Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Common Sense in Enforcement of Laws

    This site amazes me. I can't believe all of the pinheaded people who throw common sense out the window. While it is technically correct that the placard was registered to a different person, common sense and basic judgement should have dictated a different course of action. As I have said in another thread... there is still a law in my home town that for a person to drive a car down main street, he must have someone 50 ft in front of him waiving a red flag. So, if the local cops started up a similar ticket mill... I guess all the knuckleheads here would agree that each person who got a ticket violated the law and that we should "CHEER" for the cops who wrote the tickets.

    This situation should be offensive to everyone... not just the OP. I think the OP should file a formal complaint with the SDPD and I'd forward a copy of that complaint to the Mayor and every city council member. I'd attend a city concil meeting and invite the press. Rather than humbling myself in front of a judge as was strongly advised, I would instead make a huge stink exposing the ridiculous lack of any judgment excercised by the SDPD.

    The thing that is lost by these short-sighted posters is that government is here to serve the people. The people are NOT here to serve the government. Abandoning common sense does NOTHING to serve the people.

    Finally... if the fine is $250, that means you'll end up paying well over $1000 after all of the costs and fees and other BS. There is no way in hell anyone is going to convince any reasonable person that there isn't a financial motive for the State. Even if the local cop shop doesn't get direct benefit, the State surely does... and the State surely sends lots of money to the local cop shop. Laundering ticket money through the State doesn't make those pinhead cops' motive pure...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    This site amazes me. I can't believe all of the pinheaded people who throw common sense out the window. While it is technically correct that the placard was registered to a different person, common sense and basic judgement should have dictated a different course of action. As I have said in another thread... there is still a law in my home town that for a person to drive a car down main street, he must have someone 50 ft in front of him waiving a red flag. So, if the local cops started up a similar ticket mill... I guess all the knuckleheads here would agree that each person who got a ticket violated the law and that we should "CHEER" for the cops who wrote the tickets.

    This situation should be offensive to everyone... not just the OP. I think the OP should file a formal complaint with the SDPD and I'd forward a copy of that complaint to the Mayor and every city council member. I'd attend a city concil meeting and invite the press. Rather than humbling myself in front of a judge as was strongly advised, I would instead make a huge stink exposing the ridiculous lack of any judgment excercised by the SDPD.

    The thing that is lost by these short-sighted posters is that government is here to serve the people. The people are NOT here to serve the government. Abandoning common sense does NOTHING to serve the people.

    Finally... if the fine is $250, that means you'll end up paying well over $1000 after all of the costs and fees and other BS. There is no way in hell anyone is going to convince any reasonable person that there isn't a financial motive for the State. Even if the local cop shop doesn't get direct benefit, the State surely does... and the State surely sends lots of money to the local cop shop. Laundering ticket money through the State doesn't make those pinhead cops' motive pure...
    So, you are going to petition that the SDPD should STOP validating the users of handicapped placards and, by extension, handicapped parking places?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    This situation should be offensive to everyone... not just the OP. I think the OP should file a formal complaint with the SDPD and I'd forward a copy of that complaint to the Mayor and every city council member. I'd attend a city concil meeting and invite the press. Rather than humbling myself in front of a judge as was strongly advised, I would instead make a huge stink exposing the ridiculous lack of any judgment excercised by the SDPD.
    It would make for interesting TV on the very sparsely watched cable broadcast of the council meetings, but wouldn't change much. The officers at these events tend to be a tad bit harried, and standing around moving people in and out of a vehicle so an officer can make an estimation as to whether the person qualifies for a placard or not is NOT going to be the most effective use of time. The only way to avoid the problem would be to prohibit officers at Qualcomm from enforcing any of the handicapped parking laws.

    If he wants to make a political statement, he can go ahead and rant ... but he'd best have his checkbook ready. If he wants to see the ticket dismissed, he can go in with the valid info and show that it was an error.

    Finally... if the fine is $250, that means you'll end up paying well over $1000 after all of the costs and fees and other BS.
    $250 is the base fine ... the total with fees and assessments should be about $950 (per the 2008 bail and penalty schedule).

    There is no way in hell anyone is going to convince any reasonable person that there isn't a financial motive for the State. Even if the local cop shop doesn't get direct benefit, the State surely does.
    .. and the State surely sends lots of money to the local cop shop. Laundering ticket money through the State doesn't make those pinhead cops' motive pure...
    Huh ... well, since I musta missed that day in cop school where they qualified me as a medical doctor, I doubt I'm qualified to make a judgment as to a person's medical need for a placard. Nor does the law require me to make that judgment.

    Now, I may not have issued the citation ... but, I wasn't there. AND, I know how busy those guys get and they have to deal with numerous parking scams on a regular basis during football season. I doubt the officer or his supervisors were going to want him to be tied up dealing with an issue that he was neither qualified nor required to assess. Likewise, you can think the state makes a bucket o' money all you want ... the officer doesn't make a penny on the cite, and the agency made a cool $50 if it doesn't go to court ... whoopee! I can guarantee you the officer never thought ONCE how much money the city might make on the citation.

    Jim, what seems so simple and easy to you - and to many who are NOT there - is not always so easy to the players involved. If only it were ...

    Having been to traffic court in SD County, and having had to deal with similar citations and similar circumstances, I am pretty certain that going in with the proper placard and paperwork will resolve the matter without fines, fees and assessments. If, however, the matter *IS* filed as a misdemeanor and sent to Superior Court, he should consult an attorney ... though I suspect that the matter would still be resolved in much the same way.

    - Carl

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting cdwjava
    View Post
    It would make for interesting TV on the very sparsely watched cable broadcast of the council meetings, but wouldn't change much. The officers at these events tend to be a tad bit harried, and standing around moving people in and out of a vehicle so an officer can make an estimation as to whether the person qualifies for a placard or not is NOT going to be the most effective use of time. The only way to avoid the problem would be to prohibit officers at Qualcomm from enforcing any of the handicapped parking laws.
    So... you are saying the cop had enough time to stop the OP, get the registration for the placard and write a ticket, but he didn't have time to see that there was an obviously handicapped person in the car??? Carl... you are stretching.

    If he wants to make a political statement, he can go ahead and rant ... but he'd best have his checkbook ready. If he wants to see the ticket dismissed, he can go in with the valid info and show that it was an error.

    And why shouldn't he do both??


    $250 is the base fine ... the total with fees and assessments should be about $950 (per the 2008 bail and penalty schedule).
    $950.... sounds about right for a $250 ticket...

    Huh ... well, since I musta missed that day in cop school where they qualified me as a medical doctor, I doubt I'm qualified to make a judgment as to a person's medical need for a placard. Nor does the law require me to make that judgment.
    You gotta be kidding!!! The law doesn't REQUIRE you to make that judgement?!?! Well... the law doesn't REQUIRE you to write the ticket either!!! Maybe as a cop supervisor, you may want mindless drones with ticket books patroling the parking lots... but as a tax-paying citizen, I'd much rather have a cop who has a brain in his head.

    Now, I may not have issued the citation ... but, I wasn't there. AND, I know how busy those guys get and they have to deal with numerous parking scams on a regular basis during football season. I doubt the officer or his supervisors were going to want him to be tied up dealing with an issue that he was neither qualified nor required to assess.
    It took ten times as much time to write the ticket than it would have to see the handicapped guy in the car and just tell him to move along... so, what is the deal with tieing up his time???

    Likewise, you can think the state makes a bucket o' money all you want ... the officer doesn't make a penny on the cite, and the agency made a cool $50 if it doesn't go to court ... whoopee! I can guarantee you the officer never thought ONCE how much money the city might make on the citation.
    Well... you have accounted for $50... but there is still $900 out there going somewhere... and I bet it isn't going to the March of Dimes!!!


    Jim, what seems so simple and easy to you - and to many who are NOT there - is not always so easy to the players involved. If only it were ...
    There is no man as blind as he who will not see....

    Having been to traffic court in SD County, and having had to deal with similar citations and similar circumstances, I am pretty certain that going in with the proper placard and paperwork will resolve the matter without fines, fees and assessments. If, however, the matter *IS* filed as a misdemeanor and sent to Superior Court, he should consult an attorney ... though I suspect that the matter would still be resolved in much the same way.

    - Carl

    I don't disagree with any of your last point... but, how ridiculous is it that the OP have to waste his time going to court and possibly having to hire a lawyer just because one cop has his head up his a$$!?!?! Face it Carl... cops are a cross section of society. There are good ones... and there are idiots. It's just a shame that people like our OP have to be drug through the system by the idiots...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    So, you are going to petition that the SDPD should STOP validating the users of handicapped placards and, by extension, handicapped parking places?
    That's just too dumb to respond to....

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    California
    Posts
    20,594

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    So... you are saying the cop had enough time to stop the OP, get the registration for the placard and write a ticket, but he didn't have time to see that there was an obviously handicapped person in the car??? Carl... you are stretching.
    I don't know - I wasn't there. But, writing the ticket was an option he had ... evaluating the person for their eligibility to have a placard is not something the officer is qualified to do. And, it might arguably take longer to do. In any event, there is no requirement for the officer to perform that task, and it is arguable that he could NOT do it.

    And given the extremes people have gone through in the past to sneak in to the park, I'd say the officer opted for the quick and easy way out with, "Tell it to the judge."

    I know you won't agree with it, but there was nothing untoward, improper or unlawful about the officer's actions. Sorry.

    $950.... sounds about right for a $250 ticket...
    Talk to the state legislature that adds all those fees and assessments to help compensate for the costs of doing business. I know you'd rather have the increased court costs borne by all the taxpayers rather than the offenders, but I wouldn't.

    You gotta be kidding!!! The law doesn't REQUIRE you to make that judgement?!?! Well... the law doesn't REQUIRE you to write the ticket either!!!
    Nope. But, deciding who is eligible for a placard is not in the officer's area of responsibility any more than deciding the medical need for "medical marijuana" is. If we want officers out there making snap medical judgments, then legislate that authority to them. As it is, they don't have it. Yes, the officer COULD have cut them a break ... but, he did not have to and was not obligated to do so.

    Maybe as a cop supervisor, you may want mindless drones with ticket books patroling the parking lots... but as a tax-paying citizen, I'd much rather have a cop who has a brain in his head.
    I'd like my officers to do both - patrol and use their heads. Neither of us knows the situation here ... well, since I have been involved in those details, I have some idea what it's like at the Q. If this was like any other day, it was busy and the officer had already heard a half dozen similar tales of woe.


    It took ten times as much time to write the ticket than it would have to see the handicapped guy in the car and just tell him to move along... so, what is the deal with tieing up his time???
    So ... it would have taken less than one minute for a handicapped guy and his wheelchair to have been unloaded from the car and for him to be evaluated? I doubt it. The average citation takes about 8 to 12 minutes.

    Again, you don't have to agree with his decision, and I might not have made the same decision had I been there. But, I can understand the decision, and it is clear the officer did nothing wrong by writing the citation and seizing the placard.

    Well... you have accounted for $50... but there is still $900 out there going somewhere... and I bet it isn't going to the March of Dimes!!!
    Talk to the state about that. I have no idea where the rest of it goes, and I'll wager the officer writing it had no idea how much of it might go to his department. It's not part of the enforcement decision making process.

    - Carl

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    So... you are saying the cop had enough time to stop the OP, get the registration for the placard and write a ticket, but he didn't have time to see that there was an obviously handicapped person in the car??? Carl... you are stretching.
    And what is the correct way to make sure the person in the chair isn't handicapped? Do you actually feel the limbs? What are you feeling for?

    Oh, I know, you taser him and see if he/she runs... if he/she doesn't... then you KNOW he/she isn't faking.

    yes, that was sarcastic. The police aren't authorized or trained to make a medical evaluation. Period.


    And why shouldn't he do both??
    Again, police officers are not doctors and are not trained or authorized to make that assessment.

    You gotta be kidding!!! The law doesn't REQUIRE you to make that judgement?!?! Well... the law doesn't REQUIRE you to write the ticket either!!! Maybe as a cop supervisor, you may want mindless drones with ticket books patroling the parking lots... but as a tax-paying citizen, I'd much rather have a cop who has a brain in his head.
    First, the cop's are not authorized to make the judgment call. I may have heard that somewhere.

    Second, do you think there are two cars lined up trying to get in? There is a HUGE line. Maybe 50 cars.

    The police take your word. They do a 15 point examination of each car. They make sure everything is above board because they are not automatons that disbelieve OR BELIEVE anything. This adds NOTHING to the time, maybe 2 minutes a car.

    That last car just got an extra hour and a half added onto his wait.

    This is fast paced, bud. You get em in, you get em out. You park em or ticket em.


    It took ten times as much time to write the ticket than it would have to see the handicapped guy in the car and just tell him to move along... so, what is the deal with tieing up his time???
    Probably had something to do with his inability to show the proper placard.

    Well... you have accounted for $50... but there is still $900 out there going somewhere... and I bet it isn't going to the March of Dimes!!!
    Or to the officer.

    There is no man as blind as he who will not see....
    Cool, a nonsensical quote.

    I don't disagree with any of your last point... but, how ridiculous is it that the OP have to waste his time going to court and possibly having to hire a lawyer just because one cop has his head up his a$$!?!?! Face it Carl... cops are a cross section of society. There are good ones... and there are idiots. It's just a shame that people like our OP have to be drug through the system by the idiots...
    Let's really take a step back here.

    Exactly which segment of the population do you think has lobbied for harsher penalties and laws around handicapped parking? AND the demand that placards not only be linked to the handicapped person's name but that person MUST be in the car.

    Think about it really hard now.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    That's just too dumb to respond to....
    But it is exactly what you are asking for.

    Further, when you stand up and demand that something should be done, this is exactly what others will accuse you of trying to do.

    Me, I wouldn't walk down that road.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    1,622

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Carl,

    You are once again showing your bias. Just as I am biased towards the defendant is innocent until proven guilty, you have the bias of "cops are always right and THEY should get the benefit of the doubt first". That is always our fundamental disagreement. I believe the State has a higer burden than the public. You believe the opposite. However, I submit that once a society places the public's burden over that of the state, then you simply have a police state. I know from a cop's perspective, a police state may sound pretty good... but I live in America... and American's aren't too partial to the concept of a police state.

    The OP says the guy was handicapped all his life and he is now a young adult. I'm pretty sure this would have been pretty obvious. Even if he wasn't sure, I think prudence would dictate that he afford some benefit of doubt. After all... which would be the more desireabe scenario: A guy get away with a phony placard, or a handicapped guy being forced to be wheeled a mile or so in that insane parking lot traffic??? Imagine if the guy would have suffered an injury while wheeling himself through that lot.... do you think the city would likely share in that liability? I think they would and they should. So, your cop's poor judgement not only put the handicapped guy at risk, but he put the city at risk as well.

    You could probably find a better cop to defend.



    Quote Quoting cyjeff
    View Post
    Again, police officers are not doctors and are not trained or authorized to make that assessment.



    First, the cop's are not authorized to make the judgment call.
    Cyjeff, that is just moronic. By your feeble opinion, the cop would not be "trained or authorized" to make an assessment if the guy had both legs amputated. Cops make HUNDREDS of assessments every day!! What law or regulation states that a cop isn't "authorized to make the judgement call"??? That is just the most backwards, idiotic thing I have ever read!!! You should probably move to communist China where you will be more comfortable with the strict adherence to rules without the latitude of judgement.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    9,096

    Default Re: Illegal Use of Handicapped Placard, CVC 4461(C)

    Quote Quoting EWYLTJ
    View Post
    Cyjeff, that is just moronic. By your feeble opinion, the cop would not be "trained or authorized" to make an assessment if the guy had both legs amputated. Cops make HUNDREDS of assessments every day!! What law or regulation states that a cop isn't "authorized to make the judgement call"??? That is just the most backwards, idiotic thing I have ever read!!! You should probably move to communist China where you will be more comfortable with the strict adherence to rules without the latitude of judgement.
    Police officers are not medical doctors. Well, at least in most cases.

    They rely on medical doctors to make the call upon whether or not a person is handicapped and, by extension, allowed to use a handicapped spot.

    This is established by authorizing a placard in that person's name.

    Yes, police officers are empowered to make judgment calls. However, this does not extend to the diagnosis of a person's disability or medical condition.

    I remember nothing that said that the OP's nephew was a multiple amputee. I will reread the post.

    Nope, nothing. Therefore, you are asking that the officer say, "Well, you certainly LOOK handicapped!"

    You tell me. Other than the obvious sign of the chair, what criterion should the police use to definitely say, "this person is handicapped. This person is not."

    1. Sponsored Links
       

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is a Basement a Common Area or Limited Common Element
    By thirdlaw in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 04-18-2011, 01:45 AM
  2. Back Yard Considered Common for More than Ten Years, Now Limited Common
    By ctcondo_owner in forum Real Estate Ownership and Title
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-05-2010, 11:28 AM
  3. Towing: Selective Enforcement of Towing Laws
    By dpt1218 in forum Moving Violations, Parking and Traffic Tickets
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 02-25-2010, 10:49 AM
  4. Child Support Enforcement Laws
    By Ironwil in forum Child Custody, Support and Visitation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-24-2009, 09:58 PM
  5. Laws Concerning Judgement Enforcement and Notification
    By announcerjohn in forum Driver's Licenses
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 09-08-2009, 07:59 AM
 
 
Sponsored Links

Legal Help, Information and Resources