Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rickthestick
Why do some of the officers issue tickets that they know will not stand up in court. And the "perp" was not being a jerk. And why would you not (as an officer) really study the laws in your area? This comes from both personal, and a friends experience. Seems like you would want to know details before wasting your time and the perps?
|
Sounds like a personal interpretation of a situation that we are not aware of. In other words it sounds to me that you have an opinion of a prior situation (probably something that happened to you and you ended up being found "not guilty" or the charge was "dismissed'. This doesn't mean you didn't do what you were charged with it just means it couldn't be proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a criminal or traffic court.
Never the less I will try to respond.
I personally applied the standard thusly: If I make a charge on a TOAD and I have to present evidence...how will I look to the judge?
If the evidence in a case made me look like a rookie, or that I had taken the offense personally, then i just let it pass. No matter how the ...as you so eloquently put it...perp... acted on the stop.
Bottom line it doesen't matter what law somebody broke...it's what you are able to prove.... so in response to your question.... unless the police officer you are referring to is just an idiot.... then he/she would not place a charge, unless they felt with some degree of certainty, that they could prove the charge.
No officer would knowingly issue a summons that they thought ( or knew) was going to be dismissed in court. Whether or not someone is being a jerk only applies when someone might have gotten a break but they got the ticket due to attitude. Example being if you are stopped for reckless driving (doing a burnout in a public area endangering life, limb, or property) and the officer stops you to see what the problem is. He/She might let the situation slide unless you decide to start calling them "pig" or maybe your bumper sticker reads" bad cop, no doughnut". In this scenario you will probably get the ticket. You might think he/she can't prove it but I can assure you he/she thinks they can. But if an officer can't prove the charge....whether or not the violater... cooperated... then the charge will not be placed. Nobody wants to look like an a$$ in front of the judge. It's just not worth it.
If the officer can't prove the charge in front of the judge then he loses credibility. An officer can not be effective in front of a judge where he/she has no credibility.
I can assure of one thing though...if an officer places a charge he/she does not consider it a waste of time for anyone since they are probably on their day off or on overtime for the court appearance.
Also it is a requirement for all officers to attend ongoing training sessions pertaining to current and changing traffic and criminal statutes. It's not up to an individual officer to stay current...at least where I work. I assume it's the same for all departments. In other words officers don't have to personally study the laws...it is a requirement of their job.
I hope this answers your question but I have a feeling it probably won't.