This was posted on another forum.. sorry for the wall of text... but does any of this have any truth to it? (I bolded the parts that have me scratching my head). I think he's full of shit, but I figured I'd make sure before I call him out.
axe9 said:944obscene said:A traffic cop can pull you over for no better reason than to waste your time. If he thinks there is any reason to stop you he will. And if we all remember back to our days in Driver's Ed., a cop can pull you over to do a BAC test at ANY time.
If a cop ever pulls me over, I don't need to know the reason until he tells me. Then I will contest it with him, as I have in the past. Its my job to hand him my papers if he asks. I'm really not trying to sound like an ass. Just stating what I remembered and what I understand to be true. As right or wrong as it is.
Once, I got pulled for doing 20 over. I wasn't, but I just complied with everything he needed me to, up until he told me my "offense"... I requested twice to see the gun, but he never showed me. Its screwy and I think its wrong, but he doesn't have to show it to me if he doesn't want to. I was going to contest it, but I decided it wasn't worth my time and I just took the two hits on my license and shit. Still pissed about it. But still, I handed everything over when he wanted it and made sure I wasn't making his job harder. They respect that and sometimes honor it.
Plus, you gotta think, how much shit he goes through in one day, just because of his occupational title. I wouldn't be a happy mother****er either if every person I dealt with was an asshole to me because I had a badge and a gun.
Anyway. I think its bullshit that he treated you the way he did. He wasn't going to ticket you. I already know that. He probably got pissed when he saw you run the yellow and thought, "I'm gonna teach that ****er a lesson." Plus if he followed you a good distance, it would be harder for him to prove your offense.
For a court to convict you of a traffic offense, they have to prove three things. First, they have to prove that the offense they saw was actually committed. Second, that your car was the car that was used to commit the offense. And third, they have to identify you as the driver of the vehicle at the time they saw the act. So basically, they have to put you at the place of the act, in the car, and prove that you did what they say.
Thus, pulling someone over 5 miles from the "location of an offense", isn't gonna hold up with a good judge. And if you can get inside of a place of business before a cop that is looking for you can find you, he can't legally ticket you. Just because he couldn't actually place you as the driver of the vehicle. Unless he actually sees you get out and run inside. Then you're ****ed lol.
My friend got off from a bogus ticket, because the officer couldn't provide proof of the offense. He can't lie, so when the judge asked if he saw smoke from the tires, the officer said, "Not that I could see." He asked if my friend was actually fishtailing (it was a goddamned Integra for Christ's sake) and the officer said, "Not that I could see." The judge looked at over and said, "I don't think this kid is guilty. Go ahead and get out of here."
you sir are sadly mistaken. It is their legal obligation to not only tell you what your offense is first, but also show you the evidence they have. It ties into the same principles of "discovery" in a courtroom. They HAVE to. They also have to show you the daily calibration receipt on request, as well as their monthly inspection data.
Also, to all, if a cop is moving, and says he clocks you going X speed, ask him why he was running his radar non-stationary. If he says it's his right (it is with probable cause) then ask him at what speed he was moving when he calibrated his radar (done stationary). he will then get pissed, and give you a warning, because they cannot write speeding tickets based on their radar if they were moving when they clocked you, because the radar is calibrated tested, and inspected stationary.
One more thing, if a police officer is on the side of the road at night without lights on identifying them as an emergency vehicle, they 1, cannot run radar, and 2, cannot ticket you for a moving violation. This is state, and national law. If you see an officer on the side of the road without lights on, you as a citizen have the right to stop and inquire what they are doing. They are obliged to tell you, and if you see their radar on, they can get in deep shit. Police ARE REQUIRED to have lights on at night, period.
I can't tell you how many tickets I got when I first started driving because cops were outright breaking the law to catch me. Now that I know better, I get pulled over a lot, but rarely ever see paper, let alone tickets. They run my record and my plates and let me go, no matter what I did, or how fast I was going, because they broke the law puling me over. They bank on people being ignorant and just eating tickets. Every small town cop I have ever met and talked to has admitted doing it. don't know if big cities are bad, but there is nothing but small towns around here, so I learned this shit well. I have a copy of the local police regulations book (obtainable for a fee at your local police station), and I read that shit front to back. If they don't follow the rules on routine stops, then they can't do anything, and they know it.
