 [SprawlSG] Policing in the '60s, Two things I found interesting |
  |
 Aug 22 2003, 05:10 AM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Moving Target  Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112  |
First of all, here are some things I didn't know the police in Shadowrun could do (that the police IRL in the USA cannot do):
-Hold someone in custody without charging them for up to 72 hours (I could be wrong, but I think the current rule is 48 hours, and you still have to show probable cause to hold them). -Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID (Okay, IRL police can talk to anyone, but the term "stop" legally means that person is not free to leave- for that RL police need probable cause) -Personal and vehicle searches and astral scans without a warrant (IRL this can occur [well, not the astral scan as far as I know], but only in specific circumstances that have to be well articulated). Okay, on another (and frankly very minor) matter: Did anyone else find in strange that the shadowtalk posters that were most critical of police in the "Life in the 60s" section were the former cops. SPD has always been fairly pro-police in his posts (except for slamming Lone Star specifically). X-star perhaps not as much, but both SPD and X-star come off as somewhat anti-police in "Life in the 60s." Neither of them spoke up to clarify a procedure or explain why some things are necessary (SPD's bread and butter), but they both added ways police can abuse their power. It's not a big issue, but are we perhaps seeing the political bias of the author (whoever it was) in the source material? Or are we just seeing that the author has a different feel for the personality (and outlooks) of well-known shadowtalk posters than I do? |
 |
 
|
|
Aug 22 2003, 05:33 PM
Post
#2
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Portland Member No.: 5,498 |
Laws on that vary from state to state. In Oregon, for example, an officer must either have clear verbal permission from the person whose vehicle or belongings they are searching, or a warrant stating exactly what may be searched. If a person gives an officer permission to search their vehicle, the officer is still not allowed to open any unopened bags found within the vehicle. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 22 2003, 05:43 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112 |
Yep, wide differences from state to state.
Here in CO police can search vehicles as long as we can articulate probable cause (can be lost in court if the judge does not agree PC existed). Reason being that vehicles are given an exception to the search warrant requirement due to their mobility (the likelihood that they won't be there when you ge back from getting a warrant). Impounded vehicles can also be searched without warrant or probable cause under the auspices of an inventory (that prevents the owner from saying- "When you guys impounded by vehicle I had an original Picasso in the trunk. Where's my Picasso?!"). Must be a pain in the butt in Oregon, having to have some patrolman sit on the side of the highway and babysit a car while waiting for the warrant. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 22 2003, 11:36 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 223 Joined: 24-February 03 From: The Containment Zone Member No.: 4,151 |
Well, I think there are two reasons police procedure is different in 2060s;
First is something we're seeing already here -- by 2060 in the Shadowrun timeline, you've had dozens of major terrorist attacks; the Sears Tower bombing alone killed something like ten times as many people as the WTC bombings did in 2001, and then you have ecoterrorist attacks, SAIM launching nukes....what happens after that? You guessed it, everyone is calling for "tough new laws" like the oh-so-wonderful Patriot Act that give new powers to police and make civil libertarians cry themselves to sleep at night. I can definitely see expanded police powers in the 2060s after all that, especially when you can "tweak" the Bill of Rights in the UCAS after the Unification with Canada. Second, I think police themselves feel like they have less of a margin for error when you are asking a 500 pound troll for his license or the guy you are stopping on the street can whip a fireball into your car before you can draw your gun. That's going to make them play a bit fast and loose with the law, and I have the feeling the government is going to be a bit more tolerant about it. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 22 2003, 11:49 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 174 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,478 |
those are all logical reasons. stylistically, though, the police have those expanded powers because this is a cyberpunk game. the cops are supposed to be oppressive.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 23 2003, 10:34 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 39 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Japan Member No.: 5,497 |
Out of all the excess the police (especially the Star) seem to have is armament. It's really hard to picture the cops having burst fire side arms due to the high chance they're going to hit the wrong person. Makes you wonder if they didn't clamp down on the ability to sue the police.
On side note to that, I actually like the Star cops with the Ruger Super Warhawk style as it added so much feel to them. Oh and motorfirebox, if you want oppressive go to Aztlan where the cops carry assault rifles and combat shotguns as their side arm. Makes LS and KE look like momma's golden haired boys. :grinbig: |
|
|
|
|
Aug 25 2003, 08:38 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
In my experience, at least in some US states, the police can do all of things you mentioned in the first post.
--Holding for 72 hours -- a friend of mine was held for 72 hours on "suspicion of assault" before being released without being charged. Her roommate called the police on her when she moved out, after they argued about who owned the broom. She was arrested in the parking lot and held for those 3 days. She was not allowed to make a phone call -- I don't know what the law says, but that's the way it happened in Los Angeles. She lost her job in the meanwhile, since she missed three shifts without calling. --Stop any vehicle or person at any time to check ID -- I haven't seen it done to pedestrians, but here in North Carolina, the local police routinely blockade a major road during commuter times. Every single car has to stop and show driver's license, registration, insurance, and inspection paperwork. I've been ticketed in just such a thing because my inspection papers were expired. Legally, I can't speak to whether it's technically "optional", but whipping out into the on-coming lane and passing an entire column of lined up cars is not legal anyway, so what are you going to do? I suppose you could just gun it when your turn comes in line, but then wouldn't that be probable cause for them to chase you? --Personal and vehicle searches -- They don't physically search, but they can scan with thermo, scan for radio broadcast (which they do when searching for pirate radio transmitters), look in the window and comment on anything visible (weapons, radar detectors (illegal in Virginia)), and run drug- and explosive-sniffing dogs around the outside of the car. --K |
|
|
|
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Aug 26 2003, 06:57 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Guests |
IIRC the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that thermo scans violate the sixth amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2003, 03:43 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
Cool! My data is out of date, then.
--K |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2003, 04:02 PM
Post
#10
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 355 Joined: 24-August 02 From: Magna, Ute Nation Member No.: 3,166 |
This is illegal in California, I'd sue somebody. Max is 48. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 26 2003, 06:27 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
Neat that it's illegal, but I'm not sure I'd want to tackle suing the LAPD. Seems like that would get dragged out for a very, very long time. But thanks for the tip!
--K |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2003, 06:52 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 555 Joined: 11-August 03 Member No.: 5,408 |
Actualy as far as police go now adays they can do anything the want if they assume you are a drug dealer or terrorist. They dont even need anything other than suspision. i.e. they can pull you over and impound your car over the suspision of you being a drugdealer. they can sieze your house under similar suspision. They can hold you for up to a month without trial or charges under that suspision.
Basically cops can do what they want so long as the suspect you of being a bad guy. Most cops dont use the rights they have because to use them inappropriately means to loose those rights. Thanks to the patriot act, and an act in 1995. Then again maybe im just paranoid and missinformed |
|
|
|
|
Aug 26 2003, 06:57 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112 |
Well, the Thunderbolt is designed to put all three rounds in the same hole and fires them so quickly that you only hear one report. I'd guess the public doesn't know the difference, and as long as you hit the target, all three rounds will hit. Of course the matter of penetration has to be a problem, but I'd have to agree with you, the ability to sue police departments must be reduced in SR. And I must agree with motorfirebox, it is a cyberpunk game, so the police are supposed to be oppressive.
People can be held for investigation. I'm not certain, but I thought the rule was 48 hours (not being a detective, I could be entirely wrong and it might be 72). You have to have probable cause to arrest them, but you can hold them for a period of time before filing charges with the court. You must, however, have pending charges based upon probable cause. Nowhere does it say that arrested persons have the right to a telephone call (people believe they have that right because they watch television and believe anything the picture box tells them, even if they're watching a fictional show). The reason a telephone call is usually given is because not giving one tends to infringe on the prisoner's right to an attorney. However, the right to an attorney only applies after arraignment (first court appearance where charges are formerly brought) or if the person is interrogated by police while in custody. Note that US Supreme Court ruled quite a while ago that when juveniles (under 18 years of age) are arrested and held, the police have a legal obligation to notify the parent or guardian. You must also have probable cause to stop people (a stop is a temporary detention to investigate something, a voluntary contact is something else entirely). You have to have evidence of a violation to make a stop, but if you set up a checkpoint and they voluntarily drive into it, you've essentially gotten their consent and do not need probable cause. I've participated in checkpoints before (in MD, not CO). We set them up with signs ahead of time just to make sure people knew they were driving into one and had the option to turn off in plenty of time.
Yeah, that would probably go very badly for you. We always had a chase car standing by and with a check point there are officers on foot in the roadway. Charging through would endanger them, creating a violation on your part. (Also, we generally employed temporary road signs that you would be disobeying). This will result in a non-voluntary stop by a whole lot of really pissed off cops who'll be wondering what you've done wrong that you're trying to hide by such a reckless maneuver. Also, they generally stop four or five cars at a time in a checkpoint, and those cars are generally in a single-file line, so unless you're stopped at the front of the line, gunning it won't be an option. As for searches, there is the plain sight doctrime which says that if the police can see (or smell or hear or otherwise sense it) from someplace that they have the right to be (like outside your car), then they have not conducted a search. So if some Mope is sitting in his car and I walk past and look in the window, and I see a baggie of marijuana on his dash board, it's mine. I can also use things I see in plain sight to develope probable cause for a search or arrest. Passive sensors are frequently considered by the courts to fall under plain sight. For example, drug dogs can smell the drugs from outside the car (where they have a right to be) and radio broadcasts (on any frequency) are considered free to access by anyone since they come into your space anyway. No search has legally take place. As for thermo, Crimsondude is correct. The INS and Boarder Patrol used thermo for a while to detect shipments of illegal aliens crossing our boarders hidden in boxes of other cargo. These cases found their way to the US Supreme Court who ruled that thermo lets the police look somewhere they do not have a right to (inside something) and therefor constitutes a search. Thermo can still be used, but a warrant (or one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement, such as consent) is required. IRL police can do all the things mentioned, but only in specific and limited circumstances. The wording in the sourcebook is suggestive that police can do all those things at any time and without cause or evidence. But perhaps the wording is was just unclear. Does anyone from the writing team or WizKids have clarification on the issue? @phelious fogg: I'd have to say that you've probably been the victim of some extensive exaggeration. Mere suspicion won't go far in court (even post-patriot act). Probable cause is needed for most of the things you mentioned. Pulling you over (a stop) still requires probable cause. Impounding a car is a seizure and also requires probable cause (though there are exceptions, such as to ensure the safety of the car while you are in custody- those exceptions are also limited). Seizing a house requires probable cause and often additional evidence. As far as I know, the rule for holding someone without charges remains either 48 or 72 hours, not a week (although the rules may be different for INS when dealing with non-residents of the US- I don't know). The difference is the level of evidence. "Mere suspicion" means that they have reason to think you might be up to something. "Probable cause" means that there is enough evidence that most reasonable people (with the benefit of the same training, experience and evidence the police have) would believe that given the evidence a crime probably occurred and that the suspect is probably the person who committed that crime. Probable cause is actually a fairly significant amount of evidence. Of course it should be noted that until you get to court, the police are not required to share with you what evidence they have against you and how they developed probable cause for your arrest, or the seizure of your property. Now, I must admit that I work in Denver, and the Denver city council gave orders that all City and County of Denver law enforcement agencies would disregard the Patriot Act, so I don't have the expanded powers that other law enforement agencies do. But I'm highly certain that the Patriot Act does not go nearly as far as you've been led to believe. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Aug 26 2003, 08:05 PM
Post
#14
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 47 Joined: 16-August 03 From: Portland Member No.: 5,498 |
And that's not legal in Oregon. Only time they can stop people randomly in Oregon is when they're doing a sting for drunk drivers.
Again, in Oregon they can only do a "plain sight" search. If you've got an ounce of meth sitting there on the seat next to you, then can arrest you, impound your car, and generally make your life suckage. If they don't see anything in plain sight, they must ask your permission to search the vehicle. You do have the right to say no. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Aug 26 2003, 08:08 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
Good to have a cop's perspective in the conversation....
Jeez... I'm reallly uncomfortable with calling that "voluntary". Even aside from the sign issue (the checkpoints in NC definitely don't have signs ahead of time -- I like that more enlightened view), these weren't small suburban roads. These were major linking roads -- technically, one might have been able to do a 3-point turn in the middle of the road (is that legal?), drive back a couple of miles, and then try to weave through several secondary roads in neighborhoods to make the same link. But, that seems like a fairly big behavior shift and time impact to the travel time. I mean, I was making a 20 minute drive across town -- to turn into a 45 minute adventure seeking to avoid the checkpoint would have been extreme. At that point, how different would it be to just be pulled over and had my papers checked? What was the spirit of the probable cause idea to begin with? I assume it was along the lines of preventing "unreasonable searches and seizures". So is blocking a commuter road and checking every car, or making them back up and go the long way around, an "unreasonable search and seizure"? Seems like it if they're not targeting anything in particular -- if it's just a sweep to catch out-of-date paperwork. Now, I feel completely differently if the police know that a criminal went down a certain road, and they have a poor vehicle description, so they're checking to see if their target is in one of these cars. That's a real cause. On a separate note, good to know that there is no such thing as the right to a phone call. It obviously wouldn't have been in the Constitution, anyway. :) About INS holding non-citizens, I've done some reading on that. If they plan to deport someone, they can hold them as long as they want until deportation arrangements can be made. For Cubans in Miami, that frequently stretches on into months in an immigrant-only prison. There are supposedly some horrible abuses that go on in those facilities, since the guests don't speak the language, are unlikely to have legal representation, money, or easy communication with the outside world, and aren't entitled to many of the same rights and priviliges. Murder and rape are still illegal, of course, but it gets very hard to prosecute. More common is everyday "sex for favors" and casual beatings, which are impossible to prosecute once the deportation actually takes place and said victim is now far, far away. --K |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 26 2003, 09:50 PM
Post
#16
|
|||||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112 |
If you've got your paperwork in order and you're sober, it's probably easier to just go through the checkpoint.
Not according to current case law in the US. Of course the Supreme Court could one day decide that it is an unreasonable search or seizure. The government owns the road, so they can block it off as they see fit for purposes of maintenence or public safety. The government doesn't force you to drive down that road. Although in my personal opinion if you don't have a real option to turn off before the check point, you didn't enter it voluntarily. But I'm not in charge. If I were in charge things would be different.
Correct. Actually the phraise comes directly out of the 4th Ammendment which is the portion of the Consititution that protects Americans from unreasonable searches and seizures. It's just a measure of evidence that has to be met for a search or seizure (an arrest being a seizure of a person's freedom).
All the ones I've heard of from police circles or been involved in were actually targeted for drunk drivers. Asking for your paperwork (which by law you have to present if you're driving) is probably just an excuse to talk to you and see if they smell alcohol on your breath. Generally checkpoints are set up in areas of heavy traffic and heavy drunk driving on nights with especially heavy drunk driving. In MD they'd always set one up on prom night near where the prom was being held. On St. Patrick's Day and New Years Eve they tend to set one up on roads leaving the part of town with a lot of bars. Given the dangers of drunk driving (and the frequency), I'm willing to put up with a little inconveneince to get those pricks off the roads.
That may well be true. Deportees don't really have a way to complain (or a right to complain). I'm purely speculating here, but I imagine that things work the same way for the Boarder Patrol- Imagine that you and some of your buddies are all alone in the middle of the desert guarding the boarder with Mexico. Now, you're well armed and a hundred miles from civilization. Aside from you and the people attempting to sneak across the boarder, there is no one around for miles. As long as you trust your buddies, you can probably do anything you want (demand bribes of sex or money or whatever to let people by, shoot people trying to cross the boarder, go to sleep, whatever). The ones you turn back can't complain, and the ones that get by you or you let in for whatever reason are too afraid of being deported to file a complaint (particularly Mexicans, who don't trust police due to the way law enforcement works in Mexico, or so I'm told). Now I have no reason to believe that the men and women of the Boarder Patrol and INS are anything but honerable, law abiding civil servants. As I said, I'm just speculating on that matter. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
| Guest_Crimsondude 2.0_* |
Aug 27 2003, 05:44 AM
Post
#17
|
|
Guests |
Well, the case I refered too (which I can't seem to find at the moment) was in regard to a local PD officer using thermo to locate the heat lamp some dude was using to grow pot in his house. Ironically, the article the case was mentioned in was about how liberal the Rehnquist Court still is.
|
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 04:52 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
On the checkpoint thing, I'm half-and-half about the checking for drunk drivers, but I understand also. That was annoying, but it didn't crush me too much. I mean, if you're out at 2 am just after the bars close, you're not really going anywhere on a schedule typically. You may think you are, but that party can wait an extra 10 minutes.
The checkpoints that have me foaming at the mouth for weeks afterward are the ones I hit here in NC -- at 4 or 5 pm during the homeward commute!! I don't think they'll find many drunk drivers at that time. The checkpoint in one case backed traffic up over a mile, just so they could check papers. <sigh> I found myself dramatically unsupportive of that. I've hit two such checkpoints during the homeward commute, and two such during the morning commute at 8 am. Granted, that's over the course of about 4 years, but every time it leaves me feeling like I live in a police state. That's just an emotional reaction -- I'm not arguing anything of the sort, since I've visited actual police states and you could cut the feeling of oppression with a knife in the air. Squire, it sounds like you and I agree philosophically, but neither of us are in charge of the world. :) It's interesting to me that from a strictly legal perspective, the Powers-That-Be (police, government, military, etc) are not really very limited. The function of a free society still depends to a degree on a general spirit of restraint in those agencies, a general freedom-protecting attitude in the individual employees. Lacking that, they can be oppressive in lots of ways that are technically legal. I guess that's only a revelation to me since I'm white and male. :) --K |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 07:55 PM
Post
#19
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 35 Joined: 7-July 02 From: The Bubble Member No.: 2,944 |
Completely off topic for a second:
Krishcane, are you sure you aren't getting caught in lisence and seat belt checks rather than drunk checks? Drunk checks tend to be in city at night. The Click it or ticket campaigns tend to run in day time and on major arteries so that drugs and outstanding warrents can be picked up. My favorite tactic that the State Troopers use is the misleading sign on the highway. Right before an exit there will be a sign "Click it or Ticket checkpoint ahead," people who try to avoid the checkpoints generelly get off the highway. Well of course they set the checkpoint up at the end of the exit. Vain attempt to stay on topic: NC cops have all sorts of nasty tactics they use on the raods for law enforcement, most of them I've incorporated for Shadowun. You can use the misleading checkpoint one or another favorite trick of cops is to stand on an overpass over a highway and radar the cars going under. Then you have one or two other cars on the entrance from the overpass do the checking. Its like one Highway Patrol officer once told me. I don't need to manufacture reasons to stop someone, sooner or later they're going to violate some part of the motor vehicle code and I can stop them. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 27 2003, 08:42 PM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
Oh, I'm sure it was some kind of license/seat belt check. There was no sign that I ever saw -- these were country roads connecting 2-lane state highways. It's the very concept of the "stop every car" license/seat belt check that I object to.
Do you do some driving in NC, Dalassa? It sort of sounded that way by your post. I wonder if you're near me. --K |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 12:38 AM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112 |
Checkpoints in rush-hour traffic?!?
That's nuts. At some point you have to balance your public safety goals with letting the city actually function. A safe city that can't function isn't any good to anyone. As for catching drunk drivers during evening rush hour... Well, you won't catch as many as you find at bar-closing time. But you'd be surprised. Still, rush hour is hands off. Your goal as a police officer then should be to keep things flowing safety, not jamming them up. I hadn't thought of checkpoints for click-it or ticket. Frankly, to me it seems like it would be more trouble than it's worth. While I support the writing of tickets for people who don't wear their seatbelts, I certainly do not feel it is important enough to jam up traffic with a checkpoint (unlike DUIs, which are that important). On the matter of sneaky ways to use radar, I completely lack sympathy. Hell, I know a guy who used to take a battery pack and climb a tree, then radio the car description and speed to another officer waiting up the road with a patrol car. You're either speeding or you're not. If you choose to speed, you take your chances and it is pretty much all fair game. |
|
|
|
|
Aug 29 2003, 03:48 PM
Post
#22
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 430 Joined: 28-May 02 Member No.: 2,784 |
I have to agree with that on the speeding thing -- whether or not you agree with the speed limit, it's very clear what the speed limit is. Only times I'm uncomfortable here are in the classic "speed traps" -- radaring people at the bottom of a steep hill where their attention may have lapsed and allowed them to speed up, or radaring people directly after the speed limit changed from 55 to 35.
Generally, though, speed-limits, blowing stop signs, and DUI are all enforcements that fit into the idea of the officer as a "public safety" guy. Makes perfect sense, and it's fair as long as the officer isn't going out of his way to set people up. --K |
|
|
|
|
Aug 31 2003, 07:29 PM
Post
#23
|
|||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 94 Joined: 12-July 03 Member No.: 4,910 |
I assume that radar traps also fall under the plain sight doctrine even if it's an active sensor ? What I've also heard people complain about is unmanned photo-radar traps... you can't exactly cross-examine them in court. Only time I've seen an outright radar trap AMBUSH was in an unqualified police state (East Germany), in the US, the only photo-radar trap I fell afoul of was fair: empty road or not, I was speeding, and the speed limit was clearly posted, and the parked radar van was blindingly obvious once the photgraphic flash went off. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Aug 31 2003, 11:24 PM
Post
#24
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,213 Joined: 10-March 02 From: Back from the abyss. Member No.: 2,316 |
The only thing you can do is ask if when the radar was last calibrated. If it is pass the calibration date they drope the ticket. If a patrol man stops you the gun has to be calibrated and the patrol man has to take a test or something for the operation of the radar. If either one is missing the ticket is dropped. If the patrol man is pacing(driving behind you in his patrol car watching his speedometer) his car has to be calibrated. Agai if it is not the ticket will be dropped. I have seen these tactics work in court, a speeder would ask the officer to produce these papers. In a few instances the officer could not produce the paper work and the judge dropped the ticket. But that is MD. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 1 2003, 12:21 AM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Denver CO, USA Member No.: 112 |
You know, the argument of radar falling under plain sight has never come up before to my knowledge.
In order to apply plain sight, the argument would have to be made that the radar use involved a search. But you are correct, the use of radar is lawful, because the officer (and the radar beams) are in places where there is no expectation of privacy (plain sight). Denver canceled it's rather extensive photo-radar van program about two years ago because of the argument that the operators were not police officers (the vans were manned by civilians similar to meter maids). The program restarted again about a year ago after an overhaul (though I'm not sure what changes they made). One jurisdiction in Maryland recently took out all the the unmanned red-light enforcement cameras. Not because they were unmanned, but because they kept giving tickets to people in funeral processions (no judgement). The tickets got dropped in court, but it was a pain in the butt for everyone involved. Eventually a city council member was ticketed, and the whole program was dropped. If the photo-radar system is manned, you have an operator who can appear in court. If it's unmanned, I think there might be a possible objection (but enough people pay the ticket to make it financially worth while, even if you lose all the tickets that go to court). As for the necessity of producing calibration paperwork in court, it usually does not work well. The officer can testify that the radar gun was functioning properly (certain tests before each use, ensure this). If the defendant demands to see the maintenence paperwork in court, the officer will just ask for a continuance and bring the paperwork with him on the next appearance. The PDs usually keep careful records on radar equipment maintenance. Of course if the PD screws up and the officer can't find the paperwork (or if the judge does not allow the continuance), the case will be dropped. I got better training on how to testify in radar cases then I did for any other type of case. As for pacing tickets, asking to see the calibration records is a good tactic to beat the ticket. Most traffic officers routinely calibrate their speedometers and if they write a pace ticket, they'll testify up front to the calibration dates and results, sort of a pre-emptive strike at the calibration objection a defendant might make. Patrol officers usually do not have calibrated cars, however, a smart officer in a non-calibrated car can still write a pace ticket and have a very good chance of winning a case based upon the calibration objection. All (s)he has to do is prove to the court that the speedometer gave an accurate measure of the suspect's speed. For example, my patrol car does not have a calibrated speedometer, but I can still testify that the ticket is accurate. If I write a pace ticket, I always test the car with a radar gun (drive at a set speed, point the radar gun at a fixed object and compare the results). I record the results in my notes on the back of the ticket. Since I can testify that the radar gun was functioning properly, and I can testify that the speedometer was reading the same as (or close to) the radar gun, I can testify that I've gained an accurate speed reading. For example, my current patrol car speedometer usually reads between one and two MPH faster than actual (radar) speed. I know this and take it into account when I write the ticket. Since I won't bother with a ticket that is at least ten miles above the speed limit, and since I usually write the ticket for at least a few MPH slower than I caught the person driving, I shouldn't have a problem in court. However I've never gotten to test this as none of the people I've written pace-tickets to have ever shown up in court (one tried to file a complaint against me, both my sergeant and internal affairs declined the complaint and told him to contest the ticket in court, but I never got subpoenaed). |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 03:20 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.