Stupid Guest Tricks

Much like how most of the cops I saw when I was in traffic court said something along the lines of "I saw the defendant's vehicle. The defendant violated some part of the vehicle code. I initiated a traffic stop and cited the defendant." How do they know it's the defendant's vehicle before initiating the traffic stop? And the judge/commissioner/referee just lets that go. :mad:

Alyssa3467 wrote:Much like how most of the cops I saw when I was in traffic court said something along the lines of "I saw the defendant's vehicle. The defendant violated some part of the vehicle code. I initiated a traffic stop and cited the defendant." How do they know it's the defendant's vehicle before initiating the traffic stop? And the judge/commissioner/referee just lets that go. :mad:

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying the problem is. If an officer sees a violation with his own eyes, he has a the right to stop the vehicle.

Much like how the 911 operator in Big Wallaby's story has no way of knowing if the voice heard was the owner of the phone or some person who happened to have possession of the phone, a police officer on patrol has no way of knowing who the driver of a vehicle is prior to identifying the driver. The testimony should not assume facts not in evidence. If the officer says:

1. I saw a car
2. The driver did something,
3. I stopped the car,
4. I identified the driver, who is the defendant in this case,
5. I cited the defendant,

that's fine, but if instead (and this is far more common, from what I've seen), he says:

1. I saw the defendant's car,
2. The defendant did something,
3. I stopped the car,
4. I cited the defendant,

then that makes the assumption that the car is that of the defendant, when there has not yet been testimony establishing that fact. My understanding is that if I see a 1996 Honda Accord LX sedan with certain dents and scratches and a certain license plate number, I know it's my friend Harmony's car, and would hypothetically be able to testify to that, but a random cop who does not personally know Harmony or her car can't just straight out say that the car he saw was Harmony's (well... I suppose if he ran the plates, he'd see who the registered owner is, but that's beside the point). And neither one of us would be able to say that it's Harmony driving her car without further evidence.

With better networks and onboard terminal equipment, many cop cars are virtual offices able to access multiple databases. As soon as a vehicle attracts an officer's interest he will key in the license number for wants and warrants. The response will include owner info.

If a stop is made the driver produces a driver's license, registration and insurance card. If the name on the license matches the registration and the owner's info from the database query then, in fact, the officer can truly say he pulled over the defendant's car.

This may also be a question of semantics. At the time the stop was made the car was under control of the defendant making it the defendant's car. Ownership is not an issue when the stop was made unless it turns out to be stolen. Then we get into felony stop procedures that involve drawn guns, face plants into the greasy asphalt, etc.

hobie16 wrote:With better networks and onboard terminal equipment, many cop cars are virtual offices able to access multiple databases. As soon as a vehicle attracts an officer's interest he will key in the license number for wants and warrants. The response will include owner info.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the case for motorcycle officers, which many of the officers I saw when waiting to be called were.

Alyssa3467 wrote:I'm pretty sure this isn't the case for motorcycle officers, which many of the officers I saw when waiting to be called were.

That's what the radio is for.

hobie16 wrote:This may also be a question of semantics. At the time the stop was made the car was under control of the defendant making it the defendant's car. Ownership is not an issue when the stop was made unless it turns out to be stolen. Then we get into felony stop procedures that involve drawn guns, face plants into the greasy asphalt, etc.

These are the sort of semantics that the "traffic ticket specialists" exploit in order to get people off on moving violations. Many of the specialists are ex-cops, and they are well aware of all the minor mistakes that an officer can make in giving the ticket, and testifying in court. Plus in many cases the cop does not show up for the trial anyway, so the ticket is thrown out. THats why one thing the specialist does, when you plead not guilty and request a trial, is he waits till the last possible minute and requests a date or venue change for the trial. Since it defeats the plan to have all Officer Krupkys' trials on the same day, it greatly increases the odds of the officer being a no show.

From my experience (retired 25 years as a traffic homicide investigator) when the officer states he/she saw the defendants vehicle he officer is not referring to ownership of the vehicle, but rather to the person who is in physical control of the vehicle at the time of the traffic infraction. I hope I didn't muddy the water here.

Rosie

You're like a crystal clear mountain brook Rosie. :D:

Rosie wrote:From my experience (retired 25 years as a traffic homicide investigator) when the officer states he/she saw the defendants vehicle he officer is not referring to ownership of the vehicle, but rather to the person who is in physical control of the vehicle at the time of the traffic infraction. I hope I didn't muddy the water here.

Rosie

hobie16 wrote:You're like a crystal clear mountain brook Rosie. :D:

And I would think that would be obvious because...The car is not on trial here! Sorry had to do that.