# Agency Code on Mass. Uniform Citation



## Erik1975

I was recently issued a Massachusetts Uniform Citation by someone without a uniform and I'm trying to figure out what enforcement agency he was from. There is an Agency Code box on the citation but I can't figure out how to determine the agency based on that code. Is there a listing somewhere of what agencies correspond to what codes?


----------



## Guest

Are we supposed to guess, or are you going to tell us what it is?


----------



## Johnny Law

3 letter or digit combinations stand for the town, city or state troop that issued the citation. These are RMV codes, maybe they have a list somewhere, but there isn't a "place" you can easily look those up.


----------



## 94c

Erik1975 said:


> I was recently issued a Massachusetts Uniform Citation by someone without a uniform and I'm trying to figure out what enforcement agency he was from. There is an Agency Code box on the citation but I can't figure out how to determine the agency based on that code. Is there a listing somewhere of what agencies correspond to what codes?


If the agency code is "WHA", then it means you got Whacked.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

Sol


----------



## Nuke_TRT

B O H I C A


----------



## Erik1975

The Agency Code written was "CSSS-BOS." I assumed the "Bos" referred to Boston, but I don't have any idea what CSSS is. I didn't see any sort of badge displayed by the officer. 

While I'm at it, he also listed the Court Code as "MED." I found a list of court codes online, but they were all numerical. None of them corresponded to "MED."


----------



## Tuna

ASK FOR A HEARING, AND ASK THE OFFICER WHEN HE/SHE SHOWS UP. You sure it didn't say CMPSA ? Just asking


----------



## Erik1975

Tuna said:


> ASK FOR A HEARING, AND ASK THE OFFICER WHEN HE/SHE SHOWS UP. You sure it didn't say CMPSA ? Just asking


CMPSA? Forgive my ignorance, but I'm afraid I don't follow. I tried googling that acronym and it came up with the Central Mass. Public Safety Association. Is that what you're referring to? The citation was issued on the Somerville/Everett line, so I suspect that's not what they intended to fill in.


----------



## 94c

Erik1975 said:


> The Agency Code written was "*CSSS-BOS."* I assumed the "Bos" referred to Boston, but I don't have any idea what CSSS is. I didn't see any sort of badge displayed by the officer.
> 
> While I'm at it, he also listed the Court Code as "MED." I found a list of court codes online, but they were all numerical. None of them corresponded to "MED."


The plain clothes thing makes sense now.

It was actually somebody from CSI-Boston.
Chances are he just stutters.


----------



## jettsixx

Erik1975 said:


> I was recently issued a Massachusetts Uniform Citation by someone without a uniform and I'm trying to figure out what enforcement agency he was from.


Who cares where he was from if he wasnt wearing his hat.


----------



## Erik1975

94c said:


> The plain clothes thing makes sense now.
> 
> It was actually somebody from CSI-Boston.
> Chances are he just stutters.


Ah, that explains it. I wasn't even aware that a CSI could (or would have any reason to) issue traffic citations.


----------



## TopCop24

Erik1975 said:


> Ah, that explains it. I wasn't even aware that a CSI could (or would have any reason to) issue traffic citations.


Hello McFly....he's still a trooper. That comment is probably the most naive thing I have heard in a LONG time. Clearly whatever you did was completely effed up and you deserved a ticket. For future reference CSS guys can also arrest people....can you believe it??


----------



## Johnny Law

Erik1975 said:


> Ah, that explains it. I wasn't even aware that a CSI could (or would have any reason to) issue traffic citations.


Any of those guys and gals in the Crime Scene services are some of the nicest people I've met. I've taken many classes all over the state where they have either taught there or attended as a student. You musta really done something bad![-X


----------



## kwflatbed

Johnny Law said:


> Any of those guys and gals in the Crime Scene services are some of the nicest people I've met. I've taken many classes all over the state where they have either taught there or attended as a student. You musta really done something bad![-X


YUP HE FUCKED-UP


----------



## 94c

mtc said:


> CSSS = Crime Scene Services Section
> BOS = Boston
> MED = Medford
> 
> Pissing off a Crime Scene detective ?
> 
> You guessed it - PRICELESS !!


the-the-the-the that's what I meant.



Johnny Law said:


> Any of those guys and gals in the Crime Scene services are some of the nicest people I've met. I've taken many classes all over the state where they have either taught there or attended as a student. You musta really done something bad![-X


I've also worked many scenes with those guys. You wouldn't even think they were troopers. inch:

Must have done something really stupid to get cited.


----------



## Sarge31

Erik1975, just what was the violation that the CSSS Trooper listed on the citation???????????????


----------



## 94c

Sarge31 said:


> Erik1975, just what was the violation that the CSSS Trooper listed on the citation???????????????


My guess is that he was doing 85 MPH and blew the skirt off of an old lady in the crosswalk.


----------



## Killjoy

> Ah, that explains it. I wasn't even aware that a CSI could (or would have any reason to) issue traffic citations.


Another fine soul depending on TV for his education.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper

LMAO,cant wait to find out what the violation was....being a dumbass?


----------



## OfficerObie59

Erik1975 said:


> Ah, that explains it. I wasn't even aware that a CSI could (or would have any reason to) issue traffic citations.





Killjoy said:


> Another fine soul depending on TV for his education.


Didn't you guys hear? The newest CSI fanchise is coming to Boston..."CSI Boston". Word has it, Danny Bonadouche [sic] is playing the lead detective.

Hey Erik1975... you sure they weren't just using you in the shot? You know, they gotta add some realism to the pilot episode...


----------



## jettsixx

Killjoy said:


> Another fine soul depending on TV for his education.


Good point KJ,

Erik dont forget that after Feb 09 you will need to upgrade your TV with the converter box to continue to further your education. If you dont then we here on Mass cops will have educate you ourselves. You (we) dont want that.


----------



## Erik1975

Johnny Law said:


> Any of those guys and gals in the Crime Scene services are some of the nicest people I've met. I've taken many classes all over the state where they have either taught there or attended as a student. You musta really done something bad![-X


Well, that's precisely why this seemed so unexpected coming from a CSI. I wasn't doing anything particularly bad. I had crossed over a white lane-marker line while trying to merge with traffic (btw, that traffic was stopped at a traffic light and I wasn't blocking anyone) . What he wrote down as the violation was "Marked Lanes Violation" with a $100 fine. Incidentally, he stopped two other people in addition to me who were also trying to merge in a similar fashion.

Also worth mentioning is that he was profoundly rude before I even said a word. I was polite and didn't give an ounce of attitude, but he continued to yell and scream. Call me naive if you want, but this seemed unnecessary to me.


----------



## Erik1975

Killjoy said:


> Another fine soul depending on TV for his education.


BTW...I don't really watch television and I'm not terribly familiar with the CSI TV franchise.


----------



## Erik1975

mtc said:


> Yet you keep refering to the Trooper who's crime scene you contaminated as "A CSI" like that even IS something.
> 
> They only have those in NY, Miami and Vegas and all the people are beautiful - even the dead ones.
> 
> I think you need a real ticket... for the BUS !!


Ummmm....if you bothered to read the thread, you'd notice that another poster (94c) first made reference to a "CSI." I don't claim to know the first thing about law enforcement, so I'm following the lead of others on here. But if being condescending makes you feel important, please be my guest. I'm just trying to find out information.

http://www.masscops.com/forums/member.php?u=2349http://www.masscops.com/forums/member.php?u=2349


----------



## dcs2244

The big question still is: DID HE HAVE HIS HAT ON?


----------



## kwflatbed

Can we say DENSE

*dense* (d







ns) 
_adj._ *dens·er*, *dens·est*

Slow to apprehend; thickheaded.


----------



## cmagryan

Erik1975 said:


> Also worth mentioning is that he was profoundly rude before I even said a word. I was polite and didn't give an ounce of attitude, but he continued to yell and scream. Call me naive if you want, but this seemed unnecessary to me.


- So Erik what do you consider 'rude'? The fact he called you out on dangerous and illegal driving behavior? Did he _demand _your license and registration perhaps? That-is-his-job. Law enforcement officers are not coffee baristas, they are not there to chit chat. You got caught and are, as many do, trying to shift blame and avoid responsibility.


----------



## Guest

Erik, you really have to work at it to get a traffic citation from a detective of ANY police agency.


----------



## Erik1975

cmagryan said:


> - So Erik what do you consider 'rude'? The fact he called you out on dangerous and illegal driving behavior? Did he _demand _your license and registration perhaps? That-is-his-job. Law enforcement officers are not coffee baristas, they are not there to chit chat. You got caught and are, as many do, trying to shift blame and avoid responsibility.


You start out with a good question there and I'm glad you asked. I'll first point out that I'm not trying to avoid responsibility. I don't deny that I committed the infraction of crossing a lane marker. He caught me. Fair enough.

However, this does bring up a larger civic issue for discussion. It seems to me that an infraction should elicit a measured and proportionate response from an officer based upon what that infraction is. Even while guilty of a minor traffic infraction, I believe the officer's response to be disproportionate to said infraction.

While I was being polite and cooperative, the officer did more than simply demand my license. Asking for my license would be perfectly appropriate. I also have no need for him to be overly friendly, but a certain level of professional decorum should be expected of any public employee. Instead, he began yelling to the point of spitting and foaming at the mouth while using abusive, obscene language.

I might understand that response if I had become defensive, aggressive or gave him some attitude, but I assure you I was cordial and polite throughout the encounter. I think most reasonable people would consider his behavior rude. It appears to be his MO as I observed him yelling in a similar manner at the other two drivers he pulled over.

Anyway, I've got the information that I was originally looking for. Thank you to those of you who were helpful with that.


----------



## Tuna

Wolfman said:


> One more example of the ongoing pussification of America. It's not Erik's fault he was raised in a passive and feminine manner and can't handle or cope with what he perceives to be aggression. Had he not been subject to estrogen therapy and protection from his environment his entire life, he would have had the *balls* to either accept that he was WRONG and move on or actually walk into a State Police facility and speak his piece if he felt that he was subject to a bona fide slighting.
> 
> Erik, go talk to your therapist about it, I'm sure after a few sessions and a cuddle with the Hugging Panda the healing will begin. Maybe Santa will bring the mean old detective a lump of reindeer poop next week.


Now that's funny.:jestera::jestera::jestera:


----------



## 94c

Erik1975 said:


> Instead, he began yelling to the point of spitting and foaming at the mouth while using abusive, obscene language.


Just another reason to make sure your wipers are in proper working order and the windshield washer fluid is filled to capacity. You never know which direction the storm is coming from.


----------



## dcs2244

Time for a group hug!

Please spell your name with a "c" in the future...you don't deserve to spell it with a "k"...


----------



## kwflatbed

*Erik1975 It is time to STFU or join the bus tour.*
*Your friendly moderator and bus operator.*


----------



## LA Copper

cmagryan said:


> - So Erik what do you consider 'rude'? The fact he called you out on dangerous and illegal driving behavior? Did he _demand _your license and registration perhaps? That-is-his-job. Law enforcement officers are not coffee baristas, they are not there to chit chat. You got caught and are, as many do, trying to shift blame and avoid responsibility.


Here's where I disagree with you. It is not our job to "demand" to see a license and registration on a basic traffic stop. Would it really hurt if we just "asked" to see someone's license and registration? After all, as he points out, it was just a traffic infraction, he didn't just drive drunk and kill a family of five.

It's a lot better to leave someone with a good impression of us as law enforcement than it is to leave them hating us, don't you think? You can go a long way with a friendly demeanor to the average citizen than you can with a negative one, at least in a case like this.

Who knows, maybe that way there won't be so many negative comments in places like the Herald "post a comment thread" when they write an article about the police that isn't too good, like the situation in Hamilton for instance.

I stop some pretty dangerous people and some of the most richest celebrities for traffic violations and still treat them all the same until they turn it into something else. For example: "Hello Sir/Ma'am, may I see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please."

Just my humble opinion after making thousands of traffic stops over the years.


----------



## Erik1975

LA Copper said:


> Here's where I disagree with you. It is not our job to "demand" to see a license and registration on a basic traffic stop. Would it really hurt if we just "asked" to see someone's license and registration? After all, as he points out, it was just a traffic infraction, he didn't just drive drunk and kill a family of five.
> 
> It's a lot better to leave someone with a good impression of us as law enforcement than it is to leave them hating us, don't you think? You can go a long way with a friendly demeanor to the average citizen than you can with a negative one, at least in a case like this.
> 
> Who knows, maybe that way there won't be so many negative comments in places like the Herald "post a comment thread" when they write an article about the police that isn't too good, like the situation in Hamilton for instance.
> 
> I stop some pretty dangerous people and some of the most richest celebrities for traffic violations and still treat them all the same until they turn it into something else. For example: "Hello Sir/Ma'am, may I see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please."
> 
> Just my humble opinion after making thousands of traffic stops over the years.


LA Copper, thank you for your thought as well as your pragmatism. It seems there are a lot of people here that could learn from your example.


----------



## kwflatbed

"*Erik1975 It is time to STFU or join the bus tour.
Your friendly moderator and bus operator."*

*I guess you could not comprehend this message.*

*Lets see if a week on the bus will help.*


----------



## Guest

Actually, "demand" is the exact verbage used by the law;

_Any person who, while operating or in charge of a motor vehicle, shall refuse, when requested by a police officer, to give his name and address or the name and address of the owner of such motor vehicle, or who shall give a false name or address, or who shall refuse or neglect to stop when signalled to stop by any police officer who is in uniform or who displays his badge conspicuously on the outside of his outer coat or garment, *or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to produce his license to operate such vehicle or his certificate of registration*, or to permit such officer to take the license or certificate in hand for the purpose of examination, *or who refuses, on demand of such officer, to sign his name in the presence of such officer,* and any person who *on the demand of an officer* of the police or other officer mentioned in section twenty-nine or authorized by the registrar, without a reasonable excuse fails to deliver his license to operate motor vehicles or the certificate of registration of any motor vehicle operated or owned by him or the number plates furnished by the registrar for said motor vehicle, or who refuses or neglects to produce his license when requested by a court or trial justice, shall be punished by a fine of one hundred dollars._ - http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/90-25.htm

We all know that one wrong word on a report can mean a dismissal, so I always "demand" their driver's license.


----------



## dcs2244

LA Copper said:


> Here's where I disagree with you. It is not our job to "demand" to see a license and registration on a basic traffic stop. Would it really hurt if we just "asked" to see someone's license and registration? After all, as he points out, it was just a traffic infraction, he didn't just drive drunk and kill a family of five.
> 
> It's a lot better to leave someone with a good impression of us as law enforcement than it is to leave them hating us, don't you think? You can go a long way with a friendly demeanor to the average citizen than you can with a negative one, at least in a case like this.
> 
> Who knows, maybe that way there won't be so many negative comments in places like the Herald "post a comment thread" when they write an article about the police that isn't too good, like the situation in Hamilton for instance.
> 
> I stop some pretty dangerous people and some of the most richest celebrities for traffic violations and still treat them all the same until they turn it into something else. For example: "Hello Sir/Ma'am, may I see your license, registration and proof of insurance, please."
> 
> Just my humble opinion after making thousands of traffic stops over the years.


LA, I understand what you are getting at, however, using "may I" and "please" at the outset gives the citizen the mistaken idea that they have a choice in the matter and sets the stage for an argument. I prefer: "Good day, sir. I will examine your license and registration." This sets the tone for the stop: I am in control and will brook no nonsense. Once the paperwork is in my hand, then I will adopt a more coversational and mannered discussion, which will remain so throughout the contact, depending upon the conduct of the citizen. More flies with honey, et cetera...(Delta, I think my verbage fulfills the "demand" aspect, but without being ...demanding)

Regardless of the policemans demeanor, the comments in the Herald/Record/American will remain the same...just my opinion.


----------



## LA Copper

I don't believe the word "demand" is supposed to be used in the literal sense of the word, however, even if it is, I still stand by what I said. It's a lot easier to get something with when we're asked then when we're demanded... unless of course we are on the battlefield in actual combat. 

A traffic stop for a simple infraction is not what I would consider a battlefield. A situation like Columbine or the North Hollywood Bank of America Shootout, then yes.


Dcs,
I understand what you're saying and you're right, it could go the way you mentioned, although I've not had a problem with using it that way. I've never had a violator think they had a choice in the matter.

Your way is fine also. At least what you said is MUCH better than walking up to a car and just demanding, "License and registration!" like some do.

I also agree about the conversational tone, depending on the demeanor of the violater. If they treat us like jerks, then that's on them. I think we basically agree on this one.


----------



## Guest

LA Copper said:


> I don't believe the word "demand" is supposed to be used in the literal sense of the word


I was just pointing out that cmagryan was most likely using "demand" because it's been ingrained in her brain from using it so many times in written reports.


----------



## fra444

I would say that I am generally polite during my stops. I do start the contact with, "License and registration". I am, as Delta said making a demand for the license and registration, and any refusal and there will be an arrest for refusing to submit. 

Once I get their information I am polite and usually explain why they were pulled over. Most of the people I stop leave without feeling that I was rude, (not all of them feel this way though). I have even been thanked after giving a citation to a few people!

Just saying you can "demand" a license without being out of line.


----------



## LA Copper

Delta784 said:


> I was just pointing out that cmagryan was most likely using "demand" because it's been ingrained in her brain from using it so many times in written reports.


Alrighty, if you say so.


----------



## OfficerObie59

LA Copper said:


> Your way is fine also. At least what you said is MUCH better than walking up to a car and just demanding, "License and registration!" like some do.


I get around it this way "[Insert prefered ID/greeting/asking for reason of stop here], I need to see your license and registration." I usually have no problem.



Delta784 said:


> Actually, "demand" is the exact verbage used by the law...
> We all know that one wrong word on a report can mean a dismissal, so I always "demand" their driver's license.


LA, while I know California isn't exactly a bastion of consevative judgeships, I would argue that Delta's point cannot be understated considering what we have to deal with here in Mass.

I don't a cop who wasn't utterly baffled by the Springfield gun case that came down a few years ago (the case name escapes me now). I believe the these are the right facts of the case; feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on any.

Basically, a cop performed a Terry stop equivelient of an individual brandishing a firearm inside of a car and _asked _if he had a licence to carry. The court ruled that since the officer "asked" and didn't "demand" to see it, as the statute requires, and since the suspect was in custody, the "asking" amounted to interrogation. The question was therefore a Miranda violation. Therefore I think the disticntion is a very important one.

That said, I don't think we need to demand in the colloqial sense that it's a forceful order, however, I think a demand can be executed politely to the average, cooperative motorist: "I need to see your license and registration, sir."



kwflatbed said:


> *Lets see if a week on the bus will help.*


Erik, look on the bright side--you'll probably enjoy the contact high from all the tokers on the bus.


----------



## dark horse

I usually say "license and registration please" and then the ball is in the operators court. How they behave dictates how I conduct the stop. The stop can end anywhere from a cordial professional stop to someone being pulled out of the vent window by their hair.

My uncle is a retired Quincy officer. His advice to me when I first got on the job was "If you have the choice between making a friend or making an enemy... make a friend.

I know it sounds a little touchy feely but those of you that have been in the game for a while can most likely get the jist of what he was saying. 

Attitude is everything. Not just on traffic stops but in all aspects of this job.


----------



## Guest

OfficerObie59 said:


> I don't a cop who wasn't utterly baffled by the Springfield gun case that came down a few years ago (the case name escapes me now).


At least you remembered the facts of the case....I thought it was a traffic incident but wasn't sure, so I didn't want to mention the "court case I remember" when I really didn't. 

I should ask Mrs. Delta784 for this for Christmas;


----------



## kwflatbed

Delta784 said:


> At least you remembered the facts of the case....I thought it was a traffic incident but wasn't sure, so I didn't want to mention the "court case I remember" when I really didn't.
> 
> I should ask Mrs. Delta784 for this for Christmas;


Ask if Mrs. Delta can find one for me too.


----------



## 94c

kwflatbed said:


> "*Erik1975 It is time to STFU or join the bus tour.*
> *Your friendly moderator and bus operator."*
> 
> *I guess you could not comprehend this message.*
> 
> *Lets see if a week on the bus will help.*


Is this the same bus????






Didn't they also have a hit song that went something like this....

"Meet the new Bus, same as the old Bus..."


----------



## midwatch

Delta784 said:


> At least you remembered the facts of the case....I thought it was a traffic incident but wasn't sure, so I didn't want to mention the "court case I remember" when I really didn't.


I know the case you were thinking about, because I was thinking the same thing at first. If we're talking about the same thing, its the one where a large seizure of firearms was dismissed after a MV stop because the officer had no right to obtain the passenger's identification.


----------



## 94c

midwatch said:


> I know the case you were thinking about, because I was thinking the same thing at first. If we're talking about the same thing, its the one where a large seizure of firearms was dismissed after a MV stop because the officer had no right to obtain the passenger's identification.


No. The case in question is....

Do you have a license to carry? (Ruled an interrogation and thus violated Miranda)

Versus

Give me or show me your license to carry.
(Which is a statute allowed under 140-129c)


----------



## OfficerObie59

midwatch said:


> I know the case you were thinking about, because I was thinking the same thing at first. If we're talking about the same thing, its the one where a large seizure of firearms was dismissed after a MV stop because the officer had no right to obtain the passenger's identification.


Nope, yours is a different case. The case I'm referring to is Commonwealth v. Haskell, 437 Mass. 790 (2003)...my bad, it was Pittsfiled, not Springfield. Not only did the case make the ask vs. demand disticntion, but it also notably limited the public safety exception to Miranda.

DA Association synopsis: http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dmdater...b=terminalcontent&f=courts_haskell&csid=Dmdaa


----------



## LA Copper

Obie,
If I'm reading your post correctly about the Terry Stop regarding the brandished firearm, that would be a totally different story. A firearm brandishing and a lane violation are sorta kinda two different types of things. But I appreciate your explanation.

By the way, if I'm pulling over a car that has been reported as brandishing a firearm, then the occupants of said car are going to be proned out on the ground. We (guys I work with) don't walk up on a car and ask (or demand) to see the firearm license of someone who just brandished a firearm. That's Traffic Stop 101 where I work, which is apparently a "bit" different than Mass. 

That's also a good way to get shot if that person who did the brandishing is not the happy go lucky guy we're hoping he is and turns out to be the guy who just robbed the bank; did the drive by shooting; is bent on suicide, etc. Guns are not something to take chances with....


----------



## OfficerObie59

I was citing a case off the top of my head. Since we're arguing symantics on the case facts, here they are, unabated out of my '05 Crim Pro text by Rogers:


> What is the Difference *Between Testimonial Evidence and Physical Evidence?*
> 
> In *Commonwealth v. Haskell, *437 Mass. 790 (2003), the SJC addressed a situation where police are confronted with an individual suspected of possessing a firearm and how police can legally require the suspect to show his or her LTC. In *Haskell, *a bartender in a Pittsfield bar, shortly before 2:00 a.m., saw through the bar's window, a man sitting in an automobile loading a handgun. The bar was located in an area of Pittsfield with a high level of criminal activity. The man drove away, and the bartender locked the bar's door to protect his patrons, dialed 911, and reported his observations and the direction in which the car was traveling. Less then one minute later, Officer Jeremy Barber of the Pittsfield police department, alerted by a radio call describing the automobile and the bartender's observations, spotted a matching vehicle driving in the indicated direction approximately 500 yards from the bar. Barber stopped the vehicle and got out of his cruiser. As he did, he saw the vehicle's lone occupant (later identified as the defendant) reach down toward the floor of the car. Barber ordered the defendant to put both his hands out the window, and the defendant complied. A second officer, Richard Saldo, then arrived (the total number of officers present would eventually rise to six) and approached the car from the front while Barber approached from behind. Barber drew his service weapon; Saldo put his hand on his weapon, but did not draw it. Saldo asked the defendant if he had a gun, and the defendant said that he did. Saldo then asked where the gun was, and the defendant told him that it was under the seat. The police next ordered the defendant out of the car and pat frisked him, finding no weapons. While this was occurring Officer Barber saw "a pile of .45 caliber bullets on the front seat" and, after a search of the passenger compartment, retrieved a loaded .45 caliber revolver, a holster, and a large sheath knife from beneath the driver's seat. At this point, Lieutenant David Reilly (who had recently arrived) _asked the defendant whether he had a permit to possess the revolver, and the defendant responded that he did not. _The defendant was then arrested.


Again, the sole point I'm attempting to emphasize is how the law and courts view the difference between asking and demanding. As such, demands can be made wihtout being surly or impolite. These symantics, whether at a traffic stop (which we know can always develop into more), or in relation to our gun laws, can doom an important case. Period.


----------



## Guest

OfficerObie59 said:


> Nope, yours is a different case. The case I'm referring to is Commonwealth v. Haskell, 437 Mass. 790 (2003)...my bad, it was Pittsfiled, not Springfield. Not only did the case make the ask vs. demand disticntion, but it also notably limited the public safety exception to Miranda.


That be the one, thanks.


----------



## Sarge31

I find it hard to believe that merely crossing over a white line would cause a Trooper from Crime Scene Services to issue a cite. There's more to this story than is being revealed. And, if the Trooper was worked up as Erik states (and I doubt that he was), it had to be a real assenine move that he got cited for. 
Just my 2 cents..........


----------



## cmagryan

- I placed 'demand' in quotes because when people complain about the 'rude' officer, they always emphasize how he/she _'demanded' to see _their paperwork, etc etc. The fact they are put out by being in the position they got into, turns _any_ words an officer uses to obtain the information, 'rude', in their mind.

- And yes, Delta, in my reports I bold and capitalize *'I DEMANDED'* ... !


----------



## 94c

LA Copper said:


> Obie,
> If I'm reading your post correctly about the Terry Stop regarding the brandished firearm, that would be a totally different story. A firearm brandishing and a lane violation are sorta kinda two different types of things. But I appreciate your explanation.
> 
> By the way, if I'm pulling over a car that has been reported as brandishing a firearm, then the occupants of said car are going to be proned out on the ground. We (guys I work with) don't walk up on a car and ask (or demand) to see the firearm license of someone who just brandished a firearm. That's Traffic Stop 101 where I work, which is apparently a "bit" different than Mass.
> 
> That's also a good way to get shot if that person who did the brandishing is not the happy go lucky guy we're hoping he is and turns out to be the guy who just robbed the bank; did the drive by shooting; is bent on suicide, etc. Guns are not something to take chances with....


We live in a twisted state where all the liberals are against guns. But yet, if somebody does have a gun, your supposed to know ahead of time that he did not have a license to carry according to liberal judges.

The *mere possession* of a firearm does not allow the police to look further.


----------



## OfficerObie59

94c said:


> The *mere possession* of a firearm does not allow the police to look further.


Absolutely true, though of course, factors of the situation can dictate, such as age. I've had no problem in court articulating that the individual I located who was reported with the firearm "was youthful in his appearance, and appeared to be a number of years under the age of 21 and thus incapable of possessing a LTC under MGL ch. 140".


----------



## Johnny Law

mtc said:


> Aye - like probably almost killed him when he crossed that little lane marker.... that'd piss someone off, and rightfully so!


mtc, you watching "Pirates of the Caribbean" again?


----------



## StbbrnMedic

Least you could do is share!!


----------



## StbbrnMedic

:L:
In that case Enjoy!!!! 

After spending "one of those days" with mine I can SOOO relate and quite honestly am rather jealous!


----------



## dcs2244

Preparing for "The Return"?


----------



## Erik1975

Sarge31 said:


> I find it hard to believe that merely crossing over a white line would cause a Trooper from Crime Scene Services to issue a cite.


See, that's where you're exactly right. It really didn't make sense for him to cite me on that. Fortunately, the magistrate agreed with me in my hearing yesterday and found me to be not at fault.

There really was nothing more to it than that. He was apparently just having a bad day and didn't have a bottle of "blush pinot grigio" to drown his sorrows. Of course, Pinot Grigio is a white grape, so there's no way it could be "blush." But if you drink wine out of a box, you wouldn't know that.


----------



## jettsixx

Erik, Thank you for the overtime. Did you have to miss work, wait I dont care, just go away.


----------



## kwflatbed

Erik1975 said:


> See, that's where you're exactly right. It really didn't make sense for him to cite me on that. Fortunately, the magistrate agreed with me in my hearing yesterday and found me to be not at fault.
> 
> There really was nothing more to it than that. He was apparently just having a bad day and didn't have a bottle of "blush pinot grigio" to drown his sorrows. Of course, Pinot Grigio is a white grape, so there's no way it could be "blush." But if you drink wine out of a box, you wouldn't know that.


This doesn't change anything you are still a jerk.

Thread Closed


----------

