I’d like to see a cite that says a peace officer is immune from getting a traffic ticket.
My rebuttal would be these 2 tales:
One time myself and 4 other officers, all on duty, in full uniform, traveling in a fully marked squad car, were en route from Milwaukee to La Crosse , Wisconsin for a training conference. Somewhere between the Wisconsin Dells and Tomah a State Trooper pulled up behind us with lights and siren. He issued the on duty, fully uniformed officer a speeding ticket for going 80 in a 65 zone.
I was not the driver, BTW. We were all laughing hysterically until the trooper actually came back with a cite. :mad:
While en route from the Winnebago mental health facility myself and another Deputy were in a fully marked squad, on duty in full uniform when we were pulled over by a trooper for going 71 in a 55, sans lights/sirens. Once again, I was not driving.
I’ve given plenty of verbal warnings to people going 20+ over the limit, so why you giving me shit over what some of those people do for work?
I live in a dull suburb so quiet during the day you can hear a bird tweet in a tree across the street. No one is ever around. On a weekday afternoon I drove down to the corner on the way out to the main road, and out of nowhere a cop car saw me ‘roll through a stop’. Siren and lights flashing. I didn’t know he was after ME, so I kept going, and I must have pissed him off - eventually I stopped. I got a ticket for ‘rolling through a stop sign’, no discussion, he was very mean…The fuck? A block from my house???.. I saw him two days later, having pulled over some woman’s car on a road, busy writing HER a ticket. Must have been the end of the month and he had to fill his quota so he was looking for housewives doing something wrong…
I’m not trying to give you shit but I am trying to get you to recognize that what seems like a neutral and fair policy applied to all really isn’t.
Earlier in this thread, you said:
Except, the tax policy you endorse isn’t enforced fairly against all. I’m illustrating that by noting that these violations are hardly ever applied to police officers. More broadly, police officers must use discretion to do their jobs. Otherwise, as people have noted up thread, police would have to pull over nearly every car they see. But police officers’ discretion means that the burden of taxing through fines and the burdens of policing in general falls disproportionately on people who police officers choose to enforce the law against. That’s not fairness; it’s a license for discrimination. There is evidence that the police discretion in America is granted more often to white people than minorities. The answer shouldn’t be to shrug our shoulders and pretend everything is fair but instead to think about how things could get better.
You know there is no such thing. The question, if peace officers aren’t immune from getting tickets, why do police officers get so few tickets when they commit violations?
Why would you get mad at the officer for just doing his job? I thought you wanted your taxes to be paid by violators.
Everyone on the highway is on their way somewhere. If the call doesn’t require lights and sirens, it also doesn’t require speeding or running through stop signs. Police without lights and sirens are fair game to be pulled over.
I didn’t ask about the times when you pulled over off-duty police officers. I asked “of the last 100 times you saw fellow police officers break the traffic laws, how many tickets did you write?” I think the answer is none but you can’t admit it.
I think you’ve pulled over fewer than 100 police officers because when you recognize they are police officers, you don’t pull them over. The police officers you pull over are the “young, dumb and full of cum” off-duty ones that you don’t recognize. I am inferring that you still give them a pass. If they had been old and dumb, you probably would have recognized them and not bothered to pull them over.
To rebut my implication, you cite two stories when you were in the car and witnessed police officers breaking the law and you didn’t write tickets. Why didn’t you give them tickets? Instead, you acted surprised when the law was fairly applied to them.
I also asked how often those officers paid those tickets. You didn’t say whether either of the officers you described above paid their tickets or whether they could have made back channel arrangements to avoid them. I understand that you probably wouldn’t actually know whether they paid the tickets but, give me your honest hunch, do you think they paid them and received the points on their license that anyone else would have received?
My job could get me lots of special privileges if I told certain people who I worked for. This was true even more so for one of my previous jobs. I would never engage in that type of petty corruption.
Yes, I’m appalled that police culture in the U.S. finds it acceptable. From all your posts, you seem like a decent person and a really conscientious police officer. But, you seem to share other officers’ blind spot about how corrosive it is to have a tacit policy of police officers looking the other way when their brethren engage in bad conduct. Maybe corrosive police misconduct starts with ignoring traffic tickets and metastasizes into letting fellow officers get away with “testilying” or engaging in outright criminality.
Thanks. The literal reading is accurate enough but it’s also a pun based on my interest in cars.
By “no warning” do you mean it’s not posted? IANAL, but I wonder if a ticket would be upheld if it was issued for speeding in an area with no signs saying the limit had changed.
The kennel where we leave Leet the Wonder Dog[sup]TM[/sup] is in a city where the speed limit on the roads coming up to town is 55 and the speed limit in the city limits is 30, but I slow down when I see the sign. Plus I just sort of know that very few cities or towns have a speed limit of 55 within their limits.
No, it isn’t. You’re right. It’s called selective enforcement. And I’m willing to bet YOU are all for it. I’ll bet if pulled over you’d want a warning rather than a cite. I bet you prefer being able to go a little over the limit everyday rather than getting stopped at one over every-single-time. Because the only way to enforce it fairly by your posted standards that is what would have to happen: officers would have to have all discretion for issuing warnings taken away, and every single violation, even a measly 1mph over would have to be prosecuted every single time.
There is an old saying about shitting in ones own backyard. It was a 1 time minor offense that I’m sure that TROOPER (they are not officers. Wisconsin does not have a “state police” force per se, Wisconsin State Patrol is a division of DOT not DOJ) has certainly issued a warning to for other drivers. He was just being a dick. Pulling the same officer over multiple times that officer is being a dick and needs to be shut down. Pull him over once while in front of a bunch of other officers and citing him you’re the one who’s being the dick. He was just trying to be a big man.
Look, I won’t pretend to know the politics and nuances of your career, don’t get uppity over mine.
Just accept that.
I didn’t say they were immune from getting ticketed. I said they were probably confidently thinking they were immune – because in reality, in fact, that’s usually how it goes. In fact in your own attempt at a rebuttal, in describing a situation where a ticket was actually issued to a fellow officer, you stated “We were all laughing hysterically until the trooper actually came back with a cite”, inadvertently acknowledging that the common expectation is that no ticket would be issued.
I notice also that your anecdotes appear to be an attempt to avoid answering the direct question I asked, “how did you resolve those ethical dilemmas?” – i.e.- how did you, yourself, deal with discovering that the miscreants you pulled over were in fact police officers, and did you ticket them? I presume because the uncomfortable answer is no, you did not. You know and I know how this usually works, though of course there are always anecdotal exceptions, as you note.
Since we’re relying on your truthfulness, I trust you can rely on mine when I tell you that I read an investigative news story about this many years ago, a story that was in print in pre-Internet times so I don’t have a cite. But it was about how the loyalty among police officers in the jurisdiction in question, supported by interviews among a few that were willing to talk, extended to letting fellow officers off on traffic violations almost universally, including DUIs. One account that sticks in my mind was an off-duty officer driving so drunk that he couldn’t even stand when they pulled him out of the car. He was quietly driven home and nothing more was said.
Actually, I am opposed to selective enforcement, which is a term defined Black’s Legal Dictionary (7th ed.) as:
I hope you are also opposed to it too, particularly the “especially” part, because that’s unconstitutional. I am also opposed to “unfettered” discretion, because it’s a license for abuse. If you are saying that I don’t want traffic tickets, I’ll concede that. For what it’s worth, I think there are fair and unfair ways for police officers to use their discretion. I would like them to use it fairly.
I am using the term “police officer” in the way it is ordinarily used and understood by people to include troopers but if you want to rely on some hypertechnical definition of “officer” to distract from my point, well, you should at least not be entirely wrong. Since this board is about fighting ignorance, I’ll fight yours. The Wisconsin State Patrol are law enforcement officers.
Maybe State Troopers ticket officers from your agency because they see you as dicks who mistakenly look down on them as being somehow beneath real law enforcement officers.
If you can tell me what to do, I can tell you what to do. I am free to travel to Wisconsin. Every person who lives in or travels to Wisconsin has the right to get “uppity” about what law enforcement officers in Wisconsin do. (And boy, is “uppity” ever a loaded term.) They should be able to expect you to do your job lawfully and fairly. If you don’t want to face criticism or questions about the way you do your job, you can find another line of work.
I remember getting pulled over years back for what was supposedly making a suspicious (but completely legal) u-turn, but I’m pretty sure was actually ‘driving a beater car in an upscale area’. What I found hilarious about the incident is that the cops grilled me about why I could possibly want to make a u-turn (again, a completely legal and safe one), and were clearly fishing for something to pin on me, but never even noticed that my inspection sticker was at least two years out of date and let me go without any kind of ticket. Even if they were just fishing for DUI/drugs/etc you’d think they’d want to note down the expired inspection, since an actual violation is a better cause to investigate than a legal traffic maneuver AFAIK.
I suspect the officer thought you made the U-turn in an attempt to evade them, even if you weren’t actively being pulled over when you made the turn. Officer thought the move seemed fishy and pulled you over to ask some questions. When I was driving shit-mobiles I’d get followed through nicer neighborhoods…it’s what happens.
Tired and Cranky, I don’t see the problem with professional courtesy among officers of the law. They are expected to spring into action when off duty in all manner of situations. They should be cut some slack when off duty too.
I’m talking about real world scenarios, not a generic definition you pick out of a dry law book. The social contract in the U.S. includes selective enforcement, which in the real world involves not enforcing a law against one person when the same law is enforced against another. This includes giving some people verbal or written warnings for an act that another person may receive a citation involving fines, demerit points, etc… The selection process may be as arbitrary as the violators demeanor. But it IS a form of selective enforcement, and I’m willing to bet if pulled over for a traffic violation you’d prefer the selection went in your favor. Selective enforcement also involves not enforcing something to the bone. Citing people for 1 mile over is legal but horseshit.
You’re using a legal definition that could also be used for Game Wardens and Postal Inspectors, and not only does the word "officer’ appear on their job description, nobody refers to them as that. I’ve used the term “peace officer” on this thread, and though that legally is my position nobody refers to me as that. Nowhere on a Wisconsin State Troopers job description, uniform, squad car, nor badge does the word "police’ nor “officer” appear, and professionally they are not called officers. Their rankings are Trooper 1, 2, 3, Inspector, or some other rank. But no other law enforcement officer refers to them as officer. They are referred to as Trooper, which is what they correctly are and appreciate being addressed as. We also don’t refer to a Deputy Sheriff as “officer” either. They are a sworn Deputy of the Constitutional Office of Sheriff and are entitled to be addressed that way, regardless of their legal definition.
I was giving you a peek inside the nuances of my career and you don’t like it and have the gall to try and educate me. No more peeks for you!
What is it about professional courtesy you don’t like. As I posted earlier, it very rarely actually happens, and only for rare, minor offenses. The last time I pulled over an off duty was about 3 years ago. Any other driver would have gotten a warning for what he had done.
You don’t think THIS guy is getting a pass, do you?
Are they sworn law enforcement, uh, officers? Do they have arrest powers and such that are typically associated with police forces of other places? Are there things they cannot do that regular police officers can do?
Serious questions, because I’m not seeing what difference it makes that they are called “Troopers” or whatever or why their title is relevant.
Professional courtesy involves many, many things, not just the distasteful of letting an occasional minor traffic violation slide. I happen to know a couple of Troopers, when addressed as officer will politely say “it’s Trooper”.
That’s another little thing I’m giving you a peek into how it’s done around here. The fact that you refuse to have your ignorance fought is rather arrogant.
It’s funny that when I use “police officer” in a way that everyone understands, you felt the need to correct me with “TROOPER” but you can misuse the term “selective enforcement” and everyone is supposed to know that you don’t mean unconstitutionally applying the law. I’m sorry that I can’t intuit the precise level of ambiguity that will please you and that I rely on things like dictionaries and definitions to guide my usage of the language.
No, based on your slipshod use of “selective enforcement,” it seemed you were advocating for unconstitutional application of the law. I wanted to point that out to you. The term I believe that you are looking for is “discretion.” We agree that law enforcement officers need to use their discretion to apply the law and I urge you and other officers to use your discretion fairly.
Well, the State Patrol’s own guide for the public on what to do when stopped refers to them as “officer” 21 times but it doesn’t once use the word “Trooper.” If the distinction matters to the members of the State Patrol, they are doing a spectacularly bad job of communicating this to the public.
None of this changes the fact that you said State Troopers aren’t “officers” when they are very clearly law enforcement officers.
You have the gall to tell me I’m misusing the term “police officer” when I’m not. For what it’s worth, my career at a few points has involved telling law enforcement officers they are wrong when they think they are right. It’s okay; I’m used to them not liking it.
I’m sincerely sorry if I’m driving you away from this thread or any others. I do appreciate getting a law enforcement officer’s perspective on many issues even if I sometimes disagree with you.
I will trust that you wouldn’t give him a pass because you seem like a decent, conscientious and professional law enforcement officer.
I have already said that my concern with this particular professional courtesy is that I don’t know how much police misconduct officers are willing to overlook for each other. The same “professional courtesy” that leads to forgiving a few speeding tickets also leads to other police abuses. Since we are arguing by anecdote, here are some examples when too much professional courtesy was extended for my liking:
Police officers fabricate evidence and frame a suspect to help a fellow officer in a civil dispute:
I personally know a cop who got away with beating and terrorizing his wife for years because professional courtesy meant he couldn’t be arrested. I personally know of at least two other officers who were given the professional courtesy of forgiveness for driving drunk, and one who (from reliable second-hand information) reportedly got drunk, shot his service pistol in his house for unclear reasons, and had a write-up say that it was an accidental discharge during cleaning. Some cops are unworthy of the job but they all get the same professional courtesy.
I know you are going to say that you would never allow those things. I believe you. The problem is that when cops get in the habit of extending each other these professional courtesies, they create an atmosphere where some officers are willing to test the boundaries of that courtesy and hurt people.
Update: 3 Cars pulled over within a 5 mile stretch down Ogden from IL83 to Belmont road. I went at a different time of day too (2 days ago) 1 in Westmont, 2 in Downers Grove.
I don’t even see this in the suburbs around the airport(O’Hare) where it may be beneficial.
I wish I could ask them what they are pulling people over for. It is without fail that people are pulled over no matter what time of day I drive through there. I wonder if there is some heavy drug trafficking or something down that little stretch.
I don’t get this whining. How DARE police enforce the law, is that what you are saying? Do you consider the police are infringing on some “right” people should have to speed, drive uninspected cars, or cars missing required safety equipment, and so forth without fear of consequences?
I live within a few hundred yards of what you would no doubt call a speed trap. I’m very glad it is there.
There’s an unpaved slot off a highway where there is a police car sitting, more days than not, during rush hours in the morning and early evening. (I know, because I walk daily for my health, and I pass that place on my way to a recreation area with walking trails.)
Not only is there a police car there most days, but often I see them with a car pulled over or zipping out after a car. Maybe in some cases it’s for other offenses, but I’m sure the vast majority of the time it is because of speed, considering the cops sitting there waiting generally have radar guns in hand.
The speed limit drops to 30 mph just about a mile and half upstream of that point. Just downstream of that point the highway swings around a corner and right there past the corner is an elementary school, with the usual playgrounds and fields for children to run about and play.
Before the police started intensively enforcing the speed limit people ignored the reduction in speed, and came racing around that corner at much higher speeds. It was freaking dangerous, with many close calls and at least one child killed. Within weeks of the police cars starting to lurk there the traffic slowed down to a remarkable degree.
Do I feel for the people who get caught speeding there? Not one whit. The speed limit signs are clear and prominent, not obscured by bushes or trees or anything. There are equally prominent ‘School Zone’ signs also in the area. If you are too blind to see them, you shouldn’t be driving anywhere.
You don’t want a ticket for speeding? Then STOP SPEEDING.
I hope you have me mixed up with another poster. I asked a simple question because I didn’t understand what the difference was between office and Trooper. Doesn’t look like any difference to me.
The thing is, I was going one way on a road with a median and the cop was some distance off on the other side of the road. If I was trying to evade him, why would I make a u-turn to end up going in front of him in the same direction as him? If I hadn’t made the turn, I would have done a much better job of evading him.
I think that cops treating other cops as above the law is a significant problem for society, and is a major contributor to ‘blue wall’ issues when cops cover for other cops doing things like killing and torturing people. If anything, the police should be held to a higher standard than regular people, them being scofflaws should not be supported by other police.
There are several different forms of selective enforcement, and discretion is one of them. Giving one guy a cite for doing the exact same thing the guy you only issued a warning to is a form of selective enforcement. The guy who just got the warning isn’t going to complain about it.
I probably give an equal amount of warnings as I do issue cites. On a day with few calls or assignments I do a ton of traffic. Gotta keep busy and on the radio so the supes knows your active.
Also, when I issue a ticket I do not give a lecture and when I give a lecture I don’t cite. One or the other, no reason for both. Also, no mirrored sun glasses. That’s been a no-no for quite a few years.
An no “have a nice day”. It’s obnoxious. I usually say “You are free to go. Please be careful pulling out into traffic.”
