# couple questions



## Guest (May 8, 2008)

Hello,
I was hoping I could have a few questions settled. Ive done some exhaustive searching and not come up with a definitive answer. 

There seems to be a very common misconceptions about speed enforcement and everyone I speak to has a different answer.

I was hoping for some clarification as well as help settling debates amongst my friends and I for years.

What better place to ask?
I will try to post as formally and respectfully as possible and I know many people seem to just get "flamed" here for asking anything, so I ask you please respectfully help answer my questions the best you can if possible.

1. What are the laws regarding unmarked/undercover police vehicles in speed assessments? Would a vehicle be required to have any form of external lighting, text, or visible markers?

2. What are the laws on police vehicle lighting when speed assessing? Are officers required to have their marker lamps, headlamps, or interior lamps activated at the time of assessment? Does time of day/sundown need to be considered?
(I came across a vague post on this but only found 1 and it didn't REALLY answer that)

3. During a citation hearing or court case is an officer required to show up for the ticket to remain admissible? Is it really able to be thrown out if the original officer doesn't show up? also apply if a "representative" on his behalf who cannot attest to individual recollection?

4. At what point does "entrapment" really kick in? Would 1 and 2 classify?

5. Your opinion as an officer: 2 cars are speeding at the same rate one closely following the other. would you pull over the car in front because he is "leading the pack" so to speak and traveling without a car in front of him, or do you pull over the second car because he is easier to get to and your first target to approach (all other factors ignored such as 1 car being a viper other a pinto, etc)

Does anyone have any actual documentation or place to cite as well that's "official"?

Do not misconstrue This as a "whining out of a ticket" post. This is just clarification on some things my friends, family, and I have argued about for years and years, I just want to settle this with them.

Thank you for keeping us normal citizens safe with your fine work.

Best Regards


----------



## TopCop24 (Jul 11, 2005)

wondering said:


> Hello,
> I was hoping I could have a few questions settled. Ive done some exhaustive searching and not come up with a definitive answer.
> 
> There seems to be a very common misconceptions about speed enforcement and everyone I speak to has a different answer.
> ...


1a. There are no rules against an unmarked cruiser doing speed enforcement.
1b. If you were pulled over by an "undercover" car then you really screwed up plain and simple.

2a. No we don't have to have any lights on, that would just give away our hiding spots
2b. If it's day time and you can't see us when you're speeding get your eyes checked.

3 . The orginal officer who wrote the ticket only shows up to the court appeal, should it go that far....which it ALWAY should 

4. You speed, you get caught....where is the so called entrapment there??

5. Speed enforcement is like fishing you can't catch them all, just take the first one that "bites"


----------



## Crvtte65 (May 19, 2002)

Sounds like whining to me


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

I would say TopCop24's answer pretty much sums it up.

The last question about two speeding cars can be answered in a few different ways. First car can get pulled over, Second car could, or the officer could even try to get both to pull over. (I've seen it)

My personal opinion in that case is I would only pull one car over. Safety wise I do not think it is worth going after.


----------



## cmagryan (Dec 15, 2004)

wondering said:


> Hello,
> .
> 1. What are the laws regarding unmarked/undercover police vehicles in speed assessments? Would a vehicle be required to have any form of external lighting, text, or visible markers?
> 
> ...


- 1. Massachusetts General Law does not dictate how police agencies deploy traffic enforcement, etc, perhaps you mean a department policy or regulation? Any police officer in any vehicle at any time, can observe a traffic violation and enforce it in the way they see fit. Sun or moon, lights or none, mini van or fully marked charger. That being said, there are regulations regarding elements, jurisdiction, department policy, etc, but the officer knows these and acts with these in mind. This goes for 2.

- 4. 'Entrapment: the act of a law enforcement agent in inducing a person to commit an offense which the person would not have, or was unlikely to have committed otherwise'. This clearly is ridiculous to imply that by sitting in a darkened spot on the roadside, without emergency lights acitvated as a warning, an officer induces, causes a motorist to speed or commit a violation. Do cameras in stores induce a person to shoplift?? Hardly. It's called being obseved, caught breaking the law. Most folks I know don't need to be warned not to break the law!

- As far as 'official documentation', why post a lengthy series of questions for officers to answer if you anticipate not believing them?

- good luck.


----------



## Big.G (Nov 28, 2006)

I'm surprised one of the questions wasn't "can an officer stop someone for a traffic violation if the officer is driving when he observed it?"


----------



## PearlOnyx (Jun 28, 2002)

I've always found it interesting how the general public has a gross misunderstanding of the word entrapment. People are quick to use it, even when they have little understanding of what it is. Black's Law Dictionary people...


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Here is the RI answer:*

*How to beat a speeding ticket*










Rhode Island State Police

(WNAC) - A speeding ticket is no laughing matter. And while it's every driver's responsibility to know the rules of the road, there is a way to get out of paying for a ticket once you get it- or pay less. Head to court!
It's the price you pay for a lead foot- not only your time in traffic court, but your money. And in many cases, speed can kill.
Corporal Michael Rosa, Rhode Island State Trooper: "We don't have the powers of a crystal ball to show them when we stop them, these are the consequences that would have occurred if we didn't stop you."
Frank Caprio, Municipal Court Judge: "So behave yourself for the next three years, or we'll find you!"

Municipal Court Judge Frank Caprio lets this driver nailed for speeding off on Rhode Island's Good Driver Law. It only applies to those with a clean record and can't be used again for another three years. But a trip to court saved this driver some cash.
Frank Caprio, Municipal Court Judge: "It's an incentive for people to maintain a good driving record."
A driving record closely eyed by insurance companies. AAA tells Eyewitness News while one ticket may not affect your rate, a second or a third could mean a 5 or 10 percent increase. Add an accident, and insurance carriers could pump up your premium by thousands of dollars or even drop you. But still...

Joan Moran: "So you're seeing a lot more people in court for speeding?"
Frank Caprio, Municipal Court Judge: "It's because of enforcement. It's always the same. People haven't changed."
What _should_ change, police say, is how some people think after they buckle up. Here's what we learned. If you don't want to get caught, obviously, don't speed. But if your pedal to the metal gets you stopped, don't be defensive- stay calm. If you get a ticket, take it to court.
If there's no accident involved, you could pay less or even nothing at all.
But if you end up pleading "not guilty," Judge Caprio says once in front of him, it pays to tell the truth.
Frank Caprio, Municipal Court Judge: "They'll come in and argue and say it really wasn't unreasonable to operate at 35 miles an hour on this road because it was so wide. After they say that, I say however you weren't doing 35, you were doing 52."
The judge knows that because the police officer who wrote the ticket wrote the actual speed at the top of the summons.
That officer was already giving the accused a big break and the judge knew it.
Fees could be going up for violations that are dismissed based on a person's good driving record. Instead of paying the current $25, a driver would pay the full fine for the violation- even if it's dismissed.

It's a proposal being reviewed right now by state legislators.

http://www.myfoxprovidence.com/myfo...n=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=1.1.1


----------



## Tuna (Jun 1, 2006)

wondering said:


> Hello,
> I was hoping I could have a few questions settled. Ive done some exhaustive searching and not come up with a definitive answer.
> 
> There seems to be a very common misconceptions about speed enforcement and everyone I speak to has a different answer.
> ...


I don't do much Ch90 but reading this post strikes me as someone, maybe you, or a friend got cited and is looking for a quick fix. I bet you watch allot of cop shows based on some of your question. I Never heard of "entrapment" in a MV violation. BTW what's your family and friends doing argueing over this stuff "for years and years"??????


----------



## j809 (Jul 5, 2002)

I bet a lot of people here in Mass would pay the full fine if it got dismissed and didn't get a surcharge. Better paying $200 fee than thousands over six years.


----------



## Hb13 (Aug 2, 2006)

Tuna said:


> BTW what's your family and friends doing argueing over this stuff "for years and years"??????


They've been fighting about it because they are all habitual traffic offenders who cannot drive. He is trying to beat this ticket because he is the only license holder out of his family and friends and needs to keep it to drive them around.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Go f*ck yourself loser and pay the fine.

How's that for flaming?


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2008)

Killjoy said:


> Go f*ck yourself loser and pay the fine.
> 
> How's that for flaming?


+1 LMAO:-D


----------



## Tuna (Jun 1, 2006)

Killjoy said:


> Go f*ck yourself loser and pay the fine.
> 
> How's that for flaming?


that's some funny shit :jestera:


----------

