WSP with out of state plates....
01-17-2008, 08:18 PM
#12
Elder Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 18,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But if you put it into a hypotheical position...
There can be A LOT of variables for who can potential become more dangerous. Each for the WSP and the local commuter.
Just stirring the pot : P
Just stirring the pot : P
01-17-2008, 08:28 PM
#14
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,654
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most cops wont take the time to respond to fender benders unless called.
They stay out on the roads catching speeders. My previous post wasnt implying that they had anything in common, but that the cop was being proactive by enforcing speed limits to prevent another accident.
01-17-2008, 09:25 PM
#16
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I'm just discussing the validity of the speeding ticket...
The only element required for a speeding violation is that you were traveling excess of the stated speed limit. The officer can use whatever method he/she wants to acquire the information of your speed; e.g., radar, pacing, airplane measurement, measuring the time it takes to travel from point A to point B, etc.
As long as the State has evidence to prove that you were speeding, with a reasonable amount of accuracy, their method of acquiring the evidence is irrelevant. That is why if you hire an attorney to fight a speeding ticket, they fight (and often win) the effectiveness of the speed measuring method -- they will not argue that the stop was improper (for a speeding ticket) or that the ticket was written incorrectly.
There are no search and seizure issues or anything remotely related to that. Aside from that, unfortunately, there was nothing illegal about the officer's behavior. He was not impersonating a police officer; he was one. He could sit on a girl's pink Huffy bicycle if he wanted, as long as he had some way to measure the driver's speed.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the officer would be engaging in illegal behavior and about the best I can think of is this: The officer is in an unmarked car, off duty, with no lights, and cuts a driver off to make him stop. The officer then gets out of his car, with normal clothes on, and tells the driver he is issuing the driver a ticket. There might (I emphasize might) be an issue with an illegal seizure in that case; however, it would still not dispute valid evidence that the driver was speeding, it would only create some sort of Unlawful Imprisonment civil suit on behalf of the driver.
Again, I just want to say that I don't think this is ethical behavior because it's against his department's policy -- but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether the State can validly prosecute the ticket. I think the officer should be reprimanded by the department for not following procedure, but that's about the best we can hope for.
As long as the State has evidence to prove that you were speeding, with a reasonable amount of accuracy, their method of acquiring the evidence is irrelevant. That is why if you hire an attorney to fight a speeding ticket, they fight (and often win) the effectiveness of the speed measuring method -- they will not argue that the stop was improper (for a speeding ticket) or that the ticket was written incorrectly.
There are no search and seizure issues or anything remotely related to that. Aside from that, unfortunately, there was nothing illegal about the officer's behavior. He was not impersonating a police officer; he was one. He could sit on a girl's pink Huffy bicycle if he wanted, as long as he had some way to measure the driver's speed.
I'm trying to imagine a scenario where the officer would be engaging in illegal behavior and about the best I can think of is this: The officer is in an unmarked car, off duty, with no lights, and cuts a driver off to make him stop. The officer then gets out of his car, with normal clothes on, and tells the driver he is issuing the driver a ticket. There might (I emphasize might) be an issue with an illegal seizure in that case; however, it would still not dispute valid evidence that the driver was speeding, it would only create some sort of Unlawful Imprisonment civil suit on behalf of the driver.
Again, I just want to say that I don't think this is ethical behavior because it's against his department's policy -- but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether the State can validly prosecute the ticket. I think the officer should be reprimanded by the department for not following procedure, but that's about the best we can hope for.
01-17-2008, 09:36 PM
#17
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This again is a policy issue
The issue you're asking is: Do we really want the police to be allowed to potentially endanger other drivers by speeding around in cars that are CLEARLY unidentifiable as police cars?
I have to think that the car, despite the Oregon plates, still had hidden police lights that the officer activated, or else I don't know why the driver would have pulled over. I agree that the further we let officers push the limits of how unmarked the car may be, the more dangerous it might become to the public. This will never dispute the issue of whether the traffic ticket is valid -- flat out, if the speed limit is broken, and that is recorded accurately, the state has a case.
There are no issues of illegally obtained evidence because you are driving on a public road, your ability to drive on that road is a PRIVILEGE (that's why you are issued a license), and you're subject to liability if you violate the terms of the road. Really, when the officer records your speed, they have all the evidence they need. Them pulling you over is just putting you on notice of the violation; they could just as easily mail you the ticket.
The problem, and why I said earlier that the solution has to be a legislative one, is that there is nothing saying that an officer has to be in any sort of uniform to gather evidence of drivers speeding. If it turns into a public safety issue to have unmarked cars speeding around, the issue will come to a head when an officer crashes into another car at a high speed, killing a passenger, and a civil suit is brought against the State. Then the legislature might finally say, "Okay, this is just plain dangerous, we have to draw some kind of limit here." Until that time, the best we could do is to bring the issue to the attention of state legislators.
I have to think that the car, despite the Oregon plates, still had hidden police lights that the officer activated, or else I don't know why the driver would have pulled over. I agree that the further we let officers push the limits of how unmarked the car may be, the more dangerous it might become to the public. This will never dispute the issue of whether the traffic ticket is valid -- flat out, if the speed limit is broken, and that is recorded accurately, the state has a case.
There are no issues of illegally obtained evidence because you are driving on a public road, your ability to drive on that road is a PRIVILEGE (that's why you are issued a license), and you're subject to liability if you violate the terms of the road. Really, when the officer records your speed, they have all the evidence they need. Them pulling you over is just putting you on notice of the violation; they could just as easily mail you the ticket.
The problem, and why I said earlier that the solution has to be a legislative one, is that there is nothing saying that an officer has to be in any sort of uniform to gather evidence of drivers speeding. If it turns into a public safety issue to have unmarked cars speeding around, the issue will come to a head when an officer crashes into another car at a high speed, killing a passenger, and a civil suit is brought against the State. Then the legislature might finally say, "Okay, this is just plain dangerous, we have to draw some kind of limit here." Until that time, the best we could do is to bring the issue to the attention of state legislators.
01-17-2008, 10:15 PM
#18
Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,995
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I for one am tired of the cat and mouse revenue collection.
If your job is to protect and serve how is it that your actions serve to endanger those who you are supposed to protect.
How many times have you seen a dark tinted impala, charger, crown vic, or etc. rolling along speeding only to come along side it and realize it was not an officer.
Up until 2005 there was a RCW law that required an officer to be visible in uniform from the outside of the vehicle and the vehicles that were used for traffic policing purposes had to be marked destinctly on the outside unless they were for a maximum of 90 days and were "speacial assignment" vehicles. This was repealed in 2006 and now what? Little red and blue lights are suppsed to tell us that the person behind the illegally dark tint in an unmarked car is an officer.....this is wrong. The first little old lady that gets killed becuase of the continued violation of our rights will be a wake up call and I hope it costs the WSP dearly.
By the way we will all be paying for that too........
How many times have you seen a dark tinted impala, charger, crown vic, or etc. rolling along speeding only to come along side it and realize it was not an officer.
Up until 2005 there was a RCW law that required an officer to be visible in uniform from the outside of the vehicle and the vehicles that were used for traffic policing purposes had to be marked destinctly on the outside unless they were for a maximum of 90 days and were "speacial assignment" vehicles. This was repealed in 2006 and now what? Little red and blue lights are suppsed to tell us that the person behind the illegally dark tint in an unmarked car is an officer.....this is wrong. The first little old lady that gets killed becuase of the continued violation of our rights will be a wake up call and I hope it costs the WSP dearly.
By the way we will all be paying for that too........
01-17-2008, 11:49 PM
#19
Member
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's BS!
The plates weren't registered to the car... and since he moved from Oregon and was living in Washington I can't imagine the plates were legally registered to any car!
Is it really legal to drive around Washington with unregistered plates? Does anyone else not see a problem with this? I understand the arguments about the morality of the ticket, but in a sense of legality... the cop should not have been on the road with those plates. What if he were in an accident with an improperly registered car?
Is it really legal to drive around Washington with unregistered plates? Does anyone else not see a problem with this? I understand the arguments about the morality of the ticket, but in a sense of legality... the cop should not have been on the road with those plates. What if he were in an accident with an improperly registered car?
01-18-2008, 12:13 AM
#20
AudiWorld Member
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think this is a good point to make
Really, what it's coming down to is that the State is making it easier and easier for a potential criminal to impersonate a police officer, and that could be a real danger. Granted, if a car that looks like an unmarked vehicle pulls someone over, simply to beat, rape, or kill an innocent person, then the assailant would face serious charges, not only for the assaults, but for impersonating a police officer.
I just don't see a legal argument out of this unfortunately. I agree with you, we don't want to wait until someone gets hurt or killed before we say enough is enough. Hopefully someone is able to communicate that clearly to the legislature.
I just don't see a legal argument out of this unfortunately. I agree with you, we don't want to wait until someone gets hurt or killed before we say enough is enough. Hopefully someone is able to communicate that clearly to the legislature.