quote:

---

great hoss, looks like you don't understand the definition. pretty sad that in your mind every person out late is doing something wrong.

---

And you don't know how to read. Let me try this again. This time I'll put it in bold letters...

quote:

---

In my mind, being on the road at 2:00 AM is probable cause to run your plates. After all, "nothing good happens between midnight and 2:00 AM", right? Now, I'm certainly not saying that everyone on the road at that time is guilty of something, but I would think the percentage is certainly higher.

---

Now, let me reiterate that I certainly don't believe that everyone who is out late is doing something wrong. I never said that and I don't think that. However, if you're unable to see why an officer MIGHT be more suspicious of a person driving at 2:00 in the morning than he would be of that same person driving at 2:00 in the afternoon then I really don't know what to tell you.

quote:

---

"Rights I never had"???

Some serious legal minds tend to agree with me:

http://www.realtruth.biz/right_to_drive.htm

---

I don't think anyone ever challenged your right to drive. You and others here were complaining about losing your right to privacy/freedom/liberty. If you feel that strongly about it then take your plates off of your car. That is, after all, their primary purpose.

I agree that we live in an over-legislated society. However, it doesn't give you the right to not follow the laws. Nor does it give you the right to ***** about being punished for not following the laws.

If the law you broke is unconstitutional, then fight it and the law CAN be overturned. But whining because the cop punched your plate number into the system to find out you were in violation is childish at best.

It's embarrassing to see (presumably) well educated people hem and haw because of the way law enforcement goes about their business.

[This message has been edited by IsleAg11 (edited 10/15/2010 3:22p).]

Well done, RR.

Here is is:

quote:

---

SPECIAL POLICE OFFICER BULLETIN



U.S. COURT DECISIONS CONFIRM "DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE" IS A
CITIZENS RIGHT AND NOT A GOVERNMENT GRANTED PRIVILEGE.

For many years Professionals within the criminal justice System have acted upon the belief that traveling by motor vehicle upon the roadway was a privilege that was gained by a citizen only after approval by their respective state government in the form of the issuance of a permit or license to that Particular individual. Legislators, police officers and court officials are becoming aware that there are now court decisions that prove the fallacy of the legal opinion that" driving is a privilege and therefore requires government approval, i.e. a license". Some of these cases are:
Case # 1 - "Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22
("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)

Case # 2 - "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.

It could not be stated more conclusively that Citizens of the states have a right to travel, without approval or restriction (license), and that this right is protected under the U.S. Constitution. Here are other court decisions that expound the same facts:

Case # 3 - "The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.

Case # 4 - "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to another according to inclination, is an attribute of personal Iiberty, and the right, ordinarily, of free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the l4th Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution." - Schactman v Dulles, 96 App D.C. 287, 293.

FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT

As hard as it is for those of us in Law enforcement to believe, there is no room for speculation in these court decisions. The American citizen does indeed have the inalienable right to use the roadways unrestricted in any manner as long as they are not damaging or violating property or rights of another.

Government, in requiring the people to file for "drivers Iicenses, vehicle registrations, mandatory insurance, and demanding they stop for vehicle inspections, DUI/DWI roadblocks etc. without question, are "restricting", and therefore violating, the Peoples common law right to travel.

Is this a new legal interpretation on this subject of the right to travel? Apparently not. The American Citizens and Lawmen Association in conjunction with The U.S. Federal Law Research Center are presently involved in studies in several areas involving questions on constitutional law. One of the many areas under review is the area of "Citizens right to travel." In an interview a spokesmen stated: "Upon researching this subject over many months, substantial case law has presented itself that completely substantiates the position that the "right to travel unrestricted upon the nations highways" is and has always been a fundamental right of every Citizen."

This means that the "beliefs and opinions" our state legislators, the courts, and those of as involved in the law enforcement profession have acted upon for years have been in error. Researchers armed with actual facts state that U.S. case law is overwhelming in determining that - to restrict, in any fashion, the movement of the individual American in the free exercise of their right to travel upon the roadways, (excluding "commerce" which the state Legislatures are correct in regulating), is a serious breach of those freedoms secured by the U.S. Constitution, and most state Constitutions, i.e - it is Unlawful.

THE REVELATION THAT THE AMERICAN CITIZEN HAS ALWAYS HAD THE INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRAVEL RAISES PROFOUND QUESTIONS TO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN MAKING AND ENFORCING STATE LAWS.

The first of such questions may very well be - If the States have been enforcing laws that are unconstitutional on their face, it would seem that there must be some way that a state can legally put restrictions, such as - licensing requirements, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, vehicle inspections, D.W.I. roadblocks, to name just a few, on a Citizens constitutionally protected right. Is that not so?

For the answer to this question let us Iook, once again, to the U.S. courts for a determination on this very issue.

The case of Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516. states very plainly: "The State cannot diminish rights of the people."

"the assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

Would we not say that these judicial decisions are straight to the point - that there is no lawful method for government to put restrictions or Iimitations on rights belonging to the people?

Other cases are even more straight forward:

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945. ( There is no question that a citation/ticket issued by a police officer, for no drivers license, no current vehicle registration, no vehicle insurance etc. which carries a fine or jail time, is a penalty or sanction, and is indeed "converting a Right into a crime".)

We could go on, quoting court decision after court decision, however, In addition, the Constitution itself answers our question- "Can a government legally put restrictions on the rights of the American people at anytime, for any reason"? (Such as in this particular case - when the government believes it to be for the safety and welfare of the people).

The answer is found in ARTICLE SIX of the U.S. Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;..shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary not withstanding". (This tells us that the U.S. Constitution is to be upheld over any state, county, or city Iaws that are in opposition to it.)

In the same Article it goes on to say just who it is within our governments that is bound by this Supreme Law:

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

We know that Police officers, are a part of the Executive branch. We are "Executive Officers".

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.

In this regard then, we must agree that those within government that restrict a Citizens rights, (such as restricting the peoples right to travel,) are acting in violation of his or her oath of office and are actually committing a crime against such Citizens. Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the "letter of the law (as we are sworn to do), this places officials that involve themselves in such unlawful acts in a unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate, or deprive citizens of their Constitutionally protected rights.

Our system of law dictates the fact that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are - #1 - by lawfully amending the constitution, or #2 - by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion in our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to traveI "unrestricted" upon the roadways of the states and opted into the jurisdiction of the state for various reasons. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law, the proper courts, and "sworn, constitutionally empowered officers-of-the-law," and must acquire proper permits, registrations, insurance, etc.

There are basically two groups of people in this category:

#1 - Any citizen that involves themselves in "commerce," (business for private gain), upon the highways of the state.

Here is what the courts have said about this:

"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or license which the legislature may grant or withhold at its discretion..." - State v Johnson, 243 P. 1073, 1078.

Other U.S. court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the "right" of the citizen to travel and a government "privilege" are - Barney v Board of Railroad Commissioners; State v City of Spokane, 186 P. 864.; Ex Parte Dickey (Dickey v Davis), 85 S.E. 781.; Teche Lines v Danforth, 12 So.2d 784.

There are numerous other court decisions that spell out the JURISDICTION issue In these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions we will leave it up to officers to research it further for themselves. (See last page for additional references).

#2 - The second group of citizens that are legally under the jurisdiction of the state is the individual citizen who has voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel "unregulated and unrestricted" by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state - drivers license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words "by contract only".)

We should remember what makes this "legal," and not a violation of the individuals common law right to travel "unrestricted" is that they knowingly volunteer, freely, by contract, to waive their right. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the states powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights.

This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have filed, and received, licenses, registrations, insurance etc. after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between "Privileges vs. Rights". We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses, vehicle registrations etc., have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. "laws of no effect". In other words - "LAWS THAT ARE NOT LAWS AT ALL."

OUR SWORN DUTY

An area of serious consideration for every police officer, is to understand that the most important law in our land he has taken an oath to protect, defend, AND ENFORCE, is not state laws, nor city or county ordinances, but, that law that supersede all other laws in our nation, - the U.S. Constitution. If laws in a particular police officer's state, or local community are in conflict with the SUPREME LAW of our nation, there Is no question that the officer's duty is to "uphold the U.S. Constitution."

What does this mean to the "patrol officer" who will be the only sworn "Executive Officer" on the scene, when knowledgeable Citizens raise serious objections over possession of insurance, drivers licenses and other restrictions? It definitely means these officers will be faced with a hard decision. (Most certainly if that decision effects state, city or county revenues, such as the issuing of citations do.)

Example: If a state legislator, judge or a superior tells a police officer to proceed and enforce a contradictory, (illegal), state law rather than the Supreme Law of this country, what is that "sworn officer" to do? Although we may not want to hear it, there is but one right answer, - "the officer is duty bound to uphold his oath of office" and obey the highest laws of the nation. THIS IS OUR SWORN DUTY AND IT'S THE LAW!

Such a strong honest stand taken by a police officer, upholding his or her oath of office, takes moral strength of character. It will, without question, "SEPARATE THE MEN FROM THE BOYS." Such honest and straight forward decisions on behalf of a government official have often caused pressure to be applied to force such officers to set aside, or compromise their morals or convictions.

As a solace for those brave souls in uniform that will stand up for law and justice, even when it's unpopular, or uncomfortable to do so...let me say this. In any legal stand-off over a sworn official "violating" or "upholding" their oath of office, those that would side with the "violation" should inevitable lose.

Our Founding Fathers assured us, on many occasions, the following: Defending our freedoms in the face of people that would for "expedients sake," or behind the guise, "for the safety and welfare of the masses," ignore peoples rights, would forever demand sacrifice and vigilance from those that desired to remain free. That sounds a little like - "Freedom is not free!"

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling, that was covered earlier, in mind before issuing citations in regard to "mandatory licensing, registration and insurance" - verses - "the right of the people to travel unencumbered":
"THE CLAlM AND EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL RlGHT CANNOT BE CONVERTED INTO A CRIME." - Miller v U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489.

And as we have seen, "traveling freely," going about ones daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

---

quote:

---

I agree that we live in an over-legislated society. However, it doesn't give you the right to not follow the laws. Nor does it give you the right to ***** about being punished for not following the laws.

If the law you broke is unconstitutional, then fight it and the law CAN be overturned. But whining because the cop punched your plate number into the system to find out you were in violation is childish at best.

It's embarrassing to see (presumably) well educated people hem and haw because of the way law enforcement goes about their business.

---

Agree with all points but one. They (we) DO have the right to complain about being punished. They (we) might clearly be in the wrong, but they (we) still have freedom of speech.

What's truly embarassing is to see how little thought people give to whether actions of the police are warranted.

"Don't break the law and you dont have a problem" is the thought of a mental midget.

It's one thing for a cop to pull a driver over based on probable cause/reasonable suspicion of criminal activity (from witnessing a traffic infraction, or fitting the description of a BOLO call - AND NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S 2 A.M.!!!), but it's quite another thing for a cop to run a plate when there's no such PC/RS. If you truly cannot see the difference, that is why its my opinion our republic is doomed.

I suppose you're right. Sometimes that freedom speech thing is really annoying. Not that I would give it up.

youre welcome to stop reading Isle.

I don't see the drawback to the police running the plate without probable cause. You've been in no way inconvenienced and if the plates come back clean, they still have no cause/right to stop you. Where exactly is the harm in that? How have your rights been violated?

Hell, I'm glad those cops are actually doing something while they're driving around other than talking to their girlfriends on their cell phone and waiting to respond to something that's already occured somewhere else.

Goose - From my perspective, it's not about whether I've been inconvenienced or not, or whether I'm allowed to go on my merry way because I've done nothing wrong( or at least because their computer says I've done nothing wrong).

I view this instead strictly from the view of what the police should be allowed to do, and it seems overbroad for them to have the unilateral choice, without need to justify a reason, to run a plate. Maybe they decide to run it because it's 2 a.m. and I must be up to no good, or maybe they dont like the bumper sticker on my car, or maybe they're bored. The fact that they are allowed to do this without cause or suspicion is what I find troubling.

Criminals are never happy to get caught, as evident by the angry face on the original post.

quote:

---

CRIMINALS are never happy to get caught

---

REALLY?!?! So when's the the last time you got a traffic ticket, Pot? Were you happy about it?

quote:

---

if you're unable to see why an officer MIGHT be more suspicious of a person driving at 2:00 in the morning than he would be of that same person driving at 2:00 in the afternoon then I really don't know what to tell you.

---

so it's more suspicious to drive home from work at 2am than it is to drive home from work at 2pm?

but then again, how does the cop know that unless he stops you to ask.

quote:

---

youre welcome to stop reading Isle.

---

And you're welcome to eat my ass. Who the **** are you to tell me to stop reading a thread because you don't like what I have to say.

quote:

---

And you're welcome to eat my ass.

---

Well, it's not like it'll be difficult to find with you hanging it out like that.

Yes a cop can run your 28, I spent the whole night running them for officers. LP's are considered public, the same way that sticker is. I find it funny you don't have an issue with them reading the sticker, but do have a problem with them reading the plate.....

[This message has been edited by Ag_of_08 (edited 10/15/2010 10:37p).]

Okay, quite simply, your freedom/privacy/rights are NOT being violated in any way if a police officer decides to run your plates. You might not like it, which is fine, but it's not an infringement on your rights. You're basically getting upset because an officer can easily and quickly determine who the car you're driving is registered to and whether or not certain things like registration and insurance are up to date. Really? This REALLY bothers you that much? I almost hate to tell you about all the info someone can find about you by simply looking up your name or address on the county tax appraisal website.

That's cool though. You guys are free to feel how you want about it. That's one of the great things about living in a free country.

Y'all have a great weekend.

Solution: dint break the law.

I've noticed over the years that most txagers are also constitutional lawyers. I love how it's unconstitutional in this instance, yet a large share of these same posters has no problems when they linkedthec ystem to check if drivers had insurance.

Texags: the ultimate double standard.

don't break the law and you'll get stopped anyway...

I've been stopped for not using my blinker, while I had used my blinker, but it's my word against the cops... yeah, right.

I've also been stopped for driving down a closed road with moderate traffic. I was the only one stopped, the rest of the traffic went on their merry way. Explain THAT!

Finally, I got stopped not long after turning 16, for "Exhibition of Acceleration" while leaving the CS best buy parking lot. Red Lobster's sprinklers were on, and there was water in the gutter between the parking lot and Texas Avenue. Wheel slip, tire chirp, motorcycle cop and a ticket.

They'll stop you because they're bored.

I have no problem with them running your plate. But unless the return tells them that the driver is 100% breaking the law (and unless the vehicle was reported stolen, that's not possible) there is still no reason to pull the driver over. Follow, sure. Pull over, no.

quote:

---

But unless the return tells them that the driver is 100% breaking the law

---

Which, in the case of the original poster, is exactly what happened, because operating a vehicle with expired registration is 100% against the law. That is why they issue tickets for it.

nm

[This message has been edited by Ag83 (edited 10/16/2010 9:11a).]

quote:

---

I was the only one stopped, the rest of the traffic went on their merry way. Explain THAT!

---

OK....since this is the outdoor board.
Dot comes down hard on point....Duke honors her. You ease up behind Dot. Eight to ten Bob's explode a few feet from her nose....you quickly bring your Silver Pigeon to your shoulder and dump one and then follow the remainder to watch where they land.

Why did you pick that one?

quote:

---

I've been stopped for not using my blinker, while I had used my blinker, but it's my word against the cops... yeah, right.

---

You have a reason to lie about the blinker, the cop doesn't. He could have made a mistake, he is human after all. Sometimes life isn't fair. If you want to avoid any possibility of getting a ticket, then don't drive.

quote:

---

I've also been stopped for driving down a closed road with moderate traffic. I was the only one stopped, the rest of the traffic went on their merry way. Explain THAT!

---

Sunchaser's answer is possibly the post of the year.

quote:

---

Finally, I got stopped not long after turning 16, for "Exhibition of Acceleration" while leaving the CS best buy parking lot. Red Lobster's sprinklers were on, and there was water in the gutter between the parking lot and Texas Avenue. Wheel slip, tire chirp, motorcycle cop and a ticket.

---

I'd bet that the officer who ticketed you saw dozens of people exit that parking lot. I bet nearly everyone else managed to exit the parking lot without chirping the tires. It's easy to drive on wet roads with out your tires slipping. MILLIONS of people do it day in and day out. It's also easy to tell when someone accidentally slips and immediately lets off of the accelerator compared to someone who doesn't.

quote:

---

I have no problem with them running your plate. But unless the return tells them that the driver is 100% breaking the law (and unless the vehicle was reported stolen, that's not possible) there is still no reason to pull the driver over. Follow, sure. Pull over, no.

---

It is not the officer's job to decide if you are breaking the law beyond a doubt... it is a judge or jury's job to make that decision. All the cop can do is make a decision to stop you based on the information in front of him. And that decision is usually made in less than two seconds.

You can't possibly expect a cop to not pull a car over unless it comes back as reported stolen. What about a car that looks to be driven by a drunk driver? The cop can't pull him over unless he knows the driver is drunk? How is that possible? I'll answer that for you, it is not possible.


[This message has been edited by IsleAg11 (edited 10/16/2010 9:15a).]

Isle, logic and rational have no place on Texags. Shame on you. Apologize immediately!

I know, sometimes I forgot the rules around here.

How are the cull hunters doing this weekend?

Isle,

The cop had more reason to lie than I did.

In a 1 block area, there were 5 drivers pulled over. They were apparently searching for somebody that had broken into some cars in the area the night before.

The road had no indication of closure. If it had, there would most definitely not have been moderate traffic.

and you're right, I didn't let off of the accelerator, that would have stalled the little 2.2L in the empty S10 out... I hit the clutch instead. -> light rear end + low 1st gear = little traction when wet. My father couldn't prevent it, nor can my sister's fiancee who now owns the pickup. My dad was irate when I brought that ticket home. Since a minor had to have a parent with them at the courthouse, he drove (same pickup) and ended up doing the exact same thing on the way to appeal for Deferred Adjudication.

While registration not being current is against the law, it would be an issue to take up with the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver. If a vehicle with expired registration shows up on the road, you have the address of the owner, mail them the fine... no reason to stop the driver.

I don't have a Dot or Duke in this hunt, but:

quote:

---

yet a large share of these same posters has no problems when they linkedthec ystem to check if drivers had insurance.

---

That was asked for when a criminal offense occurred.

quote:

---

While registration not being current is against the law, it would be an issue to take up with the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver. If a vehicle with expired registration shows up on the road, you have the address of the owner, mail them the fine... no reason to stop the driver

---

No.

The person in control of the vehicle at the time of the infraction is the one who gets the ticket, no matter what it is for; speeding, no insurance, expired registration, non-working lights/taillights, etc.

It's not illegal to own a car that's not tagged.

It's illegal to drive a car that's not tagged.

Driver's fault, Driver gets the citation.

That needs to be fixed.

No, it isn't illegal to own an untagged vehicle if it isn't being used on the road.

Was that a quintuple negative?

Hunt is going well. One spike and 1 doe so far. We are seeing alot, but finding solo doe isn't always as easy as it sounds.

quote:

---

In a 1 block area, there were 5 drivers pulled over. They were apparently searching for somebody that had broken into some cars in the area the night before.

---

You're kidding me right? The police were actively looking for a burglar and you're pissed that you were inconvenienced during the process? He was clearly doing something else, why would he have wasted his time writing you a blinker ticket if he didn't think you didn't use your blinker? But you can't seriously be mad at him for trying to catch someone who was breaking into cars. I'm sure you wouldn't be so upset if your car had been burglarized.

quote:

---

The road had no indication of closure. If it had, there would most definitely not have been moderate traffic.

---

Sign or no sign, if you were driving on a closed road it's the officer's job to cite you for breaking the law. It is then your duty to go to court and argue it. So, what did the judge say when you told him about this?

quote:

---

and you're right, I didn't let off of the accelerator, that would have stalled the little 2.2L in the empty S10 out... I hit the clutch instead. -> light rear end + low 1st gear = little traction when wet. My father couldn't prevent it, nor can my sister's fiancee who now owns the pickup. My dad was irate when I brought that ticket home. Since a minor had to have a parent with them at the courthouse, he drove (same pickup) and ended up doing the exact same thing on the way to appeal for Deferred Adjudication.

---

So you depressed the clutch and the tires continued to spin? I've driven my fair share of cars with a manual transmission. None of them behaved in such a manner.

quote:

---

While registration not being current is against the law, it would be an issue to take up with the registered owner of the vehicle, not the driver. If a vehicle with expired registration shows up on the road, you have the address of the owner, mail them the fine... no reason to stop the driver.

---

Don't drive an unregistered car. How would you feel if you didn't drive your unregistered car because you wanted to avoid a ticket. Whilst you're at work, a bad guys steals your car. An officer decides to run your plates. But you don't know the car is stolen yet, so it doesn't pop up as stolen. And instead of pulling the guy over for driving an unregistered vehicle and catching him driving a stolen car, he just presses his "issue ticket" button and goes on his way. So two weeks later, after they found your stolen car in some ravine, stripped down to the frame, you receive a ticket in the mail for having your unregistered vehicle on the road? Does that sound fair? Now you have to pay a ticket that you didn't deserve.

quote:

---

He was clearly doing something else, why would he have wasted his time writing you a blinker ticket if he didn't think you didn't use your blinker?

---

no ticket, warning... he was just making up reasons to stop drivers to make contact.

quote:

---

Sign or no sign, if you were driving on a closed road it's the officer's job to cite you for breaking the law. It is then your duty to go to court and argue it. So, what did the judge say when you told him about this?

---

so, how is a driver to know that a road is closed if there is no sign that says, "Road Closed"? Sounds like a racket to me. The judge said to take DD.

quote:

---

So you depressed the clutch and the tires continued to spin?

---

nope, they chirped when they stopped spinning.

quote:

---

How would you feel if you didn't drive your unregistered car because you wanted to avoid a ticket. Whilst you're at work, a bad guys steals your car. An officer decides to run your plates. But you don't know the car is stolen yet, so it doesn't pop up as stolen. And instead of pulling the guy over for driving an unregistered vehicle and catching him driving a stolen car, he just presses his "issue ticket" button and goes on his way. So two weeks later, after they found your stolen car in some ravine, stripped down to the frame, you receive a ticket in the mail for having your unregistered vehicle on the road? Does that sound fair? Now you have to pay a ticket that you didn't deserve.

---

not likely. I'd be pissed that my unregistered farm vehicle got stolen, but I'd be more pissed about the mile of private property the thief crossed to get to it, the gate locks they cut, and the fact that I hadn't noticed somebody wandering around, scouting my stuff. Other than that I keep vehicles that will see the road registered.

A valid defense to the infraction would be that the vehicle was stolen. Since it was not the registered owner's intent to drive the vehicle on the road, the thief would be solely responsible (if necessary). Lying about a stolen vehicle is already a crime.

Lets put it another way, too:

If a thief was to steal a vehicle from me that I had not registered (for whatever reason), and then suddenly stopped breaking laws altogether as to avoid LEO contact for the rest of his/her life. Then, before I was able to report the vehicle stolen, a cop noticed that there was expired registration so he follows the thief for a few blocks/miles to find a legit* reason to pull them over and doesn't find one, so he can't initiate a traffic stop, and then I never see the vehicle again... I would be fine with knowing that at the price of having insurance replace a vehicle, a scumbag turned their life around.


ETA: *legit - run red light, speeding, equipment malfunction, failure to yield ROW, heck, we'll even throw in rolling stop signs and avoiding signals through private property.

[This message has been edited by TexasRebel (edited 10/16/2010 10:43a).]

How about this...

Somebody steals a vehicle from you, and then the red light camera that catches them running a red light mails you a ticket and fails to stop the driver.