Thread: Cop Talk
View Single Post
Old 04-09-2009, 07:07 AM   #3521
Speeder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Southern California
Posts: 849
My Ride: '04 325i - '08 C300
Frobie,

You and I know that I wasn't challenging you. I was just reflecting my own perspective as far as what you said... I'm only saying this to clarify things for everybody else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by frobie15 View Post
40610(b)1, 2, & 3 that you quoted in your original message all outline things that would make a violation non-correctable. I know fraud or persistent neglect covers about every single tint violation (as does the immediate safety hazard). And the inability to immediately correct the violation covers anything and everything. Say you get pulled over for your exhaust being too loud. Can you remedy that immediately? What's the courts working definition of immediate? Mine? Yours? Basically, the Vehicle Code contradicts itself. It says that violations are correctable, but they have to be corrected immediately.

That said, if you get stopped for something like 5204a, not having the current/correct registration stickers on your plate. And you have the sticker in your glovebox, you could still be cited for that violation even if you put the sticker on while the officer writes you the ticket, but it can be made correctable. Make sense?
I would have to agree with you about the use of "immediately" in the vehicle code. I think the fact that the citation appearance date is usually a few weeks after it is written, I would suggest that a reasonable person could assume that immediately falls under the premise of "at your first available opportunity". Add to that the fact that one could get cited for a correctable violation once twice or three times before the correction is made and more importantly before the due date on that first citation comes up.

There are many terms in the vehicle code that are just as, if not more conspicuous that the one you suggested. For example "reasonable and prudent" under VC section 22350. "Reasonable and prudent" to whom? You (as an officer)? Me ( as the driver you cited)? Or the court which was not preview to the circumstances at the scene (circumstances such as weather, road conditions, visibility, and the presence of pedestrians and or property that could have been at risk due to my driving t the alleged speed).

One could only hope that the presiding judge on that day, is going to look at evidence presented by both sides equally and just as fairly, and that he will make the determination about reasonable, prudent or immediate for that matter in an impartial manner and without a preconceived idea that the officer is always right or that the driver is always wrong. Officers, after all, are only human and they too make errors in judgment at times... Although drivers make more mistakes more often .

With that being said, I think my previous statements were only a confirmation that I too see the contradictions in the vehicle code; and my disagreement with your statements stemmed for those contradictions rather than from the sense of me offering a challenge to any of your previous statements.

Last edited by Speeder; 04-09-2009 at 07:13 AM.
Speeder is offline   Reply With Quote