Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
alt-x,
Are there cases where you observe the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. I don't know the exact circumstances of the OP's ticket other than what she posted. But, if it was truly congested and potentially unsafe for them to move to the left lane would you have not pulled them over, given a warning, or given a ticket?
Written warnings are not kept track of since they mean nothing. The only thing that means anything in any court is being officially cited for a violation.
They mean nothing? They're proof that a person has been previously notified about the existence of a law. Therefore, if a person says they were unaware of a law, but the database says they were given a warning, then you know that they are lying, and you give them a ticket.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALT-X
I don't know what agency pulled your friend over but the Raleigh Police Department doesn't make it a practice to give people warnings for misdemeanor violations (like the move over law). A misdemeanor is an arrestable offense so a person who is cited for any misdemeanor (including simple ones like forgetting to sign your registration card) is already getting a break by not being arrested. Now for infractions we have a lot more leeway and give warnings (both verbal and written) more frequently. An example of an infraction would be an expired car inspection or not signaling before changing lanes.
See...that's something else I don't like. Why is this an arrestable offense? I could see it being an arrestable offense if a person is a repeat offender, but being able to be arrested when you may not even know about a law is just unfair in my book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALT-X
Your reason for hating cops was amusing to me because I encounter attitudes/opinions like yours when I'm working and it just shows how no one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore, no matter how minor. You should not hate cops for enforcing laws, you should dislike the law and try to change it. That's not easy to do so maybe if you are a "hate" type person you should direct your anger towards all the congressmen and others who make the laws.
If you knew me in person, you would know that I am not a hateful person at all. Nowhere did I say that I hate cops...hate is a very strong word. I just don't like it when I perceive injustice in the world, and I express it in this message board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALT-X
Don't worry, I'm never take opinions like yours personally, it never bothers me or affects the level of service I offer to the citizens of Raleigh. I'm a true professional and know people who think like you are all over the place. Attitudes like yours are good because it keeps me motivated and they certainly provide us all with good entertainment...
The "Move Over" Law requires motorists, when approaching a parked or standing emergency vehicle with its lights flashing on the shoulder of the highway, to move to a lane not nearest the emergency vehicle if possible. If not possible reduce speed and be prepared to stop. Motorists should travel in that lane until clear of the emergency vehicle. Motorists on two-lane roads should slow down and use caution when passing a parked or standing emergency vehicle.
The RED is on the DOT web site. So had the OP slowed down SIGNIFICANTLY, the police officer would not have issued the ticket. Liz
alt-x,
Are there cases where you observe the intent of the law rather than the letter of the law. I don't know the exact circumstances of the OP's ticket other than what she posted. But, if it was truly congested and potentially unsafe for them to move to the left lane would you have not pulled them over, given a warning, or given a ticket?
Many laws might have to be modified depending on the circumstances that might be present. None of us know the exact circumstances of the ticket jbognar's friend was given (other than that person) but of course I wouldn't write somebody a ticket if moving over would have been impossible or unsafe... Officers are given a lot of discretion when it comes to the interpretation and application of laws and should be because so many variables can come into play when dealing with a situation. Now an officer who gives a ticket under a situation like that IS A JERK and there are plenty of them around.
I agree with playnice though, the OP needs to hire a lawyer to assist them esp. if they've used a PJC recently...
Also, we are talking about two seperate people. The original poster and the "out of state" friend of another. The original poster never said if they were aware of the law or just caught unawares.
Pleading guilty would hurt since a "PFJ" "Prayer for Judgment" means that the older charge will be reinstated against you if a new conviction happens during the probation period.
Don't understand it but copied that from the first set of posts, LOL. Liz
Not my own words but this explains what it is very well...
A Prayer for Judgment Continued, or PJC, is a finding of guilt without the entry of a judgment. It is usually obtained after a plea of guilty but sometimes a judge can enter a PJC after a not guilty plea in a trial after a finding of guilt. A PJC is not a conviction for most purposes but theoretically could be converted to a conviction at a later date in some circumstances (however this rarely happens except in cases of a PJC for a time period to be dismissed - see below.)
For automobile insurance purposes, one can have up to one PJC per household every three years that will not cause insurance premium increases. For driver’s license purposes, a driver can have up to two PJCs within a five year period which will not result in driver’s license points nor have any effect on the driving record of the person receiving the PJC (except that one of the two PJCs per five years is thereby used and will appear on one’s DMV record). For criminal defendants in federal court, a prayer for judgment may be considered a conviction for the determination of the sentencing level upon conviction of a federal crime. For impeachment purposes–that is when a person is testifying in court and the opposite side wants to use a criminal charge conviction for purpose of impeaching their credibility–a PJC after a not guilty plea is not considered a conviction but a PJC after a guilty plea is considered a conviction.
A Prayer for Judgment Continued, or PJC, is a finding of guilt without the entry of a judgment. It is usually obtained after a plea of guilty but sometimes a judge can enter a PJC after a not guilty plea in a trial after a finding of guilt. A PJC is not a conviction for most purposes but theoretically could be converted to a conviction at a later date in some circumstances (however this rarely happens except in cases of a PJC for a time period to be dismissed - see below.)
For automobile insurance purposes, one can have up to one PJC per household every three years that will not cause insurance premium increases. For driver’s license purposes, a driver can have up to two PJCs within a five year period which will not result in driver’s license points nor have any effect on the driving record of the person receiving the PJC (except that one of the two PJCs per five years is thereby used and will appear on one’s DMV record). For criminal defendants in federal court, a prayer for judgment may be considered a conviction for the determination of the sentencing level upon conviction of a federal crime. For impeachment purposes–that is when a person is testifying in court and the opposite side wants to use a criminal charge conviction for purpose of impeaching their credibility–a PJC after a not guilty plea is not considered a conviction but a PJC after a guilty plea is considered a conviction.
Why is this an arrestable offense? I could see it being an arrestable offense if a person is a repeat offender, but being able to be arrested when you may not even know about a law is just unfair in my book.
This is an arrestable offense because law enforcement officers die in these situations. From an article when this law was passed:
"The state legislature passed he first Move Over law, General Statute 20-157(f), on Jan. 30, 2002, stating that drivers must move over if possible or slow down when approaching a stopped emergency vehicle which has on its flashing lights.
Only a few months earlier, on Oct. 3, 2001, Trooper Calvin Taylor was killed in Haywood County when a tractor-trailer crossed onto the shoulder lane of Interstate 40 while he was issuing a citation.
Less than two years later, on May 30, 2003, another state Highway Patrol trooper, Anthony Cogdill, was killed on I-40 in Haywood County as a result of a nearly identical incident.
Since 2001, 66 troopers have been injured or killed in similar crashes, evidence that something has to be done, Rapp said.
According to FORS, emergency vehicles being struck by another vehicle is the third leading cause of death for law enforcement officers in the United States."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.