| AdamP |
I was coming down from Whyte Ave. on Calgary Trail Southbound. I was driving leisurely with the flow of the traffic the whole way (my speedometer is broken so I was basically just lingering along with the traffic).
I stuck to Calgary Trail southbound until I am close to the 23ave intersection where I speed up to merge into the right lane.
<Lights flashing behind me>...
I wasn't speeding so at this point I'm thinking maybe he didn't like the way I merged in. Nope. That's not the case...
The cop comes to my door pissed as hell and he goes you are getting pulled over for speeding. He's like "I saw you doing 130 on the Whitemud"... when I wasn't on the Whitemud at all this whole time. I told him that respectfully that I wasn't and he goes, "Well it was a vehicle like yours". I tell him respectfully again that I was coming from Whyte Ave. After a few minutes of questioning of where I was and what I was doing he let me off.
I'm just curious on what are the rules for something like this. What what criteria does the cop have to meet to give you a ticket (getting a plate, keeping you in sight, time before pulling you over). It would seem that even if I were on the Whitemud then pulling me over on 23rd is a good distance away.
I was a close call here and he let me off (because I wasn't even on the Whitemud) but it could have gone the other way and he could have just as easily given me a ticket wrongly.
Hypothetically, what could have happened if he didn't let me off. :dunno: |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
| they basically have to keep continuity(sight) of your vehicle......if they lose sight of you they can not for certain make sure it was you or your car that they first observed (even if they say so). |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
they basically have to keep continuity(sight) of your vehicle......if they lose sight of you they can not for certain make sure it was you or your car that they first observed (even if they say so).
Not true at all. Nowhere is that written in any law. A security guard needs continuity to prove shoplifting, but an officer need only be "reasonably certain" it was you. Afterall, most of the stuff an officer does is based on "reasonable certainty". Most officers will use better judgement in a case like this. However, if I saw a car zip by me, catch the last 3 of the plate and note a male, caucasian driver with a red t-shirt, sunglasses and a blue hat, and catch up to a car of the same model and colour matching the last 3 on the plate driven by a male, caucasian driver with a red t-shirt, sunglasses and a blue hat, I'd have no problem issuing the ticket and going to court.
Positive ID is the key, not continuity. In the absence of positive ID, continuity would be required. In this case, the officer obviously realized he had neither. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
Not true at all. Nowhere is that written in any law. A security guard needs continuity to prove shoplifting, but an officer need only be "reasonably certain" it was you. Afterall, most of the stuff an officer does is based on "reasonable certainty". Most officers will use better judgement in a case like this. However, if I saw a car zip by me, catch the last 3 of the plate and note a male, caucasian driver with a red t-shirt, sunglasses and a blue hat, and catch up to a car of the same model and colour matching the last 3 on the plate driven by a male, caucasian driver with a red t-shirt, sunglasses and a blue hat, I'd have no problem issuing the ticket and going to court.
Positive ID is the key, not continuity. In the absence of positive ID, continuity would be required. In this case, the officer obviously realized he had neither.
yeah because the guys ALWAYS rips right by a marked police unit......99% of the time it's as some guy is moving in the opposite direction, turning, etc etc. Then how are you going to get your "positive ID"? |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
yeah because the guys ALWAYS rips right by a marked police unit......99% of the time it's as some guy is moving in the opposite direction, turning, etc etc. Then how are you going to get your "positive ID"?
How do you think cops nail guys for not wearing a seatbelt? You do the job for a bit and you develop the ability to pick things up with a glance. In fact, it's part of the selection criteria for most police departments. Opposite direction gives you a great view of the driver. Try it sometime. It's not very hard at all. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
Originally posted by dtjohnst
How do you think cops nail guys for not wearing a seatbelt?
pull up beside them, see them going the other direction, etc....more people have no idea when a marked police unit pulls up next to them.
quote:
You do the job for a bit and you develop the ability to pick things up with a glance.
and you know this how?
quote:
In fact, it's part of the selection criteria for most police departments.
funniest shit I have read all day.....I know for a FACT that that is BS.
quote:
Opposite direction gives you a great view of the driver. Try it sometime. It's not very hard at all.
wow....thanks for the tip.:rolleyes: |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
pull up beside them, see them going the other direction, etc....more people have no idea when a marked police unit pulls up next to them.
quote:
yeah because the guys ALWAYS rips right by a marked police unit
Which is it, guys notice and don't break laws when cops are around, or guys don't notice?
quote:
and you know this how?
7 years doing the job.
quote:
funniest shit I have read all day.....I know for a FACT that that is BS.
Oh yeah? When you do that test where you look at a picture for 30 seconds then answer a bunch of questions on it, what exactly are they testing for if not your ability to pick up details with cursory glances?
quote:
wow....thanks for the tip.:rolleyes:
Anytime. If you think it's hard to ID people when they're oncoming, you obviously need it. |
|
|
| MightyMidget |
quote:
7 years doing the job.
the job was what?
quote:
Oh yeah? When you do that test where you look at a picture for 30 seconds then answer a bunch of questions on it, what exactly are they testing for if not your ability to pick up details with cursory glances?
ummm that's call memory!
quote:
Anytime. If you think it's hard to ID people when they're oncoming, you obviously need it
I don't have trouble with that....and I have done it. |
|
|
| dtjohnst |
quote:
Originally posted by MightyMidget
the job was what?
What I did in LE is common knowledge. What's your claim to fame?
quote:
ummm that's call memory!
You can test memory by asking about specific events, and there's no need to limit exposure to the photo. Some people have amazing memory and bomb the test because they can't pick out the details. It's a test of observation.
quote:
I don't have trouble with that....and I have done it.
Exactly, you don't have trouble with it. So why would you assume cops are unable to ID people who drive by? |
|
|
| joker |
Both of you can take your pissing matches else where.
Enough is enough |
|
|
|
