Today was my first traffic experiment with Clickit or bend over

[Codee]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

I think many readers here would agree if there are two requirements - to give my name in writing or to give my name and address I can satisfy the requirement by writing my name for the purpose of identification. Any reading of the code will uphold that I satisfied the requirement by writing my name.



Regards,

David Merrill.

you have a reader right here that believes that my name is Cody James and that my address is Cody James. I have gone over this with a cop trying to serve up papers in my driveway. He kept asking me what my name was.
I told him it was a way by which people address their comments to me with. If you want me to get your comments, you have to address thaem correctly.
He asks. "OK, then what is your address?"

Me: "My adress is typically my name. You can use my name to adress me with. That would be great."

Cop: I am not going to play games. I want to nkow what your name is?"

Me: "Officer are you investigating a crime?"

Officer: "no, I am here to serve papers on Cody Roberts."

Me: Can I see it written? OH!
Cop: What?
Me: "He doesn't live here." If you are not investigating a crime you have three minutes to start your car and get the @#$% off my property before I carge you with violation 602(l) and take you into costudy. I have a cell phone in my pocket if you would like to use it after you have been placed under arrest, to make a call to an attorney."

Cop: (glares for three seconds, gets in his car and leaves.)

I was 18 whan I did that one, and if I had to do it again now I'm sure it would be even better.

[Big Al]

Cody; your my hero! You must have trouble finding pants that aren't to tight in the crotch!

Originally Posted by Codee

you have a reader right here that believes that my name is Cody James and that my address is Cody James. I have gone over this with a cop trying to serve up papers in my driveway. He kept asking me what my name was.
I told him it was a way by which people address their comments to me with. If you want me to get your comments, you have to address thaem correctly.
He asks. "OK, then what is your address?"

Me: "My adress is typically my name. You can use my name to adress me with. That would be great."

Cop: I am not going to play games. I want to nkow what your name is?"

Me: "Officer are you investigating a crime?"

Officer: "no, I am here to serve papers on Cody Roberts."

Me: "He doesn't live here." If you are not investigating a crime you have three minutes to start your car and get the @#$% off my property before I carge you with violation 602(l) and take you into costudy. I have a cell phone in my pocket if you would like to use it after you have been placed under arrest, to make call an attorney."

Cop: (glares for three seconds, gets in his car and leaves.)

I was 18 whan I did that one, and if I had to do it again now I'm sure it would be even better.

[enemy_of_the_state]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

The law requires you to have your DL with you whenever you drive. There's a reason for that. The cop could have arrested you for (1) driving without a license in your immediate possession, (2) suspicion of driving without any currently valid DL, or (3) a variety of other things such as suspicion of driving a stolen car, obstruction of police operations, etc.

There is an article in ALR relating to the statutory requirement to have your DL with you whenever you drive and to present it when requested by a cop. That requirement has been upheld in, I think, every state.

Odd, I encountered just the opposite.
I have allowed my license to remain expired for over 6 months. I don't plan on renewing it. I am working on renouncing all forms signed and on file with the Illinois Secretary of State. That notwithstanding, I was pulled over the other day for not having a license plate on the front of my truck. The officer informed me of such, and I explained that the plate was in the truck, but I did not mount it to the front.

He then said that in order to make an accurate record of the stop, he needed to see my driver's license. I explained that I didn't have one. My last one was posted as bond for another ticket last year when I was cited for not having my truck's emissions tested. At that time, my license was actually expired, and administratively suspended, yet, the cop took it as bond. I appeared in court with proof that the emissions were checked (state record keeping screw-up), and I walked out without picking up my expired licence. I never looked back.

The officer asked why I didn't pick up my license. I said because I believed that I no longer needed it. He then asked me for my name and address. He ran his check, came back, appearing rather confused, and told me that the license has been expired for over 6 months. I said that that sounded about right. He then said that the Secretary of State had my last address noted as different than the one I provided. He asked me if I notified the Secretary of State of my new address. I said no. He asked why not? I said that every time I had done so in the past I never received a Christmas card, so I saw no reason to update him this time.

The officer really looked confused at that comment and almost smiled, and said that he was going to give me a ticket for driving without a license. I said that I expected as much. He said that he wasn't going to arrest me or make me post bond. I said that I appreciated that. He then said that he can't allow me to drive. I said that it is not his place to allow me to drive. He paused for a moment and we just looked at each other, with me sitting in my truck with the engine still idling. He said, "Here's your ticket, now, I can't allow you to drive." I said, "I understand. I don't need your permission to drive." He looked at me again, sort of confused and now understanding what I was saying. He then said that he was going "that way", poiting in the opposite direction of what I was facing, and he said, "...and you're going......?", pausing there, and I replied, "Whichever way I choose."

The officer then told me to have a nice day, got in his car, drove off in one direction as I drove off in the other. WTF?

Now, if he would have said that he wasn't GOING to allow me to drive, that would have been different. I don't believe they can physically stop you, because to do so is essentially imposing a sentence upon you, ie, depriving you of your right to travel without having first been afforded due process. The information they receive over the radio or over the computer network is essentially heresay. It is admissible in court as heresay as it pertains to WHY he did what he did, ie, stop you and ticket you. However, it is not a fact testified to in open court by a competent witness, and therefore not substantive in supporting an imposition of any penalty or sentence. The person on the radio could have ran the wrong name, the records could be wrong or contain incorrect information...lots of things could happen. For that officer to act as both the administrative and judicial branches of government is outside of his office and authority.

The majority of the time, as courts have acknowledged, it is by the people's own acquiesence, consent, and ignorance, that they suffer at the hands of unlawful acts of government. I chose not to acquiesce and see just how far he would go. If I would have voluntarily turned off my truck and sat there waiting for a ride and a tow truck then that would have been a self imposed penalty due to my ignorance.

Listen, and speak, with specificity, and in accordance with what the law is INTENDED to do. I am presently fighting this ticket. I'll be posting information on my site, http://www.markmccoy.com, and we'll see how it goes. I don't expect it to go to jury, but I suspect it may. I am still not going to procure a license.

[Big Al]

Good for you Mark! The time to beat them is in the prelim. Do not allow them subject matter jurisdiction. Learn all you need to know using the search engine on this site. Best of lusk Man!

[acicalla]

I work with a gentleman that used to be a sherrif's deputy. he told me an easy way to beat traffic tickets. Not dui's but traffic tickets. Basically once you get the ticket make sure you note the officer's name and information. It's important. Call the department he works for daily and find out his days off. Immediately call the court and reschedule your court date for a later date. Once you find out when the officer is off duty on that day he is off work go to court. Once you get there tell the clerk you want to see the judge. You will have to wait until the scheduled business is complete then you will see the judge. Tell him you are disputing the ticket and most of the time they will throw it out since the officer isn't there to testify. That is his method and how he was taught to beat tickets. Dui they usually have physical evidence that the judge will admit and the reason it won't work on dui's. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by enemy_of_the_state

Odd, I encountered just the opposite.
I have allowed my license to remain expired for over 6 months. I don't plan on renewing it. I am working on renouncing all forms signed and on file with the Illinois Secretary of State. That notwithstanding, I was pulled over the other day for not having a license plate on the front of my truck. The officer informed me of such, and I explained that the plate was in the truck, but I did not mount it to the front.

He then said that in order to make an accurate record of the stop, he needed to see my driver's license. I explained that I didn't have one. My last one was posted as bond for another ticket last year when I was cited for not having my truck's emissions tested. At that time, my license was actually expired, and administratively suspended, yet, the cop took it as bond. I appeared in court with proof that the emissions were checked (state record keeping screw-up), and I walked out without picking up my expired licence. I never looked back.

The officer asked why I didn't pick up my license. I said because I believed that I no longer needed it. He then asked me for my name and address. He ran his check, came back, appearing rather confused, and told me that the license has been expired for over 6 months. I said that that sounded about right. He then said that the Secretary of State had my last address noted as different than the one I provided. He asked me if I notified the Secretary of State of my new address. I said no. He asked why not? I said that every time I had done so in the past I never received a Christmas card, so I saw no reason to update him this time.

The officer really looked confused at that comment and almost smiled, and said that he was going to give me a ticket for driving without a license. I said that I expected as much. He said that he wasn't going to arrest me or make me post bond. I said that I appreciated that. He then said that he can't allow me to drive. I said that it is not his place to allow me to drive. He paused for a moment and we just looked at each other, with me sitting in my truck with the engine still idling. He said, "Here's your ticket, now, I can't allow you to drive." I said, "I understand. I don't need your permission to drive." He looked at me again, sort of confused and now understanding what I was saying. He then said that he was going "that way", poiting in the opposite direction of what I was facing, and he said, "...and you're going......?", pausing there, and I replied, "Whichever way I choose."

The officer then told me to have a nice day, got in his car, drove off in one direction as I drove off in the other. WTF?

Now, if he would have said that he wasn't GOING to allow me to drive, that would have been different. I don't believe they can physically stop you, because to do so is essentially imposing a sentence upon you, ie, depriving you of your right to travel without having first been afforded due process. The information they receive over the radio or over the computer network is essentially heresay. It is admissible in court as heresay as it pertains to WHY he did what he did, ie, stop you and ticket you. However, it is not a fact testified to in open court by a competent witness, and therefore not substantive in supporting an imposition of any penalty or sentence. The person on the radio could have ran the wrong name, the records could be wrong or contain incorrect information...lots of things could happen. For that officer to act as both the administrative and judicial branches of government is outside of his office and authority.

The majority of the time, as courts have acknowledged, it is by the people's own acquiesence, consent, and ignorance, that they suffer at the hands of unlawful acts of government. I chose not to acquiesce and see just how far he would go. If I would have voluntarily turned off my truck and sat there waiting for a ride and a tow truck then that would have been a self imposed penalty due to my ignorance.

Listen, and speak, with specificity, and in accordance with what the law is INTENDED to do. I am presently fighting this ticket. I'll be posting information on my site, http://www.markmccoy.com, and we'll see how it goes. I don't expect it to go to jury, but I suspect it may. I am still not going to procure a license.

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by David Merrill

My reading of that is I satisfy the code by tendering "David Merrill" on a sheet of paper (Certificate of Search on "David Merrill" in the district court of the United States)......
I think many readers here would agree if there are two requirements - to give my name in writing or to give my name and address I can satisfy the requirement by writing my name for the purpose of identification. Any reading of the code will uphold that I satisfied the requirement by writing my name.

--------
In North Carolina, which is where this thread started, the courts have upheld the policeman's insistence on seeing the DL itself and not a substitute for it. Andrews v. Elkins (MDNC 2002) 227 F.Supp.2d 488 aff'd 60 Fed.Appx. 498 cert. denied 540 U.S. 926; Belo v. City of High Point, N.C. (4th Cir 1998) 139 F.3d 887 cert. denied 525 U.S. 860; State v. Hudson (1991) 103 N.C.App. 708, 407 S.E.2d 583 app. denied 330 N.C. 615, 412 S.E.2d 91.

Courts in other states have held similarly.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Big Al

Cody; your my hero! You must have trouble finding pants that aren't to tight in the crotch!

NOPE! Just raised by seven attorneys who told me when I was four that you could tell a cop to @!#$ off. I was also twenty years old at the time and did not have much to lose coupled with a small feelling of invulnerablilty. I had been stopped by cops and delt with them so often the whole initial inimidation factor just stopped comming and couple years later I was just fed up with the waste of time.

[acicalla]

We were debating about the validity of the police being able to detain you if you don't show ID. This is one of the things he found.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62438,00.html

There is a supreme court case about this. The link above tells the story.

Originally Posted by Codee

NOPE! Just raised by seven attorneys who told me when I was four that you could tell a cop to @!#$ off. I was also twenty years old at the time and did not have much to lose coupled with a small feelling of invulnerablilty. I had been stopped by cops and delt with them so often the whole initial inimidation factor just stopped comming and couple years later I was just fed up with the waste of time.

[enemy_of_the_state]

Originally Posted by acicalla

We were debating about the validity of the police being able to detain you if you don't show ID. This is one of the things he found.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62438,00.html

There is a supreme court case about this. The link above tells the story.

I agree, acicalla. The key is, "...if you have knowledge of, or are party to a "crime...". Traffic infractions are not crimes. Crime derives from two categories; mala en se and mala prohibita. Mala en se are true crimes. They involve an "act" and mens rea, or criminal intent. Without criminal intent existing concurrently with the act itself, there is no crime.

Traffic law is administrative law. The nexus is the driver's license. If an officer stops you, under criminal law, he has two purposes. One, is if you had in-fact, committed a crime and he has the authority to arrest you, second, if the stop comes within the purpose of a Terry stop, which means he must have a clear and articulable reason to stop you, and that any questions pursuant to that pretext, once answered to his satisfaction, satisfy the purpose of the stop and leave you free to go; yet those questions that deviate from the clear and articulable purpose for the Terry stop are not within a citizen's duty to respond to.

They can not arrest you for your inability, ie, not having one, to produce a driver's license. If you have submitted to the administrative authority and have procurred a license, and you admit that you possess one, yet still refuse to produce it, then you have transgressed upon the agreement you made with the state when you applied for the license and all subsequent rules and conditions set forth therein.
However, if you have not controverted your unalienable right to travel into a state endorsed, defined, and controlled priviledge to "drive a motor vehicle upon a highway in this state", (check the wording of your statutes), then you are not bound by the driver's license agreement and within your rights not to produce that which you are not required to possess.
It's not what THEY do to us, it's what WE do to ourselves through our own ignorance.

BTW, the link to my site where I'm posting the progress and motions is here:
http://www.markmccoy.com/index.php?p...osessionkill=1

[Codee]

Originally Posted by acicalla

We were debating about the validity of the police being able to detain you if you don't show ID. This is one of the things he found.

http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,62438,00.html

There is a supreme court case about this. The link above tells the story.

The supreme court ruled that you do not have to give any papers but you do have to give your name if there is a statute requiring it.