Traffic Ticket Question

[redy2fiyt]

Originally Posted by 612Actual

If you can't then I submit that you can make a reasonable argument that the allegation of an INFRACTION of the VC MAY be a PENAL PROVISION BUT ISN'T A CRIME.

Again, PENAL means CRIME. Does the allegation carry a jail sanction upon conviction? IF not then I submit that you can make an argument that an INFRACTION isn't a crime.

I might set out to verify whether an infraction of the VC is a crime or not. That's the KEY. It's is or it isn't.

FINALLY! Somebody else gets it!

[612Actual]

Originally Posted by redy2fiyt

FINALLY! Somebody else gets it!

There's a substantial body of people here in Cal who are very aware of all this stuff and are making the correct arguments. The court's KNOW about us, especially the courts in LA.

I'm in the SF bay area but I don't know of anyone else up this way who's on to it.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I did mention a few posts back that in PA for example violations of the VC are SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED from inclusion as "crimes", for whatever that is worth. So there is no doubt there. VC is not Title 18. Not crimes.

Notwithstanding the above, these "summary violations" or infractions have a penal provision, and yes they have a jail sanction, either as part of the sentence, or for nonpayment of fines, which makes the offense "arrestable" initially. They want their money.

I do notice that the penalties are "up to 6 months jail and/or up to 1000$ fine..." which is the same as for contempt. So it looks suspiciously like the same foundation in legal history and logic- civil, with criminal penalties, but in this case issued as part of a (quasi) criminal action- not quite a crime, but hardly different.

I made a mistake earlier; of the 2 types of action, civil and criminal, VC and co. seem to be included under criminal.

By being excluded from the proper definition of "crimes" there are some limitations- for example it's no crime to be fugitive on any charge from these VC laws, or to posess a firearm while so fugit. Must be some other aspects, too, for example can't violate probation or parole by these offenses, surely others.

And you are right- absent legal procedure there is none. If none is provided then it cant be done, legally. But there is procedure provided at least in PA for violation of the VC, to wit:

---------------------------------
§ 6304. Authority to arrest without warrant.
(a) Pennsylvania State Police.--A member of the Pennsylvania State Police who is in uniform may arrest without a warrant any person who violates any provision of this title in the presence of the police officer making the arrest.

(b) Other police officers.--Any police officer who is in uniform may arrest without a warrant any nonresident who violates any provision of this title in the presence of the police officer making the arrest.

(c) Other powers preserved.--The powers of arrest conferred by this section are in addition to any other powers of arrest conferred by law.

------------------------------------------
And there are other sections where residents may be arrested as well, under somewhat more restricted circumstances.

So sayeth the code...

[612Actual]

farmer_giles_of_ham - § 6304. Authority to arrest without warrant.
(a) Pennsylvania State Police.--A member of the Pennsylvania State Police who is in uniform may arrest without a warrant any person who violates any provision of this title in the presence of the police officer making the arrest.

---------------

Well that's not good. It would seem then that you need to get together with like minded people in PA and lobby the State Legislature to have this amended.

At least you found the "authorization", in Cal no such authorization exists.

[612Actual]

Is he still disbarred?

I've had friends forward some of his posts on other forums and I have problems with that guy.

I'm not interested in forum dramas because I have better things to do. He's of his opinion and I'm of mine. I wish him well but I'm keeping my distance.

[612Actual]

steve762 wrote - I am seding e-mails to attorneys and asking them if they can quash a citation basicly for improper service, i.e. the cop issuing the summons.

------------------

The NOTICE TO APPEAR isn't a summons because a summons MUST BE SEALED by a court clerk before it's served. In addition, I used to work at a process serving company and collection agency for appx 5 years. Having had summons issued I KNOW that we NEVER served a summons without a COMPLAINT, and the summons SEALED by the court clerk. Additionally, we had to file a PROOF OF SERVICE before the matter would ever be heard in court.

The cop doesn't file a PROOF OF SERVICE. The cop can't serve his own process. Again, the NOTICE TO APPEAR isn't file stamped by any court clerk so it can't be a SUMMONS or COMPLAINT.

How does a court clerk open a case file BEFORE the cop issues the NOTICE TO APPEAR? After the fact is a procedural due process issue.

MTQ is proper because IF the cop wasn't AUTHORIZED to make the WARRANTLESS ARREST, then the cop never had JURISDICTION in the first place. So how could the cop convey to the court what he never had? It's a fruit of the poisonous tree argument.

A court cannot lift itself by its own bootstraps, i.e., it cannot acquire jurisdiction by a declaration that it has jurisdiction.
CALIFORNIA PROCEDURE, Second Edition, 1970, by B. E. WITKIN, Volume, 3(a) §232.

No Court or officer can acquire jurisdiction by the mere assertion of it, or by falsely alleging the facts on which jurisdiction depends [cites omitted]...
Mulligan v. Smith (1881) 59 Cal. 206, 236

[612Actual]

steve762 wrote - I am seding e-mails to attorneys and asking them if they can quash a citation basicly for improper service, i.e. the cop issuing the summons.

------------------

Another possibility is Certiorari. You might investigate how Certiorari can be used re the NOTICE TO APPEAR. Certiorari is a direct attack on jurisdiction and if the cop didn't have it...

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Pennsylvania is a pettifoggering bass-ackward state in many ways; and a lot of the laws are holdovers from "merrie olde england" with private constables and what not locking people up for fines. It is sort of like from puritan Massachusets, stocks and branding etc.

The 'constable' situation is so bad that the local police chief will sometimes prohibit his operation in the district, because of cases like grabbing the mother of a small child for a $10 outstanding fine and leaving the minor alone in the house, really bad stuff. (constable is a private sort of locally elected dogcatcher type office where he personally profits from the monies)

I have noticed that some of this situation changes in other states, that were more libertarian to begin with, or more modern at least, like California.

The VC in Pennsylvania is, on top of everything else, poorly written and confusing, with some conflicting defintions and terms. To some extent I figure it's just easier to concede a few basic points as well-nigh universal, and deal with it, since the public policy at least acts like this is the exact law.

Another problem with PA is the big cities (but you have LA and San Fran so it's at least even) especially Philadelphia in my experience, are just out of control. There are standing federal court orders to cap jail populations, regulate a million inequities, and it only goes so far. They dont care, they are like a fiefdom unto themselves and even when major court cases are won they still proceed anyway (unlimited checkbook for damages).

the good thing about the big city is no one cares so usually one can actually preserve more liberty for lack of interest and chaotic administration. But they have their pet peeves and woe betide the one who runs afoul of these, like carrying a legal concealed weapon permit.

There is a normal practice of overcharging on every case and massive prosecutorial misconduct.

And then there are the NWO suburbs, which are a whole other level of insanity.

The IDP approach works- I personally have been charged with displaying a foreign license while under local suspension, for using my IDP while allegedly "suspended" on a PA DL. That is an acknowledgement that my IDP is valid and otherwise usable. And others in my know have done fine with the IDP.

As some have pointed out here before this is all admiralty and inland marine, and the standards are more summary and military. Shoot first, ask questions later. The whole Fraternal (masonic) Order of Police thing and the impoundment issue is key- they will take your boat if they feel like it and let you fight over the result.

[612Actual]

Hey farmer, it appears you've identified the issues. I guess the question is do you stick around and attempt to make it different or hit the road to a more friendly state.

[ss_stealth]

The following quote is from Maine's (where I reside) motor vehicle code.

Title29-A
Chapter 1, §105. Enforcement

1. Authority to stop motor vehicle. If a law enforcement officer has reasonable and articulable suspicion to believe that a violation of law has taken or is taking place, that officer, if the officer is in uniform, may stop a motor vehicle for the purpose of:


A. Arresting the operator for a criminal violation; [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]


B. Issuing the appropriate written process for a criminal or civil violation or a traffic infraction; or [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]


C. Questioning the operator or occupants. [1993, c. 683, Pt. A, §2 (new); Pt. B, §5 (aff).]
[1995, c. 368, Pt. AAA, §1 (amd).]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that cops have no authority to pull me over (re: "arrest" me) but it seems like this statute(?) gives them the power to do so.

For instance, if you were criminally speeding (30mph over posted limit) and the cop pulls you over he could, according to this statute arrest you under 'purpose A'. Is that proper due process? Doesn't seem so.

Under 'purpose B', what would be 'appropriate written process'?

And finally, 'purpose C' seems to give police the power to harass you. Although, maybe they're just exercising this power of theirs when they ask, 'Do you know why I pulled you over?' Hahaha.


"...a violation of law has taken or is taking place, that officer, if the officer is in uniform, may stop a motor vehicle..."

When they use the word "law" there... are they talking about a 'statute' or 'law'. I was under the impression that a statute was not really a law. So if you're breaking one of the statutes or 'rules of the road' listed here in Title 29-A are you really "violating a LAW"? If not, a cop shouldn't be pulling you over for, for example, breaking the speed limit.


A friend of mine and I are trying to figure out if, here in Maine, we have a Right to Travel (by car) or not. We'd appreciate any friendly information/non-official legal advice.

Thanks,
Kyle