I don’t know how to explain it to you anymore. Just because something is illegal does not make it an actual crime.
I do not know how to explain it to you anymore that anytime the state imposes a penalty on you that you have a right to due process. Call it what you want but you are now in the legal system.
I said that you have due process. Go back and read it.
But that doesn’t make the act an actual “crime”. This just isn’t me saying that. Look in your states statutes and look up it’s definition of “crimes”. Chances are high it will say only misdemeanors and felonies are actual crimes. Most traffic offenses and ordinance violations are not. Even if they are not crimes you still have due process, right to confront your accuser, right to a court hearing, even right to appeal. But the existence of those rights still does not make certain illegal acts actual crimes under the law. Someone going 5 over the speed limit is not a criminal.
I was told by a friend applying for the bar exam in Illinois that they had to list every crime they ever committed and that included all traffic offenses.
(honestly applying for the Bar seems harder than passing the Bar)
That just sounds odd to me. Regular traffic infractions are petty offenses in Illinois. There are misdemeanor and felony traffic offenses that are criminal, but your garden variety blowing a red light or going ten over is a civil infraction, so far as I know and so far as I can research.
At the end of the day we have the state imposing rules and issuing penalties to the people who break those rules.
What would you call that?
Well, I wouldn’t call it a crime. I’d call it a moving violation or civil infraction or something. I’ve never heard run-of-the-mill traffic stops referred to as crimes.
Clearly, I need to read back in the thread for context to the greater point.
Doesn’t matter what I call it. It matters what your state calls it.
And most states do not consider petty offenses and traffic infractions as crimes per their statutes. YOU may want to use the term crime but under the law that’s not the case.
At the end of the day the state is imposing a penalty on you for an action you took. Maybe it was for murder or maybe it was for going 40 in a 30.
The state can call each whatever they want; label it whatever they want. But it is the same thing for both at the end of the day. Only a difference of degrees.
The state imposes a rule. The state punishes those who break the rule.
If the state wants to say traffic rules are lollipops and bunny rules it changes nothing.
You get a hearing before a administrative law judge. There is no prosecutor. It is you, the cop and the judge. If the cop doesnt show, the case is dismissed. You can Appeal, then it goes to three “real” judges.
Just because you break a law, you are not a criminal. If you fail to report some smallish amount of income on your Federal taxes, and the Auditor catches it, there is no “crime”. You have to pay the taxes on it, the interest, and often a small penalty. The auditor is the judge and jury. You can appeal, but still no judge, just another bureaucrat . If you dont like that result, you can go to Tax Court. Still not a crime.
It isnt a crime unless you fail to report a lot of income, etc, then it becomes Criminal Tax fraud. Federal prosecutors, Special Agents arrest you, you get mirandized, etc.
Many many laws are like that. Commercial codes. Fish & game codes. etc.
In fact, when you fill out the form for your Federal Agent background investigation they specifically tell you to not list minor traffic infractions. Same when in CA you get a Gaming license.
I would guess that applies to the BAR, but Ianal.
The state calls them “infractions” “code violations” "misdemeanors’ and “felonies’ and it very very much matters what they call them. There is a whole systems of laws, rules and regulations which class law breaking in several levels. Some traffic offenses can 'rise” to a misdemeanor.
You get convicted of a felony and you lose several rights.
That’s not the case in my state. There is a prosecutor, either the city/village/town attorney or the DA/ADA depending on if it’s run through municipal or circuit court. And if the officer doesn’t show the prosecutor is usually allowed one continuance before the case is dismissed.
But simple traffic infractions are not categorized as crimes per state statute. Hell, first offense DWI are not criminal offenses here.
The term “crime” has a specific legal definition determined by each states laws. Just because something is illegal and can get you arrested doesn’t mean it fits the definition of a crime. W-A-M doesn’t seem to grasp this explanation.
Ok, sure every state likely differs some on this.
Yes, and in fact in CA you cant get arrested for most traffic violations- unless oddly, you refuse to sign the citation promising to appear.
What if the violator is from out of state?
Unless the driver is from a state bordering ours we make them post bond. We are not a member of the national compact. If we gave a California driver a ticket and let them go and they don’t pay it there’s not much that could be done about it unless they came back and got pulled over again.
I am not sure, but CA is part of that nefarious “national compact”.
I have seen victims of that, some state- in one case it was Maine- sez “Hey you never paid your ticket, it is now up to $500”- CA sez “No license for you unless you make Maine happy!” Driver points out he has never been west of the Rocky Mountains, but that doesnt matter to CA- you have to make Maine happy. (It is some case of mistaken ID, and Maine cheerfully invites him to fly to Maine and make his case, after paying the $500 first.)
Some state could make a lot of bux that way and I am waiting for that to happen. Just pick 1 million CA drivers and say each owes $200. That’s $200M. Nothing the CA drivers can do about it, afaik.
Well, yes. Once you assume some element of the government is nothing but a criminal enterprise, then surprise: they can commit crimes and and have the State enforce their evil deeds upon the citizens.
The error in your scenario isn’t in the logic; it’s in the premises. At least in this country as long as crazies aren’t in charge.
Despite such apprehension, the great majority of black Americans want the same or greater police presence in their neighborhoods.
From polling taken at virtually the same time however, a plurality (not majority) of black respondents in a couple of polls favored defunding the police. Looks like something of a disconnect there.
Polls are accurate insofar as measuring a reaction to a question, but they are not particularly useful instruments in terms of understanding the nuances of how groups of individuals feel about a particular issue. And we ought not to purport that these are somehow empirical metrics that sufficiently capture the full spectrum of attitudes when it comes to historically marginalized communities relationships with law enforcement.
When African Americans say that they want to defund the police, whatever in the hell does that really mean? I would assume, based on what I’ve read and heard so far, defunding the police means defunding the kinds of programs, practices, and equipment that have exacerbated a historically confrontational relationship with politically and economically marginalized communities.
That doesn’t mean that they want to defund the guys who are going to stop the burglar from breaking into their apartment at 3 a.m. They want the police there for that. That’s what they pay taxes for. What they don’t want to keep paying for is for officers to reinforce their sense of social, economic, and political disadvantage. This discussion is not just the police, either; it’s also the entire criminal justice system that encourages practices like repossessing a home over a late water bill.
Wrong Whack-a-mole.
Washington. The state legislature made ordinary driving violations infractions rather than misdemeanors because as a misdemeanor cops had to Miranadize you before asking you, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” etc. I know the LEOs here will say that’s not true because being detained for a traffic stop is not the same as being arrested but Washington has a lot of weird rules re: driving law enforcement.
ETA: From the first cite linked to “Colorado”
infractions are not a crime, they are civil matters.