Do you have some reason for being so snarky with me?
In CA at least, this is what they told me in Driver Ed. They are infractions, a category of crime less serious than a misdemeanor I think, but still crimes. And yes, you are technically under arrest at least for the duration of the stop.
The case law is Pennsylvania v. Mims. It is a U.S. Supreme Court ruling so it is not only Texas. There may be states that put more restrictions on when police can order a driver out of the vehicle but in general Mims say you can be ordered out for any reason. Not obeying that order can lead to arrest for obstruction.
I was not being snarky at you and am sorry you took it that way.
Ah, I get you. Thanks for clarifying.
What if the husband says the wife did it and the wife says the husband did it, and they both stick to their stories?
The judge decides which one he believes. It’s no different than the plaintiff and the defendant having contradictory stories, the judge is going to decide one is more credible than the other.
Or, they both get a separate ticket… they go to court, and they repeat their claims under oath or stay silent (spouse testifying rule?) and both get convicted in separate trials, so they can spend a fortune on appeal court procedures to learn not to screw with the law.
IF the witness has spousal privilege, can their statement to the cop be repeated in court? That’s hearsay, I imagine.
One bit of reality into this hypothetical.
I was coming home late and passed a cop, who started following me, without lights and/or sirens. I drove home and pulled into my driveway. Before I could get into the garage, they lit me up. They said they stopped me because my plate light was out (it was) but I’m sure they were trolling for drunks. Since I wasn’t, they went on their way.
Point is, I don’t think you would get the OP scenario. If they thought you did something, they aren’t going to let you get into the garage.
Not in California. The judge is barred from taking any part in the prosecution.
Yes but then again YMMV depending on your state. My mom escaped a ticket in Washington 35 years ago. She was right by the house and the cop started to pull out but my mom was in the driveway before he hit his lights. He sttod on the street and said that she deserved a ticket but he couldn’t give it to he on her property. Remember this is also the state that makes it illegal to have hidden radar guns and unmarked police cars enforcing traffic laws.
Ok. Around here it’s all the judge. If you don’t like his decision then there’s a real trial. I can’t say I know exactly what happens then.
I am not sure if it’s not in ALL states. SCOTUS ruled that you need a Warrant to arrest someone in their home in these sorts of cases.
Why doesn’t hot pursuit apply?
It is more complicated than this but generally hot pursuit applies only to felonies. Sort of. I am confident in saying that hot pursuit of a felony suspect into a residence will be allowed and hot pursuit of a violator of a motor vehicle statute will not. In between those two extremes it gets a bit murky.
I said “in these sorts of cases.” The OP’s example doesnt include hot pursuit or a 'clear and present danger" or “exigent circumstances”.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/466/740/case.html
"*The Wisconsin Court of Appeals vacated the order, concluding that the warrantless arrest of petitioner in his home violated the Fourth Amendment because the State, although demonstrating probable cause to arrest, had not established the existence of exigent circumstances. The Wisconsin Supreme Court reversed.
Held: The warrantless, nighttime entry of petitioner’s home to arrest him for a civil, nonjailable traffic offense, was prohibited by the special protection afforded the individual in his home by the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 466 U. S. 748-754.
(a) Before government agents may invade the sanctity of the home, the government must demonstrate exigent circumstances that overcome the presumption of unreasonableness that attaches to all warrantless home entries. An important factor to be considered when determining
Page 466 U. S. 741
whether any exigency exists is the gravity of the underlying offense for which the arrest is being made. Moreover, although no exigency is created simply because there is probable cause to believe that a serious crime has been committed, application of the exigent circumstances exception in the context of a home entry should rarely be sanctioned when there is probable cause to believe that only a minor offense has been committed. Pp. 466 U. S. 748-753.
(b) Petitioner’s warrantless arrest in the privacy of his own bedroom for a noncriminal traffic offense cannot be justified on the basis of the “hot pursuit” doctrine, because there was no immediate or continuous pursuit of the petitioner from the scene of a crime, or on the basis of a threat to public safety, because petitioner had already arrived home and had abandoned his car at the scene of the accident."
*
based on:
Held: The Fourth Amendment, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensual entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest. Pp. 445 U. S. 583-603.
If you had read the link in my post above yours you will see that Welch is not the only precedent. The ruling in Welch left some holes. There is also Illinois v MacArthur and Stanton v Sims which clarify other parts of the issue.
Absolutely.