Traffic question for LEO’s

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    This Statute would garner far more revenue if it were enforced:



    Nowadays, most of the folks in this category are on their phones (while underway), too! They are now a monetary threat to whomever they crash into, as well as a serious health risk or potential life threat. These individuals should be of the highest priority for LSP and others. But they are not.

    You should be angry with why they are only on the on/off ramps in Hammond. Why aren't they rotating to different locations? I'll bet there are far more violators of all these laws to be had on the on/off ramps of I-110 in Baton Rouge. But you already know why they won't set up these checkpoints there.

    As a practicing law abider, I have no problems with any law enforcement agency enforcing any laws. What I have a big problem with, is when enforcement becomes a net gain only based on selecting certain demographics in which to enforce. Which makes more sense? Catching seat belt violators in Hammond, or wasting time trying to collect on tickets in Scotlandville? ;)

    As time goes on, you will see even more of a very sad correlation between poverty and less strict enforcement across the board. How's that for Justice Reform?

    It’s not a checkpoint and you couldn’t be further from the truth. These types of enforcement happen all of the time in the scotlandville area. The people doing the enforcement have no interest in the fines collected.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    It's not just semantics. One is more invasive and has more restrictions. The other is a cop watching cars pass and stopping people he observes breaking the law. You not caring about the different legal requirements does not make it a semantics issue.

    There are 4 possibilities with respect to the cars and tags:

    1. Valid MVI and safe car
    Move along.

    2. Invalid MVI and unsafe car
    Ticket. Failure to fix the car results in more tickets. Failure to pay the tickets results in a suspended driver's license and a possible arrest at the next foot patrol or traffic stop. All incentives to correct the problems.

    3. Invalid MVI and safe car
    Preventable ticket. There is a 60 day window within which they could have found less than an hour to get the vehicle inspected. I would suggest the driver go from the traffic stop to an inspection station and get a new tag. Then he should go to the city attorney at the date and time on the ticket and let them know it was a case of poor time management and not a case of faulty equipment. The city attorney may or may not drop it or reduce it. In any case, the experience should be an incentive to use better time management skills in the future.

    4. Valid MVI and unsafe car
    No ticket. This could be an issue with an inspection location. But it's not a reason to not enforce the law.

    If the law is enforced regularly, that's even more of an incentive to make sure the sticker in your field of view every time you drive is up to date. The state does not maintain a database if your MVI status. There's no way for them to help you remember to get your car inspected.

    The scope of the original question was the legality of the ticket. It now seems like you're now looking into the motivation behind the law that resulted in the ticket. But there's been no presented scenario that explains why someone who violated the law shouldn't get a ticket.

    And I would agree with you but there's no point in both of us being wrong.

    It is semantics when I’m not questioning the validity of the interaction. That was clearly resolved on page one. My concern is the value (public safety not revenue we could easily extrapolate the monetary value) of the interaction.

    I would argue with you on the incentive vs punishment, but that would be semantics for the purpose of the discussion.

    My biggest point is the MVI nonsense doesn’t work very well at preventing dangerous cars from traveling the roads and is one of the least useful laws enforced but seems to be one of the most fervently enforced laws on those particular on ramps. Then if combine that with the outrageous cost of an MVI in Tangipahoa parish and it looks really bad to the average hard working taxpayer who whoops forgot.

    I get it the goal of the law was to get the dangerous vehicles off the road, but it clearly doesn’t work and we all know it. The purpose of strategically enforcing an all but useless law in an area where concerns for officer safety are lower, with people who on average pay their fines, and fines a exorbitant looks bad.
     
    Last edited:

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    It’s not a checkpoint and you couldn’t be further from the truth. These types of enforcement happen all of the time in the scotlandville area. The people doing the enforcement have no interest in the fines collected.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    I know the officers don't have a monetary interest. He alluded to the patrols being "only" in the Hammond area where he drives alot. I'll take your word that they are more evenly distributed though I don't ever remember seeing police anywhere more than on the stretch of I-12 from O'Neal to Juban Road. Don't really commute past Hammond that much.

    That said, there doesn't seem to be much widespread urgency to ticketing hundreds of impoverished drivers. The annual "Ticket Amnesty" schemes in the smaller townships of Louisiana are not necessarily intended as social events.

    Besides that, I clearly remember when the law of impounding vehicles for no Auto-Insurance went into effect. I can still hear the screams of monetary racism that made the NOPD completely abandon that punitive portion of the Statute. I haven't really heard of a single incident where cars were being impounded for this very clearly expressed violation in recent years. Do we know who had the authority in the ranks of various law enforcement agencies to dissuade their officers from doing this? I think that illustrates a clear arbitrary process in the system. Why doesn't the state just admit that it is too burdensome on impoverished people, and just change that portion of the law?

    And perhaps that is slightly off subject, but where individual officers may not intentionally gather in target rich environments that are more likely to pay, someone in the chain knows exactly how it works.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    Tell the neighbor to go to court and tell the Judge that he is a Sovereign Citizen. It works EVERY TIME.:mamoru:

    That strategy looked like it was working on an episode of North Woods Law yesterday! Right up until the warden called a cop! :chuckles:

    There seems to be quite a bit of retardation in New Hampshire and Maine. Nowhere near the scale of here in Louisiana however. ;)
     

    MOTOR51

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    72   0   0
    Dec 23, 2008
    6,342
    113
    here
    I know the officers don't have a monetary interest. He alluded to the patrols being "only" in the Hammond area where he drives alot. I'll take your word that they are more evenly distributed though I don't ever remember seeing police anywhere more than on the stretch of I-12 from O'Neal to Juban Road. Don't really commute past Hammond that much.

    That said, there doesn't seem to be much widespread urgency to ticketing hundreds of impoverished drivers. The annual "Ticket Amnesty" schemes in the smaller townships of Louisiana are not necessarily intended as social events.

    Besides that, I clearly remember when the law of impounding vehicles for no Auto-Insurance went into effect. I can still hear the screams of monetary racism that made the NOPD completely abandon that punitive portion of the Statute. I haven't really heard of a single incident where cars were being impounded for this very clearly expressed violation in recent years. Do we know who had the authority in the ranks of various law enforcement agencies to dissuade their officers from doing this? I think that illustrates a clear arbitrary process in the system. Why doesn't the state just admit that it is too burdensome on impoverished people, and just change that portion of the law?

    And perhaps that is slightly off subject, but where individual officers may not intentionally gather in target rich environments that are more likely to pay, someone in the chain knows exactly how it works.

    Those in the chain have no interest in collecting fines either. That would possibly be more prevalent in a program ran by local governments vs the ones more visible ran by the state grant. Also, we tow cars all the time for non compliance with insurance. We have had legal advisors that stopped us originally from towing but we have also had legal advisors stop us from seizing suspended drivers license because she said it was theft.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    This thread delivers.

    Looks like the police cannot do anything right according to some folks on this website.

    I'm not seeing it!

    The OP is expressing an interest in the safety aspect of what the officers are doing with regards to their safety as well; though that wasn't completely clear to me early on?!? :mamoru:

    I am clearly stating there may be some selective enforcement by the powers that be; not individual officers. To me, it is very educating to hear LEO's debate some of these arguments. Even when some of the arguments have been completely stupid. To have that perspective interjected is valuable when you voice your concerns to those that do make the decisions.

    I can only imagine the dumbshit these poor bastards have to hear from the morons they encounter all day long. I would get fired if I were a cop, because I would be laughing all day long at these idiots out there (minus the risk factor).

    However, when the arguments descend into stupidity and ignorance, everyone loses!
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    It is semantics when I’m not questioning the validity of the interaction. That was clearly resolved on page one. My concern is the value (public safety not revenue we could easily extrapolate the monetary value) of the interaction.

    I would argue with you on the incentive vs punishment, but that would be semantics for the purpose of the discussion.

    My biggest point is the MVI nonsense doesn’t work very well at preventing dangerous cars from traveling the roads and is one of the least useful laws enforced but seems to be one of the most fervently enforced laws on those particular on ramps. Then if combine that with the outrageous cost of an MVI in Tangipahoa parish and it looks really bad to the average hard working taxpayer who whoops forgot.

    I get it the goal of the law was to get the dangerous vehicles off the road, but it clearly doesn’t work and we all know it. The purpose of strategically enforcing an all but useless law in an area where concerns for officer safety are lower, with people who on average pay their fines, and fines a exorbitant looks bad.

    The purpose of the discussion is to establish if the ticket is valid. Anything else, including punishment vs incentive or where the law is enforced, is outside of the purpose of the discussion. If the cops are working OT at the detail, you don't have an argument. Enforcing those laws only punishes people who violated the law and officers are not being used that would otherwise be performing other public safety services. A detail targeting a specific law are not uncommon, whether it be MVI checks, seat belt check, or underage drinking. You seem to think "oops" is a valid reason for violating the law. Ok...maybe it is. But it's the cop's job to place the person in the appropriate place to determine if they have a valid reason. That place is in front of a judge. The cop didn't create the law and the cop isn't responsible for issuing the punishment. And if it's determined that a particular area happens to catch a large number of people breaking the law, why would the police not be there? Isn't one of the jobs of a cop to enforce the law? Or should they only enforce the laws you deem need to be enforced? Would you like to create a list of laws they should enforce and a list of laws they shouldn't enforce? And if someone disagrees with your lists, should someone else be allowed to change them?

    And it's not that people forget. It's not batteries in a flashlight in a dresser drawer that's only used during power outages. It's on a car they drive almost daily. It's in the driver's field of vision every time they drive. They don't forget. They just don't pay attention. Pay attention. Do what needs to be done. You avoid the ticket and the ridiculous fine. Problem solved.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    Those in the chain have no interest in collecting fines either. That would possibly be more prevalent in a program ran by local governments vs the ones more visible ran by the state grant. Also, we tow cars all the time for non compliance with insurance. We have had legal advisors that stopped us originally from towing but we have also had legal advisors stop us from seizing suspended drivers license because she said it was theft.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

    I don't necessarily mean the chain as it pertains to the LE Agencies themselves. Cantrell (N.O.), is squeezing money from anywhere she can. She is under fire currently for demanding no tolerance in school zones. I listen and wonder why there were tolerances in school zones in the first place. I mean, what epitomizes a more urgent need for enforcement than the speed limits in a school zone? But, nonetheless; alot of people are bitching and most seem to be white. I do remember that a large portion of the school zones down there are in those corridors where the paler shaded people travel! :D

    Who knows?!?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I'm not seeing it!

    The OP is expressing an interest in the safety aspect of what the officers are doing with regards to their safety as well; though that wasn't completely clear to me early on?!? :mamoru:

    I am clearly stating there may be some selective enforcement by the powers that be; not individual officers. To me, it is very educating to hear LEO's debate some of these arguments. Even when some of the arguments have been completely stupid. To have that perspective interjected is valuable when you voice your concerns to those that do make the decisions.

    I can only imagine the dumbshit these poor bastards have to hear from the morons they encounter all day long. I would get fired if I were a cop, because I would be laughing all day long at these idiots out there (minus the risk factor).

    However, when the arguments descend into stupidity and ignorance, everyone loses!

    The original question mentioned nothing about officer safety. The original questioned the legality of the tickets due to the legal restrictions of roadblocks. He may have moved the goalposts from a legal claim to a moral claim but that was after it was mentioned the ticket didn't result from a roadblock. And there's always selective enforcement. When I worked on a proactive task force, the powers that be never sent us to an area with little to no crime. Why would they? So people can complain the cops weren't around when crime took place? And the dumbshit is usually from such a small list of choices that get repeated over and over, the average cop is no longer affected by them after a short amount of time. And on that list is the "you just want money" argument even though the number of tickets I write doesn't affect my paycheck.

    I don't necessarily mean the chain as it pertains to the LE Agencies themselves. Cantrell (N.O.), is squeezing money from anywhere she can. She is under fire currently for demanding no tolerance in school zones. I listen and wonder why there were tolerances in school zones in the first place. I mean, what epitomizes a more urgent need for enforcement than the speed limits in a school zone? But, nonetheless; alot of people are bitching and most seem to be white. I do remember that a large portion of the school zones down there are in those corridors where the paler shaded people travel! :D

    Who knows?!?

    As much as cops would like to be, they can't be everywhere at once. So they end up trying to be at the "biggest" problems as best they can. They put out the biggest fire then move on to the next one. If the laws weren't being enforced, it was likely there was a bigger fire. If Cantrell decides school zones are the biggest fire, the police may shift some resources in that area. The mayor's motivation, as I believe you realize, are of little concern to the individual cop. Today they want me patrolling in this area so I'll patrol this area today. And today they want me to concentrate on speed zone violations so I'll concentrate on speed zone violations today. So today they want me to drive up and down this particular divided street with my light on so I'll drive up and down this particular street with my lights on today.
     

    Emperor

    Seriously Misunderstood!
    Rating - 100%
    11   0   0
    Mar 7, 2011
    8,376
    113
    Nether region
    The original question mentioned nothing about officer safety. The original questioned the legality of the tickets due to the legal restrictions of roadblocks. He may have moved the goalposts from a legal claim to a moral claim but that was after it was mentioned the ticket didn't result from a roadblock. And there's always selective enforcement. When I worked on a proactive task force, the powers that be never sent us to an area with little to no crime. Why would they? So people can complain the cops weren't around when crime took place? And the dumbshit is usually from such a small list of choices that get repeated over and over, the average cop is no longer affected by them after a short amount of time. And on that list is the "you just want money" argument even though the number of tickets I write doesn't affect my paycheck.



    As much as cops would like to be, they can't be everywhere at once. So they end up trying to be at the "biggest" problems as best they can. They put out the biggest fire then move on to the next one. If the laws weren't being enforced, it was likely there was a bigger fire. If Cantrell decides school zones are the biggest fire, the police may shift some resources in that area. The mayor's motivation, as I believe you realize, are of little concern to the individual cop. Today they want me patrolling in this area so I'll patrol this area today. And today they want me to concentrate on speed zone violations so I'll concentrate on speed zone violations today. So today they want me to drive up and down this particular divided street with my light on so I'll drive up and down this particular street with my lights on today.

    I am well versed (from our resident LEO's here), on how they are just following the wishes of the department and the department the wishes of the mayor, etc. Totally get it!

    So today they want me to drive up and down this particular divided street with my light on so I'll drive up and down this particular street with my lights on today.

    May I add, this^ is pretty funny!
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    The purpose of the discussion is to establish if the ticket is valid. Anything else, including punishment vs incentive or where the law is enforced, is outside of the purpose of the discussion. If the cops are working OT at the detail, you don't have an argument. Enforcing those laws only punishes people who violated the law and officers are not being used that would otherwise be performing other public safety services. A detail targeting a specific law are not uncommon, whether it be MVI checks, seat belt check, or underage drinking. You seem to think "oops" is a valid reason for violating the law. Ok...maybe it is. But it's the cop's job to place the person in the appropriate place to determine if they have a valid reason. That place is in front of a judge. The cop didn't create the law and the cop isn't responsible for issuing the punishment. And if it's determined that a particular area happens to catch a large number of people breaking the law, why would the police not be there? Isn't one of the jobs of a cop to enforce the law? Or should they only enforce the laws you deem need to be enforced? Would you like to create a list of laws they should enforce and a list of laws they shouldn't enforce? And if someone disagrees with your lists, should someone else be allowed to change them?

    And it's not that people forget. It's not batteries in a flashlight in a dresser drawer that's only used during power outages. It's on a car they drive almost daily. It's in the driver's field of vision every time they drive. They don't forget. They just don't pay attention. Pay attention. Do what needs to be done. You avoid the ticket and the ridiculous fine. Problem solved.

    Easy now your putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said not to enforce any law. You verge on making a straw man argument. I have no problem with the law being enforced, I have no problem with the police who do there job and show and work their assignment, my problem is with Jurisdictions using grant money to pay LSP OT to stand on an on-ramp and generate revenue for that parish or town.

    Honestly I never have been ticketed for expired MVI the only reason I know the price is I got a moving violation bumped down once. But I could have been ticketed many times, call it forgetful or not paying attention but I guarantee that expired MVI never made me or my truck less safe my truck still has an expired MVI on it because as I mentioned before I moved back to Mississippi where I don’t have to get an MVI. Is my truck less safe? Is the whole state of Mississippi less safe? It’s a bull$hit law that does nothing to prevent dirtbags from driving around in beat up hoopties without insurance and wrecking into the rest of us. But the rest of us still have to get a sticker and prove we are responsible even though we do that once with a license, and again with our plates, and again with our insurance cards.

    Im not saying don’t enforce if I got pulled over and it was expired it would have been what it was. I don’t think enforcement of the MVI provides enough measurable value (public safety) to warrant two Troopers hanging out in an on-ramp all day soaking up the OT.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I wish it were made up. It makes for a really long shift.
    SMH

    Im not bothered by a good cop doing his job, I know you’ve got a boss just like I do and sometimes they tell me to do dumb $h!t too. And just like me you probably have a limit where you say nope ain’t gonna do it. Mine wouldn’t be foot patrol in an on-ramp looking expired mvi either. I’d show up and get the OT, or drive around all day with my lights on. My problem is the jerk-wad who say hey here’s an idea and follows it with that kind of stuff.
     
    Last edited:

    ozarkpugs

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 7, 2018
    454
    18
    US Zanoni mo
    I don't ride anymore but spent the first 40 years riding dirt and Street bikes and never had to be told to wear a helmet ,I never had to be told to wear a seatbelt either ,I would not have a problem with others not wanting belt or helmets if it were not for the fact their sever injuries that could have been lessened Jack my insurance rates up . I do have to be reminded to get new tags or vehicle inspection though and just hearing Leo are out checking them makes me and hundreds more procrastinators stop and check the expiration date . Of course if you haven't heard they are checking and get a ticket that sucks but it does have a purpose other than writing tickets . I also wonder how many times they happen upon a drunk driver or drugs are discovered while discussing the expired sticker .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    Easy now your putting words in my mouth. I’ve never said not to enforce any law. You verge on making a straw man argument. I have no problem with the law being enforced, I have no problem with the police who do there job and show and work their assignment, my problem is with Jurisdictions using grant money to pay LSP OT to stand on an on-ramp and generate revenue for that parish or town.

    Honestly I never have been ticketed for expired MVI the only reason I know the price is I got a moving violation bumped down once. But I could have been ticketed many times, call it forgetful or not paying attention but I guarantee that expired MVI never made me or my truck less safe my truck still has an expired MVI on it because as I mentioned before I moved back to Mississippi where I don’t have to get an MVI. Is my truck less safe? Is the whole state of Mississippi less safe? It’s a bull$hit law that does nothing to prevent dirtbags from driving around in beat up hoopties without insurance and wrecking into the rest of us. But the rest of us still have to get a sticker and prove we are responsible even though we do that once with a license, and again with our plates, and again with our insurance cards.

    The function of the MVI law is not about responsibility. It's about maintaining proper equipment. That function is not duplicated with a license, license plate, or insurance. It's not the fact of having the tag that makes your truck safe or unsafe. The tag is an indicator to the cops that a qualified inspector has looked at the vehicle and judged it to be safe. Should that function be added to the cops' duties or should there be no laws regarding safe vehicles? And none of that changes the fact that a responsible driver with maintained equipment can easily prevent themselves from getting an expired MVI ticket.

    Im not saying don’t enforce if I got pulled over and it was expired it would have been what it was. I don’t think enforcement of the MVI provides enough measurable value (public safety) to warrant two Troopers hanging out in an on-ramp all day soaking up the OT.

    If a cop were driving around on patrol and saw a vehicle with an expired MVI, should he execute a traffic stop or should he ignore it if the expired MVI is the sole basis for the stop?
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    SMH

    Im not bothered by a good cop doing his job, I know you’ve got a boss just like I do and sometimes they tell me to do dumb $h!t too. And just like me you probably have a limit where you say nope ain’t gonna do it. Mine wouldn’t be foot patrol in an on-ramp looking expired mvi either. I’d show up and get the OT, or drive around all day with my lights on. My problem is the jerk-wad who say hey here’s an idea and follows it with that kind of stuff.

    That task was usually reserved for the evenings of major events (mardi gras, superbowl, stuff like that) when there was a large amount of foot traffic in the area and it's along a 13 block stretch that has its share of crime due to the dimly lit areas and the inebriation level of the tourists. It's a presence patrol.
     

    Bangswitch

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Jan 10, 2019
    2,221
    38
    a location near you
    I don't ride anymore but spent the first 40 years riding dirt and Street bikes and never had to be told to wear a helmet ,I never had to be told to wear a seatbelt either ,I would not have a problem with others not wanting belt or helmets if it were not for the fact their sever injuries that could have been lessened Jack my insurance rates up . I do have to be reminded to get new tags or vehicle inspection though and just hearing Leo are out checking them makes me and hundreds more procrastinators stop and check the expiration date . Of course if you haven't heard they are checking and get a ticket that sucks but it does have a purpose other than writing tickets . I also wonder how many times they happen upon a drunk driver or drugs are discovered while discussing the expired sticker .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
    The random druggy or drunk that gets rolled up is the reason I’ve tried to make sure I say almost no value to public safety. But these patrols use to be done middle of the work day.
     

    thperez1972

    ESSAYONS
    Staff member
    Gold Member
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Dec 28, 2015
    5,712
    113
    Baton Rouge, LA
    I don't ride anymore but spent the first 40 years riding dirt and Street bikes and never had to be told to wear a helmet ,I never had to be told to wear a seatbelt either ,I would not have a problem with others not wanting belt or helmets if it were not for the fact their sever injuries that could have been lessened Jack my insurance rates up . I do have to be reminded to get new tags or vehicle inspection though and just hearing Leo are out checking them makes me and hundreds more procrastinators stop and check the expiration date . Of course if you haven't heard they are checking and get a ticket that sucks but it does have a purpose other than writing tickets . I also wonder how many times they happen upon a drunk driver or drugs are discovered while discussing the expired sticker .

    Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

    Or someone with a warrant. But those are secondary to our primary mission. We gotta get paid.
     
    Top Bottom