Flyer for Illinois

Please note that we’ve restructured the site to include a state-by-state directory. Click the following for the Illinois DUI page.

We’ve had many requests for Illinois, so here it is:

Fair DUI Flyer-Illinois-front

Fair DUI Flyer-Illinois.back

Fair DUI Flyer-Illinois – PDF


In the comments (below) a reader makes an excellent point. Illinois law requires the driver to “surrender” the license by handing it over. We still suggest keeping the window closed and showing the license to the officer by pressing it up against the window.

Why? First, the officer doesn’t need to hold the license in his or her hands. And most officers will not know about the language of the statute.

Second, even if the officer does know it still puts him in a difficult position. If you refuse to open the window, does he smash the window in? That creates a real problem for the officer because it’s a serious risk of an excessive force lawsuit and there is at least one case saying it is excessive force.

So as a driver you have to make a choice. If the officer orders you to hand over your license, it is a lawful order. You should obey the law. At this point you have to make your own choice. Do you have other concerns that outweigh obedience to this law and its consequences.

One argument is that the law itself is an unconstitutional infringement of your Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure. The government’s minimal interest in physically holding your license does not outweigh your much greater constitutional right.

If you believe you are at risk for a DUI charge or perhaps a drug charge, the benefit of refusing to roll down your window may outweigh the consequences.

There is a third way. When you get stopped but before the officer reaches your window, tape your license to the outside of your window. Now he can get it without you having to roll the window down. It may be difficult to do this but if you can prepare ahead of time it might help.

Share Button

78 thoughts on “Flyer for Illinois

  1. Tim

    This is actually incorrect, or out-dated. In Illinois, you are required to physically hand over your information.

    (625 ILCS 5/6-112) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-112)
    For the purposes of this Section, “display” means the manual surrender of his license certificate into the hands of the demanding officer for his inspection thereof.
    (Source: P.A. 76-1749.)

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      That is an excellent point. It is still our position that a driver in Illinois should try to keep their window closed. If the officer insists, the driver has a choice at that point.

      If the driver refuses to open the window, the officer now has to make a choice. Does he break open the window? If he does, he’s risking an excessive force lawsuit under § 1983 and there’s pretty solid case law that it would excessive force.

      Why does the officer need to hold the license in his hands?

      Reply
      1. Tim

        Follow-up question: Earlier this year (before I began researching and understanding my rights), I was pulled over due to window tinting. To test the window, I had to roll it down, so he could put his little machine on the edge to test the transparency. In the end, he gave me a written warning because my windows failed his test.

        How does window tinting play into this? When IL changed its tinting laws a couple of years ago, I took my vehicle in to get it as dark as legally allowed (the tinting laws should be abolished, but that’s another matter). So now, a few years later, I’m getting told they are too dark.

        A number of suburban towns have been pushing tinting tickets. This was “due” to an officer being killed as he approached a vehicle during a traffic stop that had completely tinted windows. So began the crackdown.

        I think, in my case, I would have to roll down the window, because the officer would be able to argue that my windows are too dark to see through (although the windshield is completely clear, as is required by law, so that is an option).

        Reply
      2. Nick

        Tim is correct:

        (625 ILCS 5/6-112) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 6-112)
        Sec. 6-112. License and Permits to be carried and exhibited on demand. Every licensee or permittee shall have his drivers license or permit in his immediate possession at all times when operating a motor vehicle and, for the purpose of indicating compliance with this requirement, shall display such license or permit if it is in his possession upon demand made, when in uniform or displaying a badge or other sign of authority, by a member of the State Police, a sheriff or other police officer or designated agent of the Secretary of State. However, no person charged with violating this Section shall be convicted if he produces in court satisfactory evidence that a drivers license was theretofor issued to him and was valid at the time of his arrest.
        For the purposes of this Section, “display” means the manual surrender of his license certificate into the hands of the demanding officer for his inspection thereof.
        (Source: P.A. 76-1749.)

        But if you put it in the Zip lock and hand it out the window, wouldn’t that solve the problem?

        Reply
      3. Amanda Trebiano

        As of January 1, 2015 Illinois officers NO LONGER CAN TAKE YOUR LICENSE FOR “BAIL’ so they have no need to handle your license.

        Reply
      1. Tim 2

        As for the 2015 law SB2583 all it means is the Officer may look at your DL all he wants, BUT If you get a ticket you get your DL back in your hand..

        Before the DL was held till you got to court, Not no more, BUT the officer may still look at it..

        Reply
    2. Joe

      “display” means the manual surrender of his license certificate into the hands of the demanding officer for his inspection thereof.”

      No where else in the English language does ‘display’ physically mean hand over…the PA gestapo in need to have their mafia style legislators change the PA statute to read ‘present’.

      Reply
    3. Dave

      Display does not mean manually giving them the license where you getting that from? Display means showing them either in that zip lock bag thing or manually doesn’t matter how it’s displayed as long as it’s displayed

      Reply
    1. Steven

      Mark, maybe you should go read the law about video taping in IL first?
      It has not pass yet, and it is legal to video tape police , they are trying to make it illegal to video or audio record two or people without them knowing, where they think they are in a private place, the video taping of police in IL is legal, the way they worded it makes you think it’s illegal to video tape police, the Supreme Court ruled on this to were police are not in private areas with the public and are in the public view, so they can be video taped any time

      Reply
        1. Steven

          http:// im.huffpost.com/us/entry/6303454

          Jason go check this link out, it is not illegal to video tape the police in IL, show me the case, i mean the house bill number, were it was passed and our governor Signed it ?
          No one has posted that why because it’s not true again you are starting some bs and now some people will not video tape the police and it’s at that time when they really needed to and it could of helped them, but with people running there mouths on nothing they know about and can’t understand how the eavesdropping law is written in IL plus how can IL be the only state to be able to change our constitutional rights?

      1. Joe

        “…they can be video taped any time.”

        I only heard in MD a citizen can’t video RECORD a cop. (tapes are obsolete)

        But cops can break the law all the time and the courts will support them.

        Reply
    2. Amanda Trebiano

      They passed this law, but the Supreme Court has held repeatedly that as long as you are openly recording them that the it is perfectly legal. This law is totally unconstitutional and it will not hold up to a challenge as it has been decided at the highest court in the land. IL passed it as a deterrent but it won’t stand up. I’m surprised the ACLU hasn’t challenged it already.

      Reply
      1. wredlich Post author

        SCOTUS has not held that directly. Two federal circuit courts have, and SCOTUS “denied cert” on one of them, which is generally considered to be an implicit endorsement, but not as good as SCOTUS saying so itself.

        Reply
        1. Dave

          Directly from the link you provided: “The new law does not prohibit overt recording in public space, where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy.”

          As has been stated several times, one CAN LEGALLY RECORD POLICE OFFICERS in the line of duty as they have no expectation of privacy.

        2. Tim S

          Dave; Yes it was directly from the link I supplied. My point was that Joe put a post up that is incorrect and easily found that the law was passed and signed by then Gov Quinn. You even acknowledged that several had posted that we could film in public and I made some of those posts.

    3. Joe

      “It’s now illegal for us to here in Illinois to video tape cops.”

      Until somebody challenges it in court and appeals the verdict all the way to the US Supreme Court. – Chicago politics

      It would be nice to cite a statute when claiming something is illegal

      Reply
    1. Stein

      I am with you. We need one for WI. Actually, it would be cool to have 1 for each state. I live 30 minutes from the UP.

      Reply
    2. Bullfalo Bob

      I heard on the channel 3 news (Champaign, Illinois) a new law went into effect stating the public or an individual can’t record the police. Whether doing their job or just walking down the sidewalk……had to give it a double take but that’s what the lady said.

      Reply
  2. Ryan

    Regarding traffic stops in Illinois I was under the assumption that the officer could demand that you exit your vehicle. They consider this an officer safety issue. I also thought that I seen the actual law that states that but now I can no longer find it. Does anyone have any information regarding this? Thank you.

    Reply
  3. terry

    when u wrote “For the purposes of this Section, “display” means the manual surrender of his license certificate into the hands of the demanding officer for his inspection thereof.” as long as ur license is in the zip lock bag and they can open it wouldnt that be u surrendering it to them ?

    Reply
  4. T.R.

    As of January 1st, if you’re pulled over for DUI or Drag Racing, you still have to surrender your license as bond. Any other infraction that you’re pulled over for, you do not have to surrender your license, just sign a notice to appear.
    I still don’t see how IL and other states can get away with No Refusal Checkpoints. If you haven’t given the authorities a reason to pull you over, aside from driving up to a checkpoint, then I wouldn’t think it could pass Constitutional muster under the 4th. And on top of it, counties like Champaign threaten you with a charge of felony obstruction of justice, as well as search warrant to draw blood, if you refuse a breathalyzer at their checkpoints.
    It’s disgusting and I’m ashamed to say I live here.

    Reply
    1. Just stop driving drunk

      Here’s an idea…..how about you just NOT drive while impaired and then you won’t have to worry about being stopped or arrested. Be an adult and be responsible. …quit being a selfish punk.

      Reply
      1. West Virginia Firefighter

        Exactly!!! I think that if an impaired driver is able to make it through a checkpoint due to having one of these ignorant ziploc signs, and end up causing an accident, this website and others that are promoting this type of behavior should be held responsible. You are enabling drunk drivers to pass through these checkpoints undetected. As a firefighter since ’98 I have seen the damaging effects that driving impaired can cause. And as a driver, I have never been detained for more than a minute or so at a DUI checkpoint. Why? Because I do not drive under the influence and I cooperate with the men and women of law enforcement who are out trying to keep others safe.

        Reply
        1. Tim S

          I guess you missed this part that is included in site:

          “The flyer is NOT intended for drunks.
          Drunks don’t follow instructions and that makes things worse.”

          The rest of us do not lose our rights because of what you think or what a small percent do on the road.
          We don’t take away cars from everyone after an accident.

      2. MamaM

        So check points ONLY get people who are drinking??? Hum… could have swarm the only time I’ve ever been threw any check point i and everyone in the car was 100% stone cold sober. That’s odd. According to you that DID NOT happen because only people who are drinking get pulled over at DUI check points. Here’s reality. At check points EVERYONE is pulled over. They are ALL searched by simply stopping. Violating rights of hundreds of innocent people to get a few who still haven’t hurt anyone is not just wrong but against our constitution. The police have ZERO reason to believe that ALL people driving on ANY street are drunk. Because that NEVER happens. Without reason to believe that ALL people driving on a street are drunk there is NO REASON TO PULL ALL PEOPLE ON SAID STREET OVER. That is a violation of our right to reasonable search and seizure because they have no reason to search us all.

        Reply
      3. TMLutas

        I do not want to get into conversations with law enforcement on the road and end up in a civil forfeiture case, trying to get back my lawfully owned car or cash that the police “charge” and seize. With the growing number of financially desperate municipalities out there, do you really not see how this could be used appropriately?

        That being said, everybody including the authors obviously understand that there are ways to use this inappropriately. In a free country when there are appropriate and inappropriate uses, stuff is legal and the assumption is that people are using it appropriately.

        Reply
      4. katy

        Let me guess, T.R., you must be a cop. If I am doing nothing wrong, what right does anyone have to pull me over and harass me, just because it’s New Years Eve or some other holiday? What a waste of my time and theirs. And, I don’t know about where you live, but where I live the cops are truly needed to be handling all the shootings and other violent acts. We pay cops to protect and serve, NOT to stop and harass!

        Reply
    2. Amanda Trebiano

      These laws may be on the books but they will not stand up to a legal challenge as Illinois cannot arbitrarily deny you your Constitutional rights. If you want to be a test case, call the ACLU and then get arrested and let them fight it out for you.

      Reply
    1. MamaM

      For some reason no one will answer this question. This is the 3rd time i’ve seen it asked. I would like to know the answer too but i don’t know if or when that will ever happen.

      Reply
  5. Ed

    I believe the law has now changed, and they no longer hold your license as bond for a ticket that needs to be paid, just heard this the other day, found your website this morning and must say this is outstanding information, thank you

    Reply
  6. Tim

    Steven: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-quinn-signs-illinois-eavesdropping-law-met-1231-20141230-story.html

    Bill was signed by Quinn. This passed with very few votes against. Why is it they can dash cam or body cam us and we can’t do the same. How about security cameras that the police walk into the area being covered? I still think law lets people video them in public as long as it isn’t secret. Their own argument that they use “if you are not doing anything illegal, then you don’t havr anything to worry about” should work both ways.

    Reply
    1. Shawn

      You need to read both the article and the law again, Tim.

      “It also would be legal to record police officers and other government officials talking to the public as part of their duties. Illinois’ previous eavesdropping law was among the strictest in the nation, making it illegal to record anybody, even in public, without their permission.”

      Reply
      1. Tim S

        Not here to argue but it was the old law that made it illegal. I think new one does allow it. I really would like to get it clarified. There are too many gray areas and I certainly don’t want to ask police because they will lie and tell me I can’t when I can, too many examples of that seen on news every day. Maybe a local DA could tell me. How does this come into play when police enter into an area that has a surveillance camera? How come they can video us and we can’t video them? I think this is another case of a poorly written law and will probably be back up in front of court again.

        Reply
  7. Bob Centinaje

    I wish someone can videotape one on their OWN STATE to post and prove what actually can apply. By also supporting with reference on a most recent Supreme Court ruling in relevant to our topic would be a very useful worth of info. So if possible, if we need to supply each other with valuable useful source of info, then my advice is to, please, do so with accuracy, reliability and with sense of responsibility. Without facts, they simply are just opinions that can do more harm than good intentions. It can confuse the readers , raise more questions than aide them. As we all know, without back up evidence stating the facts, it is just an another info. GOD BLESS AMERICA, (my home sweet home) with EQUALITY, LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

    Reply
    1. Tim S

      This is even more important now that cops don’t even have to understand the law. Remember them saying “ignorance of the law is no excuse”? It doesn’t apply to them. I can just see some cop breaking a window and dragging person out of car and then being scared(officers safety) enough to beat driver for remaining silent. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/15/reasonable-mistake-of-law-can-generate-reasonable-suspicion-supreme-court-holds/

      Reply
  8. Jim

    Any comments on how CCW plays into this? Should I place my Concealed Carry License in the bag with driver’s license?

    Reply
    1. Nick

      In illinois you don’t have to show your Conceal carry permit unless asked for it. Besides, if they run your plates they already know if you have one.

      Reply
  9. Logan

    Reading through all these comments it seems that there is some confusion. Especially to me, and I’d like to ask a couple questions to get it fixed for future readers. In the great state of Illinois. Anytime this month of January 2015 has the law changed, or is it changing for A) video and or audio record police. B) to manually hand over your license, registration, etc. Or is a zip lock baggy good enough on the outside of your car window? Where it is accessible to the police. C) without rolling your window down and talking to police, it may be difficult to know if you’re being detained, or free to go, in the case they detain you, how long can they detain you? Until a search warrant comes through? Or until you succumb to the hell of drug dogs and hooranging they can and will do? D) If you refuse to roll your window down, but they circle your car with flashlights shining in, and let’s just say for example you have a closed cooler, is that enough probable cause to have you exit the vehicle? And if you refuse for you to also be charged with obstruction of justice or something of the type? What can they do while you’re sitting there? Thanks in advance for all the help, and please forgive me if some of these questions have been answered and I missed it, thanks

    Reply
    1. Amanda Trebiano

      I’m violently allergic to dogs so if they turn a dog loose in my car, I will have to sell the car as I’ll never be able to get in it again. When the dog turns up nothing in a search with NO probable cause on my car they will be on the wrong end of a lawsuit to get me a new car because I put on my flyer that I am violently allergic to dogs and can’t have one in my car. I can’t even sit next to a dog owner on a bus/plane because I start reacting to it.

      Reply
      1. Peoria1

        I have a problem with the state’s dictionary.

        Using dogs to search a vehicle is a violation of the 4th amendment. A police dog is “an officer of the law” and is trained to do one thing – SEARCH. If the officer who stopped you has no probable cause to search the vehicle, he detains you until a police dog is summoned. Thus, this “police officer” that is trained to do one thing sniffs around the car to produce probable cause – yet, it’s not a “search” according to the state.

        By the same token, I looked up the word “display”, and out of the dozens of definitions it had, not one of them was “to physically hand over”.

        It seems as though the state is re-writing Webster’s dictionary so that every word benefits the state.

        Reply
  10. Damein

    In reference to CCW holders in Illinois. When you are stopped by an officer during a routine stop the ONLY time you present your ccw AND foid cards are when you are carrying a loaded firearm on your person or within your direct control (in arms reach) NB: unloaded and cased firearms need not be presented unless there is REASONABLE CAUSE for the law enforcement official to search your vehicle.
    Yes your DL is tied to your CCW & FOID Cards, but if you are NOT carrying the cop CAN ask if you have weapons in your possession as a “safety precaution”… after you respond NO he should not force or coerse you into presenting firearms you do not have but speed up his traffic stop in a timely manner.

    Reply
    1. Nick

      There is no state law requiring you to proactively inform police officers that you are carrying.
      (Opinions are mixed on whether it is better to directly inform a police officer or to stay silent during a traffic stop, but it is not specifically required by state law.)

      430 ILCS 66 Firearm Concealed Carry Act.

      Section 10.
      (g) A licensee shall possess a license at all times the licensee carries a concealed firearm except:
      (h) If an officer of a law enforcement agency initiates an investigative stop, including but not limited to a traffic stop, of a licensee or a non-resident carrying a concealed firearm under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act, upon the request of the officer the licensee or non-resident shall disclose to the officer that he or she is in possession of a concealed firearm under this Act, present the license upon the request of the officer if he or she is a licensee or present upon the request of the officer evidence under paragraph (2) of subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act that he or she is a non-resident qualified to carry under that subsection, and identify the location of the concealed firearm. During a traffic stop, any passenger within the vehicle who is a licensee or a non-resident carrying under subsection (e) of Section 40 of this Act must comply with the requirements of this subsection (h).

      Reply
      1. Peoria1

        The key wording here is “upon request”. I don’t carry, but I interpret this as saying you don’t have to present the card unless it by request.

        Reply
  11. james

    You people are wack…clearly have too much time on your hands. None of this matters, because cop cars have live tamper proof cameras, if you put your license in a bad, and he demands for you to step out, you cant just sit there, thats considered resisting an officer, then he has probable cause to break the window. None of this crap solves anything. Just dont get pulled over!! My god…

    Reply
    1. Steven

      James you are the one that is wacked !
      He has to have probable cause, to search your car,demand you to step out of your car, if he only pulled you over for a traffic violation, then he has no reason to demand you to step out of your car and speeding does not warrant his demanding that you step out of your car, driving under the influence would,
      Now the video taping of police, it is 100% legal to video tape the police, the new law that was put into place for 2015 is changing the old wire taping and eavesdropping law
      They want to keep the police accountable for there actions and think that citizens video taping them will help. Look at Michigan they are making the police pay for liability insurance so when something happens and someone files a lawsuit against a police officer, it’s not the state or city paying out for it hoping this will help the officers be more responsible for there actions. More states are looking into this.

      Reply
      1. Blue Blood

        You guys think you have it all figured out…first, in order to just STOP your car, the PO has to have probable cause.. We aren’t even talking about a search here…so now that your car is stopped under probable cause and the PO asks you to step out of the car and you refuse…well I wish you luck… You think your lawyer who gave you the little ‘get out of jail free card’ is going to provide your bail money for you?

        -Pennsylvania v. Mimms (PO has the right to order the driver out of the vehicle on any lawful stop)

        In case you street lawyers were wondering what ‘lawful’ means… It means PROBABLE CAUSE

        Reply
        1. wredlich Post author

          Excellent reference to the Mimms case. You are mostly correct but not completely.

          First of all, Mimms does not apply to checkpoint stops, which are not based on probable cause. But the flyer is intended mainly for traffic stops.

          Second, Mimms allows the police to order a person out of their car for officer safety reasons – i.e. to check the driver for weapons. It does not allow this if the purpose is some other kind of search. If a police officer orders you out of your car and does a pat down search, the driver should then get back in his car as soon as the pat down is complete.

          Third, the flyer clearly indicates that the driver will obey all clearly stated lawful orders, and the instructions advise the driver to do so.

        2. Blue Blood

          Yes, in case you all were wondering, Warren Redlich – the founder of Fair Dui, is a defense attorney.

          He has a lovely website setup that paints the picture to the type of clientele he represents.. He even goes as far as to break down the different charges that he represents.. My personal favorite is the Weapons Offense section…

          —> “For most clients in such cases, the goal is to negotiate a reduction to a lesser offense. Our fee in such cases is at least $5000 up front, and may exceed $10,000 up front depending on the circumstances.”

          By all means Warren, get your money first… Secondly, please make sure that a person who is being charged with a FELONY weapons offense, gets a reduction to that offense and gets put back on the street…you should be disgusted with yourself, representing people who deserve to be arrested.. If you haven’t don’t anything wrong on a DUI checkpoint, what are you afraid of with following lawful orders?

          Here’s a question Warren… Do you represent people who are facing prison time after killing a child, because they showed the cop your little Monopoly card at a checkpoint and then ran a kid over down the street because they were intoxicated? You probably wouldn’t answer your phone at that point right?

        3. Steven

          Blue Blood

          What does Pennsylvania vs Mimms have anything to do with stepping out of your car when the police ask you to ?
          Pennsylvania vs Mimms case, states since Mimms stepped out of his car already, the gun charges and search were legal, since Mimms stepped out of his car and one of the police officers noticed the blug in Mimms pants, Mimms attorney was trying to get the gun charges dropped saying it was illegal search and seizure.
          Funny you say street lawyers ?
          Maybe learning to read and understand what you read helps?
          I Will ask you just like i asked another, are you a attorney? So far the other person I had ask has not responded?

        4. Blue Blood

          Steven, no I am not a lawyer like Mr. Warren.. And I encourage you to re-read the statue and understand it.

          Yes, in PA v Mimms, the whole basis for the case law revolves around whether or not the pat down was justified because a PO asked him to step out of his car… Had he not been asked to step out of his vehicle, the weapon probably wouldn’t have been noticed by the PO’s.

          However, the result of the case law is that because PO’s face an inheritant danger with every traffic stop they make, the right to order a driver out of the vehicle was implemented. This does not mean that a PO can automatically pat-down that driver, unless they believe there is an immediate danger associated with that driver. Simply put, it just allows a PO to have the driver exit the vehicle.

    2. wredlich Post author

      There are plenty of places where police cars do not have cameras, like most of New York State. And plenty of things happen that are not visible to the police camera.

      If the officer demands that you step out of the car, then you have a choice to make at that point. If you’re trying to make a hot YouTube video, let him smash in your window. If you’re a regular person, it’s a good idea to get out of the car when faced with a clear order.

      Reply
      1. Steven

        Wredlich, are you a attorney?
        Since when does someone have to get out of his car because the police demands it ? You do not have to, you do not have to let them search it, if you are pulled over for a traffic stop, (speeding) then there is no reason to step out, but if the police say they are now conducting an investigation, or detaining you for questioning then you would get out of your car, but you lock it behind you. And you not need to talk to them at all, ask for your attorney and a watch commander,
        It looks like a lot of you are willing to drop your pants for the police here ? They are not God ! Nor do they have the power to control you !
        People learn your rights and not by hearsay, read up on them, learn your constitutional rights, and then you will know more then most police officers do, most of them don’t know them !

        Reply
        1. Amanda Trebiano

          There’s an app for that!! LOL Seriously there is one that tells you what to do and it’s free so I’d download it if I were you. Cops aren’t God, they only think they are. They are not prepared for a well-informed citizen to enforce their rights. Be nice, be polite but tell them politely that you don’t wish to talk to them. They cannot detain you after you sign the ticket to wait for a drug dog to come sniff the car. You ask “Am I free to go?” If they say no after you have signed the ticket, the Supreme Court has held that that is an unlawful detention. They ALL know this–they just hope you DON’T. If I step out of the car I lock the door with the keys in the ignition and the engine running. *I have keyless entry and do this all the time so you either need that or a spare door key in your pocket which you can have made at a hardware store–it doesn’t have to have the chip to unlock the door!! Put it in you wallet as it won’t drive the car but it will keep the cops out when they see the keys dangling from the ignition and the doors are locked.

  12. john

    If you’re a reasonable persons.. And you’re committing or have committed a traffic violation and are stopped by the police, what have you got inside your vehicle on on your person to hide? You do not portray a cooperative and reasonable person when you act this way. Police officers are going to train to win this chess game and no matter how its played with either a zip-loc baggy or otherwise–why make things more difficult? You’ll guarantee MORE time wasted as the officer will certainly write tickets instead of offering a warning. However–if you’re drunk or carrying illegal substances–I guess its the game you play. All the arguments about violations of constitutional rights here is not the major issue–its about people trying to defeat the criminal system by thinking they have a leg up. If you’re a drunk driver–and want to play the game with the police like many people I’ve known–you’re likely not going to win as your mental incapacitation will not leave you being the sharpest. The recording of police officers is not something that so far I’ve seen being a “feared” concept. Police routinely welcome it especially when they don’t have body cameras or are out of their car–they have pretty fair reason to potentially seize the phone/camera as evidence in the case of anything illegal which occurred.
    The chess game is not worth the time–if you’re in the commission of illegal activities–there are plenty of savvy law enforcement officers out there who will find a way to legally waste your time without having to break your windows.
    I wouldn’t mess with the police if I was stopped–they HAVE to provide you with their reason for stopping you as if they don’t have probable cause-the entire case will get thrown out. The “probable cause” cannot be created AFTER they stop you and walk up to your vehicle. It needs to be established prior to them “seizing” you (activating emergency lighting/sirens). The ranting above about “police not being god” is an unusual state of mind…

    Reply
  13. Steven

    I was thinking about this whole hanging the flyer out the window, i can understand were some people don’t like it because someone might be drunk, but remember the police can still look in the windows which they could see your eyes and most of the time your eyes tell the story and a well trained officer could tell if someone is drunk, but not all the time, now what if you were to wear a respiratory mask, what they wear painting a car ? Then you can roll your window down

    Reply
  14. KIM B.

    In IL can you give this flyer during any traffic stop? maybe if I open my window 1/2″ to give the flyer, license and insurance without saying anything to the police or do I have to answer their questions? If you have dashcam do you have to notify the police its recording audio/video?

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      That’s not the advice. Show the flyer through the window. Don’t roll it down unless they give a clear order (and not just a request).

      Request: Ma’am would you please roll down your window?

      Order: Roll down your f***ing window or I’ll smash it in.

      Gray area is in between that.

      Reply
  15. Cindy

    I’ve seen video where a person has pulled up to a DUI checkpoint and had one of these type of notices. When the person would not roll down their window or speak to the officer, he had them pull over and wait while he had a canine handler show up. The canine was encouraged to jump up on this man’s car, scratching it all up, because he wouldn’t open the window. Is this a likely scenario?

    Reply
  16. Edwin

    This is why excessive force arrests happen…..because of crazy assholes who can’t just follow simple directions and prove they’re not driving drunk. I hope you all get tasered within an inch of your lives.

    Reply
  17. Jay

    I hope no one actually plans to use the “advice” on this website. As of 1/1/15, you actually ARE required to sign a citation. Police no longer take DL’s as bond on a citation due to the new “sign and drive law”, you can feel free to look it up.

    Yes, you ARE required to surrender your license upon being stopped and yes, you ARE required to sign a citation. You are also required to exit the vehicle when ordered to do so (Pennsylvania vs Mimms if you need case law).

    You should know your rights when encountering the police, but do your own research don’t rely on crackpot defense attorneys.

    Reply
    1. wredlich Post author

      We are working on an app that will allow people to digitally sign tickets without having to open the window. This matters not just for Illinois but also Texas, California and other states.

      We disagree with Jay on the requirement to “surrender” your license. Such a requirement, even if stated in state law, is an unnecessary infringement on the driver’s Fourth Amendment rights.

      We also disagree on Jay’s interpretation of Mimms. Mimms applies sometimes, but that officer better be prepared to explain why he gave the order.

      And it is our advice to drivers (see the back of the flyer) to obey any clearly stated order.

      Reply
  18. David

    I live in Illinois and have a question regarding probable cause. My license was suspended due to a 14 year old judgement that was revived and not because of any other issues. I only learned about this when I was pulled over. I was held up at gun point and had my wallet stolen. So one day while at work I was driving down a road with the cruise control set to 35 in a 40 mph zone. There was zero traffic and I noticed a police cruiser traveling in a different lane about 200 feet behind me. We pulled up to a red light… I was in the far right lane and the officer was in the left turning lane with an empty lane between us. The light turned green and as soon as I reached the middle of the intersection the officer quickly cut across 2 lanes turned on his lights and pulled me over. When he asked for my license I explained that I didn’t have it because I was robbed and had the police report in the car to prove it. Instead, I gave him my state i.d ( the only identification I had ) and he went back to his vehicle to run my info. When he came back he informed me that my DL was suspended, placed me under arrest and told my pregnant girlfriend that if she couldn’t find anyone to pick up my car it would get impounded and she would have to walk home…. to Naperville from Skokie! He told me he couldn’t let me go because everything was being recorded (audio and video) and his supervisor was behind him watching everything. What the officer DID NOT tell me was the reason why he even pulled me over. Can I get pulled over just for the hell of it? I didn’t eat the light, I wasn’t speeding or doing anything illegal while driving so where was the probable cause? My second question is if I get arrested during a traffic stop ( or for any other reason ) isn’t the officer suppose to read me my rights prior to placing me under arrest? Neither the arresting officer or supervisor read me my rights. I’ve NEVER been arrested and never had mug shots or finger prints taken… now I have a record. Is any of this even legal!!! Is there anything I can do to get that stuff thrown out? Also, can I seek legal action against the police department for this?

    Reply
    1. TERRY

      I BELEAVE THE REASON WHY THEY PULLED U OVER IS BECAUSE WHEN THE COP WENT PAST U HE RAN UR LICENCE PLATES AND FOUND OUT THE UR DL WAS SUSPENDED THERE FOR GIVING PROBERBAL CAUSE TO PUL U OVER

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *