What's the deal with motor vehicle violations?

That probably is a lawful order. Yes it can be provocative to some. From what I understand the police department has admitted at least that officer did not follow their standards for professionalism. But that may not be all that helpful to the family. Things like nervousness and irritation are triggers that can allow the police to do a 'Terry' stop which consists of a pat down for weapons followed by an investigation/questioning. While Terry stops are legal, they are fairly discretionary. In the case of a person in a car, the police can certainly require you to exit your vehicle for the pat down.Let's be realistic. Police do sometimes stop people for the purpose of investigating criminal behavior. And minor violations often trigger the stops. The law on Terry stops allows the officer to make subjective judgments that can lead to pat downs etc. that are not considered to be arrests, but do require that you obey orders. Nervousness and reluctance to follow orders are going to be found to legitimately escalate the officer's suspicions, and if the whole incident happens in a high crime area, then the officer is going to able to justify an increased level of suspicion. Yes, the whole scenario has an extremely high potential for abuse.

The standard for an arrest is probable cause which is a higher standard that reasonable suspicion.

There are various definitions of the term 'crime' and I am not sure that an answer to the question as you have asked it would be helpful. One definition is that a crime is an offense against public law. Other definitions reserve the term crime for serious offenses for which the penalty can be imprisonment.Traffic offenses are sometimes called infractions which is supposed to mean that they have been decriminalized. But that is not true of all traffic offenses. And in fact, some traffic offenses are misdemeanors and some are felonies. DUI type of offenses are traffic offenses that can be misdemeanors and felonies. Depending on your jurisdiction reckless driving offenses are misdemeanors, and driving at 90 mph in a 70 mph zone may constitute reckless driving in some jurisdictions. Virginia is an example of such a jurisdiction. I am told that in some counties in VA, jail time is routinely handed out for speeds in excess of 90 mph. I don't practice traffic law. VA does not put reckless driving on your criminal record.A fairly common but not universal setup is to charge speeding that is at least 20 mph above the speed limit and at least 70 or so mph as reckless. If you are not sure about your NH, I'd suggest that you check. I took a quick google for NH law, and it looks like their rules are fairly slack, but please don't take that as legal advice.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I'm not certain about that. But I don't even believe the question is relevant. This person was not arrested for failing to signal. That simply caused the policeman to stop the person. I don't believe there is any offense to trivial for a policeman to stop you and ask for ID, try to smell your breath, and try to gauge whether you're on something.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

I've not encountered this. I doubt that most police departments would teach officers to do this because of the total waste of man power involved. I find your interactions with policeman complete bizarre. I would never do anything to prolong an interaction with a policeman who is giving me a warning or a ticket, and I would never offer an excuse that in a situation where I felt it would be ignored. Such excuses are simply potential evidence.Your point is that anyone should be able to blow their top during a traffic stop and you've provided examples of what you consider to be properly tolerant policemen.In many neighborhoods, stops for minor thins like a tail light are opportunities to investigate the driver. I don't see how dealing out verbal abuse is going to make such interactions go smoother. I also don't think it is realistic to expect the police to drop such policing methods as long as they are productive.

Not really mixed. It is the case the most people stopped are not up to anything nefarious. However the police do come up with enough bad guys to make the practice worthwhile.One problem with the practice is that police often become suspicious for reasons that are essentially racial profiling and when this happens they practices are counter productive. I wasn't there, so if you did not abuse the police, then you did not do so. But you yourself wondered if your yelling had crossed a line. What did you mean by that?

Wouldn't the arrestee usually be back on the streets in fairly short order if he's simply arrrested for a stop sign violation?How often do people get arrested for these things? Despite the fact that the law allows such things, is there any evidence that such arrests happen? People do get stopped for such things, and the police issue tickets. But at a police stop, it is possible for the policeman and the traffic offender to escalate the situation until an arrest is made. I don't see any evidence that police are making such arrests. I doubt that most police departments want the publicity from having such arrests discussed in the local media.

Eric Garner likely felt the same way at one time. Eric doesn't feel anything now. I applaud your courage. I've never heard of anyone talking the police out of a ticket. All you are doing is testifying to the police that you are guilty. If you tell your story about not wanting to get onto the highway to the judge, you are simply admitting guilt. And why is it so impossible to drive to the next exit and turn around anyway? Your story is about the least sympathetic story I've ever heard in traffic court.I know that agreeing with how you handled things was not the point of your story, but if your civics class did not include taking a look at use of your fifth amendment rights during a police interaction, then your class did you a disservice. You don't think that simply telling the policeman about your kid would have been a better way to go? I am never getting into a car with you Percy. Not even to go to the corner to get milk. I'm likely to end up in the pokey .ABE:I did not notice that Cat Sci had already used the Eric Garner reference. Cannot delete it now...Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

You guys are way ahead of me.RemovedEdited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

True, but you are leaving some details.Bland's failure to put out her cigarette lead directly to her being ordered out of the car. There was no particular reason that had to happen or for the policeman to lose his temper at that point, and it is completely understandable that the police department acknowledges that fact when it is caught on tape.Now that does not mean that Bland should not have been arrested for her reaction. She should have just gotten out of the car. That's is generally speaking always going to be a lawful order even if an arrest is not eminent. And legally speaking, you cannot resist even an unlawful arrest although generally such cases are dismissed.I agree with you on one idea. Police culpability in Carl's demise is way higher. Why was Carl housed in an area with a convicted murderer?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yeah, I read the appellate court's opinion and their discussion of the case. Being arrested without incident versus being arrested with incident with the entire arrest caught on video seems to explain that difference. Would a video of Carl's arrest, if it even existed, have shown anything of interest?How about the fact that the released video shown signs of being edited. Would that help explain interest in the video? How about the fact that the progression of events on the video shows poor performance by the policeman even if the arrest is legal? Is there any suggestion of that in Carl's case? This part of the case has yet to play out. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That would be one way to judge success. But not the only way.How about how many bad guys does the police department catch per day and does that number make a difference. How much do the level of stops alienate the community and cause financial problems for the city would be other ways of tracking the benefit vs the detriment. What is the balance between the impact on crime and negative publicity for the mayor and the police department. If you were wondering about crossing the line based on what I was saying, then the fact that you went home without being arrested and experienced no subsequent legal consequences means that you did not cross the line with your particular situation. I cannot answer your question about how close you came to the line because I wasn't there.There obviously is a line to cross and the perception of the law enforcement officer on where that line is may not be the same as yours. But beyond that, spewing out a bunch of details about why you broke the law isn't a great idea. It is not going to keep you from getting a ticket and it won't help your ultimate legal issue.

Cute. Exactly what right were you defending when you offered your excuse to the police. The right to 'feel better'?Fortunately, rights are not things that we have to deserve in order to have. Whatever rights you enjoy with respect to police treatment were actually earned by some poor criminal who was rubber hosed in a police station sixty years ago. Or perhaps I'm a lawyer who has defended people in court and who has also had the painful experience of watching people without legal training defend and convict themselves by offering excuses when they ought not to be testifying at all.Or maybe I just don't have as much faith in the police to act properly that as you do.The signage got you into your circumstance. Your choice of ways to escape the problem is what resulted in your citation. There is nothing particular evil about your choice. What I find silly is your failure to own your choice.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

That is a question for which the answer is not obvious. You don't have to answer questions, and the police will recognize when you are invoking your fifth amendment rights. However the officer can perform a Terry stop pretty much anytime if he's already got you on a some violation. That means that his order to get out of the car is going to be lawful. He is allowed to frisk you for weapons. This is not considered an arrest.Terry stops are a primary law enforcement tool, but they are abused. If you don't understand what is going on, you may find yourself guilty of disobeying a direct order which can lead to you being put under arrest. An abusive policeman can easily but someone who does not know the law into a position where they can conduct a Terry stop.I find it surprising that you don't understand that you don't have to answer police questions. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Have you ever defended yourself in traffic court? Have you ever had a lawyer defend you in traffic court or have you always just paid the fines? Does your type of BS excuse ever get you out of paying a fine?I ask because every post you make including the one about answering police questions suggests that you are clueless. No. Just pro bono defense work involving misdemeanors. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.