Sorry pbs, you're off base here. Statutes are to be given their plain and ordinary meaning. That's a fundamental tenet of statutory construction. Only when words and phrases are ambiguous do courts take interpretation to the next level.

No need for that with the statute quoted above. It could not be clearer. There is simply no need to some fancy judicial interpretation -- just apply it as written.

Yes, the courts are to give a statute their plain and ordinary meaning. Here, we have a statute that has been interpreted by the court. That is the meaning of the statute. Your statement suggests that every search and seizure opinion is invalid because the 4th Amendment does not expressly state the terms of the opinion. The Construction specifically delegates the court to to interprete statutes. If the legislature did not intend the meaning given by the court they are free to amend the statute. They did not.

The plain meaning doctrine only applies to the court, not to the average joe.

I'm done. this is like hurding cats.SmileWavy

OK. Just please stay out of the left lane :)

(I'm serious)

I would like to clarify a few things, at least for California. The speed limit is 65 miles per hour on the freeway. Letter of the law says that anything above 65 mph is breaking the law. The speed of traffic is irrelevant at the maximum, because it is just that-the maximum. Impeding traffic is another issue in which a driver is driving below the maximum, but unsafe for the conditions. For example, a driver may be cited for driving 35 mph on the freeway when the flow of traffic is 65 mph. It is simply unsafe.

There are cases in which a driver could be cited for speeding while driving under the maximum speed limit. For example, if a driver were driving 50 mph on the freeway (which the maximum is 65 mph) under extreme fog in which visibility is severly limited.

As far a moving to the right to allow cars to pass, that only legally applies when the driver is driving under the speed limit. As strange as it sounds, if a driver were traveling at 65 mph in the HOV lane and 20 or 20 thousands cars were being held up, that driver could not be cited for impeding traffic because he was actually traveling at the speed limit. Anything over that is breaking the law.

This is letter of the law stuff. In reality, the majority of traffic in LA travels at 70-75 mph on the freeway keeping up with the flow. In reality, each an every driver could be cited. It is not prudent, but it could happen. Using the excuse that "everyone was speeding" in court is most likely going to end in a conviction because you are admitting that you were in fact speeding.

Remember, the limit is just that, the limit.

Not on a high horse, but stating how the law reads. Drive safely, David

Yep. I got the hangin' judge. The cops case was weak and his recall suspect. He wouldn't have survived a misdemeanor trial...I don't think my 2 speeding tickets helped matters much as the hanger looked down to assess...He didn't even bother to ask if I wanted traffic school...The nerve! :D


The California Traffic Court System extorts over a billion dollars a year from California citizens by keeping us ignorant of our rights. They confuse and intimidate us with a muddled "courtesy" notice mentioning license suspension and jail as possibilities (these are only possibilities for those who ignore the citation entirely). The courts also benefit from the inherent respect most people have for the police that keeps them from questioning the officers' often-arbitrary decision to issue a citation.

California traffic courts use the formality of the courthouse to further intimidate those brave enough to appear, scaring them into pleading guilty or accepting an assignment to attend traffic school. The court strong-arms the majority of defendants, too busy or too intimidated to appear, to surrender without a fight: we collapse like a piece of IKEA furniture and meekly mail in the protection money hoping these bullies will leave us alone. By sustaining this proctological racket, California traffic courts rake in a small fortune for state, county, and local governments. Al Capone would be proud.

TicketAssassin.com

Mul, I'm a hanging judge alumnus myself. It sucks. Take your lumps and move on. Never ever pay a ticket without a fight. At least the few times I've lost, I know I cost them more than they got from me. Better yet, go to the clerk and pay your fine in pennies. Even offer to help them count it.

Main Entry: scha·den·freu·de
Pronunciation: 'shä-d&n-"froi-d&
Function: noun
Usage: often capitalized
Etymology: German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy
: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others

Of course. I pay I play. I understand. I also understand the cops perspective; obviously they are doing their job. Unfortunately they are encouraged, especially the CHP, to be a revenue extraction bureaucracy...What pisses me off is, and I know cops, the chase is the fun...If you run, even better...You would think that they would give you a break once they caught you and realize that you are a good guy that likes to let the horses out to play. Yes, I have had those cops before. It is really refreshing when it happens...I must admit I will probably limit my speeding to very familiar canyons from now on, and the cop is going to have to have a really good bead on me before I submit.

Here in California they violate your Constitutional rights by demanding you pay the penalty BEFORE it is proven...They make it very difficult for you to pay after trial. I look at the bright side, I made the cop some extra money, I cost the state some money, and I got the cop off the beat for a few hours.

No offense DavidI...I appreciate your service.

Nul, How admirable! You were guilty as sin to start with. You did not make the cop any money. You cost the tax payers money and you deprived us of his service on the street. Yeah, it is your right, but in this case you are just being a selfish child. Grow up.

What a pathetic hypocrite you are.

Cops waiting behind a bush at the exit of a small town, writing you up for 5 miles over--yeah, they're extracting money from.

But being followed for five minutes at 90mph by a cop in plain sight in your rear view mirror--that has nothing to do with revenue extraction.

Rather than admitting that speeding is wrong, now you tell us you're going to do in the canyons. Tosser.

http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/5...lweb4zx7at.jpg

Take a swim.

Speeding isn't wrong...Get off your high horse baby murderer.

No offense taken at all Mul. It is all business. Traffic is not my gig anyway. I was a hunter of gangsters. That was who I enjoyed taking to jail because they hunted and preyed on the weak. My life has been threatened so many times by the thugs, it is amazing.

The traffic stuff is boring to me and pursuits are extremely dangerous. I have lost a few friends who were chasing bad guys in pursuits. I hope and pray that I never have to go to a police funeral again.

The discussion is very interesting as people interpret the law. In some cases it is very specific. In other cases it is vague. Even some courts of law do not agree on the interpretation. It makes for great discussion.

David

Baby murderer?

What?

I did not see the previous post. I was confused and thought Ihad missed something.....my mistake, David

Are you pro-abortion?

Hey mul, did you figure out which method you're going to scam the system yet?

Hell hath no fury...

Yeah, I'm sure you'll figure out a scam. Good luck on that. LOL