Today was my first traffic experiment with Clickit or bend over

[ezrhythm]

Originally Posted by 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.

There are cities that will pay hefty over time to officers and they will show up on their days off.

There will only be physical evidence in a DUI case if you give them some. First, don't operate an automobileon public roadways while intoxicated. Second, don't keep any opened or empty alcoholic beverage containers in the occupancy area of your automobile. Third, never submit evidence that will be used against you by allowing any sobriety test; breath, blood or urine.

[Shoonra]

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 case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (June 21, 2004) 542 U.S. 177, 159 L.Ed.2d 292, 124 S.Ct. 2451. This affirmed Hiibel's conviction for refusing to show his DL to a policeman who had encountered him beside his truck on the highway, in 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.3d 1201.

In other words, yes you can get into trouble refusing to show your DL to a cop. In Hiibel's case, he wasn't even behind the wheel at the time but the circumstances made it clear that he must have driven to that spot and he would necessarily be the one driving the truck away from that spot.

As for insulting a cop, some states actually include "abusing" a policeman as one of the acts covered by the obstruction law. I would suggest, in any case, it would be the better course of action to try to minimize the antagonism occuring in an encounter with a LEO.

[acicalla]

Your assuming that they expect you to show up that day. With no notice the officer won't be there. That is the way that the sherriff's have told their people to beat the tickets.

Originally Posted by ezrhythm

There are cities that will pay hefty over time to officers and they will show up on their days off.

There will only be physical evidence in a DUI case if you give them some. First, don't operate an automobileon public roadways while intoxicated. Second, don't keep any opened or empty alcoholic beverage containers in the occupancy area of your automobile. Third, never submit evidence that will be used against you by allowing any sobriety test; breath, blood or urine.

[Codee]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

-------
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (June 21, 2004) 542 U.S. 177, 159 L.Ed.2d 292, 124 S.Ct. 2451. This affirmed Hiibel's conviction for refusing to show his DL to a policeman who had encountered him beside his truck on the highway, in 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.3d 1201.

In other words, yes you can get into trouble refusing to show your DL to a cop. In Hiibel's case, he wasn't even behind the wheel at the time but the circumstances made it clear that he must have driven to that spot and he would necessarily be the one driving the truck away from that spot.

As for insulting a cop, some states actually include "abusing" a policeman as one of the acts covered by the obstruction law. I would suggest, in any case, it would be the better course of action to try to minimize the antagonism occuring in an encounter with a LEO.

Hibble was arrested for not providing ID. He did not get in trouble for failing to provide a driver's license. The supreme court in their ruling ruled that they were not requiring papers, just a verbal ID.

Secondly Hibble was only in trouble because Nevada has a specific statute requiring identification in those type of situations,,,we have no such law in my state. There is no implied driving, what crap!!!

Third, hurting someones feelings is not abuse!

[BOBT12]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

-------
The case is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court (June 21, 2004) 542 U.S. 177, 159 L.Ed.2d 292, 124 S.Ct. 2451. This affirmed Hiibel's conviction for refusing to show his DL to a policeman who had encountered him beside his truck on the highway, in 118 Nev. 868, 59 P.3d 1201.

In other words, yes you can get into trouble refusing to show your DL to a cop. In Hiibel's case, he wasn't even behind the wheel at the time but the circumstances made it clear that he must have driven to that spot and he would necessarily be the one driving the truck away from that spot.

If anyone bothers to read the case, the Hiibel case did not require him to produce a DL. Instead it says that he must identify himself, which he refused to do.

HIIBEL v. SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

(a) State stop and identify statutes often combine elements of traditional vagrancy laws with provisions intended to regulate police behavior in the course of investigatory stops. They vary from State to State, but all permit an officer to ask or require a suspect to disclose his identity. In Papachristou v. Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 167-171, this Court invalidated a traditional vagrancy law for vagueness because of its broad scope and imprecise terms. The Court recognized similar constitutional limitations in Brown v. Texas, 443 U. S. 47, 52, where it invalidated a conviction for violating a Texas stop and identify statute on Fourth Amendment grounds, and in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, where it invalidated on vagueness grounds California's modified stop and identify statute that required a suspect to give an officer "credible and reliable " identification when asked to identify himself, id., at 360. This case begins where those cases left off. Here, the initial stop was based on reasonable suspicion, satisfying the Fourth Amendment requirements noted in Brown. Further, Hiibel has not alleged that the Nevada statute is unconstitutionally vague, as in Kolender. This statute is narrower and more precise. In contrast to the "credible and reliable" identification requirement in Kolender, the Nevada Supreme Court has interpreted the instant statute to require only that a suspect disclose his name. It apparently does not require him to produce a driver's license or any other document. If he chooses either to state his name or communicate it to the officer by other means, the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs. Pp. 3-6.

emphasis added.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=542+&page=177

[mefreeman]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

From the North Carolina General Statutes:





In other words, sinice you were operating a vehicle, the policeman did have a right to require you to show him your DL, and if you didn't then you were at least committing a violation of this law .... or possibly driving without being licensed. In either case, he could arrest you and prevent you from driving away until it could be established that you were licensed to drive.

what happens in the case of "traveling" instead of operating? also there are a whole bunch of words with tricky meanings to force jurisdiction upon? when using proper wording can that get you off the hook? also an oath of office, to protect and uphold constitution, said - states have no authority to permit or to deny to travel unincumbered...what's up with that?

...non are more hoplessly enslaved then those who falsly belive they are free

[charlesa6]

mefreeman, welcome to the suijuris forum.

[cdsea10]

"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."

do you remember what that is so i can look it up in the virginia statutes?

thanks - charlie

[Codee]

.............................

[greatwolf75]

I haven't read this whole thread so I don't know what all has or hasn't been said in here. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I was always told that if you were forced to go somewhere against your will that, that was kidnapping. I learned that one in school. Then I also learned that if someone had to pay "money" for your release, that was called "ransom". Oh wait, I'm sorry, these people broke the law, they didn't fasten up a leather strap around themselves. THE SCUM, take them away, we don't need hooligans like that poluting society! We only want good wholesome people on the streets, like those who are facing charges on murder and are let go because of some technicallity, and they better where those seatbelts too or else!!!!!!!! If I remember my roman history right (which I also learned in school) I think it was Tacitus who said "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws". I always wear my seatbelt simply because being launched through the windshield like a rocket does not appeal to me, but even so I think it should be left up to personal choice. The common law laughs at such frivolous things ha ha ha ha.