Tucson Police Department Harassment

[papa]

Is it your view that when he busted the speed limit for a motored bike, his bike became classified as a Moped in the eyes of the law? That is what it seems to me.

I'm not convinced that the arresting officer pursued the notion or even believes that toolmanaz68 was "speeding", because all of the violations alleged are Moped related, not motor bike.

 

[Stan4d]

To me it would make sense. He was not speeding if he was on a moped. If he speeds on his bike (above 19 mph) his bike is considered a moped. So instead of a bike speeding on a bike path, he got a citation for a moped on a bike path.

 

[papa]

What I find amusing about situations such as this, is that all this could have been avoided if the defendant hadn't advertised his disregard for the law. It's one thing to 'fly under the radar' (I've done it myself many times)... but quite another when you violate the law in plain view of an cop.

Some years back, my oldest son was busted for expired insurance (a $120 fine), but was originally stopped for a $5 seat belt infraction - which was blatantly obvious when the officer pulled along side him at a traffic light. Had the officer not seen a violation, he could NOT have made a lawful stop in the first place.

 

[cactusamigo]

Please post the legal deifinition of "vehicle" as applies to the statutes.

Thanks

 

[cactusamigo]

And one more tidbit to chew on...

Hypothetically speaking, you get busted, your bike gets impounded and it happens to be packin' 49 CC's or more, So you decide to fight it - that's cool. But remember this; If the PA decides to push the issue and seek additional evidence against you, all he has to do (since your illegal bike is on his turf), is call in an MB expert and have your bike disassemble - including the engine). So grinding-off those numbers or swapping stickers could easily guarantee your conviction.

Your "hypothetical" situation does not apply in these cases. If it did, the impounded bikes would not have been made available for recovery. The fact is that one individual did recover his bike by paying the impoundment and storage fees. Thus, seizure of the property for evidence is not a factor in these cases.

 

[cactusamigo]

I'm not convinced that the arresting officer pursued the notion or even believes that toolmanaz68 was "speeding", because all of the violations alleged are Moped related, not motor bike.

After all these pages of posts, you still miss the point. "Excessive speed" for the motorized bike exemption is the reason these people were pulled over by the police. If excessive speed was a violation, it would make sense that the first citation issued would be for this violation. This would be the basis for other subsequent out of compliance violations. Why is that so hard to understand? A police officer CANNOT pull you over and detain you for anything other than a citable violation. If he cites you for other violations, he better cite you for the the viloation that caused him to pull you over. He has to do so in order to cover his own butt. If he doesn't, he is wide open to civil suit.

 

[cactusamigo]

Only if the suspect provided undeniable proof that the vehicle he was riding was not, in fact, a moped. Since the officer has indisputable evidence that the vehicle in question was, in fact traveling faster than allowed under 28-2516 (city regs) then what is, exactly, that would convince the officer that the vehicle was other than a genuine Moped?


cactusamigo,

You've hammered this issue beyond submission... so I'm curious... what's in for YOU? Are you one of the ones that got busted too?

To satisfy your curosity, no, I am not one who got busted. There is nothing in it for me other than fighting for all of our rights. If the rights of any one of us are violated, it is a threat to all of us.

So far, what I have presented on behalf of the defendants is heresay. I have relied on their word, which is independently consistent. We will know the outcome after Oct. 5.

 

[cactusamigo]

What I find amusing about situations such as this, is that all this could have been avoided if the defendant hadn't advertised his disregard for the law. It's one thing to 'fly under the radar' (I've done it myself many times)... but quite another when you violate the law in plain view of an cop.

Some years back, my oldest son was busted for expired insurance (a $120 fine), but was originally stopped for a $5 seat belt infraction - which was blatantly obvious when the officer pulled along side him at a traffic light. Had the officer not seen a violation, he could NOT have made a lawful stop in the first place.

Nowhere do I see "the defendant hadn't advertised his disregard for the law".

You state that your son was stopped for a seat belt violation, and subsequently "busted" for an expired insurance violation. However, you don't mention your son getting cited for a seat belt violation, the reason that he was stopped, and justificatiuon for subsequent citations. Police officers will usually cite for all possible charges, most importantly, the reason for the initial stop. The courts may dismiss the lesser of the charges.

 

[cactusamigo]

Stan4d -

Please explain:

"It might also be wise to leave cactus at home.....he is kind of sticky."

 

[papa]

Your "hypothetical" situation does not apply in these cases. If it did, the impounded bikes would not have been made available for recovery. The fact is that one individual did recover his bike by paying the impoundment and storage fees. Thus, seizure of the property for evidence is not a factor in these cases.

28-3511 (E)

"Except as otherwise provided in this article, a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section shall be immobilized or impounded for thirty days. An insurance company does not have a duty to pay any benefits for charges or fees for immobilization or impoundment."

In that "30 days", the PA can execute whatever he feels is necessary to lawfully prosecute each case. Up to, and including, dissecting the defendant's vehicle in pursuit of evidence.

After all these pages of posts, you still miss the point. "Excessive speed" for the motorized bike exemption is the reason these people were pulled over by the police.

I'd be happy to address the known facts, not your speculation. Go back and read my response in post #82. Apparently it never occured to you that the officer in toolmanaz68's case (and possibly the others too), could've had multiple reasons to initiate the stop... such as; a legitimate 'moped' unlawfully traveling in a bicycle lane - which happens to be one of the violations (28.2513.8) he was cited for.

If he cites you for other violations, he better cite you for the the viloation that caused him to pull you over. He has to do so in order to cover his own butt. If he doesn't, he is wide open to civil suit.

It took me 40 seconds to uncover the following:

(Superior Court Judge John Kelly) http://azbikelaw.org/articles/TucsonID.html

"Kelly also found that police don't have to cite for every possible violation. "The police officer here had reasonable grounds to stop plaintiff for traffic violations and had probable cause to arrest him for failure to provide proof of identity, the judge wrote."