Traffic Stop Is an Arrest

[Shuftin]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

Haha, Thom. I don't recommend that at all. Here's what Georgia law actually says about traffic tickets and what happens if you refuse to sign:

Georgia Code 40-13-2.1

So don't be a schmuck. Yes, the officer has every right to pull you over for a suspected traffic violation. And sign the damn ticket. It's not an admission of guilt. And if you refuse, the cop can and will arrest you and make you post bond, which takes a hell of a lot longer than signing your name.

The officer can arrest you but he cannot "Make" you post bond.

Bond/Bail sometimes goes into the thousands. If you don't mind spending one night in jail you can use O.C.G.A. If you have a pre-written Motion "Demand for Release on my Own Recognizance"

O.C.G.A. § 42-8-84. No person shall be released on his own recognizance or approved for a pretrial release and diversion program without first having the approval in writing of the judge of the court having jurisdiction of the case.

O.C.G.A. § 17-6-1 (i) As used in this Code section, the term "bail" shall include the releasing of a person on such person's own recognizance.

O.C.G.A. § 16-10-51. (a) Any person who has been charged with or convicted of the commission of a felony under the laws of this state and has been set at liberty on bail or on his own recognizance upon the condition that he will subsequently appear at a specified time and place commits the offense of felony-bail jumping if, after actual notice to the defendant in open court or notice to the person by mailing to his last known address or otherwise being notified personally in writing by a court official or officer of the court, he fails without sufficient excuse to appear at that time and place. A person convicted of the offense of felony-bail jumping shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than five years or by a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.

(b) Any person who has been charged with or convicted of the commission of a misdemeanor and has been set at liberty on bail or on his own recognizance upon the condition that he will subsequently appear at a specified time and place commits the offense of misdemeanor-bail jumping if, after actual notice to the defendant in open court or notice to the person by mailing to his last known address or otherwise being notified personally in writing by a court official or officer of the court, he fails without sufficient excuse to appear at that time and place. A person convicted of the offense of misdemeanor-bail jumping shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c)(1) Any person who has been charged with or convicted of the commission of any of the misdemeanors listed in paragraph (2) of this subsection and has been set at liberty on bail or on his or her own recognizance upon the condition that he or she will subsequently appear at a specified time and place and who, after actual notice to the defendant in open court or notice to the defendant by mailing to the defendant's last known address or otherwise being notified personally in writing by a court official or officer of the court, leaves the state to avoid appearing in court at such time commits the offense of out-of-state-bail jumping. A person convicted of the offense of out-of-state-bail jumping shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year nor more than five years or by a fine of not less than $1,000.00 nor more than $5,000.00, or both.

17-6-12. Discretion of court to release person charged with crime on person's own recognizance only; effect of failure of person charged to appear for trial

(a) In addition to other laws regarding the release of an accused person, the judge of any court having jurisdiction over a person charged with committing an offense against the criminal laws of this state shall have authority, in his sound discretion and in appropriate cases, to authorize the release of the person upon his own recognizance only.

(b) Upon the failure of a person released on his own recognizance only to appear for trial, if the release is not otherwise conditioned by the court, the court may summarily issue an order for his arrest which shall be enforced as in cases of forfeited bonds.

Here Is A Sample Motion "Demand for Release on my Own Recognizance" from Lawyerdude.

http://www.lawyerdude.netfirms.com/1318.pdf

[ThomPaine]

haha Lawyerdog brings the funnay..

I dont sign tickets, instead i write the name used on the ticket and then stamp or write: under duress, without prejudice, all rights reserved.

Cant be used as evidence against me in court, challenge SMJ/IPJ and it gets thrown out everytime, done 3-4 this way...

old dogs dont want to learn new tricks i guess...LOL

maybe you would like to tag along in court next time i receive a civil traffic citation to see how it works..

Thom

[ezrhythm]

If you can be arrested and taken to jail for not signing, then how come officers will write, "Refused To Sign" or write their name and badge number in the signature box and leave a copy on or in the car?

That is because you CANNOT be arrested and taken to jail for not signing an infraction, non-misdemeanor, non-felony traffic ticket?

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

I think it depends on the laws of the local state. Some allow for "refused to sign", others mandate arrest in that case. I know that Pennsylvania lets you "refuse", but I remember reading the Calif VC and seeing that wasn't an option.

Maybe thats wrong? Perhaps all civil offenses can be "refused to sign" w/o arrest.

[ezrhythm]

In California I have seen infraction citations given without recipient's signature.

They really are Bills of Exchange and you are supposed to receive the original and not a copy. At your next stop, try tearing off and keeping the original. When you are unsuccessful because you give in to the intimidation of the stormtrooper try not accepting the copy. After he drops it on your lap or if you roll up your window he leaves it on the windshield, try taking it back to his vehicle and giving it back to him or leave it on his windshield.

Play hot potato.

[weishaupt1776]

Look at the big picture:

The "citation" is a "promise to appear"; but also is purported to be a "summons", a "complaint", and "service of process"

If you study the rules and codes, you will see that the "citation" comports with neither and is fatally defective

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Ok, dont have to sign them- and sending them back by mail is probably a safer way to play "hot potato".

I used to include an unsigned note to the effect of "accidentally received by 3rd party :unknown person and unknown subject matter"

But a DL will be administratively suspended no less...in my case a bunch of warrants were issued but they stayed in the office, no public record, and no service. Even after I was arrested on something else- they were not in the system.

The administrative suspension might only apply to those who have a DL- it make take a judicial order to affect any others (non residents included?)

Someone had just posted a case here WISCONSON vs YODER, where a guy was arrested on a civil fine without a warrant. The court seemed to accept that there was arrest power in these types of cases (the issue was the warrantless arrest in his home away from the scene)

Absent exigent circumstances there is not supposed to be an arrest- and refusal to sign isnt one of them.

[Lawdog]

Originally Posted by ThomPaine

haha Lawyerdog brings the funnay..

I dont sign tickets, instead i write the name used on the ticket and then stamp or write: under duress, without prejudice, all rights reserved.

Cant be used as evidence against me in court, challenge SMJ/IPJ and it gets thrown out everytime, done 3-4 this way...

old dogs dont want to learn new tricks i guess...LOL

maybe you would like to tag along in court next time i receive a civil traffic citation to see how it works..

Thom

I've beaten several tickets, up to and including one where I had to go to a jury trial because the prosecutor was an a-hole who wouldn't listen to reason.

But I think you're full of it. You're not going to beat a ticket arguing lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Not unless something really unusual happened, like the cop wrote you a ticket outside the limits of the city or county where he has jurisdiction.

So, I want to see you prove it. Give me a city or county and case number, something I can look up that would prove your method worked. You can send it to me in PM if you don't want to post it here. I want to be able to look in the records of that city or county court and confirm what you say.

I'll give you the case number of the one I beat in DeKalb County last May, if you want it.

Time to put up or shut up.

[farmer_giles_of_ham]

Thats meaningless: cases are dropped without record all the time. I know you are addressing a different poster, but in re: the situation I described above, this is exactly the point- the warrants were "issued", so when I called the office I was told "yes there are warrants", but they were kept 'in-house'- not entered into any system or officially present.


Now, how about telling us how "transportation" works?

http://www.suijuris.net/forum/129031-post36.html

because that is ENTIRELY an issue of SMJ- the statutory definition of a motor vehicle precludes the actual driver, and implies distinction between "transportation" and "private transit"

All the vehicle codes revolve around the word "transportation", so it needs to be defined.

Notice that a vehicle is defined by what it transports (carries): persons or property. How about then, when it only "transports" property? That can't be the driver, so the "persons" referred to in the same sentence are not the driver.

We do not self-transport, and I don't think the law is talking about remote-controlled cars.

But we can act like that is the case...hence now all registration and licensing creates implied consent to be treated 'as-though-in-transport'.

The other important word in the definition of a vehicle is "use" : 'is used for'. Another sign of profit or gains, 'uses'. If the device is being "used", that has implications (implied consent).

Mere enjoyment, or private use is another matter. The 'persons or property' are being 'transported' because the device is being 'used' to 'carry'...however this is a rebuttable presumption!

There is no such thing as a "driver's license", or a "license to drive"- there is a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. Motor vehicles are driven when operated.

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by Lawdog

But I think you're full of it. You're not going to beat a ticket arguing lack of subject matter or personal jurisdiction. Not unless something really unusual happened, like the cop wrote you a ticket outside the limits of the city or county where he has jurisdiction.

There are testimonies of those who have had that success right here on the forums including dismissals from lack of In Personam and Subject Matter jusrisdiction that did not involve disputing city or county geographical limits.

Why do you think this forum exists?

Are you a "Lawdog" as your title suggests?
Or are you a lazy "dog"? Or are you a curious and investigative "dog" with your truth sniffer out and searching. Have you read the threads in Success Stories, Court and Travel forums?

If you post on here saying that you think we are full of it and challenge us to "prove it", you won't get much cooperation. Those here who have had quality assistance came across with a different attitude.