want to take a ride from an individual who clearly lied to me, then was evasive when I asked one basic question?" (Did it ever occur to the author that the cop might just have been mistaken about Uber's legality? Did it occur to him the the officer was just trying to do him a favor?)
At the end of the day, we have a cop who pulled an Uber driver over for speeding and, though he mistakenly thought Uber was illegal, nonetheless only issued a speeding ticket and offered to drive the passenger to the airport. The author goes out of his way to pain the officer as behaving "really weirdly," and I suppose I don't see why the officer needed the passenger's ID (though I also would not be surprised to learn that it is totally normal for an officer to request a passenger's ID), but for the most part this seems like everyone did their jobs properly.
Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic. So while yes, of course, it would be preferable for an officer to be properly informed about Uber's legality, I don't think we should be judging him too harshly for his mistake, especially when it sounds like Colorado has only recently legalized Uber, and the officer did not attempt to ticket or detain anyone for the purported violation.
Edit: By the way, the Colorado law imposes a number of requirements. Companies must obtain permits, drivers must display various notices and "[t]o obtain permits, the companies must have drivers pass criminal-background and driving-history checks. The drivers' cars must pass vehicle inspections, and be clearly marked as ['transportation network company'] cars. The drivers must also carry personal car insurance, in addition to the commercial insurance Uber and Lyft provide." http://gazette.com/uber-lyft-become-regulated-in-colorado/ar... Nothing in the article on whether Uber, or his Uber driver, has complied. The officer could well have been correct (though perhaps not for the reason he was thinking). Here's the bill itself: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillco...
> Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic.
Citizens of Colorado are supposed to know and obey the law and apparently citizens of Washington state are expected to as well, if they are visiting. Why is it unrealistic to expect a Colorado police officer to know the law?
True, he didn't follow through, but he did bring it up in a way that suggested he was planning to enforce his flawed understanding of the law. My point is that he shouldn't even bring it up if he is uncertain.
The better argument, I think, is that it is also unrealistic to expect citizens to know all the laws.
The theoretical answer to this is that citizens are expected to know all the major laws that govern everyday activity, and are then expected to educate themselves when they engage in a particular activity or line of business that a reasonable person would expect might be specially regulated about more obscure laws that might apply to that activity. Officers, on the other hand, have no way of knowing what sorts of violations they are about to encounter when they go out on patrol. I don't claim, though, that this is always true of fair in practice -- I'm just relaying the conventional reply.
And I think some perspective is in order: the officer's information was, at most, a few weeks out of date, and he did not attempt to actually enforce any Uber-related law. Also note what I pointed out in my edit: the new law includes regulatory restrictions that the driver may well have been violating.
It seems in this case neither the passenger nor the cop was crystal clear about the law. Regardless.... Nothing actually happened. Nobody was wrongfully arrested. A cop said some stuff that seems legally questionable, but did not act on it. That's not "really weird" in my book.
The purpose of a headline is to attract the reader's attention so yours is not better. But you already proved that yourself by clicking on on title and reading the article.
The formula for a viral headline is to start with an absolutely minimal description of the facts, and then add a bit of subjective/emotional language (like "things got really weird") so that the reader will have to read it to confirm if the subjective part applies to them or not.
It sounds like our disagreement is only about whether it is "really weird" for an officer to request a passenger's ID during a traffic stop. The City of Denver has this to say on the subject: "Depending on the circumstances, officers may request identification from passengers as well." http://www.denvergov.org/police/PoliceDepartment/TrafficEnfo...
And as you say, the officer probably found it odd that there was a passenger riding in the back of an apparently private vehicle.
I don't think the officer was in the wrong here. The law had changed, but he acted on something that was still illegal under the new law: not having commercial insurance. He was right, the Uber driver was violating the law. Its to his credit that he resolved the uncertainty, in the moment, in their favor.
That is actually a public interest issue. If an Uber driver hits you, and his personal car insurance doesn't cover it because it was commercial use, he can just declare bankruptcy and leave you stuck with the bill. This is why states require you to have insurance before driving.
Indeed, the irony of the article is that the police officer is the one who had the author's interest at heart. When a driver gets into an accident and a passenger is injured, the driver's insurance pays for the passengers's medical expenses. If the Uber driver's insurance denies the claim because he was engaged in commercial use (and probably lying about things like annual mileage and purpose of the vehicle), then the author is up shit creek.
Drama drama. It seems like 'police are bad' is such a popular prejudgement, and if a police officer pulls you over he definitely wants to throw you to jail for no reason.
Police officer pulled over. Anything wrong with that? Nope.
Officer asked for the documents. Anything to get offended with? Nope.
>>> “Seattle man arrested for taking Uber to the Denver airport.”
Did officer mention anything about arresting, anything like that? Nope. That's the authors exaggeration.
>>> I asked him one more time if what I was doing was illegal. He said he didn’t want to debate the law.
And then the author tries to be a bit of a smart-ass. Officer made a mistake, do you really have to be a smart-ass? Would it help you, in any way? Nope.
>>> the gun (which was clearly visible in his holster)
Yeah, the officer was definitely going to shoot you for taking an Uber. Totally.
I am not saying that the law enforcement officers are 100% correct all the time. But articles like that, they just portray the author as a bit childish primadonna. The officer was just doing his job, while the author was sweating that he will get arrested (if the officer doesn't shoot him dead before) for taking an Uber.
I take it you've never been in a similar situation?
If you've ever dealt with an officer of the law in an adversarial situation where you believe you've done nothing wrong, it can be an unnerving or even terrifying experience. The power imbalance is immediately and palpably felt (what I think the author was trying to convey by mentioning the clearly-visible gun). If the officer had wanted to arrest the citizen (who, if he was doing something wrong, was doing it in good faith with the belief and understanding that his actions were not only legal but encouraged by the governor -- an unnaturally well-informed citizen for being a temporary visitor to the state), he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Is this some rogue cop enacting some personal vendetta against alternative hirecar arrangements? Probably not. But did the officer act unprofessionally? Entirely. Not answering the questions, throwing the license back at the passenger, offering a free ride to the airport (which may very well be inciting breach of contract)...and what will happen to him? Possibly a slap on the wrist.
The only way the police can justify the power they are given is by wielding it appropriately and heavily penalizing its abuses. I don't expect the former to happen 100% of the time -- we are fallible humans -- but when it doesn't, I do expect the latter. And I rarely see it.
+1 power imbalance. I had to listen to a cop tell me how shitty his day had been for 10 minutes once while pulled over for no reason.
To be fair, he had had a really shitty day, and was 23 hours into a work shift, but there was nothing I could do to exit the situation without causing a serious problem aside from listen and wait.
I listened and wait, comforted him, and then I was allowed to leave.
>>> Not answering the questions, throwing the license back at the passenger
At the end of the day, cops are people. They get tired, frustrated, etc. I don't expect them to act like my personal servants.
>>> I take it you've never been in a similar situation?
I have, more than once. Actually, in a very similar situation.
I took a bus for the first time in that country, got the ticket, and didn't know that I need to get a stamp on it. No one told me. The bus gets stopped, tickets check. I am told "get off the bus, I will teach you how to use public transportation". OK. "Get in this van" "why?" "do it". okay, a bit odd, but will do. Feeling nervous, but didn't act like a dick self taught lawyer. Explained the situation, stayed nice and cool, I was told that it's my first day here, got $10 fine and took the next bus. Other passengers were acting like dicks and no one was nice to them.
Other situation. I got letter that I must come to police station, to explain some things. It was because I was writing a blog about poker and someone perceived it as illegal. I had to go to 'economic crimes division'. Again, nervous but staying cool. I told everything, I said that I'm just translating from Wikipedia, I am not getting anything back from it and I'm not promoting anything, stayed nice all the time, didn't question anything about law, etc. A month later I get a letter, that everything's dropped, I did nothing wrong.
Would I have questioned the law and etc, probably wouldn't have been so easy. But people were just doing their jobs and I didn't obstruct them.
Didn't the nuremberg trials teach people that 'just doing their jobs' does not exempt them from ethical decisions? So you have a shitty job. That doesn't mean you need to be a shitty person, prioritizing victimless crimes over actual crimes.
Where do you draw the line? If your job is to slap people, or just verbally abuse them, throw smaller stones at them all day, it's okay, because it's not genocide?
It's tiring to do the good thing, it's possibly impossible for every human, then some are put on 24-hour shifts, and some are even aware of their limit in this regard. Then the argument becomes "but he needs the money". And this is the same moral issue (like when doctors are on-call after a full day shift and do 30+ hours and suprise-suprise errors start to happen, when we overburden bureucrats, judges and other public servants and they start to fail on diligence) that should be addressed by society.
> At the end of the day, cops are people. They get tired, frustrated, etc. I don't expect them to act like my personal servants.
You shouldn't expect a cop to act as your servant, but you sure as shit have an expectation that they will act professionally and courteously towards you. You also should expect them to not abuse their power. I don't give a shit if your dog died and your wife left you, if you are given a position of essentially unchecked power over me, you better use it judiciously.
But people were just doing their jobs and I didn't obstruct them.
No, but in the second instance they inconvinienced you. I wonder what you would have done had the outcome been different in either of these two instances?
I'm in agreement that the author's words are a bit dramatic, but I can sympathize with his disposition. Police often use their power as leverage to put citizens in a stressful, fearful state (as to draw out a confession). It's part of their training. Some use it judiciously; others, unnecessarily.
In other words -- Better watch out, Colorado! The cops are out tonight, and they're giving you the shakedown to make sure your ride to the airport is 100% legal.
Yeah, but turning down a police officer's request for information is a good way to encourage him to find something illegal about what you're doing. There's a law that isn't on any books but is the easiest way to get in trouble by breaking it: Contempt of Cop.
Fear of this kind of abuse is why everyone should know and exercise their rights in all interactions with law enforcement. If 90+% of people weren't willing to be pushed around, the cops would be forced to learn their legal limitations.
Okay, that's true, but how do people get out of the current dynamics where starting to exercise your rights to their fullest is instantly seen as suspicious and hostile behavior? Do you have a plan that works in marginal increments?
This is incorrect. The article you cited refers to an 8th Circuit case which does not apply to Colorado (which is in the 10th Circuit) or any state outside that circuit. It is important to note what happened with the author of this article is known as a Terry Stop. Terry Stops are brought about by reasonable suspicion which is a much lesser standard than probable cause and they must end once the basis of the reasonable suspicion is denied.
The Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) upheld a Nevada statue which required anyone detained during a Terry Stop to comply with a demand for identification. Colorado has a statute similar to Nevada's which allows an officer to "request" identification rather than compel. However a failure to produce identification most likely would not deny the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicion may cause the individual detained to run afoul of other laws like obstruction. This is an unsettled area of law in many states so there is no hard and fast rule for what happens when a person refuses to identify themselves nationally.
Nevertheless in this case the officer seems to have specifically detained the author under the reasonable suspicion that he solicited an illegal vehicle for hire. Once the passenger told him that he was in an Uber cab (a lawfully hired vehicle in Colorado) the basis for that suspicion was denied and the author should have no longer have been detained or asked for personal identification.
I'm looking for some insight here. I read about situations involving poorly behaving police and the victims never think to call police dispatch and call over a staff Sargent or something like that
Sure, there's the 'blue code' thing but this seems to me that you have entered so much 'on-the-record' data and clearly demonstrated a wish for police assistance. What are the reasons that this doesn't happen?
Is it legal in Denver to for police to demand a non-driver's ID?
Why did no one ask the officer "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" when he did not state a reason for the traffic stop and started asking probing personal questions?
85 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 280 ms ] threadps. reality-check, this dude paid $100 to basically get across town and eventually back - this is not how most of the rest of the world lives
Why would an employee pay out of pocket for something that's for the employer's convenience/at the employer's discretion and direction?
In many foreign countries, the taxi is so much easier than trying to figure out public transport that the taxi wins. In many US cities, public transport doesn't get you close enough to be reasonable alternative, even though it would be less money out of pocket.
If you think this is normal, you are in an elite group and only use people in your group to compare to. Even if there are a million people in that group, it is still elite.
As an American, I thought American taxis were expensive until I visited Europe some....wow, or even japan. It's all about the perspective.
Chinese farmers are in an elite group compared to African or even Vietnamese farmers...so what is your point?
(I've been to Denver once - I took a shuttle bus from the airport to my hotel on Colfax (took long way around and was not that cheap) and the public bus back to the terminal which left from the central bus station, was cheap and direct.)
Arguing that they shouldn't complain about crappy service or being harassed by authorities, because billions of others can't even afford a taxi is a pretty bad argument.
Person A: "We should be demanding that our authorities look more closely at the quality of water in our town. Having it contain high amounts of flammable gasses is not ok."
Person B: "But there's billions of people in the world who don't even have clean drinking water"
It doesn't invalidate person A's argument - yes, there's lots of people without drinking water or without the $100 to spend on two taxis. Yes, we need to do something about it.
We don't, however, need to completely disregard everything else until that problem is fixed. We're capable, as a society, of dealing with multiple issues concurrently.
[1] = http://apps.bts.gov/xml/air_traffic/src/index.xml
"Most people in the world can't afford taxi rides like this so don't complain about how the police treat it"?
It depends a lot on where one's from, and/or what one's used to. I can only speak for Europe and larger cities in Eastern Asia: A rail connect from airport to downtown is commonplace, often high-speed, and is taken by the vast majority of passengers that do not have a private or hotel pick-up, including business travelers.
A fare of $100 to 'get across town', unless I was in a real hurry to make up 20 minutes of time for a really important point-to-point connection, would horrifies me, but occasionally the bullet has to be bit.
[For smaller cities without rail infrastructure, taxi/cab fares tend correspond to a lot less.]
On a semi-regular basis I used to take the train to Chicago and the train station is across the street from the corporate office in the formerly named sears tower. Also historically I've taken the train to the NYC Hope conference which is also across the street from the NYC train station. Air travel isn't as convenient as taking the train or a bus...
Trains are faster than planes for short-ish inter-city journeys in many other places because (i) you can use public transport to get to the stations, (ii) you avoid the time spent on check-in and security check and (iii) trains are more frequent than planes to the same destination.
None of these is the case in Beijing. I don't know about other cities. I've taken inter-city trains from Beijing a few times. Each time, I've found the experience of getting to the station, and finding the right spot, more arduous than for international flights.
On the other hand, I do not really get UberX. What is the difference to any other taxi I order by using an app (and there are many such apps now in most cities, at least in Western Europe)?
I have used UberX too and most drivers told me that we were not accepted for Uber, so they were driving for UberX in the hope of making it to Uber later. That would also explain part of your experience, i.e., the speeding. For a professional driver, speeding, especially when driving a customer, should be an absolute no-go.
In any case, I am very sorry for your experience with the American police. I have never had any encounter with the American police but I am also afraid of having an experience like you had. And as a guest in the US, there is not much I could do but to be as obedient as possible … :(
That does not describe my experience with taxi drivers at all. They speed a lot and customers expect them to speed when they hurry somewhere. (I do not live in USA)
This might be due to the economical aspect of a taxi ride. The base fee starts at 7.00 euros sometimes, just for walking into the taxi. I don't have the exact fares data, but although they are earning additional money during the whole ride, for short rides it's clearly more remunerative for them to get to destination as soon as possible to be able to take another one.
You also haven't taken a UberX ride from looks of it. If you did, you would realize that they never ever speed and are very courteous in their manners!
I know it sounds strange - that professional drivers speed like mad dogs and are at many time disrespectful while random people like you and me are better/sane drivers - but it is what it is. Uber does a great job weeding out bad drivers through their rating system - unfortunately cabs can't do that..
Always always make complaints when you've had a bad experience.
"Is it the "dirty hippie" effect?" sort of, read between the lines of the story, driver's second language is English, etc, there are two driving experiences in America, driving while white and driving while minority. The author seemed shocked to experience a fairly normal "driving while minority". I didn't find the story all that unusual from discussion with minority coworkers. If the driver was white, they would not have been hassled as per departmental policy, so there wouldn't have been a story.
Looking at the history of enforcement of Jim Crow laws, being treated as a "dirty hippie" can be considered progress in race relations. Nobody got beaten, jailed, shot, or lynched.
LOL
I agree that this was a rather unfortunate and odd experience, but I don't see what the big deal is. The only thing that struck me as "really weird" about this is that the author called a Denver Post reporter to get live legal information while he was in the car, and that the author wrote this sentence: "Did I really want to take a ride from an individual who clearly lied to me, then was evasive when I asked one basic question?" (Did it ever occur to the author that the cop might just have been mistaken about Uber's legality? Did it occur to him the the officer was just trying to do him a favor?)
At the end of the day, we have a cop who pulled an Uber driver over for speeding and, though he mistakenly thought Uber was illegal, nonetheless only issued a speeding ticket and offered to drive the passenger to the airport. The author goes out of his way to pain the officer as behaving "really weirdly," and I suppose I don't see why the officer needed the passenger's ID (though I also would not be surprised to learn that it is totally normal for an officer to request a passenger's ID), but for the most part this seems like everyone did their jobs properly.
Of course, in a perfect world, an officer would know everything about Colorado law. But that is clearly unrealistic. So while yes, of course, it would be preferable for an officer to be properly informed about Uber's legality, I don't think we should be judging him too harshly for his mistake, especially when it sounds like Colorado has only recently legalized Uber, and the officer did not attempt to ticket or detain anyone for the purported violation.
Edit: By the way, the Colorado law imposes a number of requirements. Companies must obtain permits, drivers must display various notices and "[t]o obtain permits, the companies must have drivers pass criminal-background and driving-history checks. The drivers' cars must pass vehicle inspections, and be clearly marked as ['transportation network company'] cars. The drivers must also carry personal car insurance, in addition to the commercial insurance Uber and Lyft provide." http://gazette.com/uber-lyft-become-regulated-in-colorado/ar... Nothing in the article on whether Uber, or his Uber driver, has complied. The officer could well have been correct (though perhaps not for the reason he was thinking). Here's the bill itself: http://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2014a/csl.nsf/fsbillco...
Edit 2: From the City of Denver's traffic enforcement FAQ: "Depending on the circumstances, officers may request identification from passengers as well." http://www.denvergov.org/police/PoliceDepartment/TrafficEnfo...
Citizens of Colorado are supposed to know and obey the law and apparently citizens of Washington state are expected to as well, if they are visiting. Why is it unrealistic to expect a Colorado police officer to know the law?
The theoretical answer to this is that citizens are expected to know all the major laws that govern everyday activity, and are then expected to educate themselves when they engage in a particular activity or line of business that a reasonable person would expect might be specially regulated about more obscure laws that might apply to that activity. Officers, on the other hand, have no way of knowing what sorts of violations they are about to encounter when they go out on patrol. I don't claim, though, that this is always true of fair in practice -- I'm just relaying the conventional reply.
And I think some perspective is in order: the officer's information was, at most, a few weeks out of date, and he did not attempt to actually enforce any Uber-related law. Also note what I pointed out in my edit: the new law includes regulatory restrictions that the driver may well have been violating.
And as you say, the officer probably found it odd that there was a passenger riding in the back of an apparently private vehicle.
That is actually a public interest issue. If an Uber driver hits you, and his personal car insurance doesn't cover it because it was commercial use, he can just declare bankruptcy and leave you stuck with the bill. This is why states require you to have insurance before driving.
Indeed, the irony of the article is that the police officer is the one who had the author's interest at heart. When a driver gets into an accident and a passenger is injured, the driver's insurance pays for the passengers's medical expenses. If the Uber driver's insurance denies the claim because he was engaged in commercial use (and probably lying about things like annual mileage and purpose of the vehicle), then the author is up shit creek.
Police officer pulled over. Anything wrong with that? Nope.
Officer asked for the documents. Anything to get offended with? Nope.
>>> “Seattle man arrested for taking Uber to the Denver airport.”
Did officer mention anything about arresting, anything like that? Nope. That's the authors exaggeration.
>>> I asked him one more time if what I was doing was illegal. He said he didn’t want to debate the law.
And then the author tries to be a bit of a smart-ass. Officer made a mistake, do you really have to be a smart-ass? Would it help you, in any way? Nope.
>>> the gun (which was clearly visible in his holster)
Yeah, the officer was definitely going to shoot you for taking an Uber. Totally.
I am not saying that the law enforcement officers are 100% correct all the time. But articles like that, they just portray the author as a bit childish primadonna. The officer was just doing his job, while the author was sweating that he will get arrested (if the officer doesn't shoot him dead before) for taking an Uber.
If you've ever dealt with an officer of the law in an adversarial situation where you believe you've done nothing wrong, it can be an unnerving or even terrifying experience. The power imbalance is immediately and palpably felt (what I think the author was trying to convey by mentioning the clearly-visible gun). If the officer had wanted to arrest the citizen (who, if he was doing something wrong, was doing it in good faith with the belief and understanding that his actions were not only legal but encouraged by the governor -- an unnaturally well-informed citizen for being a temporary visitor to the state), he would have been well within his rights to do so.
Is this some rogue cop enacting some personal vendetta against alternative hirecar arrangements? Probably not. But did the officer act unprofessionally? Entirely. Not answering the questions, throwing the license back at the passenger, offering a free ride to the airport (which may very well be inciting breach of contract)...and what will happen to him? Possibly a slap on the wrist.
The only way the police can justify the power they are given is by wielding it appropriately and heavily penalizing its abuses. I don't expect the former to happen 100% of the time -- we are fallible humans -- but when it doesn't, I do expect the latter. And I rarely see it.
To be fair, he had had a really shitty day, and was 23 hours into a work shift, but there was nothing I could do to exit the situation without causing a serious problem aside from listen and wait.
I listened and wait, comforted him, and then I was allowed to leave.
At the end of the day, cops are people. They get tired, frustrated, etc. I don't expect them to act like my personal servants.
>>> I take it you've never been in a similar situation?
I have, more than once. Actually, in a very similar situation.
I took a bus for the first time in that country, got the ticket, and didn't know that I need to get a stamp on it. No one told me. The bus gets stopped, tickets check. I am told "get off the bus, I will teach you how to use public transportation". OK. "Get in this van" "why?" "do it". okay, a bit odd, but will do. Feeling nervous, but didn't act like a dick self taught lawyer. Explained the situation, stayed nice and cool, I was told that it's my first day here, got $10 fine and took the next bus. Other passengers were acting like dicks and no one was nice to them.
Other situation. I got letter that I must come to police station, to explain some things. It was because I was writing a blog about poker and someone perceived it as illegal. I had to go to 'economic crimes division'. Again, nervous but staying cool. I told everything, I said that I'm just translating from Wikipedia, I am not getting anything back from it and I'm not promoting anything, stayed nice all the time, didn't question anything about law, etc. A month later I get a letter, that everything's dropped, I did nothing wrong.
Would I have questioned the law and etc, probably wouldn't have been so easy. But people were just doing their jobs and I didn't obstruct them.
It's tiring to do the good thing, it's possibly impossible for every human, then some are put on 24-hour shifts, and some are even aware of their limit in this regard. Then the argument becomes "but he needs the money". And this is the same moral issue (like when doctors are on-call after a full day shift and do 30+ hours and suprise-suprise errors start to happen, when we overburden bureucrats, judges and other public servants and they start to fail on diligence) that should be addressed by society.
Himmler and a traffic cop is a pretty wild comparison, if you ask me :)
You shouldn't expect a cop to act as your servant, but you sure as shit have an expectation that they will act professionally and courteously towards you. You also should expect them to not abuse their power. I don't give a shit if your dog died and your wife left you, if you are given a position of essentially unchecked power over me, you better use it judiciously.
No, but in the second instance they inconvinienced you. I wonder what you would have done had the outcome been different in either of these two instances?
The worst action movie plot line ever ...
In other words -- Better watch out, Colorado! The cops are out tonight, and they're giving you the shakedown to make sure your ride to the airport is 100% legal.
>>> The officer was just doing his job
Seems to me he was just trying to play detective.
It's always best to avoid any discussion with law enforcement, even if you have nothing to hide.
The Supreme Court in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) upheld a Nevada statue which required anyone detained during a Terry Stop to comply with a demand for identification. Colorado has a statute similar to Nevada's which allows an officer to "request" identification rather than compel. However a failure to produce identification most likely would not deny the basis of the officer's reasonable suspicion may cause the individual detained to run afoul of other laws like obstruction. This is an unsettled area of law in many states so there is no hard and fast rule for what happens when a person refuses to identify themselves nationally.
Nevertheless in this case the officer seems to have specifically detained the author under the reasonable suspicion that he solicited an illegal vehicle for hire. Once the passenger told him that he was in an Uber cab (a lawfully hired vehicle in Colorado) the basis for that suspicion was denied and the author should have no longer have been detained or asked for personal identification.
(After joining r/hailcorporate on reddit I'm seeing this stuff everywhere...)
Sure, there's the 'blue code' thing but this seems to me that you have entered so much 'on-the-record' data and clearly demonstrated a wish for police assistance. What are the reasons that this doesn't happen?
Why did no one ask the officer "Am I being detained? Am I free to go?" when he did not state a reason for the traffic stop and started asking probing personal questions?