imported post
Repeater wrote:
NovaCop10 wrote:
There is no stop and identify law in VA. With that said, In VA there is a requirement to hand over you driver's license/registration when asked by a LEO if you are operating a motor vehicle. 46.2-104. There are some implied consent laws when you operate a motor vehicle as well.
This is correct.
2nd topic at hand. Those officers tasing a pregnant lady were in the wrong. Ridiculous and make us all look bad. As you all know, I am very pro-police, but in this case, I can admit they made some poor decisions. My own department has rules on tasing which include not tasing anyone who is visibly pregnant and you can't tase anyone behind the wheel of a car. With that said, if they were unaware she was pregnant (heavy set woman wearing a large sweatshirt), and she was out of the car and was aggressive, then maybe I could see it. Not trying to throw them under the wagon because I wasn't there but it doesn't look like that was the case. Please don't assume that these kind of situations occur often. Thousands of people are pulled over daily and it's rare to hear about this type of thing occurring. I don't want to see the ban of tasers (such a great tool) just because of some poor decisions made by officers in a few incidents.
Very good remarks and comments.
In VA an officer can arrest someone and take them before a magistrate for a traffic offense if:
-That person refuses to sign with their promise to appear (obviously it would be hard to enforce traffic laws if people refuse to sign a promise to appear in court).
-If the officer cannot determine who that person is.
-If the officer believes they are likely to disregard the summons (so don't "ball up" the summons and throw it in the backseat or onto the roadway.
-The driver is licensed in a state that does not participate in the Non-Resident Violator's Compact (never heard of an officer taking someone before the magistrate just for this). Those states include Michigan, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Tennessee.
I've arrested people before for traffic offenses that met the criteria above (all because I couldn't establish who they were). I took them to the magistrate and they were charged for the traffic offense (and other offense related to why they were lying about their name/dob usually came up). I've had driver's threaten not to sign the ticket, but after informed of the consequences, they angrily signed. A ticket is best fought in court.
This shows that you understand the various provisions of the Code of Virginia, § 46.2-936, § 46.2-940, and § 19.2-74. Yes, signing the Uniform Summons is not an admission of guilt; rather, it is your promise to appear in court. I actually support this. Your understanding of the law supports what Senator Stolle told Delegate Jackson Miller several years ago. Miller complained that the law is hard to follow because it's hard for cops to understand. Stolle lectured Miller, telling him that he (Stolle) had no problem understanding the law, and as a T.O. had no difficulty teaching the law to recruits.
Thanks for the help with the cites. Of course I don't completely agree with Miller's statement that cops don't understand laws. I believe that the issue isn't the lack of intelligence on part of the police (especially since most departments require B.A. degrees now), but problems rely on a few other factors. One factor is how laws are taught in the academy by using code books, powerpoint presentations, and attorneys. It's always presented clear-cut and easy to understand (not really any other way to teach the subject matter). However, when you get out onto the street and confront 2 guys in a dark alley at 2 am, the laws are no longer so clear cut. You worry about enforcing the law, not trampling rights, catching criminals while trying not to to get killed, lose your job or get sued. Oh and keep in mind you must make these decisions in seconds, while knowing that you are most likely being recorded and your actions will be "Monday morning quarterbacked" if you make a mistake. You have pressure on you by your department and citizens to "be proactive" and stop crimes (especially violent) from occurring so you try to be aggressive. You quickly learn that you are lied to during almost every encounter and learn to be guarded with what people say and not to take what they say as truth (until verified). You read in the front paper about the 1% of LEOs who shouldn't have the badge that make a dumb mistake (like tasering a 10 year old) and you get generalized with them. You read about officers killed by guns daily (legally and illegally owned/carried) in situations you are commonly in. Worst off, every time you post on a pro-gun website, one member (name withheld) will demand you to "cite please" and then insult you for your opinion, ha jk. Don't get me wrong, honestly it's a great job.
Also keep in mind that no officer is a walking VA code book. Even Commonwealth Attorneys will read over a situation on paper and then take time to look over the laws and decipher the crimes committed or legality of what occurred. Think about being there first hand and making those decisions on the spot? It would be crazy to think that anyone could learn every law (with all of the case laws and exceptions) and be able to apply them perfectly on the street in every encounter. That's why officers are not personally held responsible (their department is) as long as they are acting in good faith. No matter what, right's will be trampled, we are all human. Accountability will follow usually with taxpayer's monetary payouts.
Laws change all the time and it's time consuming for departments to take officers off the street and put them in the classroom. A lot of departments (luckily not mine) don't have the budget to continue the ongoing legal classes and request their officers learn the legal updates on their own time. Not sure about you, but who wants to read a code book on their days off? Don't get paid a lawyers salary (although I wouldn't mind law school someday).
To sum up my opinion, LEOs have a proficient understand of laws, enough to maintain a safe society and hold criminals accountable. Not only is it a challenge to learn and enforce laws, but it comes with a great deal of personal interpretation, discretion, and unknowns. Your definition of RAS and P.C. differ from person to person. I honestly haven't met one LEO that puts on their badge in order to "feel dominance by trampling the rights of citizens". I have heard of mistakes and rights being infringed before, but all because the officer was too aggressive when he thought he had something criminal going on. I'm sure there are some LEOs out there with bad intentions, but hopefully, and usually they get held accountable. In this day, technology does a good job with that.
Many of you know first hand about how many federal, state, local laws, and case laws there are regarding gun rights. What about the First Amendment? How well do you know that, or other rights? What about local ordinances regarding noise (about 10 pages of exemptions in my local ordinance book). LEOs need to know those too. If you are human, you will make some mistakes.
Hope I don't get dogged too badly for the Pro-Fuzz comments.
