Another fatal one up here yesterday. No word yet on the actual cause of death. Maybe the subject was a druggie of some sort.

http://www.mytelus.com/ncp_news/arti...icleID=2828344

 

I have to start with the officers approach was unsafe... he didn't seem to have a concern in the world going up and seemed to be upset to begin with.. But at the window he asked for the license and registration prior to advising of the violation.. This is how we train and it is a good thing.. I am not going to get into a discussion of guilt or innocence prior to getting a license or registration.. Officer saftey relies on contorl of a situation.. if I tell you the violation and we disagree then the officer will have a hard time getting the license.. Driver is in control and it can turn nasty trying to get the info from him.. don't give a license cant get a ticket is the midset..

Here in california after a traffic infraction your are arrested... you are signing the ticket not admiting guilt simply promising to appear on or before a date shown.. if you don't sign your bail.. then you will be taken into custody to see the magistrate (judge).. the highway is not the place to fight your ticket that is for the courtroom...

 

Sounds like that one killed himself. Pepper Spray, Taser, Batons and still wouldn't be subdued.

 

I don't agree with that at all, and I'm glad we don't do it that way. We advise the violation first, and demand drivers license and registration after we ask for justification for their actions. You hear them out for a few seconds, then ask. I have never had an issue to date. If they don't produce their license in this state, they will be arrested. Asking for drivers license and registration first doesn't give you any more control then doing it the other way.

Exactly, and that's why I think it's crazy to have to demand a signature on a citation. THAT is what can get you in a fight on the street. Without that requirement, you can simple serve the citation and be on your way and write the refusal in your notes. If they don't appear or pay the fine, then the state deals with them at that point.

 

Humm I have to disagree with this one... do you let anyone out of jail without paying bail first..??? the signature is the bail.. it also proves to the court who agreed to appear... without the signature I could easily claim in court that I never received a cite... or that i was not the one pulled over..
Whats to stop you from walking away giving the driver a warning and then deciding later to cite and never advising the driver of his court date..?? (not that you would just playing devils avocate)..

 

The actual citation (Notice of Violation) or a copy of it is considered prima facia evidence of the facts contained on the citation. In other words, the fact that a citation was issued is sufficient for administrative notice that a violation occurred. (NC) The law requires that the person who's information is contained on the citation either appear in court or pay the fine designated. That is unless the violation constitutes a mandatory court date.

More and more states have gotten rid of the signature requirement.

 

Texas is not one of them. If you refuse to sign the ticket you can choose the bail bondsman of your choice and sign with him. The signature is not admitting guilt, just posting your signature as a promise to appear and answer the charges. Think of it as a PR bond without being magistrated.

 

I understand how the signature law works. I don't agree with it and I'm GLAD we don't have it here. Too much of an officer safety issue if someone decides that they want to argue on the side of the road. I also think it's a big waste of time to arrest someone for an infraction (can't do that here). Misdemeanor? Sure. Infraction? No.

 

Kind of like the broken window theory Jack, Take care of the small things and it impacts the large ones. A violator decides....start with signatures, what is next?

Being a highway patrolman I think as you get more experience you will modify that view. It is not about the arrest of a single guy who decides I'm not signing, it is the foundation of law and order.

 

I'm never about letting a violator take control or make the decisions. I AM all about not giving the violator a chance to even think about making the decision, hence the signature requirement for infractions. Why even give them an opportunity to argue? Furthermore, when laws are written correctly, the lack of signature has absolutely no bearing on the offense or what happens if the person doesn't show up in court. For instance, here in NC, if you don't show up in court or pay the fine, then you will face penalty for that.

I think you're bringing the "foundation for law and order" into a section of the conversation where it's irrelevant. Anyways, agree to disagree. I'm glad I don't work in a place that requires it, thereby putting my safety in jeopardy for various reasons such as the amount of time spent on a stop, and the opportunity for argument with a violator.

 

I normally don't comment these things , but it enrages me that the man's wife and child, have that picture in the back of their minds for quite
sometime.

Just because the cop was on an ego trip, and because the driver wasn't kissing his butt when asked to.


Karma sucks hate to be the cop when his turn comes....

BTW had a couple people die up here because of being tasered

 

We don't make the rules Jack. Our elected officials have equipped us with a different solution to the same problem. I'd expect your no signature requirment will not exempt you from unpleasant roadside contact.

 

how does someone that ignorant get a drivers license?

 

Well my dad took me down to the DPS office in a rented Ford Pinto, Oh...sorry, thought you were talking to me!

 

Like it or not, his use of the taser was justified. In my comment below, the reasoning behind that is explained.

I don't know if the Trooper was on an ego trip or not since I wasn't there and I don't know him. Having the situation escalate to that point was not needed IMO. I think there are things that could have been done to avoid the situation on both sides. I won't go into a lot of detail about that again since I already stated my opinion on it. The driver is the one to blame for the situation he was in. Could the Trooper have handled things differently? Of course but the fact is that the driver CHOSE to act the way he did. He CHOSE not to comply with a lawful order and he found himself in jail because of it. There is a lesson in this. Don't play games on the side of the road. There is no room for negotiation there. That belongs in the court room.

Having said that, this isn't about "asking". The Trooper gave him an order which he was lawfully obligated to comply with. If you're on the side of the road and a Trooper or police officer tells you that you're under arrest, then you had better do what he says unless you want to find yourself in a lot more trouble then you're already in. Trying to make your case on the side of the road puts the officer in danger and you as well. Why risk your life about a speeding ticket? That's exactly what the driver did. He should have done what the trooper told him to. If he had, the only issue he would have dealt with was a simple speeding ticket, which would have been adjudicated by now. Guess what? He's going to be dealing with this for a lot longer now that he decided to try and be a roadside lawyer.