Cops opinions in here

[Bill of Rights]

BeeeaUtiful words!!

Thanks, Dogman and Annie.

Blessings,
B

 

[4sarge]

Disagree. I need neither license nor registration to drive any car (that I own) I want so long as I am on my own property. I can do so at any speed I choose, stop as quickly as I choose, and so long as I'm not on a public roadway or otherwise affecting other people, there should be no citation. Public intox theoretically should follow the same guide, truth be told. Sounds to me like 1) The OP on the car forum needs to stop posting his details of his case in public
2) He needs to hire that attorney and listen to him.
3) The case, if it isn't thrown out by a judge, sounds to be ripe for jury nullification.

My .Blessings,B

Good thoughts


IC 9-13-2-49

Driveway or private road
Sec. 49. "Driveway" or "private road" means a way or place in private ownership that is used for vehicular travel by the owner and those having express or implied permission from the owner but not by other persons.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.1.


Unsafe Start

IC 9-21-8-23

Starting a vehicle that is stopped, standing, or parked
Sec. 23. A person may not start a vehicle that is stopped, standing, or parked until the movement can be made with reasonable safety.
As added by P.L.2-1991, SEC.9.

IMO Taking the facts as stated at face value the citation was improper if issued upon private property and the vehicle was never on the public road.


ATV's

IC 14-16-1-20

Operation on highways and roads
Sec. 20. (a) An individual may not operate a vehicle required to be registered under this chapter upon a public highway, street, or rights-of-way thereof or on a public or private parking lot not specifically designated for the use of vehicles, except under the following conditions:
(1) A vehicle may be operated on the public right-of-way adjacent to the traveled part of the public highway, except a limited access highway, if there is sufficient width to operate at a reasonable distance off and away from the traveled part and in a manner so as not to endanger life or property.
(2) The operator of a vehicle may cross a public highway, other than a limited access highway, at right angles for the purpose of getting from one (1) area to another when the operation can be done in safety. The operator shall bring the vehicle to a complete stop before proceeding across a public highway and shall yield the right-of-way to all traffic.
(3) Notwithstanding this section, a vehicle may be operated on a highway in a county road system outside the corporate limits of a city or town if the highway is designated for this purpose by the county highway department having jurisdiction.
(4) A law enforcement officer of a city, town, or county or the state may authorize use of a vehicle on the public highways, streets, and rights-of-way within the officer's jurisdiction during emergencies when conventional motor vehicles cannot be used for transportation due to snow or other extreme highway conditions.
(5) A vehicle may be operated on a street or highway for a
special event of limited duration conducted according to a prearranged schedule only under permit from the governmental unit having jurisdiction. The event may be conducted on the frozen surface of public waters only under permit from the department.
(b) An individual less than fourteen (14) years of age may not operate a vehicle without immediate supervision of an individual at least eighteen (18) years of age, except on land owned or under the control of the individual or the individual's parent or legal guardian.
(c) An individual may not operate a vehicle on a public highway without a valid motor vehicle driver's license.
(d) A vehicle may not be used to hunt, pursue, worry, or kill a wild bird or a domestic or wild animal.
As added by P.L.1-1995, SEC.9.

IC 14-16-1-30
Off-road vehicle and snowmobile fund
Sec. 30. (a) As used in this section, "fund" refers to the off-road vehicle and snowmobile fund established by subsection (b).
(b) The off-road vehicle and snowmobile fund is established. The fund shall be administered by the department.
(c) The fund consists of the revenues obtained under this chapter, appropriations, and donations. Money in the fund shall be used for the following purposes:
(1) Enforcement and administration of this chapter.
(2) Constructing and maintaining off-road vehicle trails.
(3) Constructing and maintaining snowmobile trails.
(d) The treasurer of state shall invest the money in the fund not currently needed to meet the obligations of the fund in the same manner as other public money may be invested.
(e) Money in the fund at the end of the state fiscal year does not revert to the state general fund.
As added by P.L.186-2003, SEC.55.


Indiana Laws for Off-Road Vehicles: Indiana Off-Road Vehicle Handbook

 

[SavageEagle]

(b) An individual less than fourteen (14) years of age may not operate a vehicle without immediate supervision of an individual at least eighteen (18) years of age, except on land owned or under the control of the individual or the individual's parent or legal guardian.

So basiclly my 9y/o daughter could go out in my beat up truck on some field I just might own and do as many doughnuts and drifting turns as she wants???? I mean I got to drive a Grain Truck at a young age, but I figured this would be illegal by now... That's awesome! Maybe I should let my 3y/o son go drive around my house.... Now where are all those phone books and wood blocks...

 

[Metro 40]

.

 

[Dogman]

So basiclly my 9y/o daughter could go out in my beat up truck on some field I just might own and do as many doughnuts and drifting turns as she wants????

As long as you own the property, yes.

 

[Justus]

.....sounds like he(the cop) got a bit excited, but the second you question one you have basically asked"officer will you find a reason to cite me?"
and if it was me and he called someone to get a camera, he would have instantly pi$ me off

munky are you an LEO?

 

[munky_3434]

military cop for about 4 years, work at a prison now. so my expirence in civilian law is about nonexistent. most of my origional point was private property or not, if that kid spun hit tires NEAR a public road he was putting others at risk as there is always a potential for failure. IE brakes going out or loosing control and paincing. you can be stupid on your own property, but if you put people outside the property at risk you are wrong.

 

[Fenway]

I have seen this post on the car board and I believe the person who wrote it is a member here as well. Maybe he will show up.

 

[Justus]

military cop for about 4 years, work at a prison now. so my expirence in civilian law is about nonexistent. most of my origional point was private property or not, if that kid spun hit tires NEAR a public road he was putting others at risk as there is always a potential for failure. IE brakes going out or loosing control and paincing. you can be stupid on your own property, but if you put people outside the property at risk you are wrong.

I was just wondering if you were currently an LEO
because the "pissed me off" comment troubles me.
From my point of view, no LEO has the reason, or right, to get "pissed"
at a citizen if they are acting non-combative and respectful.
Is getting a video camera a legitimate reason to get "pissed"?

 

[munky_3434]

i understand what you are saying and re-read what i typed. but the second someone questions what i'm doing, espically the way i took it form the text, i would be on the defensive. and compounded with him calling someone in the middle of a traffic stop. and to have them get a camera at that....that to me seems like somone looking to get rich. i could very well be wrong, and probably am

anyone,leo or not has the right to get pi$$ed it's human.for me it is when people start questioning my decisions,espically on the job. while i admit i worded that a bit harshly, the point i was implying is this. questioning an officer,and getting on your phone in the middle of a stop is no way to win the officer over.

now like i said earlier, this is the one people keep missing. it does seem like the officer overreacted , and since this was all taken from a one-sided rant we are really unsure. could have been a rookie cop who thinks he has something to prove or someone who has just recieved his fill for the week and was'nt too rational at that moment, not that makes it right.

if the officer went out of line i hope by all means that the situation gets rectified. i still stand by the fact that what i have read i would favor the officers decision

 

[Ri22o]

i understand what you are saying and re-read what i typed. but the second someone questions what i'm doing, espically the way i took it form the text, i would be on the defensive. and compounded with him calling someone in the middle of a traffic stop. and to have them get a camera at that....that to me seems like somone looking to get rich. i could very well be wrong, and probably am

anyone,leo or not has the right to get pi$ it's human.for me it is when people start questioning my decisions,espically on the job. while i admit i worded that a bit harshly, the point i was implying is this. questioning an officer,and getting on your phone in the middle of a stop is no way to win the officer over.

now like i said earlier, this is the one people keep missing. it does seem like the officer overreacted , and since this was all taken from a one-sided rant we are really unsure. could have been a rookie cop who thinks he has something to prove or someone who has just recieved his fill for the week and was'nt too rational at that moment, not that makes it right.

if the officer went out of line i hope by all means that the situation gets rectified. i still stand by the fact that what i have read i would favor the officers decision

Traffic stop? It was in his drive way.

 

[munky_3434]

i thought it was a paved road that used to be part of a parking lot......not really like what you'd picture with a picket fence and a mailbox type of driveway. the way i disected it was.... . strike one, told the cop it was private property(how many excuses/stories do they hear daily for why someone did what they did)strike 2. gets on his phone for ANY reason.

i know the flaming has only started but keep it coming. just think, if the officer in question had stopped this individual and found 2 pounds of dope becuase the car smellled of weed, no one would shed a tear about the whole "private property" issue

i know that's "what if". all i'm saying is yeah, the cop probably did over-react, but the actions of the individual did not help to de-escalate the situation. i strongly believe every member here is a law abiding citizen, and i can count on two fingers all the tickets i have had, but on the same note i shoulda had 5 or 6 more, but the way i conduct myself after i have been pulled over has been the difference i believe. not even acusing this guy of doing anything wrong, but if he chirped his tired or threw gravel it was an unsafe start yes, private property yes, but all the officer has to go on is the unsafe start unless the individual has private property signs posted everywhere, most would pull anyone over for that. and several routine traffic stops lead to more than a unsafe start ticket

 

[JetGirl]

just think, if the officer in question had stopped this individual and found 2 pounds of dope becuase the car smellled of weed, no one would shed a tear about the whole "private property" issue

I dang sure would! Private means "PRIVATE". Don't enter without an invitation or a warrant.
And no, I'm no doper or gangbanger or whatever...I have nothing to hide (which seems to be the default answer to "got a warrant?"), but stay off my property without my say so.

 

[Ri22o]

I dang sure would! Private means "PRIVATE". Don't enter without an invitation or a warrant.
And no, I'm no doper or gangbanger or whatever...I have nothing to hide (which seems to be the default answer to "got a warrant?"), but stay off my property without my say so.

I was thinking the same thing. The officer had no reason to enter the property. That would have been considered illegal search and seizure.

 

[Justus]

I'm not flaming you.
Yes, this is only one side of the story.
According to your #32 post, the LEO actions are justified
because of "what if" ?

pulled from the OP:
"So I have a large driveway"
"and I was on my private property the entire time".
"Cop flies in through my yard onto my driveway and yells "STOP!".

 

[munky_3434]

yeah, true, but what i was saying was, the residence used to be a buisness, enough parking lot/paved road to be mistaken for a place of buisness still and in plain sight. and how many times when someone gets stopped is the first thing they utter some form of "why are you bothering me?" usually if they are asking they already know why.

onlything i see really wrong is if the officers drove through his yard as stated, that seems odd

 

[munky_3434]

no, i was saying i saw it as justified basd on the chance they did'nt know it was private property.

i base that off the number of people who will say anything to get an officer off their back

 

[JetGirl]

yeah, true, but what i was saying was, the residence used to be a buisness, enough parking lot/paved road to be mistaken for a place of buisness still and in plain sight. and how many times when someone gets stopped is the first thing they utter some form of "why are you bothering me?" usually if they are asking they already know why.

How could it _continue_ to be mistaken for public access after the first interaction?
The first words from the property owner were not "Why are you bothering me?"... they were:

I said "This is private property; what are you doing?" and the cop says "I don't care!"

 

[Bill of Rights]

I dang sure would! Private means "PRIVATE". Don't enter without an invitation or a warrant.
And no, I'm no doper or gangbanger or whatever...I have nothing to hide (which seems to be the default answer to "got a warrant?"), but stay off my property without my say so.

Got that right. The "War on Drugs" is as wrong as the "War on Terror", the "War on Alcohol" (aka Prohibition) and the undeclared "War on Guns".

Amendment IV.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

It's not a question of "What do you have to hide?", which presumes that the one asking has any damn business there in the first place. Without a warrant, a LEO is just a trespasser with a badge. It's more a question of "What business do you have looking?"

Of note, unless it was in plain sight, "Fruit of a poisonous tree" (the hypothetical drugs) couldn't be used against him in court anyway.

Blessings,
B

 

[munky_3434]

did'n mean those as his exact words, just saying it is usually a variant of that, no matter who is pulled over. i was just saying that how many times do you think any officer has heard some form of that.

what i'm getting at is yes, the whole incident went above where it should have. i think both parties had part to do with that.