Seems like fleeing law enforcement (in marked cars) is a criminal act that happens too frequently.
On a daily basis in some parts of the United States (such as this (http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/04/26/carjacking-suspect-arrested-after-high-speed-chase-in-west-los-angeles/) in Southern California).
Are the consequences for this type of act severe enough? Should it be a felony to attempt to flee law enforcement using a motor vehicle?
Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer is already a felony (severity level 9) in Kansas on the third and subsequent convictions (per KSA § 8-1568 (http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_8/Article_15/8-1568.html)). Personally, I am not in favor of reclassifying the offense or making punishment more stringent until there are provisions in place to protect people who keep on driving at a legal speed until they find a place that is safe to stop, or who suspect the police vehicle is a counterfeit and continue to drive until they can stop at a well-lit location with abundant witnesses.
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 26, 2013, 05:37:58 PM
Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer is already a felony (severity level 9) in Kansas on the third and subsequent convictions (per KSA § 8-1568 (http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_8/Article_15/8-1568.html)). Personally, I am not in favor of reclassifying the offense or making punishment more stringent until there are provisions in place to protect people who keep on driving at a legal speed until they find a place that is safe to stop, or who suspect the police vehicle is a counterfeit and continue to drive until they can stop at a well-lit location with abundant witnesses.
Much agreed. There are far too many counterfeit cops around. I personally favor even going so far as to make the car a part of the uniform and mandate marked scout cars only for traffic patrol. It's harder for a counterfeit cop to fake both the marked scout car and the uniform than just use a rotating red light and a fake uniform with an unmarked car.
Quote from: Brandon on April 26, 2013, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 26, 2013, 05:37:58 PM
Fleeing or eluding a law enforcement officer is already a felony (severity level 9) in Kansas on the third and subsequent convictions (per KSA § 8-1568 (http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_8/Article_15/8-1568.html)). Personally, I am not in favor of reclassifying the offense or making punishment more stringent until there are provisions in place to protect people who keep on driving at a legal speed until they find a place that is safe to stop, or who suspect the police vehicle is a counterfeit and continue to drive until they can stop at a well-lit location with abundant witnesses.
Much agreed. There are far too many counterfeit cops around. I personally favor even going so far as to make the car a part of the uniform and mandate marked scout cars only for traffic patrol. It's harder for a counterfeit cop to fake both the marked scout car and the uniform than just use a rotating red light and a fake uniform with an unmarked car.
I have no problem with (
some) unmarked police cars, for an assortment of good reasons. And marked cars that have no lights or other identifying items on the roof (pretty common in some places, and effectively "unmarked" from some angles in the dark).
But I agree that it should not be considered "fleeing and eluding" or "failure to yield" to drive at (or below) the speed limit and not stop for an unmarked vehicle until (and unless) a second (clearly marked) police vehicle shows up, especially during hours of darkness.
But putting aside the issue of unmarked police vehicles for a moment, what about the individual who attempts to flee a
marked police vehicle?
This thread reminds me of an episode that one of my friends witnessed on Route 2 in Harvard (MA) several years ago.
A person in a BMW series-whatever sedan was going down the left lane at about 85-90 (the speed limit on this section of 2 was, and still is, 55 - because of road design, not NMSL), and flashing their lights at anyone who was in front of them (the 'getten outta das vay' switch) - including my friend. So, after my friend pulls into the right lane, he witnesses the BMW 'flash' two more cars in front of him. The second car was a fully marked Massachusetts State Police cruiser.
So, after BMW flashes his lights at the state trooper, state trooper pulls over and lets BMW pass, then pulls back into left lane with lights and siren on. My friend caught up to the BMW and the state trooper about a half-mile later. Both were on the shoulder of the highway, and the trooper was just getting out of his cruiser.
Quote from: roadman on April 26, 2013, 07:11:14 PM
So, after BMW flashes his lights at the state trooper, state trooper pulls over and lets BMW pass, then pulls back into left lane with lights and siren on. My friend caught up to the BMW and the state trooper about a half-mile later. Both were on the shoulder of the highway, and the trooper was just getting out of his cruiser.
Wonder if the driver of the BMW was administered a stupid test by the Massachusetts trooper?
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 07:16:47 PM
Quote from: roadman on April 26, 2013, 07:11:14 PM
So, after BMW flashes his lights at the state trooper, state trooper pulls over and lets BMW pass, then pulls back into left lane with lights and siren on. My friend caught up to the BMW and the state trooper about a half-mile later. Both were on the shoulder of the highway, and the trooper was just getting out of his cruiser.
Wonder if the driver of the BMW was administered a stupid test by the Massachusetts trooper?
The good news is - you registered 0.02. The bad news is - it's not your BAC.
To respond to the OP, I feel the penalty should be very severe to anyone driving recklessly to avoid police capture. Adding the reckless provision makes allowance for those who are making sure the cop wasn't a fake. Anyone driving recklessly to avoid capture endangers not only himself and the office, but also countless innocent motorists and passengers. There's no excuse.
One time I was driving through an urban area, and thought I was being followed. I brake checked at a yellow light and got a suspicious looking siren. I called the police to ask whether there was a cop actually behind me; marked cars showed up while I was on the phone. Yeah, pretty nervous, because unlike when that happens to me on a freeway, I have no "outs." They let me go at the end with no charges at all; I was visibly shaken by the experience.
The use of non-fully marked cars in traffic enforcement should be the felony.
Quote from: Steve on April 27, 2013, 03:20:22 AM
One time I was driving through an urban area, and thought I was being followed. I brake checked at a yellow light and got a suspicious looking siren. I called the police to ask whether there was a cop actually behind me; marked cars showed up while I was on the phone. Yeah, pretty nervous, because unlike when that happens to me on a freeway, I have no "outs." They let me go at the end with no charges at all; I was visibly shaken by the experience.
Was it in the dark?
Quote from: SP Cook on April 27, 2013, 06:29:18 AM
The use of non-fully marked cars in traffic enforcement should be the felony.
As I understand it, the California Vehicle Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.html/veh_table_of_contents.html) (CVC) discourages, but not not forbid, traffic enforcement by unmarked police cars. In particular, 40804 CVC (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=veh&group=40001-41000&file=40800-40808) reads (in part):
(b) An officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the
arrest of, a person so charged while on duty for the exclusive or
main purpose of enforcing the provisions of Divisions 10 (commencing
with Section 20000) and 11 (commencing with Section 21000) is
incompetent as a witness if at the time of that arrest he was not
wearing a distinctive uniform, or was using a motor vehicle not
painted the distinctive color specified by the commissioner.
(c) This section does not apply to an officer assigned exclusively
to the duty of investigating and securing evidence in reference to
the theft of a vehicle or failure of a person to stop in the event of
an accident or violation of Section 23109 or 23109.1 or in reference
to a felony charge or to an officer engaged in serving a warrant
when the officer is not engaged in patrolling the highways for the
purpose of enforcing the traffic laws.Not sure if any other states limit the use of unmarked police cars for traffic enforcement.
The most-egregious use of unmarked police cars for that purpose (which I have observed personally) was been in various small towns in Delaware like Bridgeville and Georgetown - and the District of Columbia, where
much photo radar enforcement is conducted from unmarked vehicles.
"YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED."
Quote from: theline on April 26, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
To respond to the OP, I feel the penalty should be very severe to anyone driving recklessly to avoid police capture. Adding the reckless provision makes allowance for those who are making sure the cop wasn't a fake. Anyone driving recklessly to avoid capture endangers not only himself and the office, but also countless innocent motorists and passengers. There's no excuse.
I agree.
I think it's bad enough that people try to run from cops with their own two feet! That said, using a vehicle to escape from the police should be a felony everywhere.
Quote from: theline on April 26, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
To respond to the OP, I feel the penalty should be very severe to anyone driving recklessly to avoid police capture. Adding the reckless provision makes allowance for those who are making sure the cop wasn't a fake. Anyone driving recklessly to avoid capture endangers not only himself and the office, but also countless innocent motorists and passengers. There's no excuse.
This.
That said, there is also a police policy half to this problem. NYPD, by policy, does not engage in high speed chases. If you floor it to run away they will let you go and take down your license plate number/vehicle description so you can be caught later. I 100% agree with this policy, certainly in urban environments although perhaps not in rural environments. High speed chases are dangerous and public safety is better protected by not engaging in them than by catching the perp sooner.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 28, 2013, 05:56:39 PM
Quote from: theline on April 26, 2013, 08:32:13 PM
To respond to the OP, I feel the penalty should be very severe to anyone driving recklessly to avoid police capture. Adding the reckless provision makes allowance for those who are making sure the cop wasn't a fake. Anyone driving recklessly to avoid capture endangers not only himself and the office, but also countless innocent motorists and passengers. There's no excuse.
This.
That said, there is also a police policy half to this problem. NYPD, by policy, does not engage in high speed chases. If you floor it to run away they will let you go and take down your license plate number/vehicle description so you can be caught later. I 100% agree with this policy, certainly in urban environments although perhaps not in rural environments. High speed chases are dangerous and public safety is better protected by not engaging in them than by catching the perp sooner.
The municipal police forces of Baltimore City, Maryland and of the District of Columbia (Metropolitan Police Department) have similar "do not engage in pursuit" policies, at least not for traffic and other misdemeanor charges (pursuits for felonies are allowed in some instances).
My only real example of this is a NJ Turnpike toll-taking story. In general, NJ police are told to break off high speed chases when traffic is heavy. At 2am, that's not the case.
Car speeding down the NJ Turnpike, followed by 2 State Troopers. Us toll takers were told about it, and were told to hold up traffic for a minute in the toll lanes. They fly thru the 15 mph EZ Pass lane at 90 mph or so (I forgot to look to see if the EZ Pass screen registered!). Just below the toll plaza, 2 DRBA (Del. Mem. Br) cops were waiting in the median, and swung out in a way to try to disturb the speeding driver. He was able to continue on, and the DRBA cops picked up the pursuit.
I imagine this continued twice more...DRBA to Delaware State Police, then passed onto the Maryland State Troopers, who eventually stopped them per a news story I read at the time.
Not sure what penalties the offender was charged with, and in what state they were pursued.
In general, they were probably given light penalties for all the danger they caused. I doubt all 3 states pursued charges against the offenders, nor did they pursue all the charges that they could have been charged with.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 29, 2013, 09:16:58 AM
My only real example of this is a NJ Turnpike toll-taking story. In general, NJ police are told to break off high speed chases when traffic is heavy. At 2am, that's not the case.
Car speeding down the NJ Turnpike, followed by 2 State Troopers. Us toll takers were told about it, and were told to hold up traffic for a minute in the toll lanes. They fly thru the 15 mph EZ Pass lane at 90 mph or so (I forgot to look to see if the EZ Pass screen registered!). Just below the toll plaza, 2 DRBA (Del. Mem. Br) cops were waiting in the median, and swung out in a way to try to disturb the speeding driver. He was able to continue on, and the DRBA cops picked up the pursuit.
I imagine this continued twice more...DRBA to Delaware State Police, then passed onto the Maryland State Troopers, who eventually stopped them per a news story I read at the time.
Not sure what penalties the offender was charged with, and in what state they were pursued.
In general, they were probably given light penalties for all the danger they caused. I doubt all 3 states pursued charges against the offenders, nor did they pursue all the charges that they could have been charged with.
Peter Samuel of TOLLROADSnews reported about one such incident back in 2006: He paid his toll - bizarre behavior (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1448)
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 29, 2013, 04:25:10 PM
Peter Samuel of TOLLROADSnews reported about one such incident back in 2006: He paid his toll - bizarre behavior (http://www.tollroadsnews.com/node/1448)
I know it's not the same incident (I worked the Turnpike from 2000 - 2004), but very similiar (albeit a slower speed and a worse result).
I like how, in some jurisdictions, if you commit certain felonies in a vehicle, then you lose that vehicle permanently. The problem with that law is that a felon doesn't care if their driving a stolen car, or if they borrowed a friend/family member's car.
I would love to see a law that says if you drive a crotch-rocket at a certain % over a speed limit or are "stunting" on a public roadway, then your cycle gets crushed at the local junkyard and you must attend the "ceremony". The unfortunate thing is that it's hard for the cops to catch these elusive hot shot a**holes, and to accurately prove who was driving and whose cycle it was (cycle plates are already difficult to read due to their size).
Quote from: thenetwork on May 06, 2013, 12:45:15 PM
I like how, in some jurisdictions, if you commit certain felonies in a vehicle, then you lose that vehicle permanently. The problem with that law is that a felon doesn't care if their driving a stolen car, or if they borrowed a friend/family member's car.
As long as the forfeiture is subject to some sort of judicial review, I have no problem with that.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 06, 2013, 12:45:15 PM
I would love to see a law that says if you drive a crotch-rocket at a certain % over a speed limit or are "stunting" on a public roadway, then your cycle gets crushed at the local junkyard and you must attend the "ceremony". The unfortunate thing is that it's hard for the cops to catch these elusive hot shot a**holes, and to accurately prove who was driving and whose cycle it was (cycle plates are already difficult to read due to their size).
Crotch rocketers in Maryland usually bend the plate to make it invisible to vehicles following from behind, or don't bother with displaying one at all, secure in the knowledge that they can usually flee to the safe streets of the District of Columbia if a Maryland cop attempts to stop them.
Crushing their Hayabusa (or other motorcycle) is a good idea. Alternatively, converting it to police use is not a bad thing either.
Quote from: thenetwork on May 06, 2013, 12:45:15 PMI would love to see a law that says if you drive a crotch-rocket at a certain % over a speed limit or are "stunting" on a public roadway, then your cycle gets crushed at the local junkyard and you must attend the "ceremony". The unfortunate thing is that it's hard for the cops to catch these elusive hot shot a**holes, and to accurately prove who was driving and whose cycle it was (cycle plates are already difficult to read due to their size).
I would love to see a law that says if you are texting and driving, your car gets crushed and you're forced to attend.
At least the reckless motorcyclists are paying a lot more attention to their surroundings. That, by default, makes them better drivers than their distracted counterparts at legal speeds as far as I am concerned.
If I became a dictator, a new set of standards and testing would be introduced to get a driver's license, and probably 80-90% of the people who currently have one would not pass the new tests and, by default, would lose their license. And with the resultant reduction in wear and tear on the roads, more money could be diverted to maintaining a viable public transit system, and those who remain licensed drivers would be deemed competent enough to enjoy rural freeway stretches with no speed limit.
Oh, and truck governors would be banned, but penalties for driving recklessly in a truck would be severe. This way, PASSING would be possible, no more 62MPH drag-races.
Quote from: Steve on April 27, 2013, 03:20:22 AMbrake checked at a yellow light
what does this mean?
as far as I know, in California you cannot get cited for anything less than a misdemeanor (i.e. a traffic infraction) by anyone who is not in a uniform, in a marked vehicle.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on May 31, 2013, 03:26:02 PM
Quote from: Steve on April 27, 2013, 03:20:22 AMbrake checked at a yellow light
what does this mean?
I'm guessing it means he pretended to stop for the yellow light, then proceeded at the last possible second in order to evade the following car.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on April 26, 2013, 05:03:18 PM
Are the consequences for this type of act severe enough? Should it be a felony to attempt to flee law enforcement using a motor vehicle?
Nah, it should be punishable by having a harpoon fired into the trunk of the fleeing car so the pursuing police car just reels in the offending vehicle. :spin:
Quote from: SP Cook on April 27, 2013, 06:29:18 AM
The use of non-fully marked cars in traffic enforcement should be the felony.
I had not been in Connecticut for quite a few years prior to this past weekend when I drove all of I-95 in both directions from New York to Rhode Island and back (much of which is the de-tolled Connecticut Turnpike).
Just as the last time I was there,
all Connecticut State Police cars that I observed (only Ford Crown Vic Police Interceptors) were
entirely without markings, save for the light bar on top.
Connecticut's regular fleet of state police cars is exclusively unmarked except for lights.
Quote from: Duke87 on June 05, 2013, 09:56:08 PM
Connecticut's regular fleet of state police cars is exclusively unmarked except for lights.
Been that way for a long time, too.
Last time I was in Connecticut (1979 (!)), the Connecticut Turnpike was still tolled, and the trooper cars had no markings - but back then, they had to small blue lights on top (that were apparently always on), that flanked a huge (and very strong) blue strobe light in the middle.
I have seen a marked Connecticut trooper car
once - on the streets of Washington, D.C. for police memorial week (usually held in May). Police cars from many states (usually east of the Mississippi River) show up in D.C. then.