Is this Legal/Ethical?

[Dark Knifer]

Well, if he got home just after 12, that should be allowed. I would have given him a warning myself. Seems a bit harsh for 3 minutes. 30 minutes and I would book 'em.

 

[Koeryn]

If the cop was tailing him, he did something to catch the cops attention. Looking 'young' does not count as catching a cops attention. He was probably watching for something completely different, and your friend just happened to luck out when the cop stumbled onto his age when he was checking his license.

So... Probably harsh, but legally fair. Plus, it means one less idiot driver on the road for everyone else to deal with.

Edit: Note, I'm not calling your friend an idiot. I'm going by the simple rule of thumb: Is there a car on the road that you aren't driving? That person's an idiot and doesn't know how to drive.

 

[Ameter]

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.

Absolutely allowed for the cops to do it. Will it stand up in court? Probably not. That said, your neighbor probably shouldn't be such an idiot, cutting things so closely to curfew.

Reasonableness goes both ways.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Not everything is black and white. I really think that 3 minutes of minor violation does not equal 2 years of suspension from driving. Theres a time to crack thw whip, and theres a time to let things slide. This was one of those times.

 

[zama174]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

/thread

so, umm, why do you question it? He should have just left earlier. You need to be prepared for this stuff when you have such a responsibility.

What if there was a traffic jam? Or some such unexpected thing happened that left him stuck? While yes, it is technically legal, it just down right pisses me the fuck off. The kid was three minutes late! There is no damn reason why he should have his licensed suspend for 2 YEARS! Honestly, the punishment should fit the crime, and really I don't see a crime being committed.. Why couldn't this cop be patrolling neighborhoods where people fly down em at 50 MPH or patrol the highway. Its cops like these that give cops bad names. The ones who abuse there powers, or just are to damn lazy to do there jobs.

 

[zama174]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Not everything is black and white. I really think that 3 minutes of minor violation does not equal 2 years of suspension from driving. Theres a time to crack thw whip, and theres a time to let things slide. This was one of those times.

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

The officer did his job.

Period.

Oh really? A lot of cops let people off with warnings simply because they know that the crime really doesn't deserve the punishments which we have. Something like this is simply wrong, and stupid. Cops always pick and chose when to enforce the law.

 

[Death on Trapezoids]

Depends on where you live. You might check further into the whole "curfew" thing. Where I live, while there is a curfew from midnight to 5:00 AM for drivers of that age, it is expressly stated that the curfew doesn't apply when going between school, work, or HOME or when accompanied by an appropriate person.

From what you have described, I think 2 years is a little harsh. Can you predict getting stuck behind a train or in a clogged intersection? 3 minutes is really not a lot of time when it comes to time margins. Especially with the 5 minute differences between everyone's clocks and watches.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Not everything is black and white. I really think that 3 minutes of minor violation does not equal 2 years of suspension from driving. Theres a time to crack thw whip, and theres a time to let things slide. This was one of those times.

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

The officer did his job.

Period.

My father was a cop. My grandfather was a cop. I plan to be a cop someday. I'm familiar with the law, and cops can exercise discretion in instances like these.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

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.

 

[zama174]

SNIP

The driver did the wrong thing.

The law dictates a certain punishment.

The police officer, whose job it is to enforce the law, did just that.

There is nothing wrong here.

Simple.

Maybe not by a legal standpoint, but by an ethical one it is. Hell I walk my dogs a lot past curfew. They need to pee, so I do it. I think if a cop fined me for it because I am letting my dog do its business in my own yard, would be pretty stupid, and ethically questionable. How can this not raise questions about the ethical standing of the world when cops spend more time tailing a kid because he was driving home and took three to many minutes to get there instead of patrolling the highways for drunk, or reckless drivers? You know, people who might actually hurt, or kill someone?

 

[Hollock]

What a dick.
I wonder what our resident cop Ace_of_Something and his sassy partner would have to say in a situation like this.

 

[kitsunefather]

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.

This in part. Its also a "common sense guideline" that assumes a person's speedometer may read slightly skewed, and that if the driver fights it it really isn't worth the time or man hours. I think this kind of case would call for a certain amount of allowance, given that he was actually at his house. A warning, basically, which officers can choose to do rather than ticket.

Unless this wasn't his first encounter with curfew breaking, or had a history of hi-jinks that would lead the officer to assume this wasn't a one-time accident of timing and traffic.

Also, it depends on the state you are in. Some states have a "3 turns or 3 miles" rule for officers, that if they don't turn on the lights before they've followed someone for 3 miles, or around 3 turns, than they are behaving in a harassing fashion.

 

[Seddi]

What the hell? 4-6 months I could understand, but two fucking years?

Dick move if you ask me, even if it's legal.

^
There's often a difference between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. This would be an excellent example of that.

As someone else already stated, three minutes is so slight a difference that it could be debated by the accuracy of a clock, or even if at what time the instant his car stopped in that driveway. Meanwhile, the officer could've spent that time on the lookout for a real threat, like a drunk driver.

 

[ExaltedK9]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Not everything is black and white. I really think that 3 minutes of minor violation does not equal 2 years of suspension from driving. Theres a time to crack thw whip, and theres a time to let things slide. This was one of those times.

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

The officer did his job.

Period.

My father was a cop. My grandfather was a cop. I plan to be a cop someday. I'm familiar with the law, and cops can exercise discretion in instances like these.

It doesn't matter how you think or feel.

There is no issue of ethics or illegal activity on the part of the officer.

He enforced the law on someone breaking the law.

Get over it.

Actually, this is a perspective-seeking thread, so I believe my opinions WERE welcome here. And I don't remember saying anything about the officer doing something illegal, but yea, unethical if you ask me.

Lawful discretion is a policy, not something I "think or feel". An officer has a right to exercise it, and I feel that he should have in this case.

You disagree. I don't really care, I just hope its not exercised on you the next time you're pulled over for inevitably doing something stupid.

 

[Mad World]

Wow... I am very surprised at all of the people siding with the cop.

The cop may have been technically justified to do that he did, but I consider it to be rather ridiculous. The kid was even on his way home, so I consider it to be a jerk thing to do.

And two years? That's just too strict for three minutes past midnight. That's too strict for even an hour over, in my opinion.

That police officer must have either been really bored or in a really bad mood.

I'd like to note that I definitely don't think that what the cop did was illegal. I just don't think that it was really necessary. I guess that it's really about the cop's intentions; is he just looking to exercise his power because he can (which many cops enjoy far too much)? Or does he think that he is doing the right thing?

Really, I think that he was just being overzealous.