Tucson Police Department Harassment

[kerf]

Sometimes the things we want, brings about the rule of "unintended consequences" and this seems to be the case here. The state legalizing MB sounds great until the local government begins to use the club. I guess that some believed it necessary to pass ordnances that differentiate MB from mopeds. It would have been nice if the city had allowed another 5 mph but I'm sure they thought that as long as MB could use the bike lanes, 20 mph was a prudent safety move.

I willing to bet that no one on the City Council is a MB rider, therefore not knowledgeable of the machines. Many decisions made by all levels of government, are sometimes quite arbitrary. Much to be said for flying under the radar!

If memory serves me, this isn't the first such occurrence that has happened in a Arizona municipality, on this forum. I believe the other one was a different city but very similar in the issues. Guess you had better learn to enjoy 19 mph or be ready for the consequences. Too bad guys.

 

[papa]

I can say from experience some courts take a dim view of their time being taken up by what amounts to petty police harassment.

Time to slide the 'harassment' claims front'n center...

Were YOU a witness to the alleged officer harassment?.. or is this a second hand rumor?

 

[papa]

Your added "tidbit" is out of scope since there was no citation for a non-compliant motor.

Of course there would be NO citation for non-compliant motor... the officer suspected an non-compliant Moped, NOT a motor bike.

 

[kerf]

Regardless of the outcome of these "cases", before a Municipal Court Judge, I might add, seems to me that the MB riders of Tucson have four options.

1. Get the riders in Tucson together and petition the City Council to amend the ordinance.

2. Learn to love 19 mph.

3. Take your motor off and pedal any speed you want.

4. Take your chances and face the consequences.

I don't see another option, could be wrong but don't see another way.

 

[Stan4d]

Please contact toolmanaz68 for the details of his citations.

I thought I tried earlier in the thread.

How can you be so adamant that they were wronged when you have no clue what they were cited for.

If the reason they were cited is not made known (with a means to fact check it) then this thread is a useless waste of time.

How do we even know that the citations have anything to do with a motored bike?

The only posts that need to happen now are ones that explain the citations.

 

[RedBaronX]

Sometimes the things we want, brings about the rule of "unintended consequences" and this seems to be the case here. The state legalizing MB sounds great until the local government begins to use the club. I guess that some believed it necessary to pass ordnances that differentiate MB from mopeds. It would have been nice if the city had allowed another 5 mph but I'm sure they thought that as long as MB could use the bike lanes, 20 mph was a prudent safety move.

I'm going to guess that the 20 mph limit was put in place because the state does NOT require ANY sort of driver's license to ride a MB. Here in Wisconsin, the speed limit for MBs is 30 mph, but we have to have at least a valid drivers license.

 

[papa]

Out of respect for member toolmanaz68, I've obscured portions of his name, even though it's public record.

 

[Stan4d]

Papa, Thank you for finding that and posting it. It is good to finally see what the argument has been over. 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.

On another note: Cactus, I think you should drop the harassment line.

 

[papa]

In reference to complains regarding vehicle impoundment, the Arizona Statute 28-3511 is quite specific. Notice the word "shall". In other words, the arresting officer has NO choice but to cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle for the violations specified.

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

"A. A peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle while any of the following applies:

1. The person's driving privilege is suspended or revoked for any reason.

2. The person has not ever been issued a valid driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a valid driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction. This paragraph does not apply to the operation of an implement of husbandry.

3. The person is subject to an ignition interlock device requirement pursuant to chapter 4 of this title and the person is operating a vehicle without a functioning certified ignition interlock device. This paragraph does not apply to a person operating an employer's vehicle or the operation of a vehicle due to a substantial emergency as defined in section 28-1464.

4. In furtherance of the illegal presence of an alien in the United States and in violation of a criminal offense, the person is transporting or moving or attempting to transport or move an alien in this state in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, has entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

5. The person is concealing, harboring or shielding or attempting to conceal, harbor or shield from detection an alien in this state in a vehicle if the person knows or recklessly disregards the fact that the alien has come to, entered or remains in the United States in violation of law.

B. A peace officer shall cause the removal and impoundment of a vehicle if the peace officer determines that a person is driving the vehicle and if all of the following apply:

1. The person's driving privilege is canceled, suspended or revoked for any reason or the person has not ever been issued a driver license or permit by this state and the person does not produce evidence of ever having a driver license or permit issued by another jurisdiction.

2. The person is not in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

3. The person is driving a vehicle that is involved in an accident that results in either property damage or injury to or death of another person.

C. Except as provided in subsection D of this section, while a peace officer has control of the vehicle the peace officer shall cause the removal and either immobilization or impoundment of the vehicle if the peace officer has probable cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle for a violation of section 4-244, paragraph 34 or section 28-1382 or 28-1383.

D. A peace officer shall not cause the removal and either the immobilization or impoundment of a vehicle pursuant to subsection C of this section if all of the following apply:

1. The peace officer determines that the vehicle is currently registered and that the driver or the vehicle is in compliance with the financial responsibility requirements of chapter 9, article 4 of this title.

2. The spouse of the driver is with the driver at the time of the arrest.

3. The peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that the spouse of the driver:

(a) Has a valid driver license.

(b) Is not impaired by intoxicating liquor, any drug, a vapor releasing substance containing a toxic substance or any combination of liquor, drugs or vapor releasing substances.

(c) Does not have any spirituous liquor in the spouse's body if the spouse is under twenty-one years of age.

4. The spouse notifies the peace officer that the spouse will drive the vehicle from the place of arrest to the driver's home or other place of safety.

5. The spouse drives the vehicle as prescribed by paragraph 4 of this subsection.

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.

F. The owner of a vehicle that is removed and either immobilized or impounded pursuant to subsection A, B or C of this section, the spouse of the owner and each person identified on the department's record with an interest in the vehicle shall be provided with an opportunity for an immobilization or poststorage hearing pursuant to section 28-3514."

 

[Stan4d]

From the Tuscon city code:Art 2 Sec. 5-6. Applicability of traffic laws.
In the City of Tucson, a person riding a motorized bicycle or tricycle is granted all of the rights and is subject to all the duties applicable to a bicycle rider under state and local law.

Motorized bicycles or tricycles that are operated at speeds in excess of nineteen (19) miles per hour are regulated by state law and must comply with state law requirements.

(Ord. No. 10321, Sec. 1, 9-19-06)

I can see why no ticket for speeding, I also understand why the citation for no drivers liscense, no proof of insurance and riding on a bike path....(which had to be not the smartest move)

I hope you spend time reading this toolmanaz68: http://cms3.tucsonaz.gov/courts/your-day-court

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