I did a search here and via Google but could not find what I was looking for.
I always believed that selective enforcement is illegal and is grounds for dismissal???
Legal Dopers, what’s TSD?
TIA
No, I’m not sorry about the double post. The board needs fixing and one of these threads needs deleting
or locking - thanks Mods.
Carry on.
IANAL, etc. It is up to the prosecutor’s discretion to determine what charges to file and against whom. One would hope that the decision to prosecute would rest entirely on what the prosecution can or can’t prove beyond a reasonable doubt, but factors including but not limited to politics, severity of the crime, likelihood of repeat offense, the accused’s past criminal record and resources available to the prosecutor will all affect whether a charge is filed. Simply saying “I was charged with this crime but X, Y and Z all did the same thing and they weren’t” is not on its face sufficient grounds for a dismissal or having the verdict vacated (lawyer types, is it proper to speak of a “vacation” of the verdict? what’s the proper term if not “vacation”?) However, “I am white and the Latino prosecutor didn’t charge Latino A, B or C with the crime and they did the same thing” (as one example) may serve as evidence of prosecutorial misconduct which may be enough to have the charge dismissed or verdict vacated.
This is all from memory from a criminal law class from a few years ago and I don’t remember the case law we looked at. I’m sure one or more of our legal scholars will be along momentarily to fill in the blanks.
Otto is correct, it is up to the prosecutor to determine what cases get files on. The police department write reports and gather evidence, never do they file charges.
By selective enforcement I assume you mean that specific classes or groups are targeted for enforcement of laws, more so than others. At the least there is a constitutional due process violation here if this is proven especially if it is a suspect class that is targeted. However, this is not always so evident or actionable. Example. The local PD targets youthful drivers to a much higher degree than more mature drivers. The theory is two fold, 1. To get the message to the youthful drivers that actions have consequences, and 2. The youthful group makes up a disproportionately higher percentage of accident statistics, therefore, they are in need of a more attention.
I heard an officer respond to such a question once with; “Have you ever gone fishing in a pond” then, “Did you catch all the fish in that pond that day?” Implying it is only a matter of time.
Specifically, what facts are involved?
Thanks Dopers.
I was talking to somebody about speeding and how cops can just badge out of a speeding ticket. There is a law that the police will not enforce when it comes to other cops - selective enforcement?
I actually made that argument once a long time ago. This was in an administrative hearing (as opposed to criminal) and the administrative judge took a moment to explain to me and the guy I was representing that it didn’t really matter since we were there to decide if he (the guy I was representing) had actually done what he was being fired for. He said the employer had the right to overlook other misconduct if he so chose.
(Also, I argued with the guy about this defense and I am also aware of disparate treatment arguments)
Sounds like someone has been doing an unemployment insurance hearing. And yeah, hearing officers usually don’t care if other employees were not discharged for the same offense.
So it’s possible for a discharge to be illegal and disqualifying at the same time.
That’s right, I’ve seen it done. They have a very tight brotherhood. Selective enforcement? I don’t think so, more like professional courtesy. I have a cousin in the PD and when he opens his wallet to get his DL, guess what the first thing the citing officer sees – a big silver badge. And that is the end of the ticket. He also gets away with two very obvious mechanical violations on his car. Why, because around here, to satisfy the mechanical violations, you need to have an officer “sign off” the citation when fixed, so why issue a citation to him? He’ll “sigh off” his own ticket 1 minute later.
Fair it isn’t, but fact it is. Sorry, but most likely this will go no where.
See county post above re: how judges will view these things.
>>“Selective enforcement? I don’t think so, more like professional courtesy”<<
Therefore,
Yeah, I did it but it was not murder, it was cleaning the gene pool - I should be rewarded for my public service
I hear you and believe you about the reality of the situation of speeding, but damn, why have laws is the man is permitted to ignore them?
- not to hyjack my own thread - but
I thought there was something illegal about selective enforcement. would a judges "I don’t care about the law be grounds for appeal?
Years back, there was a big media splash about the San Francisco Sheriff’s drunk driving–he’d been driven back home any number of times after being pulled over, and he was costing the county plenty for one wreck after another.
Can’t recall if he ever did time for it (doubt it), but the next election someone else became sheriff.
Yay media.
I guess I don’t understand at this point what you mean by “selective enforcement.” Perhaps you can provide a definition and some examples?
As far as a judge making a ruling in the course of a case that is in error, and backing up his ruling by saying “I don’t care what the law is,” then yes, that is grounds for appeal, but not because the judge said he doesn’t care about the law. Judicial error is grounds for appeal all by itself. For example, if a judge admits inadmissable evidence (and assuming the defense attorney properly objects) then the judge’s error in admitting the evidence can serve as a ground for an appeal. Now, a judge’s statement about not caring what the law says may serve as grounds for the judge to be disciplined (are you listening, Roy Moore?) and may bolster the interest of an appellate court in examining the appeal but by itself it’s not as I understand it grounds for appeal all by itself.
As always IANAL.
I believe his point was that a judge could commit murder, and get off because no other judge would put another judge away. Obviously not true, but an anology to police not ticketing police.
What I am looking for is an answer to the legality of selective enforcement. Specifically, is it legal for the police to ticket the public but not to ticket other cops.
I thought the law says selective enforcement of a law is not OK and if one is charged with a violation of that law, that person can get out of it buy proving the law is not enforced fairly or applied to all.
Thanks.
OK. I’m not aware of any jurisdiction in which police are required by law to issue citations for traffic law infractions. It is up to the discretion of the police officer to determine whether to issue a written citation, a written warning or a verbal warning. Absent a law requiring that a citation be issued, it may be an abuse of discretion for officers not to ticket fellow officers, but it isn’t illegal and it isn’t grounds for you getting your speeding ticket dismissed.
This seems to get back to my first response to this thread. If the law is selectively or unequally enforced to the point where the constitutionality of the prosecutor or police’s conduct is at issue then it may indeed be enough to get the charge dismissed. If, for example, the police ticketed every Asian driver but never ticketed a white driver, this could serve as the basis of a challenge under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause.
As always, IANAL.
Thanks Otto,
If I understand your first comment, the police are not required to act when they witness a violation of law or a crime.
Actually this is just for information. I am not looking for some points to argue in court. - I, for some reason, have not had a ticket in years, and only one ticket since 1989!!! Probably gonna get busted bad now.
Thanks.
That’s not what I said. Besides, traffic violations in many jurisdictions aren’t considered “crimes.” They’re “ordinance violations” or “forfeitures” or something along those lines. What I said was that, upon witnessing an infraction, the officer has the discretion of what course of action to take, not that the officer has the discretion not to act at all.
And to carry that line of thought further - depending on an officer’s degreee of “abuse of his discretion”, can he ever get in any real trouble or will it allow any of his victims a legal out in court?
Eg) Officer White over the past 10 years has pulled over 1000 cars for speeding. Using his “professional discretion” he wrote 400 speeding tickets and every recipient was black… he gave 400 written warnings to all the white drivers, and he gave 200 verbal warnings to the off-duty cops he pulled over (which really consisted of telling a couple jokes about all the tickets he does and doesn’t write at the side of the road.
This is 100% A-Ok and irrelevent when someone with one of his tickets brings it up in court?
In the example you posit I would say that a strong case could be made for dismissing the ticket on equal protection grounds. The officer is clearly targeting black drivers. Additionally the officer and the department could be looking at a class-action lawsuit for civil rights violations, similar to the various brouhahas we’ve seen over racial profiling we’ve seen over the last several years.
The same should be true for Race and job type!
I did not mean to mis quote you Otto. It just sounds like cops may selectively enforce the speeding laws.
I asked about the difference between LAW and CRIME and “violations” or “forfeitures” in another post, but I do not believe there was an answer.
Even though you ANAL (doesn’t sound right 
) you seem to have some good ideas on the subject and that is fine with me - especially since the lawyers do not seem to be biting???