insidious_calm
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2004
- Messages
- 337
The real problem....
'nuff said.
I.C.
'nuff said.
I.C.
LEOs outa control?
- Thread starter dfaugh
- Start date
- Status
Zach S
Member
NC law exempts police cars, your state may as well. Not many of the cruisers here have tinted windows, the K9 cars that I've seen do, but that's about it.
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Old Dog said:
The hell they aren't. They enforce them.
Zach S said:
Like it matters if the law exempts the police. Who is going to ticket them?
Sir Aardvark
Member
The law in California concerning throwing cigarette butts out of car windows:
Here in the Great State of California, if you throw a cigarette out of a vehicle at a stop light, it is not a littering violation - the violation is 'throwing a lit object out of a vehicle'. California law regards a tossed cigarette, lit or not, to be lit under the purpose of the law, and the fine to be correspondingly higher (sorry, but I dont know the amount of the fine).
Also, If you litter on our freeways, the highway patrol will hand you a $1,000.00 ticket. I'm not sure what the 'lit object' fine is for our freeways, but I'm sure it's more than the littering fine.
Here in the Great State of California, if you throw a cigarette out of a vehicle at a stop light, it is not a littering violation - the violation is 'throwing a lit object out of a vehicle'. California law regards a tossed cigarette, lit or not, to be lit under the purpose of the law, and the fine to be correspondingly higher (sorry, but I dont know the amount of the fine).
Also, If you litter on our freeways, the highway patrol will hand you a $1,000.00 ticket. I'm not sure what the 'lit object' fine is for our freeways, but I'm sure it's more than the littering fine.
Old Dog
Member
And I suppose there are absolutely no aspects of your job with which you disagree on principle ... policy that you didn't write, but must support as a condition of your employment ...
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Old Dog said:
Not really. It helps that I don't violate people's rights for a living.
I am not going to comment on the validity of the stops or tickets, but I will say that tint on the front side windows and any lower then 6 inches on the top of the windshield is illegal in Illinois.
I know that it keeps people from looking in on you, keeps the car cool in the summer, looks stylish, and saves gas. The reason that it is illegal in some jurisdictions is that it is an officer safety issue. You have blacked out windows up front and I stop you, you better get ready to make your hands available for me to see in a hurry. Furthermore, there is case law that allows officers to open the car doors without permission to see more easily. See how quick that ruffles feathers with people...
Not sure about your state, check before you tint out the windows. If it is legal, great! If it is not and you have a car with tinted windows, don't complain too much about a ticket when you get one.
In closing, if you don't like the laws on the books complain to the people that write them, not to the people that enforce them. Trust me, there are some laws that aren't cared for in every state by the folks out there enforcing them.
I know that it keeps people from looking in on you, keeps the car cool in the summer, looks stylish, and saves gas. The reason that it is illegal in some jurisdictions is that it is an officer safety issue. You have blacked out windows up front and I stop you, you better get ready to make your hands available for me to see in a hurry. Furthermore, there is case law that allows officers to open the car doors without permission to see more easily. See how quick that ruffles feathers with people...
Not sure about your state, check before you tint out the windows. If it is legal, great! If it is not and you have a car with tinted windows, don't complain too much about a ticket when you get one.
In closing, if you don't like the laws on the books complain to the people that write them, not to the people that enforce them. Trust me, there are some laws that aren't cared for in every state by the folks out there enforcing them.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
From dfaugh,
I love it. He and his kids get caught on various traffic infractions and he thinks the cops are out of control even thought what he confessed/described is against the law.
This is also a little funny. He apparently thinks that since he has had his vehicle's current condition for 5 years, that the fact that he had not been ticketed already must somehow mean he should not be ticketed at all. Personally, I'd gotta consider myself lucky if my vehicle had been in violation of the law for so long and not having already been caught and ticketed.
I love it. He and his kids get caught on various traffic infractions and he thinks the cops are out of control even thought what he confessed/described is against the law.
This is also a little funny. He apparently thinks that since he has had his vehicle's current condition for 5 years, that the fact that he had not been ticketed already must somehow mean he should not be ticketed at all. Personally, I'd gotta consider myself lucky if my vehicle had been in violation of the law for so long and not having already been caught and ticketed.
2nd Amendment
member
And again: We have no reason to think his car was in violation of the law. We at this point have no reason to believe the cop had the appropriate metering devices and, thus, there is no violation. Period. Also, there appears to be only 4 states banning tint on front windows and only aftermarket tint at that, thus a meter would be a requirement in 46 states and the odds would obviously be he lives in one of these(I'm unaware of his having listed his actual state of residence).
Indiana law: A driver must yield or slow down for an approaching emergency vehicle. Most states seem to be similar. Thus if you are already stopped, STAY PUT. OTOH if you do this you have niether yielded nor "slowed down" so a determined(annoying) cop could give you a ticket. Whether it would fly in court or not I'd like to find out.
So we have one legitimate violation of law and common sense, one real stretch of an interpretation and two clear bits of overzealousness(barring further information to the contrary). I love it how some can jump to other conclusions... :banghead:
Indiana law: A driver must yield or slow down for an approaching emergency vehicle. Most states seem to be similar. Thus if you are already stopped, STAY PUT. OTOH if you do this you have niether yielded nor "slowed down" so a determined(annoying) cop could give you a ticket. Whether it would fly in court or not I'd like to find out.
So we have one legitimate violation of law and common sense, one real stretch of an interpretation and two clear bits of overzealousness(barring further information to the contrary). I love it how some can jump to other conclusions... :banghead:
cropcirclewalker
member
Sorry if I can't seem to get it right. This officer safety thing.
Leos don't approach my vehicle from the front. Why don't they require that the back window not be tinted?
How come I have seen vans that don't have back windows?
Is that the same as tinted?
Is it OK to pile stuff up in the back seat so that nobody can see in?
Isn't that why the state requires side mirrors?
How come you can wear sunglasses when you drive?
There was a thread a while back about not being able to conceal your identity..(wear a grinch mask).....
How come so many troopers wear those mirrored stud muffin aviator glasses?
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Is it OK for a trooper to conceal his identity?
He can tint his windows. Can't they get those sexy mirrored glasses for the K9s?
So many questions, so few answers.
Leos don't approach my vehicle from the front. Why don't they require that the back window not be tinted?
How come I have seen vans that don't have back windows?
Is that the same as tinted?
Is it OK to pile stuff up in the back seat so that nobody can see in?
Isn't that why the state requires side mirrors?
How come you can wear sunglasses when you drive?
There was a thread a while back about not being able to conceal your identity..(wear a grinch mask).....
How come so many troopers wear those mirrored stud muffin aviator glasses?
"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
Is it OK for a trooper to conceal his identity?
He can tint his windows. Can't they get those sexy mirrored glasses for the K9s?
So many questions, so few answers.
Aguila Blanca
Member
I thought that chart was a bit confusing, especially when it appeared that many states allow deeper tints on the front doors than on the rears.
Found another site that's a bit more explicit
http://www.iwfa.com/iwfa/Law_Chart/State Law Chart 5-24-05.pdf
The numbers in the first chart link are not percentages of tint, they are the minimum allowable percentage of light transmission. Which means that a higher number means less tint, not more tint. (Maybe y'all figured that out by yourselves, but I'm on the slow side, especially tonight.)
Confession
Well, first let me say that I posted this for a couple reasons. The obvious one was 'cause I DO think the LEOs were at least a little overzealous in at least cases 1 and 2 (more explanation later). But also, because there have been alot of threads here and elsewhere about LEOs being overzealous and/or downright unreasonable in the enforcement of more serious type offences...and I wanted to see the reactions/opinions when the same standard is applied to minor infractions. (And, find it a bit interesting that people that would fight so hard for anything to have to do with unreasonable gun laws, or search and seizure laws, don't seem to extend those same rights to POSSIBLE minor traffic violations!)
A little more info, I'll keep it brief:
1) Yes, we have window tint laws, and I understand that they are for officer safety, which is just fine. But, I'll repeat again that in this case, you could see quite clearly into the car, and in fact could see right through the other side. (And also as mentioned, I can cruise down the road, stopping at several dealers lots, and find a couple dozen NEW cars w/ darker FRONT windows) Even so, I subsequently removed the tint to avoid future hassles(as I would have had I been given a warning). As for the exhaust, once again, not louder than stock, and not as loud as some new "high-performance" cars that are common. If I'd been running straight pipes or something, would've smiled and took the ticket. Ditto if I had been speeding or doing anything else unsafe. (BTW, the judge, known to be tough, threw out the tickets. Apparently he found them just as unreasonable as I did. Coulda mentioned this earlier but them I wouldn't have gotten the same types of reaction)
2) I know the intersection well, I pass through it at least once a day, sometimes 2 or 3 times. There's no shoulder(because its under an underpass) it 6 lanes wide(including turn lanes) and he was in right hand lane with car to his left.) Moving forward (which still wouldn't have made much difference) would put you at risk from traffic exiting the off ramp, who can't see the emergency vehicle). Now, I was taught, in those types of situations, to simply maintain your position, such that the emergency vehicle can find the best way through. I'm sure I would've done just what he did-nothing. (Note that I said "kid" but he's 22, with a spotless driving record since 16)
3) Yes, I don't believe in littering, either. But I also know that in this case, a stern warning from the officer would've accomplished just as much as issuing a ticket. Kinda threw that one in there to see what reaction it got compared to the other 2.
In short, in my dealings with people I tend to apply the "reasonable-ness" test. If you are reasonable with me I'll be VERY reasonable with you. HOWEVER, if you're being unreasonable, don't expect much from me.
Good or bad, I've pretty much instilled those same values in my kids.
I've also taught them to respect others, others rights, and in the case of LEOs, to respect their authority...I KNOW that their opinions of LEOs has been lowered because of these incidents, as have mine.
More comments,especially from LEOs are welcome!
P.S.to the person that thought I was a newbie, because I don't have alot of posts: There was a period where post counts weren't working, if you check, you'll see I have lots of posts...and if you check TFL(same username), you'll see many, many more posts.
Well, first let me say that I posted this for a couple reasons. The obvious one was 'cause I DO think the LEOs were at least a little overzealous in at least cases 1 and 2 (more explanation later). But also, because there have been alot of threads here and elsewhere about LEOs being overzealous and/or downright unreasonable in the enforcement of more serious type offences...and I wanted to see the reactions/opinions when the same standard is applied to minor infractions. (And, find it a bit interesting that people that would fight so hard for anything to have to do with unreasonable gun laws, or search and seizure laws, don't seem to extend those same rights to POSSIBLE minor traffic violations!)
A little more info, I'll keep it brief:
1) Yes, we have window tint laws, and I understand that they are for officer safety, which is just fine. But, I'll repeat again that in this case, you could see quite clearly into the car, and in fact could see right through the other side. (And also as mentioned, I can cruise down the road, stopping at several dealers lots, and find a couple dozen NEW cars w/ darker FRONT windows) Even so, I subsequently removed the tint to avoid future hassles(as I would have had I been given a warning). As for the exhaust, once again, not louder than stock, and not as loud as some new "high-performance" cars that are common. If I'd been running straight pipes or something, would've smiled and took the ticket. Ditto if I had been speeding or doing anything else unsafe. (BTW, the judge, known to be tough, threw out the tickets. Apparently he found them just as unreasonable as I did. Coulda mentioned this earlier but them I wouldn't have gotten the same types of reaction)
2) I know the intersection well, I pass through it at least once a day, sometimes 2 or 3 times. There's no shoulder(because its under an underpass) it 6 lanes wide(including turn lanes) and he was in right hand lane with car to his left.) Moving forward (which still wouldn't have made much difference) would put you at risk from traffic exiting the off ramp, who can't see the emergency vehicle). Now, I was taught, in those types of situations, to simply maintain your position, such that the emergency vehicle can find the best way through. I'm sure I would've done just what he did-nothing. (Note that I said "kid" but he's 22, with a spotless driving record since 16)
3) Yes, I don't believe in littering, either. But I also know that in this case, a stern warning from the officer would've accomplished just as much as issuing a ticket. Kinda threw that one in there to see what reaction it got compared to the other 2.
In short, in my dealings with people I tend to apply the "reasonable-ness" test. If you are reasonable with me I'll be VERY reasonable with you. HOWEVER, if you're being unreasonable, don't expect much from me.
Good or bad, I've pretty much instilled those same values in my kids.
I've also taught them to respect others, others rights, and in the case of LEOs, to respect their authority...I KNOW that their opinions of LEOs has been lowered because of these incidents, as have mine.
More comments,especially from LEOs are welcome!
P.S.to the person that thought I was a newbie, because I don't have alot of posts: There was a period where post counts weren't working, if you check, you'll see I have lots of posts...and if you check TFL(same username), you'll see many, many more posts.
Last edited:
ravinraven
Member
"...obeying the law has a tendency to help one avoid tickets."
But, as I've found out, it's not a guarantee.
rr
But, as I've found out, it's not a guarantee.
rr
griz
Member
Cropcirclewalker, The reason for the laws on the tinted windsheilds is because it would be too dark at night.
Mr. X said:
I don't believe that statement should be the status quo. But sadly that's just the way that it is. And yes, your gun ownership is trumped by officer safety when you are on the public roadways. It shouldn't be, but it is.
And for the police who say that they don't make the laws, they just enforce them, doesn't the police lobby or police union propose and support these types laws that are intended soley for the purpose of office safety? This is an honest question and not intended to be flame bait.
Regarding emergency vehicles approaching from the rear, I think that the ticket in dfaugh's #2 incident is totally unjustified. When you are stopped in the far left lane and hear a siren approaching from the rear, it only makes sense to stay put, unless the emergency vehicle is directly behind you. But most likely they would just go around you if you are stopped, which is why not moving seems like the best bet.
ravinraven
Member
Tinted glass...
...makes it hard to see if you have your seat belt on. The safety part of it comes in where a female LEO up here drove into a guy with tinted windows as she was trying to see if his belt was on.
rr
...makes it hard to see if you have your seat belt on. The safety part of it comes in where a female LEO up here drove into a guy with tinted windows as she was trying to see if his belt was on.
rr
Beren
Moderator Emeritus
Don't litter. Keep a coffee can in your car for your cigg butts.
Pick a position, please. Is it your position that rights are secondary to officer safety, and thus are privileges? Or is it your position that said rights exist, but are being abridged in the interests of protecting officers?
As for the "public roadways," that's an irrelevant point. While an argument can be made that the agreement to obtain and use a license means one has agreed to a certain limitation on one's freedom in exchange for the use of the roadway, no such agreement exists when a person is merely a passenger, etc on those roads.
Besides, interaction with officers is not limited to public roads, and can take place anywhere, including one's home. The "it's for the officer's safety" argument has been used to justify violations of rights in one's own home before.
Like you don't do exactly what your employer says.
It's the legislators who are out of control. Direct your wrath at them by directing your votes against them.
BTW, if I had my way, littering, especially throwing a cigarette butt out, would be a felony.
Vernal45
member
You heard it here first.
As for the coffee can thing, the only thing old about that, is that SOME officers us it to abuse rights, and people dont do anything about it.
Actually, my job and my professional license require me to neither violate the law nor engage in any conduct which has even the appearance of impropriety. So know, I don't do exactly what my employer says, and I'm required by law to report them up the chain of command should they require me to violate the law.
- Status