Is this Legal/Ethical?

[Jonluw]

Your friend did technically break the law. I think 2 years of suspension is a bit too much, but who am I to argue?

I do, however, think the cop should have better things to do than spending his night tailgating people to see if they break curfew by 3 minutes. You know, going after actual crimes, with victims and stuff.

 

[monkey_man]

It is against the law. But 3 minutes is nothing. If the cop was nice, he would've just let it go, instead of stalk him home.
So blame the cop for being a jerk.

 

[Seriphina]

I don't agree with it but they can do it and your neighbour should have made extra time to make it home before midnight. =(

 

[Scout Tactical]

Snip

It seems like you're more concerned with the severity of the punishment, but I outlined in one of my earlier responses that this is due to punishment inflation as a result of these exact offenses. Either way, this is a question of the ethics/legality of issuing a ticket in this manner, not the punishment (which I agree is too harsh, hence my distaste for inflation).

The reason his lights didn't come on at 12:01, or likely at all is twofold. First, to stop unnecessary disruption of the peace and traffic (it's night time, remember?), and second, to confirm the person was underage. It would be pretty embarrassing to pull someone over for a curfew violation and realize they're thirty, wouldn't it? It's much less disruptive to simply follow the violator to their destination, then check things out.

I hope I don't have to tell out how annoying police lights can be coming in the window in a residential area. People need to sleep, much like I should be right now.

 

[Knight Templar]

It's not the job of police to pick and choose how and when they enforce the law.

Yes it is. It's called discretion and it is what means that the cop acted within the law, but unethically as he was being an arse and causing harm. The law is not meant to be a stick to beat people with, it's mean to create order, prevent crime and ideally exact justice. None of those functions are fulfilled by the cops actions.
I know others are getting into you for this but it really ticked me off.

 

[icaritos]

The reason why our society is so bad right now is because we have completely removed the concept of common sense.

 

[Scout Tactical]

It's not the job of police to pick and choose how and when they enforce the law.

Yes it is. It's called discretion and it is what means that the cop acted within the law, but unethically as he was being an arse and causing harm.
I know others are getting into you for this but it really ticked me off.

You're doing a pretty crappy job of being a knight templar, considering it's essentially in your job description to follow your methodology, faith, and law blindly and without question. =P

That said, discretion shouldn't really exist, when you think about it. It's up to the courts to have discretion, not the police. Remember the old saying: "I don't make the laws, I just enforce them"? There's a similar equivalent for the judiciary that should be "I don't judge the laws, I just enforce them." It's up for the judge and jury to have discretion.

 

[midget_roxx]

Must be more to the story than, got caught by cop when at house for being over curfew. 2 year suspension for being past 12 is just stupid. Did he have his full licence, did he need to have someone with a full licence sitting next to him in the car?

If you get caught here without your licence and your not qualified to drive you get a 6month suspension. Just seems odd

 

[Jonluw]

I'm gonna say that the cop was in the right for doing this. Your neighbor should have planned better and thought of coming home before said curfew.

A bit off topic perhaps, but is it really that bad for you americans to wait until you're 18? It works perfectly well here in Norway.

Firstly, not every country is the same, genius, and secondly, if he now can't drive until 18, it's a pretty simple conclusion that HE'S GOING TO BE WORSE WHEN HE'S 18 THAN HE WOULD BE. In short, the cop's a dick (and may have just created another bad driver), and tell your neighbour to get it appealed.

That's a ridiculous argument. "Since he has to wait until he's 18 to drive, he'll be a bad driver when he's 18. If you had let him drive since he was 16, he would have been a decent driver at 18".
Yeah, he would probably be a decent driver at 18. Doesn't change the fact that he would still be a crappy driver at 16.
Yes, he's going to be a worse driver at 18 than he would be, had he started driving at 16. Still, he would work up the skills in time, just as he would if he started driving at 16. And I'm willing to bet that a fresh driver, aged 16, is a lot more dangerous than a fresh driver, aged 18.

Edit: And please try not to be so rude. You create an uncomfortable and undesirable environment.

 

[Mistermixmaster]

I'm gonna say that the cop was in the right for doing this. Your neighbor should have planned better and thought of coming home before said curfew.

A bit off topic perhaps, but is it really that bad for you americans to wait until you're 18? It works perfectly well here in Norway.

Firstly, not every country is the same, genius, and secondly, if he now can't drive until 18, it's a pretty simple conclusion that HE'S GOING TO BE WORSE WHEN HE'S 18 THAN HE WOULD BE. In short, the cop's a dick (and may have just created another bad driver), and tell your neighbour to get it appealed.

Jeez, what's with the harshness (and insult)? I know every country isn't the same, so excuse me for asking about something out of genuine curiosity D: I mean, it is only two years, I can see it beeing a bit sour, but really, two years go by fast.

 

[Jadak]

A bit stupid in the sense that tax money should be going towards paying cops to do something more useful with the time than tailing kids home and issuing trivial curfew violations punishments, but from a legal/ethical standpoint, rules are rules. If you don't want to be punished, don't break them.

 

[kitsunefather]

It seems like you're more concerned with the severity of the punishment, but I outlined in one of my earlier responses that this is due to punishment inflation as a result of these exact offenses. Either way, this is a question of the ethics/legality of issuing a ticket in this manner, not the punishment (which I agree is too harsh, hence my distaste for inflation).

The reason his lights didn't come on at 12:01, or likely at all is twofold. First, to stop unnecessary disruption of the peace and traffic (it's night time, remember?), and second, to confirm the person was underage. It would be pretty embarrassing to pull someone over for a curfew violation and realize they're thirty, wouldn't it? It's much less disruptive to simply follow the violator to their destination, then check things out.

I hope I don't have to tell out how annoying police lights can be coming in the window in a residential area. People need to sleep, much like I should be right now.

Guilty, I am concerned with the severity of the punishment. And to say he was just following him home.. how does he know where he lives? If he's not sure that the driver is underage, why is he devoting what could be much more than 3 minutes to follow him, without flicking the lights on?

And I get it might bother people, but this officer doesn't strike me as the empathic type if he's walking up to a kid in his driveway to suspend his license for two years after tailing him home. Now, if this is a small town, and the officer knows the kid/car, and is just knows where they're going, maybe the "being considerate" angle works, but without that information, it seems an overly draconian enforcement. (Yes, I know, but the severity of the punishment is endemic with my problem with this story)

Let me say, to be clear: What the cop did was legal and ethical. There is no moral argument to it, he did his job, within the discretion provided to him by his superiors. My only issue is with the severity of the punishment, given the circumstances.

 

[Kevonovitch]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew. So i was wondering, are cops allowed to do this. And if they are, do you agree with it. Explain.






*Also, i would like to note that this isnt a hypothetical, it happened next door to me, i mean the house DIRECTLY next to mine.

in canada, well BC atleast, trolling cops=50-50 in the wrong. but in that kind of situation, where if they are just past the line, and they went streight home, the cops are not allowed to ding you for it, you are allowed lee-way of a few minutes, by the law, if for w/e reason your just barely able to make it to your place. they edited it within the last few years for pretty much any place of residence your going to be spending the night. now if they were like 12:05+ yeah, trolling asshole cops can ding you for it :/ but only 3min? yeah thats like the border for fudging time, especially if they question you/ticket you, you can take it to court, and by law, that cop has to show up, or that ticket is invalid, and you don't have to pay for anything, and if you win, on the occation, the cop has to pay the fine as punishment for being a douche, and not doing his goddamn job. although, they don't like that to be known it has happened before, and will again.

(ps, i hate cops >_>, but i didn't write this because of that, just saying, out here, shit like that woulden't fly.)

 

[El Poncho]

A curfew? I didn't think developed countries actually had them...

 

[fix-the-spade]

*Also, i would like to note that this isnt a hypothetical, it happened next door to me, i mean the house DIRECTLY next to mine.

He can and should appeal.

The policemen in question were clearly being vindictive, while the letter of the law may be on their side I doubt if stood up to such a case would get as far as court.

PS, curfew?! What country/state is this?

 

[YouBecame]

there is a 5 mph give on speed limits, so it is not exactly like going 3 minutes over the speed limit.

just to clear up a common misconception, the "5 mph window" (at least in most places) is not actually a law, but rather a matter of practicality. basically, since it takes an officer so damn long to write a ticket, a ticket for a violation of <5 mph simply isn't worth his time, when he can easily wait 30 seconds to bag someone for a 10 mph violation. in every locality i am aware of, you CAN be ticketed for a violation of even 1 mph over the limit, but it doesn't happen much because the fine is too low to be worth the officer's/the judge's/the city's time.

I'm under the impression that this window is actually true, but it accounts for inaccuracies of your speedometer. The legal limit is whatever the road sign says. The office & speed cameras give the benefit of the doubt when a small margin over the limit to account for your speedometer.

WTF is this curfew?

They don't have that in England. That's beyond ridiculous. Setting a curfew for drivers just because of their age. And a 2 year ban for 3 minutes over it is exceedingly harsh. I don't think anyone could justify that to me.

Personally. I'd be so pissed off, I'd likely follow the cop to his house and curl out a steamer on his doorstep.

There was an article on the BBC explaining that such measures are being considered in the UK. Annoyed me because I was still learning to drive at the time and felt that the restrictions were too arbitrary: Why would a 20 year old inherently be better at driving than a 19 year old, assuming they had been driving for the same amount of time? (Hey, I learnt to at 22 >_>)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11376809

 

[FoxVI]

I find it strange that no one has mentioned quotas. I know that police officers have a quota they have to fill every 2 or 3 months, witch is usually the reason we get things like this. Also op, do you live in a suburb or a city? because if it's a suburb, he may have recognized the car, witch is another reason why he might have tailed him.