Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Anything else?
Mouse traps, bear traps, etc.
Seriously, Sparta, NJ is known to bust balls over burned out tail lights and other dumb crap like that.
I've seen seat belt enforcement checkpoints in both Durham, NC, and Washington, DC, over the years. The one in Durham was usually set up near Duke's East Campus and messed up the traffic big-time. We don't have those sorts of checkpoints in Virginia because the seat belt law here is secondary enforcement.
I used to see the Fairfax County police running checkpoints for the county sticker, but since we no longer have those in Fairfax they stopped. (For those unfamiliar, in Virginia you pay personal property tax on your car, and for many years every city or county except the City of Virginia Beach also required you to pay a separate fee for a windshield sticker proving you paid the car tax. Nowadays some counties and cities still require those stupid things, but others don't; in Fairfax, we have to pay the fee but it's now a "county registration fee" and you no longer have to display a sticker.)
I suppose DUI checkpoints or sting operations where officers wait outside taverns would be an example.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Are you saying that the police actually hide behind a shrub or something to catch a glimpse of inspection stickers on passing cars? It doesn't seem that hiding would be necessary.
One autumn back in the '70s, an uncle of mine realized his inspection sticker was expired and tried to hide it under a freshly fallen leaf. A pathetic attempt, surely, but it must have been common enough because a PA State Trooper pulled him over almost immediately and ripped the leaf off.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 21, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
I used to see the Fairfax County police running checkpoints for the county sticker, but since we no longer have those in Fairfax they stopped.
Arlington County, which still requires the sticker, has its cops look for expired Arlington stickers, or no stickers on vehicles regularly parked in the county, right around this time of the year after the old stickers' November 15 expiration date. I think it's usually cops on foot looking at parked cars, but occasionally I see checkpoints where it's obvious the cops are looking at windshield stickers.
I recall, when Fairfax County dropped its sticker requirement, some busybodies who really needed to get a life complained that they would no longer be able to rat on their non-complying neighbors. I'm sure some such people still exist in other Virginia counties.
Virginia also requires current safety inspection stickers, with about one sticker in twelve expiring at the end of each month. (Emissions inspections are also required in some counties, but that's enforced through the vehicle registration process.) But the one time I let that slip (out of state the month of expiration, and didn't immediately realize when I got home that I had an expired sticker), I was able to get a new sticker without getting busted on my way to the shop.
When Fairfax dropped the county sticker I kept mine on the car for a couple of years because Arlington and Alexandria didn't abolish theirs and I didn't want to risk a ticket from an overzealous meter maid. I eventually removed the stickers because of the risk of getting a ticket in DC for having an expired sticker (they've been known to do that even to non-DC-registered vehicles).
Inspection traps? You sure this isn't a bored cop running radar that sees the wrong color sticker and tries his luck?
Cops everywhere go after burned-out lights, particularly in small towns. Hardly unique to Sparta. The logic is, I guess, that the averages ate better on finding other offenses among people indifferent to the problems with their car.
I got stopped at a seat belt checkpoint (not really a "trap," which implies hiding, etc.) for speeding. Because the checkpoint was paid for by a grant for seat belt enforcement, said the cop, they weren't ticketing for other offenses, and he let me go. Too bad I didn't go for a bigger offense.
New Rome used to give tickets for having a dirty license plate (among all sorts of other bullshit). Doubt anybody misses that little shithole.
http://www.caranddriver.com/features/town-without-pity
SD Highway Patrol can legally give tickets for something hanging from your mirror.
This is why I don't have fuzzy dice in my car.
How about a parking ticket trap? There's a legend about Boston that after a snowstorm when everyone has parked up against the snow banks, they'll sometimes bring in a small plow, clear the snow from between the vehicles and the curb, and then ticket everyone for being too far from the curb.
Then you have here in NYC, where traffic cops routinely issue tickets for things that aren't illegal, such as parking in front of a pedestrian ramp that isn't in a crosswalk. Of the fellow New Yorkers I've talked with about this, almost none realize that these spots are legal, so either the police are equally ignorant of the law, or else they are counting on the citizens' ignorance to blindly pay tickets for offenses of which they're not guilty, in which case it's a different sort of trap.
(Of course, that would be a pretty lousy strategy, since because everyone thinks those spots are illegal, nobody parks there, so nobody gets the tickets except those few of us who know better!)
Small towns are notorious for bored cops finding any little reason to pull anyone that comes through over.
Can you blame them though? It has to be boring to work the small town beat, especially at night.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Anything else?
Just curious, if the police are "hidden" from approaching traffic, then how do they see the annual registration sticker, which is only on the BACK plate of the car in Massachusetts? An invalid inspection sticker (which is on the lower right corner of the windshield in Massachusetts) does seem more plausible, but only for cars with stickers that aren't the current year's color.
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Towns that enforce laws?"
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2014, 07:20:51 PM
Shouldn't this thread be titled "Towns that enforce laws?"
Bingo!
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 21, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
SD Highway Patrol can legally give tickets for something hanging from your mirror.
This is why I don't have fuzzy dice in my car.
Obstruction of view. In most states, the only thing legally permitted on a windshield are inspection stickers and the rear view mirror. Technically, EZ Pass tags, GPS suction mounts, oil life stickers and stuff hanging from the rear view mirror are all illegal.
Don't know about other states, but in Massachusetts anything obstructing the rear window is only illegal if the vehicle doesn't have a right side mirror. As for EZ-Pass transponders, the common placement I've seen is behind the rear view mirror, which doesn't constitute an obstructed view - especially with the current generation transponders.
Quote from: roadman on November 21, 2014, 07:31:31 PM
As for EZ-Pass transponders, the common placement I've seen is behind the rear view mirror, which doesn't constitute an obstructed view - especially with the current generation transponders.
That's the correct placement. People will stick them everywhere though. I've seen them literally stuck directly on the windshield in front of the driver's face.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 21, 2014, 07:24:51 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 21, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
SD Highway Patrol can legally give tickets for something hanging from your mirror.
This is why I don't have fuzzy dice in my car.
Obstruction of view. In most states, the only thing legally permitted on a windshield are inspection stickers and the rear view mirror. Technically, EZ Pass tags, GPS suction mounts, oil life stickers and stuff hanging from the rear view mirror are all illegal.
They use it here to target out-of-staters. If you have an in-state license plate, I think you can get away with a lot of the ticky-tack violations. I think.
Being a trucker going into an Ohio rest area is a trap. DOT always doing inspections there.
Red light cameras. Although I've never seen any.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 21, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
SD Highway Patrol can legally give tickets for something hanging from your mirror.
If I were to drive into South Dakota I'd be driving into troubles! Luckily I can't reach SD (and anywhere in the US) by car yet. At least until a link across Bering Strait gets built (Unlikely in our lifetimes). BTW, I have an orienteeing control hanging from my car's mirror.
Quote from: briantroutman on November 21, 2014, 04:33:33 PM
I suppose DUI checkpoints or sting operations where officers wait outside taverns would be an example.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Are you saying that the police actually hide behind a shrub or something to catch a glimpse of inspection stickers on passing cars? It doesn't seem that hiding would be necessary.
One autumn back in the '70s, an uncle of mine realized his inspection sticker was expired and tried to hide it under a freshly fallen leaf. A pathetic attempt, surely, but it must have been common enough because a PA State Trooper pulled him over almost immediately and ripped the leaf off.
Haha, they do traps in Delta, PA for inspection stickers because a lot of people live there now as an exurb of Harford County, MD (and by extension, Baltimore). I had a friend who went five years on an expired sticker. His logic was why bother updating it when he only drives 1/2 mile in PA per day.
iPhone
Quote from: Laura on November 25, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 21, 2014, 04:33:33 PM
I suppose DUI checkpoints or sting operations where officers wait outside taverns would be an example.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Are you saying that the police actually hide behind a shrub or something to catch a glimpse of inspection stickers on passing cars? It doesn't seem that hiding would be necessary.
One autumn back in the '70s, an uncle of mine realized his inspection sticker was expired and tried to hide it under a freshly fallen leaf. A pathetic attempt, surely, but it must have been common enough because a PA State Trooper pulled him over almost immediately and ripped the leaf off.
Haha, they do traps in Delta, PA for inspection stickers because a lot of people live there now as an exurb of Harford County, MD (and by extension, Baltimore). I had a friend who went five years on an expired sticker. His logic was why bother updating it when he only drives 1/2 mile in PA per day.
iPhone
The problem with this, at least here, is that if it's recently expired and you get the inspection done, you're likely to get the ticket overturned, but if it's been months or years it's clearly no longer "an honest mistake." Then it becomes a moving violation on your record for six years.
In Wichita the police occasionally run enforcement blitzes on turning-related violations, such as:
* Turning without signalling
* Failing to turn left to left or right to right (the most common variations of this violation are turning right into the left lane, or left into the right lane)--this is not a violation in Texas and some other states, but in Kansas and most other UVC direct adopters it is
On this forum, we have had reports from people who have been pulled over for signalling but failing to do so with the required lead distance (100 ft on low-speed roads and 300 ft on high-speed roads), apparently as a pretext for drug searches.
California seems not to care too much about expired stickers. I see plenty of expired 14s and 13s, and the occasional 12.
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 25, 2014, 02:19:22 PM
In Wichita the police occasionally run enforcement blitzes on turning-related violations, such as:
* Turning without signalling
* Failing to turn left to left or right to right (the most common variations of this violation are turning right into the left lane, or left into the right lane)--this is not a violation in Texas and some other states, but in Kansas and most other UVC direct adopters it is
On this forum, we have had reports from people who have been pulled over for signalling but failing to do so with the required lead distance (100 ft on low-speed roads and 300 ft on high-speed roads), apparently as a pretext for drug searches.
Robot tuning. oh boy...
I once got a ticket for running a red light in a rental car in Miami Springs, FL. It was an obvious trap situation, from the way the officers were stationed on foot just past an intersection, the number of vehicles being cited at a single time, and contemporaneous press reports about the city's intent to install red light cameras (which they since have). Gotta show a pattern of violations if you want public support for that!
(I had the ticket fought by one of those billboard ticket-handling outfits, which is now currently pursuing a class-action lawsuit against red-light camera installations in that same area...)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 25, 2014, 01:04:37 PM
Quote from: Laura on November 25, 2014, 09:52:06 AM
Quote from: briantroutman on November 21, 2014, 04:33:33 PM
I suppose DUI checkpoints or sting operations where officers wait outside taverns would be an example.
Quote from: 1 on November 21, 2014, 02:24:17 PM
Andover MA: Expired registration/inspection stickers. (The police do hide, like speed traps.)
Are you saying that the police actually hide behind a shrub or something to catch a glimpse of inspection stickers on passing cars? It doesn't seem that hiding would be necessary.
One autumn back in the '70s, an uncle of mine realized his inspection sticker was expired and tried to hide it under a freshly fallen leaf. A pathetic attempt, surely, but it must have been common enough because a PA State Trooper pulled him over almost immediately and ripped the leaf off.
Haha, they do traps in Delta, PA for inspection stickers because a lot of people live there now as an exurb of Harford County, MD (and by extension, Baltimore). I had a friend who went five years on an expired sticker. His logic was why bother updating it when he only drives 1/2 mile in PA per day.
iPhone
The problem with this, at least here, is that if it's recently expired and you get the inspection done, you're likely to get the ticket overturned, but if it's been months or years it's clearly no longer "an honest mistake." Then it becomes a moving violation on your record for six years.
It started as an honest mistake...and then my friend decided to see how long it would actually take to get caught. Even the cop was partially amazed that his sticker was that old, but it's not hard to do when your distance over the state line is shorter than some peoples' driveways outside of town.
iPhone
Quote from: J N Winkler on November 25, 2014, 02:19:22 PM
In Wichita the police occasionally run enforcement blitzes on turning-related violations, such as:
* Turning without signalling
* Failing to turn left to left or right to right (the most common variations of this violation are turning right into the left lane, or left into the right lane)--this is not a violation in Texas and some other states, but in Kansas and most other UVC direct adopters it is
On this forum, we have had reports from people who have been pulled over for signalling but failing to do so with the required lead distance (100 ft on low-speed roads and 300 ft on high-speed roads), apparently as a pretext for drug searches.
Same here. About once or twice a month, a cop sits outside my neighborhood entrance and busts people for failing to stop or signal.
I hear stories about the South Brunswick, NJ police busting people who are getting into a jughandle lane too early by cutting into the shoulder. I believe it's this specific one on US 1 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.429893,-74.518075&spn=0.004067,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.429993,-74.517954&panoid=vWhPKgGYgToyBAK6N6jwXg&cbp=12,60.93,,0,8.13) where the tickets are usually issued but it might include other ones along the road.
Right here in Papillion, NE, I've been pulled over twice for making a right turn and immediately going into the left lane. Then again, it's happened both times after midnight (and both times after I was done with work for the day), so I assume they probably thought I was a drunk driver. I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
Revenue hunters...
If a driver isn't endangering other traffic (peds, vehicles, etc) its simply revenue hunting.
Quote from: DandyDan on November 26, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
The minor traffic violation is what gives the police probable cause to execute a traffic stop. They are hoping it will turn into a DWI charge.
Quote from: empirestate on November 25, 2014, 05:25:12 PM
I once got a ticket for running a red light in a rental car in Miami Springs, FL. It was an obvious trap situation, from the way the officers were stationed on foot just past an intersection, the number of vehicles being cited at a single time, and contemporaneous press reports about the city's intent to install red light cameras (which they since have). Gotta show a pattern of violations if you want public support for that!
(I had the ticket fought by one of those billboard ticket-handling outfits, which is now currently pursuing a class-action lawsuit against red-light camera installations in that same area...)
did you actually run the red? or was it a defensible yellow?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 26, 2014, 05:32:44 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 25, 2014, 05:25:12 PM
I once got a ticket for running a red light in a rental car in Miami Springs, FL. It was an obvious trap situation, from the way the officers were stationed on foot just past an intersection, the number of vehicles being cited at a single time, and contemporaneous press reports about the city's intent to install red light cameras (which they since have). Gotta show a pattern of violations if you want public support for that!
(I had the ticket fought by one of those billboard ticket-handling outfits, which is now currently pursuing a class-action lawsuit against red-light camera installations in that same area...)
did you actually run the red? or was it a defensible yellow?
No. It was a close call, but I saw the yellow light pass over the top of my windshield. Even if I had, the cop could not have known that, because he was on the far side of the intersection looking upstream and could not see the signal indication I was facing, nor could he have clearly seen my position within the intersection because there was another car between him and me.
But of course the ticket was dismissed on whatever technicality the firm came up with; they never even asked for any information in my defense. It cost me about $70.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 26, 2014, 12:17:31 PM
I hear stories about the South Brunswick, NJ police busting people who are getting into a jughandle lane too early by cutting into the shoulder. I believe it's this specific one on US 1 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.429893,-74.518075&spn=0.004067,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.429993,-74.517954&panoid=vWhPKgGYgToyBAK6N6jwXg&cbp=12,60.93,,0,8.13) where the tickets are usually issued but it might include other ones along the road.
What would the citation be for? I distinctly remember looking up that it's legal to turn from the shoulder in New Jersey (though certainly not in New York).
Quote from: empirestate on November 26, 2014, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 26, 2014, 12:17:31 PM
I hear stories about the South Brunswick, NJ police busting people who are getting into a jughandle lane too early by cutting into the shoulder. I believe it's this specific one on US 1 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.429893,-74.518075&spn=0.004067,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.429993,-74.517954&panoid=vWhPKgGYgToyBAK6N6jwXg&cbp=12,60.93,,0,8.13) where the tickets are usually issued but it might include other ones along the road.
What would the citation be for? I distinctly remember looking up that it's legal to turn from the shoulder in New Jersey (though certainly not in New York).
They people who were cited were not turning into the businesses (which I think you're referring to) but were getting ready to get into the actual lane that forms as shown in the link. Essentially, they're driving on the shoulder to get around what's likely through traffic in the two travel lanes, but I've seen stories about people who just clip the shoulder line and get nailed.
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 26, 2014, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: empirestate on November 26, 2014, 05:50:06 PM
Quote from: Mr. Matté on November 26, 2014, 12:17:31 PM
I hear stories about the South Brunswick, NJ police busting people who are getting into a jughandle lane too early by cutting into the shoulder. I believe it's this specific one on US 1 (https://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.429893,-74.518075&spn=0.004067,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=40.429993,-74.517954&panoid=vWhPKgGYgToyBAK6N6jwXg&cbp=12,60.93,,0,8.13) where the tickets are usually issued but it might include other ones along the road.
What would the citation be for? I distinctly remember looking up that it's legal to turn from the shoulder in New Jersey (though certainly not in New York).
They people who were cited were not turning into the businesses (which I think you're referring to) but were getting ready to get into the actual lane that forms as shown in the link. Essentially, they're driving on the shoulder to get around what's likely through traffic in the two travel lanes, but I've seen stories about people who just clip the shoulder line and get nailed.
No, I was referring to people driving on the shoulder to get into the jughandle. I mean, I agree, it's a dickhead thing to do, but apparently legal in NJ (wouldn't it be?).
But looking at it now, yes, I suppose while it might be legal to
turn from the shoulder, it might not be legal to exit onto the shoulder, then re-enter a lane of traffic without yielding to traffic already lawfully using that lane. I've certainly gotten into plenty of disagreements with fellow motorists (in various states) about this.
NJ has many freeway-like highways with businesses, so driving into the shoulder en route to exiting into a driveway is not uncommon, and necessary enough that I'd be surprised if it were completely illegal.
Driving on the shoulder to circumvent traffic, however, is a no-no in New Jersey and elsewhere. Every now and then cops will put the lights on and clear out a shoulder, whether or not they are also using it to reach some other police business.
Quote from: signalman on November 26, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on November 26, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
The minor traffic violation is what gives the police probable cause to execute a traffic stop. They are hoping it will turn into a DWI charge.
Yep. Broken tail lights. Headlight out. Registration sticker in wrong place. All reasons to pull over and then find drugs or a DUI
Oh and some more money for the town/city etc
The title of this thread should be "towns that enforce trivial laws at the expense of spending time on serious crimes".
Anyway, when my daughter was in school in NC, the local cops enforced a rule, in and out of state, that the license plate frame could not cover any "relevant material". Meaning you had to be able to fully see the name of the state and the renewal sticker(s).
Quote from: jwolfer on November 29, 2014, 09:19:33 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 26, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on November 26, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
The minor traffic violation is what gives the police probable cause to execute a traffic stop. They are hoping it will turn into a DWI charge.
Yep. Broken tail lights. Headlight out. Registration sticker in wrong place. All reasons to pull over and then find drugs or a DUI
Oh and some more money for the town/city etc
In other words, small towns that are like small towns have always been.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2014, 09:59:08 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 29, 2014, 09:19:33 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 26, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on November 26, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
The minor traffic violation is what gives the police probable cause to execute a traffic stop. They are hoping it will turn into a DWI charge.
Yep. Broken tail lights. Headlight out. Registration sticker in wrong place. All reasons to pull over and then find drugs or a DUI
Oh and some more money for the town/city etc
In other words, small towns that are like small towns have always been.
Essentially, yes. Small town cops will be small town cops. It's a common practice across the country.
Quote from: signalman on November 29, 2014, 10:01:36 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2014, 09:59:08 AM
Quote from: jwolfer on November 29, 2014, 09:19:33 AM
Quote from: signalman on November 26, 2014, 05:24:31 PM
Quote from: DandyDan on November 26, 2014, 04:56:06 PM
I'm not the only one that's happened to, however, because I told the story the one time it happened to the local convenience store manager and he says it happens all the time and it's always after midnight and they are always looking for minor traffic violations late at night, as if nailing someone for drunk driving weren't enough.
The minor traffic violation is what gives the police probable cause to execute a traffic stop. They are hoping it will turn into a DWI charge.
Yep. Broken tail lights. Headlight out. Registration sticker in wrong place. All reasons to pull over and then find drugs or a DUI
Oh and some more money for the town/city etc
In other words, small towns that are like small towns have always been.
Essentially, yes. Small town cops will be small town cops. It's a common practice across the country.
Becoming true in larger municipalities, too.
Revenue! Oh, and look how tough we are on crime! ~
Quote from: Pete from Boston on November 29, 2014, 08:24:23 AM
Driving on the shoulder to circumvent traffic, however, is a no-no in New Jersey and elsewhere. Every now and then cops will put the lights on and clear out a shoulder, whether or not they are also using it to reach some other police business.
The police have set up numerous traps for driving on the shoulder in my area - typically parking in a driveway just before a signal to catch drivers riding the shoulder before it gives way to an actual turning lane. Although I don't like 'traps' of any kind, I can sort of understand in that there are going to be people who will maintain the travel lane until the turn lane (or intersection if the shoulder extends right to the signal), who might get plowed by someone zooming down the shoulder from behind.
Here is a location where the local police have often set up a trap. The shoulder extends almost to the intersection, tapering down just before. The patrol car will sit in one of the two driveways just before the intersection, and nail anyone who pulls into the shoulder in advance of the light to turn right (unless they are turning into the driveways).
https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.145014,-74.059022&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.145014,-74.059278&panoid=09deoHnfDZU5XuF0x-LjTw&cbp=12,28.44,,0,5.23 (https://www.google.com/maps?ll=40.145014,-74.059022&spn=0.000002,0.001635&t=h&z=20&layer=c&cbll=40.145014,-74.059278&panoid=09deoHnfDZU5XuF0x-LjTw&cbp=12,28.44,,0,5.23)
I have also seen similar traps locally for crossing the center line in advance of a left turn lane - either fully crossing into the opposing travel lane or just entering the yellow diagonal crosshatch before the turn lane.
the end and start signs are not at the same place on each side. Some should at least try that in court if they get a ticket.
Also center left turns some times go right into a trun only lane.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 25, 2014, 02:55:25 PM
California seems not to care too much about expired stickers. I see plenty of expired 14s and 13s, and the occasional 12.
When I bought my current car the previous owner's license plate still had a sticker on it that expired in 2007. Now, Connecticut stopped requiring plate stickers in 2007, so he had never been required to get a new one, but I do find it interesting that no out of state cop ever gave him shit for it.
I guess when cops are looking at registration stickers they are typically looking only at in-state vehicles since they don't know what the regulations in other states are.
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2014, 02:20:04 PM
I guess when cops are looking at registration stickers they are typically looking only at in-state vehicles since they don't know what the regulations in other states are.
Except in the District of Columbia. D.C. parking ticket writers are notorious for checking inspection stickers on vehicles parked on D.C. streets and ticketing those with expired stickers (especially cars from Virginia, since D.C. stopped inspection of most cars, and Maryland has never had an inspection requirement that includes a windshield sticker).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2014, 02:20:04 PM
I guess when cops are looking at registration stickers they are typically looking only at in-state vehicles since they don't know what the regulations in other states are.
Except in the District of Columbia. D.C. parking ticket writers are notorious for checking inspection stickers on vehicles parked on D.C. streets and ticketing those with expired stickers (especially cars from Virginia, since D.C. stopped inspection of most cars, and Maryland has never had an inspection requirement that includes a windshield sticker).
That's interesting. I'd think an expired inspection sticker would be a violation only in the state in which the vehicle is registered. I can't imagine a Kentucky cop writing a ticket for a Virginia driver having an expired inspection sticker if he's cited for speeding.
I must be good at smooth talking because when I was in college I used to always get pulled by small town cops in Vermont and New Hampshire for out headlights, license plate lights or even just for no apparent reason. Every time, I had a nice chit-chat and they sent me on my way. I always figured that my NC plate made me a target anyway so I dealt with it.
I know a guy who is a small town cop in North Carolina. He tells me that it's the most boring job imaginable so I can somewhat understand why small town cops can appear to be dicks.
What is the NJ state statute regarding using the shoulder. As far as I'm aware, shoulder use is prohibited at all times (except for parking).
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2014, 10:42:35 PM
What is the NJ state statute regarding using the shoulder. As far as I'm aware, shoulder use is prohibited at all times (except for parking).
One of my coworkers got nailed for it not too long ago - I'll see if he remembers. Just looking at the point violations chart, I would guess it might be 39:4-85 "Improper passing on right or off roadway", which is a 4 pointer. A quick Google search also finds a couple of attorney sites noting this violation as the "shoulder riding" ticket.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2014, 08:46:46 PM
That's interesting. I'd think an expired inspection sticker would be a violation only in the state in which the vehicle is registered.
You are required to have a current and valid vehicle registration even if you are driving out of state. Now, an expired sticker may not necessarily indicate that the registration is no good (see my above example), but this is DC we're talking about. You might be able to get a ticket overturned in court if you got one but are you gonna travel all the way back to DC from wherever to challenge it? No, and they know that and take full advantage.
Washington DC issues ridiculous numbers of traffic and parking violations because they are partially or entirely denied a lot of the common more over the table means of raising revenue. The federal government is exempt from paying taxes so DC collects no property taxes on all of the federally owned land, which is a huge percentage of the land in DC. And while states can collect income tax on people who work in the state even if they do not live in the state, DC is not allowed to do this. So they ticket the shit out of Maryland and Virginia drivers instead.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 30, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2014, 10:42:35 PM
What is the NJ state statute regarding using the shoulder. As far as I'm aware, shoulder use is prohibited at all times (except for parking).
One of my coworkers got nailed for it not too long ago - I'll see if he remembers. Just looking at the point violations chart, I would guess it might be 39:4-85 "Improper passing on right or off roadway", which is a 4 pointer. A quick Google search also finds a couple of attorney sites noting this violation as the "shoulder riding" ticket.
I knew the one that prohibits passing on the shoulder. I wanted to know the law that *permits* using the shoulder, as empirestate mentioned.
Mt Holly NJ recently put out a trap, had a cop in plains clothes looking up the hill on a main road in and out of town, maybe all 4 of the main routes in and out, with binoculars, radioing in expired stickers. Until recently there was a 2010 expiry sticker near my house. I still occasionally see them.
One thing that has changed since the 2000s, they track the stickers a lot more now, and can run the barcode/serial # to see if it is really an issued one or if it was just stuck to the windshield. It is a lesser fine to have no sticker than it is to have one of those. So any NJ resident that thinks about a lickem and stickem type, be careful, and you cannot plead "i didn't know" since it is your word vs whoever put it on, and if it is a local garage....they probably have a relationship with the police. As the sticker only serves for emissions now (Aug 2010 they changed) it is a revenue generator for small towns to check that sticker. Prior to Aug 2010 it would have been a safety thing, and prior to 1999 it would have also meant your registration was expired (1999-2004 we used plate stickers for reg, now it is a secondary offense. So that sticker checkout can also serve for that nowadays)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 01, 2014, 06:03:25 AM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on November 30, 2014, 11:43:50 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on November 30, 2014, 10:42:35 PM
What is the NJ state statute regarding using the shoulder. As far as I'm aware, shoulder use is prohibited at all times (except for parking).
One of my coworkers got nailed for it not too long ago - I'll see if he remembers. Just looking at the point violations chart, I would guess it might be 39:4-85 "Improper passing on right or off roadway", which is a 4 pointer. A quick Google search also finds a couple of attorney sites noting this violation as the "shoulder riding" ticket.
I knew the one that prohibits passing on the shoulder. I wanted to know the law that *permits* using the shoulder, as empirestate mentioned.
Yes, me too. Having read it myself, I'd be most curious to find it again if anyone can figure out where I got it from!
(I'm starting to remember that it specifically dealt with passing a left-turning vehicle by using the shoulder for a short distance.)
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 09:04:57 AM
(I'm starting to remember that it specifically dealt with passing a left-turning vehicle by using the shoulder for a short distance.)
I'm pretty sure that is technically illegal in NJ. Although almost every driver does this, me included. I've never seen someone get stopped for doing it. I'm quite sure it's something that cops look the other way on in an effort to keep traffic moving.
Quote from: signalman on December 01, 2014, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 09:04:57 AM
(I'm starting to remember that it specifically dealt with passing a left-turning vehicle by using the shoulder for a short distance.)
I'm pretty sure that is technically illegal in NJ. Although almost every driver does this, me included. I've never seen someone get stopped for doing it. I'm quite sure it's something that cops look the other way on in an effort to keep traffic moving.
The text for 39:4-85 does address passing a turning vehicle ("making or about to make a left turn"):
Quote
39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signalling to pass; passing upon right
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2014, 08:46:46 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2014, 02:20:04 PM
I guess when cops are looking at registration stickers they are typically looking only at in-state vehicles since they don't know what the regulations in other states are.
Except in the District of Columbia. D.C. parking ticket writers are notorious for checking inspection stickers on vehicles parked on D.C. streets and ticketing those with expired stickers (especially cars from Virginia, since D.C. stopped inspection of most cars, and Maryland has never had an inspection requirement that includes a windshield sticker).
That's interesting. I'd think an expired inspection sticker would be a violation only in the state in which the vehicle is registered. I can't imagine a Kentucky copy writing a ticket for a Virginia driver having an expired inspection sticker if he's cited for speeding.
I got a ticket for expired inspection out of state many years ago. I promptly forgot about it, and for reasons I can't recall, it came back to haunt me several years later and caused me a day of driving around to clear it up.
Here in Mass., getting a parking ticket for expired inspection is a parking ticket and nothing more. Being pulled over for it, though, is a surchargeable moving violation (one that causes one's insurance to go up for six years).
Quote from: NJ StatutesThe driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
Great: another obsolete provision that needs to be abolished (similar to the "driver's permits" instead of real driver's licenses that NJ issues to deaf drivers). Now I have visions of the police setting up traps to catch drivers who don't use their horns when they overtake.
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 01, 2014, 11:07:53 AM
Quote from: NJ StatutesThe driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
Great: another obsolete provision that needs to be abolished (similar to the "driver's permits" instead of real driver's licenses that NJ issues to deaf drivers). Now I have visions of the police setting up traps to catch drivers who don't use their horns when they overtake.
Actually that provision was recently deleted:
http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/11/let_your_ram_run_free_christie_signs_nj_bill_to_remove_outdated_laws.htmlQuoteTRENTON – About two dozen dusty old laws were wiped from the books today when Gov. Chris Christie signed a bill to remove antiquated and anachronistic statutes.
...
And you won't have to use an "audible warning" when passing a vehicle on the road anymore.
So I guess when I mouthed "shut up" to the car drivers who honked at me while biking, I was technically in the wrong. But the one I did to the guy in Burlington Township yesterday, that was my first legitimate shut up. :)
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
I'm proof that your vehicle registration doesn't even have to be expired for an officer to use it as an excuse for a traffic stop.
A few years ago, I was driving my beat-up van home at 2 AM after working the night shift. I was pulled over and told that my registration was expired. I begged to differ, because I still had two weeks before expiration, according to the sticker on the plate and according to my registration certificate. I showed the officer the certificate, and he mumbled something about the BMV data base showing that my plate was expired, despite the evidence to the contrary. He let me go, of course.
When I related the story to my co-workers the next day, they told me that the officer was probably expecting a cloud of smoke to emerge when I opened the van's window, from my portable meth lab. :crazy:
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
Karen Haigh, of River Edge, said she was issued a $230 ticket for not stopping for the decoy.
"They told me that I was getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck," she told WABC-TV. "But it scared me. I'm a woman. This huge duck scared me."
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/11/donald_duck_pedestrian_decoy_draws_criticism_in_fort_lee_report_says.html
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 10:05:24 AM
Here in Mass., getting a parking ticket for expired inspection is a parking ticket and nothing more. Being pulled over for it, though, is a surchargeable moving violation (one that causes one's insurance to go up for six years).
As I understand it, it's because parking enforcement can only issue tickets for parking violations, and nothing more - even if the other violations are obvious (like an expired inspection or registration sticker). And if you're pulled over and have an expired inspection sticker, it's not only considered a moving violation, but the cops can legally impound and tow your car if they choose to do so.
Yet, in Massachusetts, if you're caught texting while driving, it's only a $100 fine that's NOT a surchargeable violation.
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 01, 2014, 09:52:28 AM
Quote from: signalman on December 01, 2014, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 09:04:57 AM
(I'm starting to remember that it specifically dealt with passing a left-turning vehicle by using the shoulder for a short distance.)
I'm pretty sure that is technically illegal in NJ. Although almost every driver does this, me included. I've never seen someone get stopped for doing it. I'm quite sure it's something that cops look the other way on in an effort to keep traffic moving.
The text for 39:4-85 does address passing a turning vehicle ("making or about to make a left turn"):
Quote
39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signalling to pass; passing upon right
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
Yeah, I found that too. I suppose it's possible I misinterpreted the first italicized passage, but the presence of the second makes me doubtful of that.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
Karen Haigh, of River Edge, said she was issued a $230 ticket for not stopping for the decoy.
"They told me that I was getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck," she told WABC-TV. "But it scared me. I'm a woman. This huge duck scared me."
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/11/donald_duck_pedestrian_decoy_draws_criticism_in_fort_lee_report_says.html
Something similar happened to an acquaintance of mine several years ago here in Maryland. There was a police officer who was standing in the middle of the road waving people over. She thought he was a hitchhiker, swerved into the other lane to avoid him, and sped up away from him. Naturally, he followed her and pulled her over. She was so terrified and shook up that the cop just let her go. She was about 18 at the time and it was her first time being pulled over.
I personally hate when they stand in the road like that. I almost hit one when I was 16 because he stepped out into the road in front of me to wave me over. WTF. I could have killed him.
Thankfully I haven't seen this kind of enforcement in MD since I was a teenager, and it needs to stay that way. I'm not so much scared that they're some sort of rapist, but more so that I'm going to plow them down for acting like an idiot pedestrian.
iPhone
I agree, I don't like anyone standing in the lane of traffic, but in most of the pedestrian enforcement scenarios here the streets have low de facto or de jure speed limits, and there is usually something like a parking lane.
Quote from: Laura on December 02, 2014, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
Karen Haigh, of River Edge, said she was issued a $230 ticket for not stopping for the decoy.
"They told me that I was getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck," she told WABC-TV. "But it scared me. I'm a woman. This huge duck scared me.”
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/11/donald_duck_pedestrian_decoy_draws_criticism_in_fort_lee_report_says.html
Something similar happened to an acquaintance of mine several years ago here in Maryland. There was a police officer who was standing in the middle of the road waving people over. She thought he was a hitchhiker, swerved into the other lane to avoid him, and sped up away from him. Naturally, he followed her and pulled her over. She was so terrified and shook up that the cop just let her go. She was about 18 at the time and it was her first time being pulled over.
I personally hate when they stand in the road like that. I almost hit one when I was 16 because he stepped out into the road in front of me to wave me over. WTF. I could have killed him.
Thankfully I haven't seen this kind of enforcement in MD since I was a teenager, and it needs to stay that way. I'm not so much scared that they're some sort of rapist, but more so that I'm going to plow them down for acting like an idiot pedestrian.
iPhone
I remember driving down I-95 in Maryland. A cop would be on the shoulder of the highway, see a speeder, and step out into the middle of I-95 to point the driver over to the shoulder! Honestly...stepping out into a highway of people going 70, 80 mph?
I haven't seen that occur for many years either. Thankfully.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 08:32:49 AM
I remember driving down I-95 in Maryland. A cop would be on the shoulder of the highway, see a speeder, and step out into the middle of I-95 to point the driver over to the shoulder! Honestly...stepping out into a highway of people going 70, 80 mph?
I haven't seen that occur for many years either. Thankfully.
About 20 years ago I got nailed in Delaware on US 13 by this type of setup. They had one unmarked car running Lidar in a driveway well off the road, and then two patrol cars on the shoulder beyond with the troopers standing in the right lane waving people over. I had never encountered anything like this. They must have waved at least 5 cars over at once and I sat at the head of the pack on the shoulder as the troopers hopped in their cars and drove up. I had a friend following me closely in his car and he pulled over behind me not realizing that I had been waved over. I got the speeding ticket (70 in a 55 I think), and he ended up getting a tailgating ticket. Haven't seen this type of thing since...
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 02, 2014, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 08:32:49 AM
I remember driving down I-95 in Maryland. A cop would be on the shoulder of the highway, see a speeder, and step out into the middle of I-95 to point the driver over to the shoulder! Honestly...stepping out into a highway of people going 70, 80 mph?
I haven't seen that occur for many years either. Thankfully.
About 20 years ago I got nailed in Delaware on US 13 by this type of setup. They had one unmarked car running Lidar in a driveway well off the road, and then two patrol cars on the shoulder beyond with the troopers standing in the right lane waving people over. I had never encountered anything like this. They must have waved at least 5 cars over at once and I sat at the head of the pack on the shoulder as the troopers hopped in their cars and drove up. I had a friend following me closely in his car and he pulled over behind me not realizing that I had been waved over. I got the speeding ticket (70 in a 55 I think), and he ended up getting a tailgating ticket. Haven't seen this type of thing since...
That's what the guy was doing in my red light trap scenario. It struck me as pretty far over on the "good idea/bad idea" scale.
Quote from: Laura on December 02, 2014, 07:31:42 AMI personally hate when they stand in the road like that. I almost hit one when I was 16 because he stepped out into the road in front of me to wave me over. WTF. I could have killed him.
Thankfully I haven't seen this kind of enforcement in MD since I was a teenager, and it needs to stay that way. I'm not so much scared that they're some sort of rapist, but more so that I'm going to plow them down for acting like an idiot pedestrian.
This is one of the reasons I have difficulty with move-over laws. Laws in general should be designed to promote public safety, not to furnish cover for police misconduct. I consider it misconduct when a police officer parks his cruiser right on the shoulder stripe, much less stands in the traveled way otherwise than to direct traffic moving at low speed.
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 01, 2014, 09:52:28 AM
Quote from: signalman on December 01, 2014, 09:28:17 AM
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 09:04:57 AM
(I'm starting to remember that it specifically dealt with passing a left-turning vehicle by using the shoulder for a short distance.)
I'm pretty sure that is technically illegal in NJ. Although almost every driver does this, me included. I've never seen someone get stopped for doing it. I'm quite sure it's something that cops look the other way on in an effort to keep traffic moving.
The text for 39:4-85 does address passing a turning vehicle ("making or about to make a left turn"):
Quote
39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signalling to pass; passing upon right
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
Yeah, I found that too. I suppose it's possible I misinterpreted the first italicized passage, but the presence of the second makes me doubtful of that.
The 'main-traveled portion of the roadway' are the travel lanes. The shoulder isn't considered the main-traveled portion, thus it is illegal.
Many people think that you can only pass on the left, such as on a highway. That statute is what permits passing in any lane.
So, when is passing to the right for a left turning vehicle permitted? When A) There's 2 or more lanes and the person turning is in the left lane, B) When there's a single lane but the person turning has moved far enough to the left so that you don't have to leave the marked lane, or C) When there's no shoulder line, thus making the width of the pavement a single travel lane.
FWIW, most people won't be stopped for using the shoulder to pass another vehicle. In fact, NJDOT will design T intersections with a wider shoulder in order for people to pass left turning vehicles, even though it's technically illegal. They should really be requiring left turn channels, but even in this day/age, they sometimes forgo that.
You get an added level of ambiguity if you're on a bike, where you can legally ride on the shoulder.
Quote from: oscar on November 21, 2014, 05:03:22 PM
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 21, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
I used to see the Fairfax County police running checkpoints for the county sticker, but since we no longer have those in Fairfax they stopped.
Arlington County, which still requires the sticker, has its cops look for expired Arlington stickers, or no stickers on vehicles regularly parked in the county, right around this time of the year after the old stickers' November 15 expiration date. I think it's usually cops on foot looking at parked cars, but occasionally I see checkpoints where it's obvious the cops are looking at windshield stickers.
I recall, when Fairfax County dropped its sticker requirement, some busybodies who really needed to get a life complained that they would no longer be able to rat on their non-complying neighbors. I'm sure some such people still exist in other Virginia counties.
Virginia also requires current safety inspection stickers, with about one sticker in twelve expiring at the end of each month. (Emissions inspections are also required in some counties, but that's enforced through the vehicle registration process.) But the one time I let that slip (out of state the month of expiration, and didn't immediately realize when I got home that I had an expired sticker), I was able to get a new sticker without getting busted on my way to the shop.
Why would they worry about "no stickers on vehicles regularly parked in the county"? It could very well be that the "offending" vehicle owner is legally domiciled in another jurisdiction and has reason to frequently park in Arlington, such as for work, for park-and-ride purposes (there are some unrestricted parking spots reasonably close to Metro in some places), or for visiting a significant other. DC does "ROSA" enforcement which is obnoxious...if they see your out-of state vehicle parked regularly overnight for more than a 30 day period, you get a warning that you either need to get DC license plates or go through the exemption process showing proof of residency outside of DC and providing a reason for being in DC overnight frequently (i.e. my girlfriend lives there). To me that seems rather heavy handed, bureaucratic, and unnecessary.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on November 30, 2014, 12:46:05 PM
Quote from: Duke87 on November 29, 2014, 02:20:04 PM
I guess when cops are looking at registration stickers they are typically looking only at in-state vehicles since they don't know what the regulations in other states are.
Except in the District of Columbia. D.C. parking ticket writers are notorious for checking inspection stickers on vehicles parked on D.C. streets and ticketing those with expired stickers (especially cars from Virginia, since D.C. stopped inspection of most cars, and Maryland has never had an inspection requirement that includes a windshield sticker).
In DC, they migrated from license plate stickers to window stickers (IMO, the way it should be done in all jurisdictions so they don't get stolen). So the year they made the change, people were getting tickets because they had expired stickers on their plate (in the past, the new sticker covered the expiring sticker). So they ended up issuing plate stickers that said "SEE WINDOW STICKER".
Quote from: Duke87 on December 01, 2014, 01:04:58 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on November 30, 2014, 08:46:46 PM
That's interesting. I'd think an expired inspection sticker would be a violation only in the state in which the vehicle is registered.
You are required to have a current and valid vehicle registration even if you are driving out of state. Now, an expired sticker may not necessarily indicate that the registration is no good (see my above example), but this is DC we're talking about. You might be able to get a ticket overturned in court if you got one but are you gonna travel all the way back to DC from wherever to challenge it? No, and they know that and take full advantage.
Washington DC issues ridiculous numbers of traffic and parking violations because they are partially or entirely denied a lot of the common more over the table means of raising revenue. The federal government is exempt from paying taxes so DC collects no property taxes on all of the federally owned land, which is a huge percentage of the land in DC. And while states can collect income tax on people who work in the state even if they do not live in the state, DC is not allowed to do this. So they ticket the shit out of Maryland and Virginia drivers instead.
I kind of think the idea of a "commuter tax" is a bit offputting...just charge a business license tax or something like that, rather than make individual people fill out more paperwork and file returns in places where they don't live. Besides, in DC's case, it gets plenty more back in Federal tax spending than it's residents contribute in Federal taxes, by a huge margin, so that makes up for the lack of ability to collect from Maryland and VA people.
Another advantage of DC's lack of ability to charge taxes to non-residents is that other states cannot charge taxes to DC residents (DC would not be likely to agree to a reciprocal agreement with another state that only involved taxation in one direction, and DC has reciprocal agreements with almost every other state). I know DC residents actually do not have to so much as even file a return in Virginia if they work there (I look it up on the Virginia Department of Taxation website every year just to confirm I don't have to file).
Quote from: Laura on December 02, 2014, 07:31:42 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 04:27:55 PM
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
Karen Haigh, of River Edge, said she was issued a $230 ticket for not stopping for the decoy.
"They told me that I was getting a ticket for not stopping for a duck," she told WABC-TV. "But it scared me. I'm a woman. This huge duck scared me.”
http://www.nj.com/bergen/index.ssf/2014/11/donald_duck_pedestrian_decoy_draws_criticism_in_fort_lee_report_says.html
Something similar happened to an acquaintance of mine several years ago here in Maryland. There was a police officer who was standing in the middle of the road waving people over. She thought he was a hitchhiker, swerved into the other lane to avoid him, and sped up away from him. Naturally, he followed her and pulled her over. She was so terrified and shook up that the cop just let her go. She was about 18 at the time and it was her first time being pulled over.
I personally hate when they stand in the road like that. I almost hit one when I was 16 because he stepped out into the road in front of me to wave me over. WTF. I could have killed him.
Thankfully I haven't seen this kind of enforcement in MD since I was a teenager, and it needs to stay that way. I'm not so much scared that they're some sort of rapist, but more so that I'm going to plow them down for acting like an idiot pedestrian.
iPhone
So he was standing in the middle of the road and chased after her? He must have been able to run really fast...
I got caught in two of those traps about a year apart, for speeding. But the officer was not uniformed. As far as I'm concerned, no badge, no uniform, no pull over.
A different kind of trap, one where the cops come find you:
Technically, it is illegal to bring alcohol into Massachusetts without a special permit. But enforcement is another story. In 1976, Massachusetts sent undercover agents to stake out New Hampshire liquor stores and record license plates of Massachusetts shoppers. New Hampshire police responded by briefly detaining the Massachusetts agents.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB125236461011390855
Maine has been reported to do the same in recent years.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2014, 10:00:24 PM
A different kind of trap, one where the cops come find you:
Technically, it is illegal to bring alcohol into Massachusetts without a special permit. But enforcement is another story. In 1976, Massachusetts sent undercover agents to stake out New Hampshire liquor stores and record license plates of Massachusetts shoppers. New Hampshire police responded by briefly detaining the Massachusetts agents.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB125236461011390855
Maine has been reported to do the same in recent years.
What a crock. There is no customs or anything of that nature at the border between NH and MA. Reasonable quantity for personal use should not be illegal.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 10:59:58 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2014, 10:00:24 PM
A different kind of trap, one where the cops come find you:
Technically, it is illegal to bring alcohol into Massachusetts without a special permit. But enforcement is another story. In 1976, Massachusetts sent undercover agents to stake out New Hampshire liquor stores and record license plates of Massachusetts shoppers. New Hampshire police responded by briefly detaining the Massachusetts agents.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB125236461011390855
Maine has been reported to do the same in recent years.
What a crock. There is no customs or anything of that nature at the border between NH and MA. Reasonable quantity for personal use should not be illegal.
They're bitter about the millions in lost tax revenue. Reasonable quantities add up.
There's no love lost between these states when it comes to revenue. Some may remember their dueling threats several years ago to toll their respective sides of the border.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 10:59:58 PMWhat a crock. There is no customs or anything of that nature at the border between NH and MA. Reasonable quantity for personal use should not be illegal.
This is a poisonous result of the Twenty-first Amendment's carve-out of the interstate commerce clause for state-level beverage alcohol regulation. I don't think a personal-use exemption similar to what US Customs gives travellers entering the US would be workable in the absence of enforcement far more aggressive than would now be accepted at state borders given the existence of the Interstate system. What might work is for the New England states, instead of pursuing beggar-thy-neighbor policies with regard to alcohol, to join an interstate compact with provision for transfer payments in respect of alcohol transferred between jurisdictions with different excise tax rates. Alcohol would be taxed at the wholesale level, age verification would allow each alcohol sale to be associated with a state of residence, and the states would just settle up with each other at the end of each calendar year. There would be no need for the customer even to see a BAC agent.
I don't expect this to happen soon, however, because New Hampshire takes a perverse joy in being the sand in everyone's gearbox: state liquor stores in the Massachusetts and Maine borderlands, NHDOT construction plans put online only in encrypted ZIPs for which you have to pay to obtain the password, etc.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on December 02, 2014, 01:51:21 PM
Quote from: empirestate on December 01, 2014, 11:36:03 PM
Quote from: Roadrunner75 on December 01, 2014, 09:52:28 AM
The text for 39:4-85 does address passing a turning vehicle ("making or about to make a left turn"):
Quote
39:4-85. Passing to left when overtaking; passing when in lines; signalling to pass; passing upon right
The driver of a vehicle overtaking another vehicle proceeding in the same direction shall pass at a safe distance to the left thereof and shall not again drive to the right side of the roadway until safely clear of the overtaken vehicle. If vehicles on the roadway are moving in two or more substantially continuous lines, the provisions of this paragraph and section 39:4-87 of this Title shall not be considered as prohibiting the vehicles in one line overtaking and passing the vehicles in another line either upon the right or left, nor shall those provisions be construed to prohibit drivers overtaking and passing upon the right another vehicle which is making or about to make a left turn.
The driver of an overtaking motor vehicle not within a business or residence district shall give audible warning with his horn or other warning device before passing or attempting to pass a vehicle proceeding in the same direction.
The driver of a vehicle may overtake and pass another vehicle upon the right as provided in this section only under conditions permitting such movement in safety. In no event shall such movement be made by driving off the pavement or main-traveled portion of the roadway.
Yeah, I found that too. I suppose it's possible I misinterpreted the first italicized passage, but the presence of the second makes me doubtful of that.
The 'main-traveled portion of the roadway' are the travel lanes. The shoulder isn't considered the main-traveled portion, thus it is illegal.
Sure, I understand that. Perhaps I should have said "misread" rather than "misinterpreted".
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 03, 2014, 12:38:58 AMI don't expect this to happen soon, however, because New Hampshire takes a perverse joy in being the sand in everyone's gearbox: state liquor stores in the Massachusetts and Maine borderlands, NHDOT construction plans put online only in encrypted ZIPs for which you have to pay to obtain the password, etc.
New Hampshire must have long ago figured out the math and concluded it's doing pretty well. Plus the state is generally anti-sales-tax, which lessens its likelihood to get in on a tax compact.
Another instance this reminds me of is outside Salamanca, New York, where I was once stopped for no reason but to ask about any recent tobacco purchases. New York was apparently trying to send a message to the Seneca Indians who were then selling cigarettes drastically below the off-reservation price, though I don't know if they were confiscating, ticketing, assessing tax, or what (I hadn't bought any).
This reminds me of the fireworks sting operations that periodically make the news with NJ State Police staking out PA fireworks stores just across the river and following cars with NJ plates back across the bridge to make the stop.
Yes, I neglected to mention that along with the legendary nabbing of booze buyers, is the periodic story about Mass. cops radioing from the parking lots of fireworks stores in New Hampshire, giving descriptions to their colleagues just inside the Mass. border. How much of this is true and how much is inflated, I don't know.
For those who think this is an unusual trend, you just have to drive Route 28 over the Mass. line into Salem, New Hampshire, and see that the road is lined with stores boldly advertising liquor, cigarettes, cigars, fireworks, and guns (and before they were legalized in Massachusetts just over 10 years ago, tattoos). It is a perennial thorn in Massachusetts's side that there is a relatively lawless place within half an hour of Boston, so these various traps and stings tend to recur.
Quote from: 1995hoo on November 21, 2014, 04:24:47 PM
I used to see the Fairfax County police running checkpoints for the county sticker, but since we no longer have those in Fairfax they stopped. (For those unfamiliar, in Virginia you pay personal property tax on your car, and for many years every city or county except the City of Virginia Beach also required you to pay a separate fee for a windshield sticker proving you paid the car tax. Nowadays some counties and cities still require those stupid things, but others don't; in Fairfax, we have to pay the fee but it's now a "county registration fee" and you no longer have to display a sticker.)
I remember those big huge windshield stickers. Twenty years ago, my parents lived for a few years in Roanoke, Virginia and they would drive out to southern California to visit me. The stickers are so large they about block half the vision.
Quote from: vdeane on December 01, 2014, 12:49:46 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 01, 2014, 12:25:23 PM
Around here, particularly in Cambridge, there are often plainclothes officers crossing streets at crosswalks as bait to catch people who failed to yield them the right of way. Interestingly, bicyclists are frequently stopped in these traps as well.
In Fort Lee they dressed the officer up as a duck. Yes, really.
In the San Fernando Valley part of Los Angeles, I used to commute home from work by using Woodman Avenue south from Plummer Street (or Avenue; I forget which). Anyway, just south of the intersection with Nordhoff Street was a mid-block crosswalk and the LAPD (most of the valley is within the City of Los Angeles) would do the same kind of thing. Around Easter, the plainclothes cop would be dressed as the Easter Bunny and around Christmas as Santa Claus.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 03, 2014, 12:38:58 AM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 10:59:58 PMWhat a crock. There is no customs or anything of that nature at the border between NH and MA. Reasonable quantity for personal use should not be illegal.
This is a poisonous result of the Twenty-first Amendment's carve-out of the interstate commerce clause for state-level beverage alcohol regulation. I don't think a personal-use exemption similar to what US Customs gives travellers entering the US would be workable in the absence of enforcement far more aggressive than would now be accepted at state borders given the existence of the Interstate system. What might work is for the New England states, instead of pursuing beggar-thy-neighbor policies with regard to alcohol, to join an interstate compact with provision for transfer payments in respect of alcohol transferred between jurisdictions with different excise tax rates. Alcohol would be taxed at the wholesale level, age verification would allow each alcohol sale to be associated with a state of residence, and the states would just settle up with each other at the end of each calendar year. There would be no need for the customer even to see a BAC agent.
I don't expect this to happen soon, however, because New Hampshire takes a perverse joy in being the sand in everyone's gearbox: state liquor stores in the Massachusetts and Maine borderlands, NHDOT construction plans put online only in encrypted ZIPs for which you have to pay to obtain the password, etc.
It is none of the minimum wage alcohol clerk's dang business where I live. I specifically take steps to avoid disclosing that information when in a bar or other such setting (by using my passport card as ID, which is a more legit form of ID than a driver's license IMO).
I'm sorry, but Taxachusetts can go shove it when it comes to BS like making it illegal to take alcohol into their state. If anyone ever asked me, I would say I am transporting it through their state to my place of residence...interstate commerce, so eff-off (and I have no problem telling some ABC wanna-be cop that).
That said, I rarely have need to buy alcohol for my own consumption out of my "state" of residence, since DC has dirt cheap liquor. Where I actually consume it...well, none of anyone's business.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 03, 2014, 09:09:38 PMIt is none of the minimum wage alcohol clerk's dang business where I live. I specifically take steps to avoid disclosing that information when in a bar or other such setting (by using my passport card as ID, which is a more legit form of ID than a driver's license IMO).
Workarounds would be fairly easy to devise--the purpose of the exercise is to discover taxing jurisdiction for purposes of recording the sale, not to collect personally identifiable information.
QuoteI'm sorry, but Taxachusetts can go shove it when it comes to BS like making it illegal to take alcohol into their state. If anyone ever asked me, I would say I am transporting it through their state to my place of residence...interstate commerce, so eff-off (and I have no problem telling some ABC wanna-be cop that).
Quote from: 21st AmendmentThe transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
In principle you should be able to claim a transit exemption, but I would hesitate to put this to the test without first determining whether there is a law or court precedent that specifically disallows through-through movements from being treated as "delivery" and lays out a formula for distinguishing between the two.
The distinction between what the law allows and what its enforcers are entitled to presume becomes important in a variety of contexts--e.g. civil forfeiture in the US, or the
Hoverspeed case in the UK (which concerns "indicative quantities" that work somewhat similarly to a personal exemption in the US Customs context).
QuoteThat said, I rarely have need to buy alcohol for my own consumption out of my "state" of residence, since DC has dirt cheap liquor. Where I actually consume it...well, none of anyone's business.
I am not sure I have ever transported alcohol across a state line. I am not above a bit of tax arbitrage, but I drink so little alcohol in general that the excise tax I pay on it is essentially trivial, even in a formerly dry, high-tax jurisdiction like Kansas. Most people whose alcohol consumption is a mix of "on" and "off" probably pay far more in a sociability premium for "on" drinking than they do in tax.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 06:37:53 PM
DC does "ROSA" enforcement which is obnoxious...if they see your out-of state vehicle parked regularly overnight for more than a 30 day period, you get a warning that you either need to get DC license plates or go through the exemption process showing proof of residency outside of DC and providing a reason for being in DC overnight frequently (i.e. my girlfriend lives there). To me that seems rather heavy handed, bureaucratic, and unnecessary.
That is the polar opposite of New York City, where anyone who can registers their car elsewhere to save on insurance and there is absolutely zero enforcement against this practice, at least by the police. If your insurance company figures out that you're lying to them, they will cut you off - they're the ones losing money. But the cops don't give a shit.
A lot of people register their vehicles in Pennsylvania since PA insurance is cheap and the PA DMV doesn't demand much in the way of proof of residence. Likewise, you will get people buying cigarettes in PA (where they are half the price) and illegally reselling them in NY without paying NY tax.
PA of course is more than happy to continue collecting tax revenue from New Yorkers illegally registering cars and buying cigarettes there and has no desire to do anything about this.
The City of Somerville, which would be in Fortune magazine if cities were honored for making money, turned every non-arterial route in the city into a permit parking zone, so that a) every street parker has to buy a permit (no-permit fine: $50), and b) any out-of-state plateholders must reregister in Mass. in order to get a local address at which to get the permit and therefore pay excise tax to the city. Fair? Technically, yes, but onerous in a town with a large student population.
Quote from: SD Mapman on November 21, 2014, 06:38:08 PM
SD Highway Patrol can legally give tickets for something hanging from your mirror.
This is why I don't have fuzzy dice in my car.
I used to hang the wife from my rearview mirror when she misbehaved. Guess I'd best not do that in SD, huh?
I hang only awesome people from my rearview mirror. The SD cops don't care.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 03, 2014, 09:09:38 PM
That said, I rarely have need to buy alcohol for my own consumption out of my "state" of residence, since DC has dirt cheap liquor. Where I actually consume it...well, none of anyone's business.
We've bought growlers out of state and transported them across state lines. In most cases, the growler beer is about $10 - $15. Only in PA (of course) did the growlers run nearly $20 - just for the beer!
Quote from: NE2 on December 04, 2014, 09:52:24 AM
I hang only awesome people from my rearview mirror. The SD cops don't care.
But hanging is a form of execution...
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 04, 2014, 09:25:35 AM
The City of Somerville, which would be in Fortune magazine if cities were honored for making money, turned every non-arterial route in the city into a permit parking zone, so that a) every street parker has to buy a permit (no-permit fine: $50), and b) any out-of-state plateholders must reregister in Mass. in order to get a local address at which to get the permit and therefore pay excise tax to the city. Fair? Technically, yes, but onerous in a town with a large student population.
Permit parking, resident parking, whatever you want to call it is NOT fair. If a road is open to public travel, than all those using the road should have the right to park along it if necessary.
What Somerville, Boston, and other cities and towns that mandate permits are doing is no more than an entitlement program.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 03, 2014, 10:15:38 PM
Quote from: mtantillo on December 03, 2014, 09:09:38 PMIt is none of the minimum wage alcohol clerk's dang business where I live. I specifically take steps to avoid disclosing that information when in a bar or other such setting (by using my passport card as ID, which is a more legit form of ID than a driver's license IMO).
Workarounds would be fairly easy to devise--the purpose of the exercise is to discover taxing jurisdiction for purposes of recording the sale, not to collect personally identifiable information.
Lets say I am from Massachusetts. I am attending a dinner party in New Hampshire. I want to do the right thing and buy alcohol in the state in which it is to be consumed to avoid these arcane laws about bringing it across state lines. If the alcohol is purchased in New Hampshire, and consumed in New Hampshire, how could Massachusetts possibly claim any tax jurisdiction? Using your proposal, they would attempt to tax that as if it were bought in Massachusetts.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 04, 2014, 03:34:28 PMLet's say I am from Massachusetts. I am attending a dinner party in New Hampshire. I want to do the right thing and buy alcohol in the state in which it is to be consumed to avoid these arcane laws about bringing it across state lines. If the alcohol is purchased in New Hampshire, and consumed in New Hampshire, how could Massachusetts possibly claim any tax jurisdiction? Using your proposal, they would attempt to tax that as if it were bought in Massachusetts.
This is where an individual purchaser would likely have to make a decision to accept the rough with the smooth. Similar problems arise with sales tax, VAT, fuel and mileage proration, etc. and while they can be eased through rebate programs, there is a transaction cost both for the customer applying for rebates and for the state administering a rebate program.
One workaround (which does raise the social awkwardness of promising reimbursement in arrears rather than showing up at the door with the bottle of wine already in hand) is to have the NH hosts purchase the wine in NH.
Another workaround is for the state to not tax certain items at such ridiculous rates that people actually make trips to avoid it.
Quote from: mtantillo on December 02, 2014, 10:59:58 PM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on December 02, 2014, 10:00:24 PM
A different kind of trap, one where the cops come find you:
Technically, it is illegal to bring alcohol into Massachusetts without a special permit. But enforcement is another story. In 1976, Massachusetts sent undercover agents to stake out New Hampshire liquor stores and record license plates of Massachusetts shoppers. New Hampshire police responded by briefly detaining the Massachusetts agents.
http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB125236461011390855
Maine has been reported to do the same in recent years.
What a crock. There is no customs or anything of that nature at the border between NH and MA. Reasonable quantity for personal use should not be illegal.
Massachusetts does make "reasonable personal use" exceptions regarding the tranportation of alcoholic beverages - from Mass General Laws Chapter 138, Section 22:
QuoteAny person may, but only for his own use and that of his family and guests, transport alcoholic beverages or alcohol, without any license or permit, but not exceeding in amount, at any one time, twenty gallons of malt beverages, three gallons of any other alcoholic beverage, or one gallon of alcohol, or their measured equivalent; provided, that any person may, without any license or permit, transport from his place of residence to a new place of residence established by him alcoholic beverages manufactured by him for his own private use
I would suspect that other states have similar laws on their books.
That's great–the eight cases of beer and fifteen bottles of vodka I plan on consuming this weekend won't get me into trouble.
As I said, it doesn't make sense to go after a guy with a bottle of beer crossing the state line when you have people bringing in truckloads that could be sold commercially.
Guess I might have done something wrong when I brought back 12 cases of beer from that road trip I made a couple years ago. Oops.
Quote from: roadman on December 05, 2014, 01:57:41 PM
Massachusetts does make "reasonable personal use" exceptions regarding the tranportation of alcoholic beverages - from Mass General Laws Chapter 138, Section 22:
QuoteAny person may, but only for his own use and that of his family and guests, transport alcoholic beverages or alcohol, without any license or permit, but not exceeding in amount, at any one time, twenty gallons of malt beverages, three gallons of any other alcoholic beverage, or one gallon of alcohol, or their measured equivalent; provided, that any person may, without any license or permit, transport from his place of residence to a new place of residence established by him alcoholic beverages manufactured by him for his own private use
I would suspect that other states have similar laws on their books.
Massachusetts has also made the question of enforcing alcoholic beverage tax laws moot by instituting a "pay me now or pay me later" law, where taxes owed on out-of-state purchases (which were not collected at the time of sale by either Massachusetts or another jurisdiction) must be declared on the state income tax form and paid along with any income tax owed.
Quote from: SidS1045 on December 06, 2014, 10:51:26 PM
Quote from: roadman on December 05, 2014, 01:57:41 PM
Massachusetts does make "reasonable personal use" exceptions regarding the tranportation of alcoholic beverages - from Mass General Laws Chapter 138, Section 22:
QuoteAny person may, but only for his own use and that of his family and guests, transport alcoholic beverages or alcohol, without any license or permit, but not exceeding in amount, at any one time, twenty gallons of malt beverages, three gallons of any other alcoholic beverage, or one gallon of alcohol, or their measured equivalent; provided, that any person may, without any license or permit, transport from his place of residence to a new place of residence established by him alcoholic beverages manufactured by him for his own private use
I would suspect that other states have similar laws on their books.
Massachusetts has also made the question of enforcing alcoholic beverage tax laws moot by instituting a "pay me now or pay me later" law, where taxes owed on out-of-state purchases (which were not collected at the time of sale by either Massachusetts or another jurisdiction) must be declared on the state income tax form and paid along with any income tax owed.
That's called a use tax. Really? How is that enforced?
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 07, 2014, 12:58:07 AMThat's called a use tax. Really? How is that enforced?
Compliance is voluntary, at least in Kansas. Taxpayers are supposed to disclose untaxed retail purchases on their income tax returns, and remit payment accordingly. In practice there is no enforcement except for big-ticket items which are otherwise subject to licensure, such as cars or boats.
My current computer (on which I have written every one of my posts in this thread) is implicated in my last act of tax protest. In September 2011 I wanted to buy an entry-level gaming laptop, and found a suitable one available directly from Amazon itself and also from several Amazon sellers. Since the company has warehouse facilities in Kansas, tax would have been charged on a direct sale even if the computer had been shipped from out of state.
The state had just passed a couple of TRAP laws I profoundly disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. So I bought my new computer from a seller in Delaware, accepting a slightly longer delivery time, specifically to prevent the state from collecting over $100 in sales tax on this purchase alone. In the meantime, the state is obtaining the millions it needs to defend the TRAP laws partly through the special barbarity of collecting sales tax on food, for which low-income tax filers recently lost their ability to claim a rebate.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 07, 2014, 01:49:59 AM
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 07, 2014, 12:58:07 AMThat's called a use tax. Really? How is that enforced?
Compliance is voluntary, at least in Kansas. Taxpayers are supposed to disclose untaxed retail purchases on their income tax returns, and remit payment accordingly. In practice there is no enforcement except for big-ticket items which are otherwise subject to licensure, such as cars or boats.
My current computer (on which I have written every one of my posts in this thread) is implicated in my last act of tax protest. In September 2011 I wanted to buy an entry-level gaming laptop, and found a suitable one available directly from Amazon itself and also from several Amazon sellers. Since the company has warehouse facilities in Kansas, tax would have been charged on a direct sale even if the computer had been shipped from out of state.
The state had just passed a couple of TRAP laws I profoundly disagree with and believe are unconstitutional. So I bought my new computer from a seller in Delaware, accepting a slightly longer delivery time, specifically to prevent the state from collecting over $100 in sales tax on this purchase alone. In the meantime, the state is obtaining the millions it needs to defend the TRAP laws partly through the special barbarity of collecting sales tax on food, for which low-income tax filers recently lost their ability to claim a rebate.
New Jersey has the same issue except finding a place that doesn't have a warehouse or some sort of facility in the state is hard.
New Egg...Check
MicroCenter...Check
Amazon...Check
TigerDirect/their various brands...Check
The list goes on. If there was a place to buy computers in my town i would, 3.5% sales tax vs the standard 7.
Quote from: SSOWorld on December 07, 2014, 12:58:07 AMReally? How is that enforced?
As I suspect you already know, it's unenforceable, or at least it's only enforceable to the same extent that having State Police cars stop and cite drivers who purchased liquor out of state was. Pretty window dressing that doesn't change a damned thing.