Arrested for breaking any law?
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 447
Likes: 1
From: Brookville, IN USA
If you bring your girl to Indiana, make sure ya know this law... 
A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
Later,
Roger
A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
Later,
Roger
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 5,939
Likes: 0
From: Warner Robins, Ga, CSA
see my earlier post...yes, she was a repeat offender.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by MechE:
I want to know how the lady ws acting after the cop pulled her over. Does she have a past record for such traffic violations. Is she a repeat offender.
I know of a case where a women tried suing a cop because he arrested her for not placing her child in a seat belt. She said it was abuse of power. ended up she had been pulled over twice by the same cop and at least once more by his partner for the same infraction. She also started cussing and throwing things because the cop would not give her a warning.
The news as the ability to misinform the public for ratings and hype. Never believe the news as its told.</font>
I want to know how the lady ws acting after the cop pulled her over. Does she have a past record for such traffic violations. Is she a repeat offender.
I know of a case where a women tried suing a cop because he arrested her for not placing her child in a seat belt. She said it was abuse of power. ended up she had been pulled over twice by the same cop and at least once more by his partner for the same infraction. She also started cussing and throwing things because the cop would not give her a warning.
The news as the ability to misinform the public for ratings and hype. Never believe the news as its told.</font>
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 1,751
Likes: 0
From: Waltham Ma.
I got pulled over yesterday.
I was the third vehical sitting at a red light there was a cop in the opposite direction also waiting for the light to turn green.
When the light turned green I went through the intersection, all of a sudden I saw the cop turn around and put his blues on. I pulled a little to the right to let him go by, but he pulled in behind me and pulled me over. He came up to me asked me for my licence and registration, I asked him what I did and he asked me why I went strait in the turning lane. I told him I didn't think I was in the turning lane, and I may have pulled a little to the right to avoid a car in the opposite direction that was trying to turn left. He then said well maybee the angle made you look like you were in that lane.
He then started to ask me questions about my tail lights and the truck in general. I think he pulled me over just to check out my truck. Man this truck attracks a lot of attention.
------------------
SILVER 2001 LIGHTNING
Built 02/14/01
Picked up 03/03/01
Sportmasters tonneau
Bedrug
Alpine head unit and six disk changer.
JL Audio speakers
Magnaflow muffler
JDM BigMouth Filter.
http://donf150.tripod.com/Welcome/id6.html
http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294607313
I was the third vehical sitting at a red light there was a cop in the opposite direction also waiting for the light to turn green.
When the light turned green I went through the intersection, all of a sudden I saw the cop turn around and put his blues on. I pulled a little to the right to let him go by, but he pulled in behind me and pulled me over. He came up to me asked me for my licence and registration, I asked him what I did and he asked me why I went strait in the turning lane. I told him I didn't think I was in the turning lane, and I may have pulled a little to the right to avoid a car in the opposite direction that was trying to turn left. He then said well maybee the angle made you look like you were in that lane.
He then started to ask me questions about my tail lights and the truck in general. I think he pulled me over just to check out my truck. Man this truck attracks a lot of attention.
------------------
SILVER 2001 LIGHTNING
Built 02/14/01
Picked up 03/03/01
Sportmasters tonneau
Bedrug
Alpine head unit and six disk changer.
JL Audio speakers
Magnaflow muffler
JDM BigMouth Filter.
http://donf150.tripod.com/Welcome/id6.html
http://www.zing.com/album/?id=4294607313
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Utah
sorry to everyone for a mistake i made in an earlier post. i will not go back and correct the previous post because i think it is important to consider the evolution of my thoughts in the context of what i understood when i made the comments.
this morning i thought i'd do a little checking to be certain that i was correct when i made the statement that UT officers cannot arrest for infractions. turns out i was wrong. below is the relavent portion of the utah code of criminal procedure:
what this means is that indeed an officer CAN arrest for an infraction because it is a public offense, just as a misdemeanor or felony is. with that new information, i must change my stated opinions accordingly:
i agree that most offenses classified as infractions (speaking strictly in the UT definitive class of "infraction" sense) are not worthy of arrest. this is clearly seen in my record that i have never arrested someone for an infraction. (doesn't mean that i wouldn't arrest someone for an infraction that was "appropriate" but i have never needed to do that--a citation has always been sufficient until now.) however, i am certain that if i looked in the criminal code i would find an offense or two that is technically classified as an infraction (example: child safety seat usage) that could be considered safety related, and consequently enforced with appropriately, including with arrest if necessary. the problem with taking away the arrest authority for ALL infractions is that there would undoubtedly be SOME offenses worthy of arrest that would not longer be subject to arrest. this would limit the powers of law enforcement to enforce the laws.
i think that the solution to this problem is relatively simple, although implementation would be very difficult: separate infractions from misdemeanors (as UT already does) and then classify infractions as non-arrestable offenses and misdemeanors and felonies as arrestable offenses. although the concept is simple, the difficulty lies in two issues. 1) the difficulty of conducting a comprehensive review of existing offenses to appropriately classify offenses as misdemeanors or as infractions, and the difficulty of determining what offenses should be placed in either category. undoubtedly there would be much discussion and arguing regarding whether a specific offense is heinous enough to be considered a misdemeanor or innocuous to be considered an infraction. 2) the difficulty associated with motivating legislators to actually do something with the statutes (as seen by the year-after-year introduction of legislation to recodify traffic offenses as infractions not misdemeanors by UT legislators that is repeatedly ignored or tabled, and ultimately left unchanged).
i would favor a system that states certain offenses are not worthy of arrest and others are. the problem with UT's current system is that the offenses are "lumped together" in two related senses: 1) offenses worthy of arrest are lumped together with offenses that are not; and 2) officers have authority to arrest for any public offense, which include infractions. the current UT system is appropriate, because as long as SOME infractions are worthy of arrest, taking away the arrest authority for ALL infractions limits the ability to appropriately enforce the few offenses worthy of arrest.
of course, i still think too many officers use the badge as an authority trip. the power to arrest (which every citizen has, but few, if any, ever do anything about it) is a great responsibility that should NEVER be abused; unfortunately, it too often is.
[This message has been edited by quickdraw (edited 04-27-2001).]
this morning i thought i'd do a little checking to be certain that i was correct when i made the statement that UT officers cannot arrest for infractions. turns out i was wrong. below is the relavent portion of the utah code of criminal procedure:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">77-7-2. Arrest by peace officers.
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when he has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;
(3) when he has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense, and there is reasonable cause for believing the person may:
(a) flee or conceal himself to avoid arrest;
(b) destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the offense; or
(c) injure another person or damage property belonging to another person.</font>
A peace officer may make an arrest under authority of a warrant or may, without warrant, arrest a person:
(1) for any public offense committed or attempted in the presence of any peace officer; "presence" includes all of the physical senses or any device that enhances the acuity, sensitivity, or range of any physical sense, or records the observations of any of the physical senses;
(2) when he has reasonable cause to believe a felony or a class A misdemeanor has been committed and has reasonable cause to believe that the person arrested has committed it;
(3) when he has reasonable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense, and there is reasonable cause for believing the person may:
(a) flee or conceal himself to avoid arrest;
(b) destroy or conceal evidence of the commission of the offense; or
(c) injure another person or damage property belonging to another person.</font>
i agree that most offenses classified as infractions (speaking strictly in the UT definitive class of "infraction" sense) are not worthy of arrest. this is clearly seen in my record that i have never arrested someone for an infraction. (doesn't mean that i wouldn't arrest someone for an infraction that was "appropriate" but i have never needed to do that--a citation has always been sufficient until now.) however, i am certain that if i looked in the criminal code i would find an offense or two that is technically classified as an infraction (example: child safety seat usage) that could be considered safety related, and consequently enforced with appropriately, including with arrest if necessary. the problem with taking away the arrest authority for ALL infractions is that there would undoubtedly be SOME offenses worthy of arrest that would not longer be subject to arrest. this would limit the powers of law enforcement to enforce the laws.
i think that the solution to this problem is relatively simple, although implementation would be very difficult: separate infractions from misdemeanors (as UT already does) and then classify infractions as non-arrestable offenses and misdemeanors and felonies as arrestable offenses. although the concept is simple, the difficulty lies in two issues. 1) the difficulty of conducting a comprehensive review of existing offenses to appropriately classify offenses as misdemeanors or as infractions, and the difficulty of determining what offenses should be placed in either category. undoubtedly there would be much discussion and arguing regarding whether a specific offense is heinous enough to be considered a misdemeanor or innocuous to be considered an infraction. 2) the difficulty associated with motivating legislators to actually do something with the statutes (as seen by the year-after-year introduction of legislation to recodify traffic offenses as infractions not misdemeanors by UT legislators that is repeatedly ignored or tabled, and ultimately left unchanged).
i would favor a system that states certain offenses are not worthy of arrest and others are. the problem with UT's current system is that the offenses are "lumped together" in two related senses: 1) offenses worthy of arrest are lumped together with offenses that are not; and 2) officers have authority to arrest for any public offense, which include infractions. the current UT system is appropriate, because as long as SOME infractions are worthy of arrest, taking away the arrest authority for ALL infractions limits the ability to appropriately enforce the few offenses worthy of arrest.
of course, i still think too many officers use the badge as an authority trip. the power to arrest (which every citizen has, but few, if any, ever do anything about it) is a great responsibility that should NEVER be abused; unfortunately, it too often is.
[This message has been edited by quickdraw (edited 04-27-2001).]
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Utah
meche--
try the link to the supreme court brief regarding this case. you get a much more accurate perspective on the case than the media will give. the justices acknowledged that the conduct of the officer may have been humiliating (and in my opinion, degrading to the public's perception of law enforcement). it's worth reading even the first three or four pages of the official opinion, even if you don't read the rest of the 56 pages of other information.
don c--
maybe he was just jealous of your truck
.... not that that is any excuse for pulling you over without legitimate justification.
z96cobra--
does it matter whether the girl under 17 is his wife? just a thought since i sometimes tease my wife about being my "teenage pregnancy" (my wife looks very young--she's 25--and is often mistaken for a teenager at the junior high she teaches at). she also taked off her shoes in the car.
a word about dumblaws.com: since they don't cite any of their sources be careful whether you accept the information on the cite as gospel truth. i have tried to find some of the ones listed for UT with no success.
try the link to the supreme court brief regarding this case. you get a much more accurate perspective on the case than the media will give. the justices acknowledged that the conduct of the officer may have been humiliating (and in my opinion, degrading to the public's perception of law enforcement). it's worth reading even the first three or four pages of the official opinion, even if you don't read the rest of the 56 pages of other information.
don c--
maybe he was just jealous of your truck
.... not that that is any excuse for pulling you over without legitimate justification.z96cobra--
does it matter whether the girl under 17 is his wife? just a thought since i sometimes tease my wife about being my "teenage pregnancy" (my wife looks very young--she's 25--and is often mistaken for a teenager at the junior high she teaches at). she also taked off her shoes in the car.
a word about dumblaws.com: since they don't cite any of their sources be careful whether you accept the information on the cite as gospel truth. i have tried to find some of the ones listed for UT with no success.
Member
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
From: The Lone Star State
It is sad that this SCOTUS decision effectively turns the Fourth Amendment on its ear for the convenience of LE. It was a close decision 5-4 and the liberal justices carried the decision. Hope that it is challenged and overturned soon.
Skyhawk
[This message has been edited by Skyhawk (edited 04-27-2001).]
Skyhawk
[This message has been edited by Skyhawk (edited 04-27-2001).]
Senior Member
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 447
Likes: 1
From: Brookville, IN USA
Quickdraw, I know what you mean about not being able to find the actual laws that they have listed. I just posted the one about the shoes and socks, cause I thought it was pretty funny. I would guess that the laws that they list are still on some very old law books and they they aren't in the new books at all, but they were probably never actually changed. I just go there for a good laugh every now and then. 
Later,
Roger
Later,
Roger
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Utah
skyhawk--
i disagree. the recent atwater decision does not overturn the fourth amendment in any respect. the fourth amendment still protects against unreasonable search and seizure. the court has simply upheld that a law enforcement officer may make an arrest for what the community considers a public offense (to borrow from my previous post).
as a community, we decide what the laws will be and how we will enforce them. in some communities this is through popular vote, in others it is through elected representatives who decide the laws on behalf of the people in their community instead of by popular vote (note that the term "community" as used her is applicable to all levels of our society's government from a tiny township to the federal government). either way WE decide what the laws will be and what authority to enforce them is granted to law enforcement. if we do not like the current system we can make our opinion known through elections and other voting mechanisms. but we must always remember that COLLECTIVELY and NOT INDIVIDUALLY we are in this society. we may have disagreements about things (as evidenced by this topic), but we must come to a common resolution. if we don't like things the way they are we can make our opinions known and when society as a whole agrees with us things will change.
consequently, this supreme court decision is not a reversal of an amendment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. it is an affirmation of a local statute (TX law) that is in harmony, not conflict with, the fourth amendment.
also, it is important to remember that the supreme court does not make laws; legislative bodies make the laws. the courts interpret laws in light of consitutional provisions and historical context, as well as existing case law to further promulgate case law.
z96cobra--
yeah, they are some really good ones one there. i just wish they would tell where they came from. some are just too funny. i thought i might mention also that my wife really is 25, she really is pregnant, and she really does look like a teenager. just picture her face when i tell her this afternoon that we can't go to Indiana....
Silver_2000_!--
out of curiosity, what do you consider a minor offense? and what makes the offense minor as opposed to major? (translation: what are your personal criteria you use to determine the severity of the offense?) thanks in advance for your response. anyone else's responses are also encouraged.
i disagree. the recent atwater decision does not overturn the fourth amendment in any respect. the fourth amendment still protects against unreasonable search and seizure. the court has simply upheld that a law enforcement officer may make an arrest for what the community considers a public offense (to borrow from my previous post).
as a community, we decide what the laws will be and how we will enforce them. in some communities this is through popular vote, in others it is through elected representatives who decide the laws on behalf of the people in their community instead of by popular vote (note that the term "community" as used her is applicable to all levels of our society's government from a tiny township to the federal government). either way WE decide what the laws will be and what authority to enforce them is granted to law enforcement. if we do not like the current system we can make our opinion known through elections and other voting mechanisms. but we must always remember that COLLECTIVELY and NOT INDIVIDUALLY we are in this society. we may have disagreements about things (as evidenced by this topic), but we must come to a common resolution. if we don't like things the way they are we can make our opinions known and when society as a whole agrees with us things will change.
consequently, this supreme court decision is not a reversal of an amendment guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. it is an affirmation of a local statute (TX law) that is in harmony, not conflict with, the fourth amendment.
also, it is important to remember that the supreme court does not make laws; legislative bodies make the laws. the courts interpret laws in light of consitutional provisions and historical context, as well as existing case law to further promulgate case law.
z96cobra--
yeah, they are some really good ones one there. i just wish they would tell where they came from. some are just too funny. i thought i might mention also that my wife really is 25, she really is pregnant, and she really does look like a teenager. just picture her face when i tell her this afternoon that we can't go to Indiana....
Silver_2000_
!--out of curiosity, what do you consider a minor offense? and what makes the offense minor as opposed to major? (translation: what are your personal criteria you use to determine the severity of the offense?) thanks in advance for your response. anyone else's responses are also encouraged.
Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
From: Whittier, CA
This is a really interesting topic, and probably one that is ill-suited to a discussion of Ford trucks, but here goes anyway.
It seems to me the the issue was not so much a fouth ammendment issue as a states rights issue, to wit, does the state of Texas have the right to enact laws that allow for the arrest of a motorist for a violation of the vehicle code.
As currently constituted, the SCOTUS will almost always side with the States in these types of cases (unless they need to annoint a president that lost the election).
Personaly, I'm comming down on the side of the motorist. I think that it is a gross perversion of justice that grants a police officer the power to arrest, handcuff, and jail someone for these types of offenses. And it doesn't matter how many times they have done it before, or how big a jerk they are. The last time I looked, it was not against the law to be a jerk.
Fortunately I live in California, where this type of "law enforcement" is not allowed. Of course the police here are as likely to shoot you as to arrest you, but if you can keep from being gunned down in a hail of bullets, you are home free.
It seems to me the the issue was not so much a fouth ammendment issue as a states rights issue, to wit, does the state of Texas have the right to enact laws that allow for the arrest of a motorist for a violation of the vehicle code.
As currently constituted, the SCOTUS will almost always side with the States in these types of cases (unless they need to annoint a president that lost the election).
Personaly, I'm comming down on the side of the motorist. I think that it is a gross perversion of justice that grants a police officer the power to arrest, handcuff, and jail someone for these types of offenses. And it doesn't matter how many times they have done it before, or how big a jerk they are. The last time I looked, it was not against the law to be a jerk.
Fortunately I live in California, where this type of "law enforcement" is not allowed. Of course the police here are as likely to shoot you as to arrest you, but if you can keep from being gunned down in a hail of bullets, you are home free.
Banned For Rules Violations
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 1,585
Likes: 0
From: Mobile, AL, USA
Don't you just love that "conservative" 5-4 ruling on just about EVERY major issue?
Our Supreme court makes me sick. The BoyScout ruling, the minor infraction arrest ruling, the arbitration rulings, etc. etc. etc. Where's the freedom in this country? Why can't certain people live how they want to in this world w/out getting blasted for who they are or what they do?
What you are not understanding (and I believe a couple of explained what I'm about to say) is that this case in the Supreme Court wasn't just about the seatbelt mom, it was about EVERYONE that this law and the 4th amendment concerns. She could have been arrested for smoking and driving (1 hand smoking, 1 hand bitchslapping her kid, and left knee steering), and they still may have arrested her. Forget it was an abusive mom, and realize that it was a ruling that could ultimately affect everyone. If you get arrested, then sue, and if you're in a state that doesn't allow crap like this then I'm sure the court (not Supreme, lol) will rule in your favor.
What the hell is this doing in the L forum? You guys REALLY need your own L board and site. Hmmmm, do I hear a calling? The infamous BfB just might
BfB - Musclestang.com (defunct indefinitely)
[This message has been edited by BfB (edited 04-30-2001).]
Our Supreme court makes me sick. The BoyScout ruling, the minor infraction arrest ruling, the arbitration rulings, etc. etc. etc. Where's the freedom in this country? Why can't certain people live how they want to in this world w/out getting blasted for who they are or what they do?
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">LIGHTNINROD's comment is correct. In the state of Texas as well as some other states seatbelts are required. As usual the news media does not tell the whole story. She was a complete jerk about the whole thing, but then again if she ran into "you" and ejected one or all her children through the windshield cause they were not wearing seatbelts and died. Who would be at fault?</font>
What the hell is this doing in the L forum? You guys REALLY need your own L board and site. Hmmmm, do I hear a calling? The infamous BfB just might
BfB - Musclestang.com (defunct indefinitely)
[This message has been edited by BfB (edited 04-30-2001).]
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 3,367
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by BfB:
BfB - Musclestang.com (defunct indefinitely)
[This message has been edited by BfB (edited 04-30-2001).]</font>
BfB - Musclestang.com (defunct indefinitely)
[This message has been edited by BfB (edited 04-30-2001).]</font>
------------------
99.5 red Lightning
13.2@103
01 ordered on 3/17
hud@mc.net
Member
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
From: Utah
sckielty--
i lived in upland, CA (near ontario, pomona, chino) for 18 yrs, moved from CA to UT about 9 yrs ago, and still have friends who are active and retired law enforcement in CA.
yes, the supreme court will usually side with states over the federal government, but that's not the issue here.
the suit filed against the city of lago vista by atwater specifically asserted that the city had violated her rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as protected by the fourth amendment of the Constitution. you might want to check the supreme court's findings on the case:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/99-1408.pdf
i lived in upland, CA (near ontario, pomona, chino) for 18 yrs, moved from CA to UT about 9 yrs ago, and still have friends who are active and retired law enforcement in CA.
yes, the supreme court will usually side with states over the federal government, but that's not the issue here.
the suit filed against the city of lago vista by atwater specifically asserted that the city had violated her rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure as protected by the fourth amendment of the Constitution. you might want to check the supreme court's findings on the case:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...df/99-1408.pdf