Posts: 2,377
Threads: 124
Joined: Jun 2009
quote:
Originally posted by Mimosa
It is privilege to drive - Not a right .
Actually driving is a common right subject to uniform limitations as prescribed by law as are most rights when practiced equally within this society.
Privileges are separate from rights as they are not bequeathed to individuals outside a select group or individual appointment.
In essence we could call all rights privileges relative to those not afforded to others outside our nation. But privileges cannot be considered rights thus the relative factor of common application benchmarks a right and when only practiced by select group or individual is denoted as privilege. Executive privilege, the privilege to withhold evidence. Native privileges etc. Please do not confuse relative application of the term with this nations long standing tradition of rights.
Don't agree at all, gypsy. There have been hundreds of posts on this forum over the last years complaining of the small number of police on duty in all of Puna. But you think there are too many?
If the police are monitoring traffic, they are at the same time liable to get called away to investigate a call on a crime or suspicious activity. The only way they all sit in one place for long is if nothing is going on.
Why are you finding it so intimidating when you don't drink and have never even once been pulled over? Shouldn't you feel nonchalant?
Kathy
Kathy growing up here trusting the police to better your life or situation was not so easy. Some of the most terrible things that I have seen, heard, or read were done by the few police we had at that time. Most my friends I went to school with don't own homes or their cars let alone have a current safety sticker all the time. They do work usually labor intensive jobs under the table for the ones who I didn't go to school with.
Highway patrol is old and out dated like the radio now or VCR. We now have a serious prescription addiction going on in pahoa. With other hard drugs to boot that we really did not have 40 years ago when folks like mimosa were doing most of there driving on empty roads. Maybe just maybe today's times and budgets could use some changing?. Ideas and technology could help save peoples lives and still draw enough revenue for our Justice system and over populated prisons. Police escorts would be better than the current cat and mouse 50's approach JMO.
Posts: 14,105
Threads: 424
Joined: Aug 2012
Funny, that sounds kind of like "government needs to adapt to the current realities in which people are actually living".
I realize enforcement has great ROI (asset forfeiture, taxpayer-funded incarceration, free tactical hardware from the Feds), but showing people how to live more productive lives through enhanced social programs would be a better investment in the long run.
I understand about trust, gypsy, and FYI I came of age in LA County where the sheriffs of that time were notorious for gratuitous violence and as teens we thought it was cool to call them "pigs" (oink) -- but that was a long time ago.
I have had cause to deal with a good sample of officers, and more of them impressed me than did not, especially the newer recruits.
Obviously if people don't have current safety, or license or insurance, or take drugs or drink, the police aren't going to be "helper" figures to them other that helping them get off the road and maybe get their act together.
But amazingly, if a person drives legally, in a legal vehicle, sober, safely, the police don't tend to bother him. Look at TomK driving home late, no problems.
I do understand what you're talking about. I have two sons, who grew up in rural California, and I remember one of their friends saying to me bitterly (but kind of joking) -- "how do you spot a driver with a suspended license without pulling him over? Answer: he's local and he's under 25."
I understand the spiral of getting a few tickets, living from payday to payday, maybe unable to pay the tickets, also missing insurance payments, getting a suspension for lack of insurance or license stopper, driving on suspension because only way to get to work, getting caught, and downhill from there. It's a tough hole to get out of.
It's not really the fault of the officers though, is it?
Kathy
Great post Kathy, and thank you for stepping into someone else's shoes for a change. A very good woman can change a bad boys ways or actions in life for the better, yet having your own children keeps your perception of things a bit more open minded for others. I'm caught somewhere in the middle of that last statement and did not mean to stir the pot or offend anyone including you Kathy. My observations and opinions get the better of me to often as I grow older.
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Kathy - no problem at all, I was genuinely becoming confused about some of the things being stated on this thread. I'm now much clearer on one or two things (thanks, everyone). There was another comment from gypsy69 today that I think demonstrates some of my confusion - "The guy who got pulled over just behind me was only going 35 and he was followed for about a half mile before the police lights came on."
I read Gypsy's original post, and although it initially started about drivers being pulled over, it then went on at some length about DUIs which might lead someone to think those drivers were stopped for DUIs. But now after rereading the post, I don't think there's any way Gypsy could know what they were pulled over for.
Oink might be able to help here (and perhaps "The_Saints"), but if the police pulled out behind someone and followed them for a while, they may have been suspicious about something and were running the plates. Maybe the drivers had warrants out for them or their lights weren't working.
Direct question for Oink if you don't mind, I genuinely don't know the answer to this. If you run someone's plate and it comes back that the registered owner of that vehicle has a warrant out for their arrest, can you stop that vehicle even if you're aware of no other offence the current driver has committed? I'm trying to word that in a way that means you don't know the registered owner is the actual driver. Apologies if my wording is clumsy.
Posts: 2,653
Threads: 42
Joined: Sep 2006
True, there is no telling what the vehicle behind gypsy was pulled over for.
Yes, it's reasonable to assume the registered owner is the driver so a stop (not necessarily a normal traffic stop) is appropriate to determine if the wanted person is in the vehicle. I think that is consistent throughout the States. Warrant arrest laws for residences can vary and I haven't read up on Hawaii on that topic.
--------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by KathyH: I understand the spiral of getting a few tickets, living from payday to payday, maybe unable to pay the tickets, also missing insurance payments, getting a suspension for lack of insurance or license stopper, driving on suspension because only way to get to work, getting caught, and downhill from there. It's a tough hole to get out of.
A valid issue and something I always tried to get across to my people. My spiel to my people was the same one I was also taught as a rookie. It primarily applies to traffic but not necessarily: "Take the least amount of enforcement action necessary to get the message across. If you feel a verbal warning accomplished your goal, fine. If it takes a written warning, well then fine. If a real ticket is required, then so be it. If a custodial arrest seems called for, then oh well. Do what is necessary to get the point across but no more."
It was generally harder to get that across to rookies who had no prior job experience before entering law enforcement. I always preferred people with some substantial non-LE work history. They had experienced the difficulties of normal working life. I paid my dues working low paid construction, restaurant and other jobs and have experienced the dramatic effect a simple traffic ticket can make on a meager budget. I also know that many people will squander any break given them.
Of course my theory of enforcement wouldn't work in agencies that insist on using ticket stats for job evaluations. Fortunately that wasn't an issue I had to deal with very much.
Dedicated traffic divisions are a different matter. Their reason for existing is traffic enforcement and most members of such units don't require monitoring for productivity as they're usually "ate up" with traffic enforcement. The time I spent running a small traffic unit I had a couple of people that had to be restrained as, IMHO, they tented to be overly enthusiastic and merciless with enforcement. No quotas needed with them.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Pua`a
S. FL
Big Islander to be.
Posts: 148
Threads: 2
Joined: Jul 2014
Tom, we call that playing “License Plate Bingo.” It is generally accepted as legal and valid, and has been upheld by lower courts. However, it has never been fully tested by the Supreme Court. To make a vehicle stop the officer only needs a ‘reasonable suspicion that the occupant has committed, is committing, or is preparing to commit a crime’. So in the case of the registered owner having a warrant for their arrest or having a revoked license, the officer needs to ‘reasonable suspect’ that the registered owner is the occupant of the vehicle. That does not take much, a quick glance and you see a female, but the RO is a male, and it is a no go. However, if you see a general match to the listed physicals, and you are good to go. You don’t have to be absolutely certain that the occupant is the wanted party.
However, most officers wait and “establish probable cause,” as we call it by looking for an equipment or moving violation. Any violation, no matter how petty, is ‘probable cause’ for the stop. When you have this additional probable cause, you are on firmer legal ground. Probable cause is a higher burden of proof than reasonable suspicion. However, probable cause does not require absolute certainty either. The measure of probable cause falls under the reasonable persona standard. I.E. that another person of reasonable mind and intelligence, when presented with the same facts, would come the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the violation did in fact occur.
As to your question about the Officer following and perhaps running the plate; yes, it is entirely likely. They may have also been planning out the stop, waiting for the right place to light them up so that there is a nice safe spot available to pull over and conduct the stop. They could have been waiting for someone else to get off the radio so that they could call it in. You don’t just flip on the lights at the first chance. It is also best for officer safety to call in your stop beforehand, so that your hands, and attention, are free when the stop happens. Additionally, then they know where you are if you don’t call back in, or unintelligibly scream for help.
Posts: 10,212
Threads: 344
Joined: Apr 2009
Thank you, Oink and especially The_Saints for your replies. I appreciate the time you took to answer my question. Once again I learned something new today which is always an aim of mine. The difference between "probable cause" and "reasonable suspicion" has always been something I've never fully understood but am a lot closer to understanding it now! Thank you again.
|
