Tucson Police Department Harassment

[papa]

As to your smart a** remark about "ignorance is no excuse for the law",...

Nothing in my previous post was personally directed at you or anyone else, so I'd appreciate the absents of personal attacks.

I and the others in the TPD harrassment thing had done what would be considered our due dilligence when we researched through DMV the requirements for operating a MB

Are you sure about that? In your own words (post #19), you assumed that there would be consideration for the "downhill" causing an unlawful increase in speed. Under the state codes, that's applicable and is worded as such, but the City's code has no such wording. You state:

"...Furthermore, I was coasting downhill to reach the 25 mph allegation and NOT under power although the motor was on."

Under 28-101: (State)

31. "Moped" means a bicycle that is equipped with a helper motor if the vehicle has a maximum piston displacement of fifty cubic centimeters or less, a brake horsepower of one and one-half or less and a maximum speed of twenty-five miles per hour or less on a flat surface with less than a one per cent grade.

Under 28-2516: (City)

C. For the purposes of this section, "motorized electric or gas powered bicycle or tricycle" means a bicycle or tricycle that is equipped with a helper motor that has a maximum piston displacement of forty-eight cubic centimeters or less, that may also be self-propelled and that is operated at speeds of less than twenty miles per hour

Reads to me that ANYTIME the rider exceeds the 20 MPH restriction, for ANY reason whatsoever, then he/she risks serious consequences.

When the department that issues the operators licenses clearly inform you that you do not need an operators license, well that should be pretty clear and convincing info.

Not by a long shot. Far too many State and City employees know less about laws than your typical grade schooler. And even if they did know the codes, you risk receiving corrupt and misleading answers through inexact wording and potentially misleading interpretations. Nothing less than copies of the current statutes should be considered mandatory.


According to Arizona Statutes, any vehicle can be seized or impounded for the following violations:

http://www.azleg.state.az.us/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/28/03511.htm&Title=28&DocType=ARS


And my take?...

I think the City of Tuscon tried to accommodate those individuals who, for whatever reason, lost their driving privileges and/or were unable to satisfy the State's insurance and registration requirements, to have access to motorized transportation. But in exchange, you MUST rigidly abide by the amended codes... or suffer the consequences.

 

[skrufryder]

They went over the 19.999999 speed limit making it a motorized vehicle operated on a public roadway. Also im sure the motors were over 48cc seeing how these motors start about 49cc there for not exempt, and should be considered a moped....

 

[cactusamigo]

Papa: Again, the upgrade in classification from exempt motorized bike status to motor vehicle status occurs if the motorized bike is operated in excess of the "less than 20 mph" requirement. This must be documented FIRST by citation before any other incidental citations can be issued. The citing police officer must first prove to the court that the bike was operating at a speed that violated its exempt classification status in order to justify issuing subsequent, incidental citations. I don't know how he can do this if operating at excessive speed is not documented by citation. Even before that, I don't know how impoundment can be justified or authorized without a charge/citation for out of classification operation (based on excessive speed). A specific chain of events must occur in proper order. No argument about any of this if a citation were issued for the reason the person was stopped.

Also, court is not the proper place to ask a prosecuting attorney to justify his position, especially if his advice is in your favor. It's best to appreciate his indication of being on your side, and quietly follow his advice. It's possible that one could have a civil suit against the city.

This case makes for interesting discussion and exchange of viewpoints. Since this thread now occupies six pages, the issue is more complex than simply exceeding a speed restriction. We can speculate all we want, but the issue will only be resolved by court decision, hopefully on Oct.5.

skrufryder: Please don't drag in issues that are outside the scope of the incident being discussed. Engine displacement is not an issue or a factor in any of this. We should only focus on the facts, as best we know them.

 

[cactusamigo]

papa -

"I think the City of Tuscon tried to accommodate those individuals who, for whatever reason, lost their driving privileges and/or were unable to satisfy the State's insurance and registration requirements, to have access to motorized transportation. But in exchange, you MUST rigidly abide by the amended codes... or suffer the consequences."

The City of Tucson is not graciously extending any benevolence to anyone, since this is already covered by state law, which cannot be prosecuted in city court. The City of Tucson's involvement is purely economical, making a state law into a city ordinance so it can be prosecuted in city court, in order for the city to fatten its coffers by having another opportunity to collect fines. Benevolent government, my a**!

 

[papa]

Papa: Again, the upgrade in classification from exempt motorized bike status to motor vehicle status occurs if the motorized bike is operated in excess of the "less than 20 mph" requirement.

Yup

This must be documented FIRST by citation before any other incidental citations can be issued.

I disagree. All the officer needs is probable cause to initiate a stop. Then proof beyond reasonable doubt that the suspected violation(s) did, if fact, occur.

1. Bike whizzes by at estimated speed of 25 mph - cop whips-out the radar gun and confirms the speed at 24.9 mph. Because it's not immediately clear whether the suspect vehicle is a Moped or Motorized Bike, the officer is within procedure to initiate a stop.

2. Once the stop is initiated, the officer ask for DL, registration and proof of insurance. For whatever reason(s) the suspect rider can't provide the documents requested. The officer then ask the suspect, "do you know how fast you were going?". The suspect hesitates, then says, "I'm not sure... maybe a little over the limit, but I was going downhill".

3. Since the verified speed (both by radar AND admittance from the suspect) was well within the State's definition of 'Moped' (below 25 mph), the officer CANNOT cite for a speed violation. He can however, cite for the lack of DL, registration and proof of insurance because the suspect (in this hypothetical example) cannot provide sufficient proof that the vehicle he is riding is NOT, in fact, a Moped (as defined by 28-101 (31)). In fact, the suspect already provided 'proof' that the vehicle was capable of going faster than is allowed by 28-2516 (C).

The City of Tucson is not graciously extending any benevolence to anyone, since this is already covered by state law, which cannot be prosecuted in city court. The City of Tucson's involvement is purely economical, making a state law into a city ordinance so it can be prosecuted in city court, in order for the city to fatten its coffers by having another opportunity to collect fines. Benevolent government, my a**!

Be careful - if the the City of Tuson decides to abolish 28-2516, a lot of motor bike/moped owners will be forced to either park their machines, or comply with licensing, registration and proof of insurance. Just seems foolish to me, because all one needs to do, is stay below 20 mph and avoid all the hassles. But I digress.

 

[Stan4d]

Also, court is not the proper place to ask a prosecuting attorney to justify his position, especially if his advice is in your favor. It's best to appreciate his indication of being on your side, and quietly follow his advice. It's possible that one could have a civil suit against the city.

Are you serious? If court is not the place for an attorney to justify his position, then where is it.
If the prosecuting attorney is on your side then you are not being prosecuted.
I do not know what your game is, but lack of evidence and statements like that make me question the validity of your accusations.

 

[RedBaronX]

3. Since the verified speed (both by radar AND admittance from the suspect) was well within the State's definition of 'Moped' (below 25 mph), the officer CANNOT cite for a speed violation. He can however, cite for the lack of DL, registration and proof of insurance because the suspect (in this hypothetical example) cannot provide sufficient proof that the vehicle he is riding is NOT, in fact, a Moped (as defined by 28-101 (31)). In fact, the suspect already provided 'proof' that the vehicle was capable of going faster than is allowed by 28-2516 (C).

that's what it comes down to, especially if the overall speed limit for that street was 25 mph (posted or not). He wasn't "speeding" or "speeding on a MB", he was "driving a moped w/o permit, driver's license, insurance, and registration." And just because he didn't get a ticket, doesn't mean the officer doesn't have the speed recorded. Above 20 mph (without moped-level licensing), the MB becomes an illegal vehicle.

 

[papa]

He wasn't "speeding" or "speeding on a MB", he was "driving a moped w/o permit, driver's license, insurance, and registration."...

And the vehicle is subject to impoundment under 28-3511.

 

[skrufryder]

Sure the engine size is a factor, It determins weather or not the MB is considerd a moped and im sure the officers felt the mb to be going more than 19 mph do we even know if the mbs were in the bike lane or on the roadway? if they were over 48cc they are not allowed in the bike lane. cc size is tatlay relevant

 

[cactusamigo]

papa-

All very interesting. Excessive speed for an exempt bike was the reason for initiating the stop. My point is that was not documented by citation. That is what I don't understand. Why can't the officer cite for excessive speed to establish out of compliance operation, since excessive speed is a violation of the exempt status? Why do you not believe that the officer should cite for the probable cause used to initiate the stop?

Unless the operator had a speedometer, he would be unable to reply to the officer when asked how fast he was going. Without a measuring device, the operator's response would not be "proof" of excessive speed.

The city could do very well to abolish 28-2516. That would remove the issue from city jurisdiction. The state law would prevail, and violations would have to be filed in Justice Court.

"Just seems foolish to me, because all one needs to do, is stay below 20 mph and avoid all the hassles".

A very true statement, but it is not a perfect world. If it were, there would be no need for a court system.

"Are you serious? If court is not the place for an attorney to justify his position, then where is it.
If the prosecuting attorney is on your side then you are not being prosecuted.
I do not know what your game is, but lack of evidence and statements like that make me question the validity of your accusations."

In a court setting of initial appearance, the prosecutor has the right to ask the defendant questions - not the other way around. The defendant IS still being prosecuted because the charges have not been dropped. The defendant was just advised to plead "not guilty". He still has to appear in court at a later date to defend his case.

If one reads the impoundment statute, it certainly sounds like it was written around motor vehicles. one can't haul around illegal aliens on a bike, designed for a single rider. I think applying this statute to motorized bikes is kind of stretching it.

skrufryder - Engine displacement is a factor in determining exempt status. However, engine displacement is not an issue in these cases because there were no citations for non-conforming engines.