Speeding Cops

Jeff Higgins · 10-03-2004, 07:56 PM

When driving westbound over Snoqualmie Pass yesterday afternoon in the 911, I noticed a State Patrol car catching up very rapidly in my rear view mirror. I was in a group of cars doing about 75 in a 65 zone, but I felt relatively safe as I was in between several cars in the middle lane. So the Stater blows by us like we're parked; at least 20 mph faster than we were going. I thought he must be after some one or going to a wreck. Wrong. He kept it up for so long that before he got out of sight, I pulled in behind and slowly caught up. I paced him at 95 mph all the way to North Bend (the speed limit did increase to 70), about fifteen miles or so after I caught up. He got off the freeway and pulled into a 76 station that has a Taco Bell inside, where another WSP car was already parked. They were meeting for lunch. I pulled in right next to him, and when he got out and we were both walking into the store, he was glaring at me. I asked if he was late for lunch. No reply. Just two weeks ago, I had a similar incedent on I-5 southbound out of Everett. Two Beemer mounted motorcycle State Patrol officers were side by side in the carpool lane holding a steady 75 in a 60 mph zone. I pulled in and paced them too, which turned out to be a pretty fast way to get through the heavy traffic down to Lynnwood. People just seem to get out of their way. Anyway, this just kind of bothers me. I'm sure there is nothing that can be done about it, but I just thought I'd share and vent a little.

dtw · 10-03-2004, 08:03 PM

That took stones, dude. Nice work.

Next time, jot down his unit number (should be plastered on the car in various places, or will have a special license plate number). Call in your observations to SHP...

kumma · 10-03-2004, 08:11 PM

Its good to be the king.

One of my favorite police stories involves speeding. I was on my to Chicago and the car broke down. So a state cop stops and asks if we need help, as it turns out the tow truck was gonna be a couple of hours so the trooper offers to drive us to a rental place back to town. Pretty cool of him.

On the way back hes going 100+ all the way

. We get to talking and he says he doesnt pull any body over unless there doing 15 over. Pretty cool of him since hes doing 40 over at the time. Best part is we come to a known speed trap and he lays on the gas a little more, turns out a county sheriff was waiting. I just laughed at the big grin on the troopers face as he mentions that the sheriff is probably getting all excited for a 110+ speeding bust.

djmcmath · 10-03-2004, 08:25 PM

Calling in your observations is a waste of time. The WSP is the biggest gang on hypocritical lying bastards I've ever met. They exist as wilful enforcers to a traffic code which makes a mockery of law and justice. They lazily set up massive anti-speeder operations in places with artificially low speed limits, knowing that most people do 70 there because it's a 6 lane straight chunk of highway. Meanwhile, mere blocks away, ricers run over school-children while racing on a weekly basis, and the so-called "traffic safety enforcement"

can't be bothered to show up because "there's not a whole lot of ticket-writing in it, and besides, it's a county road -- we'd have to coordinate with the county sherriff to enforce there." (Yes, that's a quote from and actual WSP, I am not making this up; the officer in question told a number of gruesome stories about these accidents, and how awful of a place it was. When queried as to why he didn't enforce at that site, he gave the above response. Sick.)

In this state, the officer is not required to show up to a contested hearing -- even if subpoenaed, and despite the recent US Supreme Court case of Crawford v Washington demonstrating the clear unconstitutionality of this practice. In this state, the government is not required to prosecute any traffic case against you -- the judge, the impartial arbiter of justice, will see to that important role. In this state, if you appeal your case, the government is not required to file an answering brief, defend their position at the appeal hearing, or acknowledge any communication. In short, you are guilty until proven innocent, on the word of one man.

Further, in this state, a police officer is not required to have any demonstrable training on the use of radar SMDs. The requirement is more simple: "That the officer be able to adequately use radar SMDs in the pursuit of traffic enforcement." How can you tell if the officer can adequately use the gear if there's no training and no test? The radar is required to be calibrated, but the calibration record sheets are as likely forged as not, and the with any luck, the radar unit itself has had a number of unexplained entries on the maintenance record. "Antenna full of water; drained; bench-tested sat." followed by several months of "intermittent error; could not duplicate."

So Jeff -- good on ya for trying to enforce upon the enforcers, but this state is so far gone it isn't even worth your effort. Your next best bet is to try and figure out which elected officials have what positions on traffic enforcement -- but good luck on that venue, they all parrot about the same position.

Dan

Moses · 10-04-2004, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by djmcmath
In this state, the officer is not required to show up to a contested hearing -- even if subpoenaed, and despite the recent US Supreme Court case of Crawford v Washington demonstrating the clear unconstitutionality of this practice. In this state, the government is not required to prosecute any traffic case against you -- the judge, the impartial arbiter of justice, will see to that important role.
Dan

Someone will file a class-action suit against the state and they will likely win.

djmcmath · 10-04-2004, 10:09 AM

It'd have to be someone with pretty deep pockets. Fighting the state is an expensive proposition. I'll tell you that my pockets aren't even deep enough to adequately fight the system for one speeding ticket, let alone a class action suit for unconstitutional practices.

Dan