Close

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 126 to 134 of 134
  1. #126
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    Now if you guys would quit posting up all those Police Brutality videos..
    I'd like to see more cops speak out against abuse by other cops. It seems like there is an unwritten rule that cops do not talk about or condemn the actions of other cops.

  2. #127
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Damn it, accidentally deleted one of my posts that was a good one. Oh well.

  3. #128
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    Sticky...you're a smart person, that's obvious by reading your posts. Think about this though...do you really believe if an officer (or even a Meter Maid) is writing your vehicle a parking cite, you can just jump in the car and haul ass?? Really? I guess that all the officer or Meter Maid can say or do is, "Damn, I just lost another one..." as the vehicle drives away, and walk away with his/her tail tucked between the legs.

    Come on now, it doesn't work like this and I really think you are smart enough to know that.
    From all the laws I read regarding non-moving violations (and I don't know if they differ in New York but there seems to be consistency among them) they are not directed at the person but the car itself. It's an object. If the meter maid has the info, which is the first thing they are trained to get in order to give the citation, how does it make any sense to detain a person? How does the car leaving change the delivery of the citation as they are not suddenly off the hook because the car moves. It wouldn't be legal and they would not have the authority to detain a person.

  4. #129
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    242
    Rep Points
    621.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Sticky Click here to enlarge
    From all the laws I read regarding non-moving violations (and I don't know if they differ in New York but there seems to be consistency among them) they are not directed at the person but the car itself. It's an object. If the meter maid has the info, which is the first thing they are trained to get in order to give the citation, how does it make any sense to detain a person? How does the car leaving change the delivery of the citation as they are not suddenly off the hook because the car moves. It wouldn't be legal and they would not have the authority to detain a person.
    Looks like you and I are both wrong...one of us probably more so than the other...Click here to enlarge

    I know your quote above refers to Meter Maids, but lets forget about them and focus on "LEO's" for this discussion...especially since the Ferrari video involved a "real cop." The case below is California law as well, obviously not applicable in New York. What I take from this is once an illegally parked vehicle is or becomes occupied, the driver is subject to detention.

    Detentions and Parking Tickets:
    People v. Bennett (July 21, 2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 907

    Rule: Writing a parking ticket justifies a temporary detention of the vehicle's occupant. The fact that parking tickets are subject to civil penalties only and are governed by civil administrative procedures is irrelevant.

    Facts: Two Los Angeles Police Department officers observed defendant parked in a red "no parking" zone, marked as a fire lane, in his tricked-out Lincoln Town Car. The officers stopped, intending to write defendant a parking ticket. As the officers parked their own vehicle (legally, it is presumed) and walked up to defendant's car, defendant saw them coming. He quickly put his car into "drive" and lurched forward about three feet. The officers ordered him to stop, which he did. Defendant put his car back into "park," leaned forward, and threw something onto the floor in front of him. The officers ordered defendant to get out of his car, and he complied. As he opened the door, one of the officers could see a clear plastic bag containing what was believed to be rock cocaine on the driver's side of the car's floor. Defendant was arrested and his car was searched. Recovered from the car in the subsequent search were some rock cocaine and other narcotics paraphernalia. Charged with possession of cocaine for purposes of sale in state court, defendant's motion to suppress was denied. A jury convicted him of the charges and he was sentenced to prison. Defendant appealed.

    Held: The Second District Court of Appeal (Div. One) affirmed. Defendant's argument on appeal was that the officers illegally detained him because the offense he was suspected of committing - being illegally parked in a fire lane in violation of V.C. 22500.1 - is a non-criminal offense subject only to civil penalties. The cocaine, per defendant's argument, was found as a product of this illegal detention. V.C. 22500.1 is in fact subject to civil penalties only and governed by civil administrative procedures. (See V.C. 40200) V.C. 40202 sets forth administrative procedures for enforcing violations of the Vehicle Code that are less than misdemeanors with civil penalties only. This includes section 22500.1. Parking violations such as in this case are no longer treated as infractions, as they once were, but are subject to civil penalties and administrative enforcement only. Section 40202 provides that a peace officer or other person authorized to enforce parking laws and regulations shall handle parking tickets in one of two ways; either attach a parking cite on an unoccupied vehicle (subd. (a)) or, if the vehicle is driven away before this can be done, "file the notice with the processing agency" for later service to the offender by mail (subd. (d)). per the defendant, once he attempted to leave the scene, subdivision (d) provided the only enforcement procedure available to the officers. Detaining him under these circumstances, not being an option under the applicable statute was therefore illegal. The Court disagreed. Citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent (Whren v. United States (1996) 517 U.S. 806), the Court noted that law enforcement officers are legally authorized to enforce civil traffic regulations as well as criminal. And while there is no California authority on point, the Court further noted that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal has approved investigative stops based upon parking violations. (United States v. Choudhry (9th Cir. 2006) 461 F.3rd 1097.) Lastly, even if the officers did in fact attempt to cite (and thus detain) defendant in violation of the procedures described in V.C. 40202(d), the violation of a statute that doesn't also violate the Fourth Amendment, does not invalidate a resulting detention. (People v. McKay (2002) 27 Cal.4th 601.) There being no constitutional impediment to law enforcement officers enforcing civil traffic or parking regulations (per Whren), it was not unconstitutional for the officers to detain defendant for a parking violation despite the wording of section 40202(d). Defendant, therefore, was lawfully detained.

    Summary: There's nothing really new or earth-shattering in this decision, but it's nice to have this rule finally set out in a California case. It is now beyond dispute that you can cite a person for a parking violation and detain him in the process if he is occupying the vehicle.

  5. #130
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    The way I read that is they can only detain you if they have probable cause....something in plain view, gun, bag of drugs etc.

  6. #131
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    242
    Rep Points
    621.0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    7


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by LZH Click here to enlarge
    The way I read that is they can only detain you if they have probable cause....something in plain view, gun, bag of drugs etc.
    No not true LZH...lots of legal "stuff" in there and various cases being cited, it is confusing but here's the important points:

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    Rule: Writing a parking ticket justifies a temporary detention of the vehicle's occupant. The fact that parking tickets are subject to civil penalties only and are governed by civil administrative procedures is irrelevant.
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    Summary: There's nothing really new or earth-shattering in this decision, but it's nice to have this rule finally set out in a California case. It is now beyond dispute that you can cite a person for a parking violation and detain him in the process if he is occupying the vehicle.

  7. #132
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    3,230
    Rep Points
    502.1
    Mentioned
    57 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    6


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    No not true LZH...lots of legal "stuff" in there and various cases being cited, it is confusing but here's the important points:
    Learned something today - thanks.

  8. #133
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    1
    Rep Points
    4.1
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    0


    2 out of 2 members liked this post. Reputation: Yes | No
    I still think the cop is WAY out of line.
    Last edited by V8fan; 08-27-2012 at 06:52 PM. Reason: sp

  9. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    SoCal
    Posts
    117,751
    Rep Points
    31,550.6
    Mentioned
    2064 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    316


    Reputation: Yes | No
    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    Summary: There's nothing really new or earth-shattering in this decision, but it's nice to have this rule finally set out in a California case. It is now beyond dispute that you can cite a person for a parking violation and detain him in the process if he is occupying the vehicle.
    From what I read he could not be detained. The only thing that supreme court ruled there was that law enforcement officers could detain him, not the car, because they were law enforcement officers investigating a criminal component.

    You said dismiss the meter maid because it's exactly correct that they could not do anything. You can get in your car and leave. They have two options as listed to leave the ticket or send it by mail:

    Click here to enlarge Originally Posted by Blitz535i Click here to enlarge
    one of two ways; either attach a parking cite on an unoccupied vehicle (subd. (a)) or, if the vehicle is driven away before this can be done, "file the notice with the processing agency" for later service to the offender by mail
    From what I read there is you can have an investigative stop based on a parking violation. Essentially, criminal enforcement can still take place. I still don't see why you can detain someone for a parking ticket if there isn't the criminal component. If that component is not there, and the driver is not informed he is being detained, as the law is written there he is free to leave and does not owe any explanation.

    From what you wrote, I think the driver can be subject to detention if the officers have something more like seeing drugs in plain site. If not, I don't see how they can keep him without it.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •