: WTF? Is this legal?



OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 12:01 PM
http://www.wtsbradio.com/pages/localnews.html


Senate Passes Teen Driving Bill
Also, this week in the NC General Assembly, the teen driving bill sponsored by Senator Rouzer passed unanimously. Under this bill, if a teen is caught speeding 15 mph or more over the speed limit, or if they are caught without wearing a seatbelt, they would have their license revoked for 30 days upon citation. Should this bill pass the House and become law, NC would be the first state to revoke a teen's license pre-conviction.

Doesn't this make teens be considered guilty until proven innocent? We all know police officers are humans too and sometimes make mistakes. Also, being human, police officers aren't always fair or honest.
I was pulled over once in my DTS. Anyone familiar with the 00-05 Devilles knows the seatbelt mounts to the seat, not the b-pillar. So the officer pulls me over and the first thing he says is "i pulled you over because you werent wearing your seatbelt..." When i pointed at the seat belt he said "i wasnt born yesterday boy you just put that on." He asked to search my vehicle and said if he didnt find anything hed let me go with a warning. I agreed only because i never have anything for anyone to "find". I also knew saying no would result in a BS seatbelt ticket with no way to fight it.

Howeever, if i had said no, and had gotten a no seat belt ticket, and had been a teen, i would have lost my license for 30 days because some ******* cop saw a kid in a cadillac and decided he must be a drug dealer.

Seems to me the law knows teens will continue to drive, which will result in DWLR tickets and more money for the state. All the while, town officials have been giving themselves unapproved 20k/year raises and not getting in trouble for it

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 12:18 PM
Having been a teenager, having driven with other teenagers, and now as an adult - driving amongst teenagers on the roadway, I have no problem with this - principle or not.

The seatbelt story is a matter of officer malfunction and can apply to ANY law or ordinance.

Ranger
06-11-11, 12:25 PM
Doesn't this make teens be considered guilty until proven innocent?
If you stop and think about it, anytime you are given a citation, you are guilty until proven innocent and the burden of proof is on you.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 01:00 PM
no because you're allowed to remain free, you're not fined yet. no other action is taken other than a citation which is an "invitation" to court basically.

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 01:44 PM
Here's an example I suppose - When I got stopped for a suspended license in '06 I was still free. Free to get a ride home.

As a teenager who gets caught going 15 over, I suspect their evening will end the same way mine did.

Stingroo
06-11-11, 02:27 PM
I call bullshit. Glad I don't live in NC right now, lol

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 02:27 PM
Here's an example I suppose - When I got stopped for a suspended license in '06 I was still free. Free to get a ride home.

As a teenager who gets caught going 15 over, I suspect their evening will end the same way mine did.



If your license was suspended and you were driving, its highly unlikely that you WERENT guilty of driving while your license is suspended. Where it gets tricky is why were you stopped int he first place?

A teen who gets pulled for going 15 over isnt necessarily cut and dry. The speedometer could have just broken in the car, the radar could have malfunctioned on the police unit, the officer could be flat out lying. Same with the seatbelt, you could have it on the whole time and the officer will swear you put it on once you saw him...

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 03:59 PM
A teen who gets pulled for going 15 over isnt necessarily cut and dry.

Sure it is! Speeding? Check. Teen driver? Check.


The speedometer could have just broken in the car,

Operator responsibility. Situation could apply to any law.


the radar could have malfunctioned on the police unit,

Not likely and good luck proving that one. Situation could apply to any law.


the officer could be flat out lying. Same with the seatbelt, you could have it on the whole time and the officer will swear you put it on once you saw him...

Officer malfunction. Situation could apply to any law.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 04:03 PM
Sure it is! Speeding? Check. Teen driver? Check.



Operator responsibility. Situation could apply to any law.



Not likely and good luck proving that one. Situation could apply to any law.



Officer malfunction. Situation could apply to any law.

yes i know the situation could apply to any law. i get it. officers malfunction i get it. the difference is, in most cases of officer malfunction, the driver doesnt get his or her license SUSPENDED until the court date.

dkozloski
06-11-11, 04:10 PM
Considering the lack of seriousness of all these offenses, the fact that they were committed in the arresting officer's presence is sufficient evidence for conviction for most judges. In Alaska there are all kinds of offences that will result in an automatic administrative license suspension such as refusal of a breathalyzer test, or driving with no insurance.

ThumperPup
06-11-11, 04:24 PM
A teen who gets pulled for going 15 over isnt necessarily cut and dry. The speedometer could have just broken in the car, the radar could have malfunctioned on the police unit, the officer could be flat out lying. Same with the seatbelt, you could have it on the whole time and the officer will swear you put it on once you saw him...


few years back this one cop was trying to give me excuses to not get a tiket it took me a few moments to figure out what he was doing but i was speeding down a blvd near my house down hill doing about 55 in a 35 flew right by the police station
i was not thinking at the time and didn't realize where i was
so all of a sudden when i hit the bottom of the hill the red and blue lights come on behind me im like oh sh1t

so the cop comes up says you know that was the police department back there i said i forgot
he said so why are you speeding or something along those lines
i said i was not paying much atention
he said are you shure something not wrong like maybe the speedometer or speed sensor is off and you need to get that check it took me a minute to relaize what he was doing but trying to give me a reason so he did not have to give me a tiket
i swear i think he was Gayyy and he was hitting on me for some reason LOL
so i said sure yeah that must be it its a new car used to me and i still had the temp tags on it at the time
so i said ill take it in in the AM and have it looked at he let me go with a warning nice cop that was

but also here in Ohio and also in Mi
if you have faulty equipment you can go to court if you can prove that it was faulty equipment that caused you to be speeding the judge or magistrate can give the cop the option void the tiket and then re wright a tiket for faulty equipment so you need to think is it really worth it or could it cost you even more in the long run to use that as a defense

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 04:31 PM
im surprised that you guys are so willing to let people rights be walked all over.

what happened to due process?

dkozloski
06-11-11, 04:54 PM
im surprised that you guys are so willing to let people rights be walked all over.

what happened to due process?

If you're guilty you accept your punishment like a man. Fighting a ticket when you're obviously guilty is pissing away the taxpayers money on your vanity.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 05:03 PM
what about when you're innocent?

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 05:31 PM
Then you have the right to contest it. Just like the refusal to take a breathalyzer test, the violation of the law in question is easily verifiable by radar and suspect's drivers license.

While we all have "rights", but it's the cops that have the powers. They can damn near do whatever they want. In any situation it all comes down to the cops word vs yours. Without sufficient proof of an officer's wrongdoing, your SOL and your experience with the justice system pretty much hinges upon the officer's moral compass.

Hell, even WITH sufficient proof, if it is within the department's best interest to stomp you out, they will find a way. The winner is the party with the most resources and most of the time it isnt YOU. The recent open-carry incident comes to mind here....

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 06:12 PM
exactly, so shouldnt we KEEP measures in place to protect ourselves in these situations? why should we make it easier for cops to have their way and make them that much more powerful? Now all they gotta do is WRITE the damn ticket and BOOM your license is suspended...BOOM you have to fork money out for a taxi or inconvenience your friends to give you rides or lose your job.

Having a suspended license is serious shit! Your other option is to drive anyway, and god help you if you get busted doing that...you just quadrupled the money you have to pay in court costs legal fees and fines...PLUS, you just extended the amount of time youre license is suspended. Alot of people end up driving anyway, so guess what that does for state revenue.

orconn
06-11-11, 06:51 PM
I agree that a suspended license is "serious Shit!" So is the responsibility of driving a car on public streets and roads. Allowing juveniles who may have half formed abilities of judgment to drive under any circumstances will be under further review as we go forward in this century. Statistics bare out the facts that young drivers are more likely to violate the traffic laws and not to mention the universal laws of physics than drivers with more mature judgment. Is it more reasonable to penalize juveniles by taking their licenses for speed and other violations or is it more reasonable to raise the driving age to 21 years of age?

billc83
06-11-11, 07:07 PM
Losing a license is serious shit when you have a job and have to commute to work. Some kid going to high school might have to take the bus for a month. And will look a little less cool to his peers, which if you think about it, is the worst consequence of all...

Stingroo
06-11-11, 07:31 PM
This thread's responses are full of fail. I'm quite surprised by this, honestly.

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 07:45 PM
Why? Because you are within the 0.01% of young drivers who use good judgment on the road?

dkozloski
06-11-11, 07:55 PM
My opinion; it's a stretch in the first place to let anybody under 25 drive a car on a public road. Anybody in the neuro-science racket will tell you that it takes the brain that long to develope. Letting somebody under that age drive gives the few with some judgement the chance to prove themselves worthy of the privelege. If you screw up it's gameover. Jerk the license until you're 25 and go through the process again of earning it.

Stingroo
06-11-11, 07:59 PM
Why? Because you are within the 0.01% of young drivers who use good judgment on the road?

Nah, I'll willingly admit I drive like an ass hole. Slow drivers irritate the piss out of me, people who don't know how to use turn signals irritate the piss out of me, people who wait until the road is parted like the Red Sea before they turn irritate the piss out of me, and I will happily honk at all of them. F*ck 'em.

I will also say that I have never received a traffic ticket in my life. :)

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 08:10 PM
Losing a license is serious shit when you have a job and have to commute to work. Some kid going to high school might have to take the bus for a month. And will look a little less cool to his peers, which if you think about it, is the worst consequence of all...

i know i wasnt and am not alone. i had a beater car when i was 16 and drive it back and forth to work. i bought my own clothes fed myself and paid my own bill including car insurance. driving to school was just an upside to owning a beater car. without a license i would have needed a ride to work or risk losing my job. if i could get a ride to work every day, i wouldnt have needed to buy my own piece of crap car

so yes it is a big deal even to teenagers. you know that many college kids are teenagers right? not all of them have mommy and daddy paying for room and board.

so all it takes is a cop having a bad day to put you in a predicament. thats whats wrong with this law

Stingroo
06-11-11, 08:14 PM
There you go being all logical again....

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 08:16 PM
so all it takes is a cop having a bad day to put you in a predicament. thats whats wrong with this law

This can be said about ANY law!!!! From jaywalking to sexual harassment! All it takes is one bad cop to seriously screw up anyones life. There are innocent people sitting in prison right now who would cut off an arm to have simply lost there license for a month.

Its only 30 days, and its only for teens. If you mess up, you have the rest of your life to learn from it.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 08:28 PM
What's so difficult to grasp about this. You understand that a cops bad judgement can mess up someones life and even give examples of it, yet you consider it ok to give them yet another way to do so?What if this applied to everyone regardless of age, would it still be just as peachy to you?

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 08:39 PM
You are taking a one-off theoretical situation and compartmentalizing it to fit into your own bias which was inflicted upon you during your seatbelt traffic stop. This thread is really about 'officer malfunction' which, like so many unfortunate people out there, you were directly affected by.

If you think about it, EVERY law is a way for a bad cop to screw up someones life. We could replace the topic with DUI policy and have practically the same discussion.

And no, this law does not apply to everyone regardless of age because 99% of teen drivers have their heads up their asses. This doesnt hold up well on this forum because most all of us appreciate cars and driving putting us in that 1% making this law even more inflammatory to this select group of enthusiasts.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 08:55 PM
Most adult drivers have their heads up their asses.I'm 100% sure that im not the only person who was in the situation I described. As a matter of fact I'd go as far as to say its a very common situationWhere does it stop? Today its teens only and suspending licenses, when it extends to adults and they take your car for 30 days everyones tone will change. Or will it still be ok?

Sevillian273
06-11-11, 09:06 PM
The law is there because there is a HIGHER incidence of rectal-cranial inversions in teen drivers over adults.

Of course your not the only victim of bad policing, there are thousands. I never said this was fine and dandy.

This will not fly with adult drivers because people will stand up against it. This goes back to the resources thing - more people will agree with the law due to the statistics of teen driver incidents and so it gets through the general assembly. You're not going to get enough people behind you who share the "What if I get a bad cop?" concern so there goes your resources....

OffThaHorseCEO
06-11-11, 09:19 PM
Good to know noone wants to protect our kids rights

dkozloski
06-11-11, 09:28 PM
There is no such right to drive a car no matter what your age. When you sign your license you agree to abide by the rules and regulations no matter what they are, much like signing away your civil rights to the bail bondsman. In Alaska, for instance, you agree to blood alcohol testing. If you refuse a test you lose your license administratively almost immediately and the judge isn't even involved.

gary88
06-11-11, 10:20 PM
Solutions:

1) Don't speed
2) Wear your seatbelt

:noidea:

77CDV
06-11-11, 10:33 PM
Remember, a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right. It's granted by the state to an individual with the express understanding that the licencee will be familiar with and obey all applicable laws governing the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle at all times. Failure to do so on the licencee's part is grounds for having the driving privilege summarily revoked. As with any administrative action against a state-issues licence, the licencee has the right to contest the administrative action. However, the state need only show with reasonable certainty that the licencee violated the law. It's up to the licencee to prove he did not. The Constitutional guarantee of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to administrative actions, as a voluntary privilege is involved rather than an inalienable right.

dkozloski
06-11-11, 11:20 PM
Remember, a driver's licence is a privilege, not a right. It's granted by the state to an individual with the express understanding that the licencee will be familiar with and obey all applicable laws governing the ownership and operation of a motor vehicle at all times. Failure to do so on the licencee's part is grounds for having the driving privilege summarily revoked. As with any administrative action against a state-issues licence, the licencee has the right to contest the administrative action. However, the state need only show with reasonable certainty that the licencee violated the law. It's up to the licencee to prove he did not. The Constitutional guarantee of innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to administrative actions, as a voluntary privilege is involved rather than an inalienable right.
Exactly!

drewsdeville
06-12-11, 07:20 AM
^^^That is the best possible response to this thread and is entirely correct. The first sentence of that post seems to slip everyone's mind.

DouglasJRizzo
06-12-11, 07:54 AM
this stuff only exists to generate money for cash strapped states and municipalities who burn through money. the only thing that will come of it, is a generation who are so distrustful of police that they absolutely don't cooperate or say anything at all - even when it could do a great amount of good. if the LEO's wonder why no one is willing to help now, wait till stuff like this becomes more commonplace.

Xtreme70SS
06-12-11, 09:50 AM
Driving a car is not a right. The privilege can be revoked by any state based on the rules they have set up.

ThumperPup
06-12-11, 09:54 AM
Losing a license is serious shit when you have a job and have to commute to work. Some kid going to high school might have to take the bus for a month. And will look a little less cool to his peers, which if you think about it, is the worst consequence of all...

I was thinking just this a little whyll ago came on to see how this thread was going and saw your reasponse just what i was thinking

johnny kannapo
06-23-11, 10:50 PM
The the police need [probable cause] to initiate pulling you over. If the radar device showed a time/distance infraction, correct or not, they then have the [probable cause] needed to proceed with a pull over and issuing violation and anything else that is on the table.

It could be the liciense tag shows something. ALPR=big brother.

They can not pull you over for no reason unless they are pulling over all vehicles at a pre-determined check point.

The 4th amendment guarantees you the reasonable right to privacy. This trumps all state law. Our constitutional rights are shrinking.

If you don't do anything wrong they can't lawfully do anything. If the registered tag shows a record of a driver with a suspended license they want to verify a driver thats in compliance.

brandondeleo
06-26-11, 09:56 AM
I believe that there should not be age discrimination in driving. It is strictly case-by-case in my book. Saying an 18 year old should not be allowed to drive because they are irresponsible or underdeveloped is the same thing as saying that a 75 year old cannot drive because they are senile in ALL cases. Mind you, I am not saying that, but providing it as an example. It is simply not a verifiable generality. The bottom line here is a very basic solution. DON'T SPEED OR DRIVE WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. It is truly that simple.

billc83
06-26-11, 10:03 AM
I kind of see where Offthahorse is coming from, though:

If a cop had a grudge against a certain individual (say some kid dating his daughter), he could pull over and have the kid's license suspended. If it goes to court after the fact, it becomes my word vs. the cop's, and we all know how those turn out.

The OP's logic flaw comes from the fact this can happen with ANY violation of the law, not only this law.

johnny kannapo
06-27-11, 10:33 PM
On a lighter note

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=363_1182620505

OffThaHorseCEO
06-28-11, 10:57 AM
I believe that there should not be age discrimination in driving. It is strictly case-by-case in my book. Saying an 18 year old should not be allowed to drive because they are irresponsible or underdeveloped is the same thing as saying that a 75 year old cannot drive because they are senile in ALL cases. Mind you, I am not saying that, but providing it as an example. It is simply not a verifiable generality. The bottom line here is a very basic solution. DON'T SPEED OR DRIVE WITHOUT A SEAT BELT. It is truly that simple.

its NOT that simple, apparently you didnt read. Im not arguing against teens being punished for speeding or not wearing the seatbelt. I understand it is the law and people should follow that law. What im not agreeing with is that everyone accused of speeding is a speeder. Not everyone accused of not wearing a seatbelt was guilty. In this situation, your license is being suspended before you go to court. How would you like it if an officer made an honest mistake, and said you were speeding and you werent, but he wrote the ticket anyway and said fight it in court. So even though you KNOW you werent speeding, and you KNOW it'll get thrown out in court, you still have a suspended license until you go to court.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-28-11, 11:00 AM
The the police need [probable cause] to initiate pulling you over. If the radar device showed a time/distance infraction, correct or not, they then have the [probable cause] needed to proceed with a pull over and issuing violation and anything else that is on the table.

It could be the liciense tag shows something. ALPR=big brother.

They can not pull you over for no reason unless they are pulling over all vehicles at a pre-determined check point.

The 4th amendment guarantees you the reasonable right to privacy. This trumps all state law. Our constitutional rights are shrinking.

If you don't do anything wrong they can't lawfully do anything. If the registered tag shows a record of a driver with a suspended license they want to verify a driver thats in compliance.

Because cops arent humans right? Theyre robots programmed to follow every rule to the t and never break protocol. Never, ever has a bad cop existed in this world.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-28-11, 11:15 AM
Guys seriously, i had wanted to stay out of this thread because im appaled at some of the attitudes and replies. Everyone is basically saying, its the law follow the law.

For example, "driving is a privilege not a right"

Its only this way because a group of people just like some of the people who have replied on this thread said stood back and let it become so.

Jesda
06-28-11, 12:10 PM
There is a natural right to personal mobility, at least in Western society.

That right is inhibited by government for societal benefit and sometimes for the benefit of government itself, which is a problem.

"Its a privilege not a right" is repeated by some people like its carved into the Code of Hammurabi. Sheesh.

billc83
06-28-11, 04:54 PM
Guys seriously, i had wanted to stay out of this thread because im appaled at some of the attitudes and replies. Everyone is basically saying, its the law follow the law.

For example, "driving is a privilege not a right"

Its only this way because a group of people just like some of the people who have replied on this thread said stood back and let it become so.

Go start a petition. Probably more effective than arguing on the internet.

OffThaHorseCEO
06-28-11, 04:58 PM
Go start a petition. Probably more effective than arguing on the internet.

im not arguing. and a petition is about as effective as arguing on the internet.

Jesda
06-28-11, 06:11 PM
The one petition with real world effectiveness is a ballot initiative.

Tempted to start one banning red light and speed cameras.