you might even be more inclined to issue a warning in those instances if not for the pressure to meet your Quotas, and that's where I think the pols have basically instituted an extortion racket to secure more revenues and they're using the cops to do their dirty work
All I'm saying is, if I was a cop that would offend me .. I would be offended by that .. if you're giving me a Quota then you're basically telling me you don't trust my judgement to discern when a simple warning might suffice and that's probably because you don't want anyone to get off with a warning, because the point is not really safety, IT'S REVENUES and a warning doesn't bring any money into the troft, and IMO that's extortion.
I can honestly say that in my 25 years with the SP I have never been given a quota by any supervisor or Departmental directive. For us, traffic enforcement is something you do when there are no calls or investigations to be followed up on or during holiday travel pushes when traffic is heavy and violators create a hazard to the motoring public. I have always been able to use my discretion on when to issue a written warning, verbal warning or citation. I will concede that there are jurisdictions (mostly municipal down here) who strictly enforce speed limits on the major route through their town.(Ask the Canadians who travel US 19 through Summersvile, WV on their way to the beaches of the Carolina's or Florida)
I finally got a chance to watch the video, hard to make out what was exactly being said, but things surely could have gone another way.
My first thought when I watched this was the cop had incredibly poor tactics. The way he approached the car, walking directly to driver side window and then squaring up on driver window and leaning in, exactly how NOT to do it.
That reminded me of the incident a few years back, trooper some where, pulled over man for speeding, driver was IRATE, cursing, ripped up the ticket, threw it out window, trooper calmly told him to pick it up and driver did and was allowed to leave. Anybody remember that? The back story that most of you dont know is the trooper was reprimanded several times for losing control/poor demeanor with motorists. He had already approached the car and got the motorist fired up, he knew this was taped and made sure to act the gentlemen. The cops approach to auto in this incident almost made me think there was tape before what we are shown, but I guess we'll never know.
The cop can be heard saying something about 2 signs or something like that, so I believe he WAS explaining to driver how he had been caught speeding. Like many said here, if he had a problem with ticket, you follow the directions on back of ticket and get yourself a court date. A highway is not the place to plead your case, especially after the ticket is written. You are not going to win.
Why departments want drivers to sign tickets is something I never really understood. The nature of the incident at hand lends to the driver already being disapointed/upset/mad, and possibly hostile, toward the cop. Why risk potential problems with further contact?
That said, the cop must be in control of the situation. In NJ a statute called Obstruction of the Administration of Law would cover this type of problem. It basically says a cop is trying to do his job, and you are obstructing that attempt in some way.
Could it have been handled better? Sure. Maybe a couple more attempts to get it signed, and the consequences of not signing it, could have been tried. But the bottom line is the cop's orders have to be followed in the street. You may disagree, but your options for remedy lie in the courtroom, not on the shoulder of the highway.
I see some of you are cop bashers here too, cops have too much power, we like the rush, all that stuff. I dont leave my house in the morning to go to work and say "I hope things are outta control today and I have to smash somebody". I would never pass up a good car chase, or a gun job, but I'm not looking to roll around on the ground with every guy walking down the street either.
I dont know alot of cops that look to fight people, but it does happen sometimes. When things get physical, we have tools to aid us. Pepper, night sticks, tasers, a flashlight maybe, and the gun if all else fails. I am not there to give you a "fair one", I am there to win. Any of you ever bounce at a club? Every now and then there was that big brawl and it takes a few guys to get somebody out. And the guy always has a mouth, "if it wasnt 3 of you I'd knock you out", blah, blah, blah..yeah, well I'm not the worlds toughest guy, this is a job. The guy with the chip is the one who wants to challenge to rules, not the 1 enforcing them.
As for ticket quatos, not in my department, NJ state case law on quotos, the FOP went to court and won the matter. There can be zero directives issued requesting a specific # of tix, or saying we need "this many" more, etc..so its not an issue. Do some guys write more than others, sure. But its also a tool, its the minor things that sometimes lead to bigger things.
Oh, 1 more thing. Somebody said he has to read him his Rights when he put him in the radio car. Not true. It is prefectly legal and acceptable to arrest a person and not read them their Rights, at any point. Miranda is only necessary when questioning or interogation is going to take place.
I have been pulled over at least a half a dozen times in my 38 years of driving. No problem because the officer in every case was calm and absolutely clear in their instructions and calmly answered any and all of my questions. Calm and proffessional behavior usually gets a calm response, usually.
When this guy refused to sign the ticket the officer should have informed him that signing the ticket was not an admission of guilt and failure to sign would result in arrest. He didn't say that he threatened the guy and than tazed him and than informed him he was being arrested for not signing the ticket.
This officer was unproffessional and that created an out of control situation. Is the driver a bit of a dick for trying to argue with an out of control officere, sure he was but that's not why this situation went out of control.
I understand officers are in peril when they pull someone over but that's not an excuse for creating a bad situation. Had this guy and his wife really been dangerous, this cop would have been dead at the scene.
Two quick observations. The officer created more of a problem then needed and when the male was walking away from the officer it appeared the male was trying to pull something out of his right front pocket.
A really stupid guy and a cop that isn't very good at his job. When stupid people get together, bad things happen, simple as that. I don't get it though, he was driving behind the cop, the cop pulls over and I guess radars him while he's stopping? Maybe he didn't see the sign because the cop pulled over right in front of it.
I'm driving behind a cop, he pulls over and immediately pulls out behind me and pulls me over. I'd be confused to, tbh.
My question to cops are, why do you all fly up on our ass and stay there while we are driving the speed limit? It's a little more annoying at night, cause the lights blind you and then you start to concentrate on the car on your ass more than the road. It happens everywhere. In Colorado I have had a cop inches from my bumper going through mountain roads in the snow.
On a side note, 2 of the 3 cops I know personally are wife beaters. The other one is what all cops should strive to be like, in it truly for the people and not the power.
Sorry I didn't jump into this thread earlier. When this story broke, I did some research at the utah.gov site.
The Utah statute on the issuing of citations clearly lists all of the things that must be on the citation. Nowhere in the statute did it say the defendent's signature is required. The officer's signature is required. You can read it here:
I usually fall back to blaming bureaucrats and government for creating an environment that allows these situations to occur. That is the case here.
The Supreme Court has ruled that the police are limited in what information they can require of you. If you are operating a motor vehicle, certainly, the necessary operating credentials are fair game. Across the U.S., you are required to provide your name when being questioned by a law enforcement officer. In some states, your address is also legally required.
But a signature on a government form seems constitutionally out of bounds. Your signature is your pledge. Forcing a citizen to give that pledge under threat of arrest, when they are merely SUSPECTED of a crime, seems to be a clear violation of the 4th, 5th and 6th amendments.
I suspect the Utah Highway Patrol is operating outside the law when they arrest people for not signing a ticket. These types of "administrative procedures" come into practice without the consent of the legislature, and then become de facto law in the mind of the department, and then, the publc. "We've been doing it this way for years." Until someone with balls and money challenges it in court, it stands.
It is my belief both of these guys acted poorly. The cop exceeded his authority, which led to an escalation that was uncalled for. The driver should have followed any reasonable orders, even if arrested falsely, because not doing so usually triggers aggressive policing. The taser was deployed way too early, based on my understanding of how most law enforcement organizations want it used.
The officer was out of line. but the kid could have prevented the entire incident by being respectful and doing what he was told. The tone for the whole incident was set when the cop had to ask three times for the registration.