Tucson Police Department Harassment

[Stan4d]

Sorry, but let me get this straight:

The city prosecutor, after reading the charges at the arraignment said, " Were you on a motorized bicycle? Dude you have to plead not guilty and fight this."
So, I did, and I am. I will keep you all advised as the proceedings move along.

OK, the prosecutor agrees that you were wronged, yet he wishes you to fight him in court.....essentially he is walking into court knowing he has lost (If he agrees with you enough to encourage you to fight it)

The argument could have gone away by the Tucson City Prosecutor dropping the charges against the two individuals. However, he seems to have enough problem with the ordinance to desire to see it challanged, thus, advising the individuals to plead "Not Guilty".

It should have gone away if he agreed it was wrong, but he is there to enforce the law, not to interpret it or make it.....you should plead no contest and take it up with the city council to have the ordinances changed.

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.

The prosecutor has to automatically justify his position. I see that there has already been an arraignment, meaning he thinks he can get a conviction on this matter. (Only an idiot walks into a court battle knowing they will lose)

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.

See above......innocent till proven guilty. The prosecutor must state his position. Again the prosecutor must not agree with the position and is thinking "Dude, I can win this."

Since I was directed to you toolmanaz, would it be possible to scan the citations (after blocking out personal info) so that we can see exactly what you were cited for?

I am curious.....what were the charges on the citation.

 

[skrufryder]

in any case the riders broke the spped limit set by the city ordnance i am just saying if they were runing larger than the 48cc they were knowingly breaking the law in the first place and had no right to even being on the road in the first place and wouldnt be going threw court procedures........Anyways its the riders reponsability to obey the laws 20mph speed limit is what seperates them from other vehicles as soon as they pass that threshold they have to be held at the laws of every other vehicle making the other citations how ever rediculios still lagit. all this could have been avoided if they went the 20 mph.......anyways i'm done with this thread....... they broke the law when you do you have to pay the price. In az if you comit any crime with a weapon even if you have a ccw simply j-walking you could be charged as a felon..... redicoulous yes.... but its the law there if you dont like it you can try to appeal or move....

 

[papa]

papa-

All very interesting. Excessive speed for an exempt bike was the reason for initiating the stop. Why can't the officer cite for excessive speed to establish out of compliance operation,

I think your question can best be answered by a Tucson PO. I will add this;

1.) LEOs can pick'n chose from any and all violations they find - cite you for all of them, or none at all. How many times have read about the 'defective tail light' that led to the arrest of a DUI or major drug bust?

2.) So allow me to ask you a question;

Why should the Tucson PO's be wasting their time handing-out $100 speeding tickets, when $500+ fines and impoundments provides a much more effective deterrent?

 

[papa]

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.

 

[Stan4d]

During the last two weeks, three people have told me that they were stopped by TPD officers for operating their bikes at 24-25mph, had their bikes IMPOUNDED, and received numerous associated citations.
I do not advocate breaking the law, but this is absurd beyond reasonable belief. The punishment in no way fits the "crime".

My question is simple yet it has great bearing on ALL of your claims. What were the three people cited for? It is not stated anywhere in this thread....only that they were not cited for speeding.
How are you able to tell us it is unreasonable without some shred of proof that they were cited?

 

[cactusamigo]

Stan4d - By advising the defendant to plead "not guilty", the prosecutor is not admitting that the defendant has been "wronged". The prosecutor is indicating his desire to see the law CHALLANGED. By pleading "no contest", the defendant is essentially admitting guilt, and walking away from an opportunity to challenge the ordinance, frustrating the efforts of the prosecutor. Don't forget, prosecutors have more important issues to deal with, and don't want to waste their time prosecuting issues such as this. Getting judicial reading on this type of issue is of interest to the prosecutor.

papa - "LEOs can pick'n chose from any and all violations they find - cite you for all of them, or none at all. How many times have read about the 'defective tail light' that led to the arrest of a DUI or major drug bust?"

You have substantiated my assertion for a need to establish a succession of events. Citation for faulty equipment (defective tail light) led to subsequent discoveries (DUI, illegal drugs, illegal aliens, etc.)

"Why should the Tucson PO's be wasting their time handing-out $100 speeding tickets, when $500+ fines and impoundments provides a much more effective deterrent?"

I fail to understand your logic here. How is issuing a speed citation to demonstrate non-compliance, and support subsequent violations, "wasting their time"? Including a speed non-compliance citation might add 30 seconds to the citation writing process.

Your added "tidbit" is out of scope since there was no citation for a non-compliant motor. However, it could be a real issue should the prosecuting attorney decide to do a physical inspection of the hardware. It depends on how much money the prosecuting attorney wants to spend. From the motors that I have seen, the only indication of engine displacement is on a paper sticker - easilly peeled off. These motors don't even have serial numbers, and there is no identification that could be "ground off". One could not argue with physical evidence obtained by actual measurement indicating a non-compliant engine. I wonder how much the city would pay for expert testimony from a licensed professional engineer? That's what it would take. Testimony from a motorbike mechanic wouldn't hack it.

 

[RedBaronX]

papa - "LEOs can pick'n chose from any and all violations they find - cite you for all of them, or none at all. How many times have read about the 'defective tail light' that led to the arrest of a DUI or major drug bust?"

You have substantiated my assertion for a need to establish a succession of events. Citation for faulty equipment (defective tail light) led to subsequent discoveries (DUI, illegal drugs, illegal aliens, etc.)

I'm going to guess that it's because the operator "can't" be doing both-- both "speeding on a MB" AND "operating a moped w/o credentials". The bike itself is one or the other-- a moped or a MB. Since he exceeded 20 MPH, the officer deemed the vehicle a "moped". Also, if he was not exceeding the posted street-speed limits, he's not "speeding". He exceeded the speed limit for MBs, but that's not "speeding".

And as I said before, just because there was no citation for the speed, doesn't mean that the officer didn't record it.

 

[Stan4d]

My question is simple yet it has great bearing on ALL of your claims. What were the three people cited for? It is not stated anywhere in this thread....only that they were not cited for speeding.
How are you able to tell us it is unreasonable without some shred of proof that they were cited?

Your logic is so faulty that it cannot be argued against. You said the prosecutor was on their side and now you say he only wants to see the law challenged.
Civics lesson for you buddy, laws are made and changed in the legislative (City Council) not the judicial area.

Now for the love of all things great and small....after this many posts about how they have been wronged could someone please tell us what they were cited for????????

 

[cactusamigo]

I'm going to guess that it's because the operator "can't" be doing both-- both "speeding on a MB" AND "operating a moped w/o credentials". The bike itself is one or the other-- a moped or a MB. Since he exceeded 20 MPH, the officer deemed the vehicle a "moped". Also, if he was not exceeding the posted street-speed limits, he's not "speeding". He exceeded the speed limit for MBs, but that's not "speeding".

And as I said before, just because there was no citation for the speed, doesn't mean that the officer didn't record it.

I thought that I made it clear that the reference to "speeding" was for exceeding the statute limitations for exempt motorized bike operation, not the posted street speed limit for traffic. If the officer stopped the individual for exceeding the motorized bike speed limitation, he would be hard pressed to explain why he didn't issue a citation for this violation.

 

[papa]

If the officer stopped the individual for exceeding the motorized bike speed limitation, he would be hard pressed to explain why he didn't issue a citation for this violation.

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?