BTW, just grin a little as it penetrates. You will forget about it soon. You don't win. We all get fark once in a while.

This happened to me one night, coming in from work (around 3AM) driving my Toyota truck, the cop pulled a U-turn, came down my street & hit the lights just as I got in front of my house, same tail light BS, then he put me in the back of his car (I had been working since 9AM, very long day, lots of driving to) and rifles through my truck, he didn't ask, their was no smell of smoke (since I don't smoke anything illegal, Cuban Cigars don't count:p) and only bottled water in the truck. I was all ready to file an illegal search complaint, cause, 1) he didn't ask to search my truck, 2) there was no probable cause over than the time. Then he let me out and told me I was lucky (remember, I had been working all day, so I was pretty tired) and that he was going to keep a eye out for me if I went back out that night (WTF??)
Next day I backed up to the glass front of my old office, sure enough, all lights worked:mad:

Up here in Washington, we are not even asked to sign the ticket. Hell, there isn't even a place on the ticket for a signature. It's been that way for years.

The American Motorists' Association has ranked Washington the eighth worst state in which to drive. Factors considered in their ratings include scenery (we have fantastic scenery and scored very well there), road maintenance (our roads are actually very well maintained, and do not suffer the environmental damage like frost heave and such common in other states), road conditions (how long they are covered in snow, flooding, etc. - another area in which we scored quite well), traffic (outside of the horrible congestion in the Puget Sound area, there essentially is none, so we got an average score on that one), and other factors. So, having done quite well in those categories, what factor(s) served to drag Washington down? In their (the AMA's) words, it's out heavy-handed traffic law enforcement. They rate it as about the worst in the nation.

Part of the problem has been the extreme dumbing-down (in the officers' favor) of the whole process. Part of that was eliminating the requirement to sign the ticket. In years past, if you vehemently disagreed with the ticket, you could refuse to sign. And the officer could arrest you for that (or just write "refused to sign" in the signature block). So, we did have some "side of the road" recourse, if we felt strongly enough about it. Even that is gone now, along with a litany of other measures that have been enacted to make it easier on the officer writing the ticket.

What happened to Wolfe is, unfortunately, not at all uncommon up here. When I was much younger, it was pretty damn rare that an officer ever wrote a ticket. You had to do something exceptionally stupid or dangerous to get pulled over in the first place. Then, you had to be a real ass once they were talking to you. Believe me, as a young punk driving all manner of hot-rod and loud, obnoxious motorcycle, I got stopped a lot. I was always polite, almost to a fault. Lots of stern talkings to, but never a ticket.

Today, however, most stops result in a ticket of some kind. Even for a gray haired, middle aged guy like me, and for all sorts of insignificant nonsense for which we would have never been stopped 20 years ago. Never. Instead of really trying not to write a ticket, our LEO now look for any excuse to write one. It used to be a bit of a pain in the ass for everyone involved (including the officer), where now it's no skin off their noses. It's been made so easy for them, there is no reason not to - and many reasons to write that ticket. There are lots of incentives up here, whether they admit it or not. As a result, they write an awful lot of very spurious tickets these days.

In many departments, the officer who writes the most tickets gets rewarded with an unmarked unit, so they can write even more (this was covered extensively in the news up here). It's become some kind of erstwhile status symbol for these heroes. Add to that incentives from insurance companies to write more so they can raise their rates (anyone familiar with the infamous "Geico guns"?), and on and on.

The officers need not show the motorist the reading on the RADAR or LASER gun, need not get a signature on the ticket, need not show up in court, need not present any evidence beyond their word. The citizen has no right to representation, no right of appeal, no right to a trial in front of their peers, and the standard of evidence has been reduced from "reasonable doubt" to "preponderance" (which translates to "51%" of the evidence - a standard meant for civil disputes).

The officer's word, conveniently, fills that "51%" requirement. We essentially walk into court guilty, and have to prove we are not. No traffic cases are decided on the weight of any evidence anymore. They are all decided purely on procedural technicalities, usually on the officer's paperwork. Now many jurisdictions (my home county, for example) are bringing in legal experts to assist the officers with their paperwork, in the hopes that fewer cases are lost on that front. Further dumbing it down for the officers...

The Washington motorist has no chance against these odds. Hence, the sort of harrassment experienced by Wolfe. LEO has no reason not to. We have lost any measure of any sort of checks and balances in our traffic enforcement. So, here we sit - one of the most beautiful states in the nation, with some of the best roads, with some of the least traffic (outside of the Puget Sound area) - ranked as eighth worst in the nation for driving. And we owe it all to our traffic enforcement. Go, team...

Well said Jeff,, and they wonder why we hate cops....

Sniper? Sniper ??

I'm pretty sure that here in Texas you don't actually have to sign the ticket and refusing to sign the ticket doesn't actually get you in any more trouble unless you piss off the cop, but I could be wrong. They always tell you that signing the ticket is not an acknowledgement of guilt.

Still, if the cop wrote me for no insurance, but I had handed him valid insurance, I would have (without being accusing or having attitude) asked him what was wrong with the paperwork that I handed him because I believed it to be valid.

If I had been speeding or something else, and the only ticket that he wrote was something that I could get out of by showing paperwork and a small fee, then I would have thanked him.

If it was bogus all around, then I may have made more inquiries.

I understand being grumpy about getting a bogus ticket. I understand that there are corrupt cops or cops who cross the line and that's a very bad thing. I've gotten plenty of tickets over the years. I don't think any one has ever been bogus. I haven't been pulled over in quite some time, and as I've gotten older, have even gotten warnings.

I just don't get the above statement. I suspect the ratio of good cops to bad cops is HUGE. I think most of them get paid a small amount for a job that sucks where everyone seems to hate you (unless they need you, then it's 180° different reaction).

I think that for the most part, cops have to deal with the absolute armpit of humanity.

I hate to get tickets, and the idea of corrupt or bad cops makes my blood boil, but I applaud the rest of them for their service. Even the ones that give me tickets.

I suspect I get paid a bunch more than they do, and I never have to worry about someone shooting me for doing my job.

No signature required.

Gee, a thread were Pelicans tell thier cop stories. This thread will never end......