Hypothetically, Driving home one night ,I ran through a stop sign without stopping.
My house is right down the road and I pulled into my attached garage and hit the button to shut the door.
Unbeknownst to me the local LEO saw me going through the stop sign but till he pulled out of his parking spot and followed me into my driveway the garage door had already shut.
He knocks on my door but I could see who it is and since I have a suspended license I decide not to answer the door.
What are the officers options at this point??
Scenario 2, I answer the door with my wife standing beside me but neither one of us own up to driving the car, is there anything he can do??
He doesn’t need you to answer the door, and he doesn’t need you to own up to driving the car through the stop sign. There’s an eye-witness to the crime; him. You can be convicted on his evidence.
Well, if he didn’t see that it was you driving, whether he can successfully prosecute you will depend on the local law in the place where this happened.
In general, you can’t be compelled to give evidence against yourself. But there are a few specific points where, either at common law or by statute, there are presumptions against you which can be used to convict you unless you give evidence to rebut them. These generally apply in areas where it would be difficult for the state to prove something affirmatively but very easy for a defendant to prove the negative of the same thing. This is sometimes referred to as “special knowledge” - you’re in a much better position to give evidence on this than anybody else, therefore it is reasonable for the law to require you to give that evidence and to draw adverse inferences if you do not.
And, in your jurisdiction, there may very well be such a rule in relation to being the registered owner of a car. If the car is involved in an offence, and you don’t give evidence that you weren’t the driver on that occasion, you can be convicted on the basis that you were the driver.
General Questions is for the discussion of questions with factual answers. Other forums here have different rules, but politically charged comments like this are not welcome here. Please do not post comments like this in General Questions.
In this forum, try to stick to answers that can be backed up with factual cites.
Police only require probable cause to arrest you. That means that it has to be more likely than not that you were the one who evaded arrest. The whole “beyond a reasonable doubt” thing applies in the courtroom, where on your best day you might be able to convince a judge or jury that you weren’t the guy driving the car and that you had no idea who was driving it.
But given the facts of the case – YOUR car drives through a stop sign, YOUR car drives into YOUR garage, YOU have a suspended license, and there is no alternate theory of the crime – I think there’s enough circumstantial evidence for me to conclude that you were driving, at least if I were a juror.
Juror? Beyond a reasonable doubt? 5th amendment? This is a traffic violation. The judge finds either the husband or wife guilty and then they have to pay court costs on top of the fine. If they piss him off he’ll throw something in on top of that.
What felony evasion? There’s no indication in the OP that the cop had his lights & siren on. If a cop doesn’t indicate he wants you to stop, there’s no crime in not stopping.
They pretty much need a Warrant to arrest you in your home. In CA at least such a violation is only a “infraction” not even quite a 'crime" per se (more like a Code violation). You’d be off scot-free.
In CA they also have to hand you your ticket and have you sign it, in most cases.