DUI on private property - no such thing, huh?

[T-1 Thunder]

As far as I know, if you got a ranch - you are good to go. Free America.

You can drink and drive your truck on your ranch, ignoring all roads rules.
You can drive around with a loaded gun in your pants, too.

Someone contested me on this, but I think they just needed me to clarify that "private property" does not open to the public.

Any LEO insight?

(Disclaimer: I'm not encouraging drinking and driving. God knows that's bad news. However, a couple of country boys I know enjoy a cold one on a ride through the hills and we talk about this.)

[silversvs]

23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

Sorry to burst your bubble Thunder, but you are wrong. You can be arrested for DUI anywhere, driving any vehicle. If you drive your riding lawn mower in your backyard while intoxicated you are subject to being arrested for DUI.

We recently arrested a DUI off a forklift in a bussiness park.

[SpeedyCorky]

yeah i've heard of people getting DUIs in their own driveways..... and plus, think about it, a bar parking lot is technically private property, but you can sure get a DUI before you leave the lot ! :laughing


dunno about the concealed firearm being legal on your own property... i'd assume so :confused obviously firing said firearm would prolly be against county ordences or something

[brichter]

Ok, interesting question:

Define "vehicle"? And, define "drive"?


Also, parking lots are a special case as far as public/private property interpretation and enforcement of traffic laws go, SilverSVS may want to expound on that for clarification.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by brichter

Also, parking lots are a special case as far as public/private property interpretation and enforcement of traffic laws go, SilverSVS may want to expound on that for clarification.

The CA vehicle code extends to private property, when it comes to DUI and reckless driving. There are a few other sections(infractions) that also are enforced on private property.

[VTRweasel]

My friend got a DUI riding his bicycle, sucks cuz he was a pilot and lost his pilots lience because of it.

[brichter]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
The CA vehicle code extends to private property, when it comes to DUI and reckless driving. There are a few other sections(infractions) that also are enforced on private property.

Wanna post up on "drive" and "vehicle"? :teeth

[T-1 Thunder]

Yikes!

I know folks that have property. And a lot of times, we party and drink(girls take off tops, etc.). Never fails that someone ends up riding dirt bikes or quads. (I admit, I've done it) And everytime, folks always said "It's ok, it's all private here."

Interesting, indeed. I'm gonna pop the bubble at the next event - haha.

I'm sure enforcement is a totally different story, though.

FIREARMS: Guarenteed to carry concealed on private property -which extends to your TENT or CAMPER or HOTEL ROOM. Discharging said firearm is subject to county ordinance as stated by another. In an emergency for defense, county does not matter of course.



((I know I got arrested in my front yard for "public intox", even though the DA laughed and threw it out later.))

[plumber]

I've heard riding a horse is the same infraction.

[SpeedyCorky]

Originally posted by VTRweasel
My friend got a DUI riding his bicycle, sucks cuz he was a pilot and lost his pilots lience because of it.


that is fucking recockulous!!!!

[Junkie]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
The CA vehicle code extends to private property, when it comes to DUI and reckless driving. There are a few other sections(infractions) that also are enforced on private property. so could you get hit for reckless for stuff you're doing on a racetrack?

[SpeedyCorky]

^^^

??

[Junkie]

Originally posted by humbug612
If you follow certain LEO'S logic, yes, the law gets bent both ways, a bit too often.
If i own say 250-500 acres, i get left alone, because i am a prominent citizen enjoying his own use of said property, if i own 10 acres and i have a f***tard neighbor, i get a dui on my own property, how fu**in cool is that, if you have the right friends, you can SHOOT your friends....................
Not a bit of irony there, just us serfs tryin to hang on. I think its more that if you have 250-500 acres you wouldn't get noticed, but with 10 acres your neighbor would notice you doing it.

[Noid]

Isn't there something about private property that has public access vs. closed to the public?

[silversvs]

Definition of a vehicle:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Definition of a driver:

305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical
control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the
tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the
driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting
apparatus.


How we make arrests when we don't actually observe the "driving" ourselves:

40300.5. In addition to the authority to make an arrest without a
warrant pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 836 of the Penal Code, a peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person when the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person had been driving while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug when any of the following exists:
(a) The person is involved in a traffic accident.
(b) The person is observed in or about a vehicle that is
obstructing a roadway.
(c) The person will not be apprehended unless immediately
arrested.
(d) The person may cause injury to himself or herself or damage
property unless immediately arrested.
(e) The person may destroy or conceal evidence of the crime unless immediately arrested.

Subsections (d) and (e) help us in that I might find you drunk inside your vehicle and not have observed any driving which is an element of 23152 VC. Since I know that if you drive away you are likely to injure yourself or others or damage property because you are too impaired to drive safely. I also know that if I wait to go get a warrant to arrest you, your body will be eliminating the alcoholic content of your blood (BAC) every minute that I have to wait.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Noid
Isn't there something about private property that has public access vs. closed to the public? well I would like an LEO to chime in as well, but for now:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_5/vc38316.htm
that specifies the safety of OTHER persons or property though, so if it is only your own life you are risking it isn't violating that I don't think. I can't find any others that would apply.

[Junkie]

speaking of strange DUI things:
I've been told that you don't have to actually drive the car to be convicted of DUI. if you are sleeping (or passed out) in the back seat with the keys in your pocket, for example, you are in control of the vehicle. how far does this extend? if you, say, put the keys under the hood would that still be "in control of the vehicle"?

[silversvs]

In regards to DUI offenses it does not matter if its private or public property.

What will matter is if the officer has the legal right to be on said property to witness the violation, or be lawfully somewhere where he/she could observe the violation occurring.

If you own 10 acres and none of it is visible from a place where an officer would have a legal right to be, then you could probably safely do all the stupid stuff you want including getting loaded and driving around. Now, if you do that, then crash and hurt yourself or others, then that would open the door for the officer to legally be on the property when he/she responds to the emergency call due to the injury.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by Junkie
well I would like an LEO to chime in as well, but for now:
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d16_5/vc38316.htm
that specifies the safety of OTHER persons or property though, so if it is only your own life you are risking it isn't violating that I don't think. I can't find any others that would apply.

See my post above regarding 40302 VC. Its best not to be anywhere near a vehicle when you are intoxicated. Right now every county is running extensive DUI enforcement during the holidays. Its basically zero tolerance. DUI is something that can be avoided and senseless deaths and tragedies can be prevented by taking impaired drivers off our roadways.

As for the person being arrested for being DUI on a bike. I applaud that arrest. That guy could easily hurt himself or others by driving impaired and disrupting traffic.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by Junkie
so could you get hit for reckless for stuff you're doing on a racetrack?

No, a racetrack is a closed course and that type of driving is expected to occur there.

[johnparjr]

Yep I hit a guy on a bicycle a long time ago and was not cited because sh&thead was drunk and turned his bike right into my line of travel had no time to avoid him at all he was cited for DUI on the bike. That still makes me nervous when I see bikes on the road and I have to go past them and the kicker of the story is he tried to sue me had 3 diffrent attorney's call and all I kept saying was have you seen the police report yet. None of them ever called back after I assume they pulled the report.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by silversvs
No, a racetrack is a closed course and that type of driving is expected to occur there. what exactly does it take to be defined as a closed course? if you close off your own private property, is that enough to be allowed to race at high speeds on it?

[silversvs]

Originally posted by Junkie
what exactly does it take to be defined as a closed course? if you close off your own private property, is that enough to be allowed to race at high speeds on it?

Not likely. Depending on where you live, you would have to obtain a permit to allow such activity.

38014. As used in this division, "closed course" includes, but is
not limited to, a speedway, racetrack, or a prescribed and defined
route of travel on or off a highway that is closed to all motor
vehicles other than those of participants. A closed course is one
which is not available at any time for vehicular access by the
general public.

[T-1 Thunder]

And stunts, too.

I was popping wheelies on my dirt bike last week on my property. Thought I was within the law. Now I wonder...

[brichter]

Originally posted by silversvs
Definition of a vehicle:

670. excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

Definition of a driver:

305. A "driver" is a person who drives or is in actual physical
control of a vehicle. The term "driver" does not include the
tillerman or other person who, in an auxiliary capacity, assists the
driver in the steering or operation of any articulated firefighting
apparatus.



Ok, where's the exclusion that includes bicycles despite the quote above from VC 670 that would seem to exclude them?

And, 305 explains part of the definition of what a driver is, but brings up a new question:

Where is "physical control" defined?

The reason I ask is because when I lived in Washington, they had a whole section devoted to physical control, and physical control was a separate violation from DUI or DWI, with the testimony of the officer and witnesses having a lot to do with the sentencing. If someone was pulled over on the side of the road with the engine running, for example, the sentence would be much stiffer than the person who was sleeping off the drunk in the parking lot of the bar.

They actually rewarded intelligence there.

[JPM]

Riding Bicycle Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs


21200.5. Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood pursuant to Section 23612, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Violations of this section are subject to Section 13202.5.

Operation of Motorized Scooters: Driving Under the Influence


21221.5. Notwithstanding Section 21221, it is unlawful for any person to operate a motorized scooter upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the person's blood or breath for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood pursuant to subdivision (d) of Section 23612, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250).

Drinking While Driving

23220. (a) No person shall drink any alcoholic beverage while driving a motor vehicle upon any highway or on any lands described in subdivision (b).

(b) As used in subdivision (a), "lands" means those lands to which the Chappie-Z’berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000)) applies as to off-highway motor vehicles, as described in Section 38001.

Applicability of Provisions

38001. (a) Except as otherwise provided, this division applies to off-highway motor vehicles, as defined in Section 38006, on lands, other than a highway, that are open and accessible to the public, including any land acquired, developed, operated, or maintained, in whole or in part, with money from the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, except private lands under the immediate control of the owner or his or her agent where permission is required and has been granted to operate a motor vehicle. For purposes of this division, the term "highway" does not include fire trails, logging roads, service roads regardless of surface composition, or other roughly graded trails and roads upon which vehicular travel by the public is permitted.

(b) Privately owned and maintained parking facilities that are generally open to the public are exempt from this division, unless the facilities are specifically declared subject to this division by the procedure specified in Section 21107.8.

Private Roads

21107. The provisions of this code shall not prevent any city from adopting rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution, regulating vehicular traffic on privately owned and maintained roads located within the boundary of such city, except that no such ordinance or resolution shall be effective until signs giving notice thereof are posted on the roads affected. The provisions of this section shall not apply to any city in which there are publicly maintained city streets.

I think that covers most of the sections. As posted earlier, the DUI section covers driving a vehicle anywhere, not just a "Highway". Also you have to think past the vehicle code. You crash and kill someone on private property you will get charged with manslaughter.

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed
in the driving of a vehicle.
(c) Vehicular--
(1) Except as provided in Section 191.5, driving a vehicle in the
commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, and with
gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful
act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, and with gross
negligence.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (3), driving a vehicle in the
commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, but without
gross negligence; or driving a vehicle in the commission of a lawful
act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, but without
gross negligence.
(3) Driving a vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or
23153 of the Vehicle Code and in the commission of an unlawful act,
not amounting to felony, but without gross negligence; or driving a
vehicle in violation of Section 23140, 23152, or 23153 of the Vehicle
Code and in the commission of a lawful act which might produce
death, in an unlawful manner, but without gross negligence.
(4) Driving a vehicle in connection with a violation of paragraph
(3) of subdivision (a) of Section 550, where the vehicular collision
or vehicular accident was knowingly caused for financial gain and
proximately resulted in the death of any person. This provision
shall not be construed to prevent prosecution of a defendant for the
crime of murder.
This section shall not be construed as making any homicide in the
driving of a vehicle punishable which is not a proximate result of
the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to felony, or of the
commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful
manner.
"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

[silversvs]

21200.5. Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any
person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug. Any person arrested for a violation of this section may request to have a chemical test made of the person's blood, breath, or urine for the purpose of determining the alcoholic or drug content of that person's blood pursuant to Section 23612, and, if so requested, the arresting officer shall have the test performed. A conviction of a violation of this section shall be punished by a fine of not more than two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Violations of this section are subject to Section 13202.5.

[Cyclone]

Originally posted by silversvs
Not likely. Depending on where you live, you would have to obtain a permit to allow such activity.

38014. As used in this division, "closed course" includes, but is
not limited to, a speedway, racetrack, or a prescribed and defined
route of travel on or off a highway that is closed to all motor
vehicles other than those of participants. A closed course is one
which is not available at any time for vehicular access by the
general public.

By that definition then sears point is not a closed course since people can drive in at turn 7. Moot point but..well there it is.

[Meter Man]

Originally posted by silversvs
I

What will matter is if the officer has the legal right to be on said property to witness the violation, or be lawfully somewhere where he/she could observe the violation occurring.



bingo!:teeth

[chrysler79]

All part of living in the federal republic of california

[}Dragon{]

So to the OP, what it breaks down to is if one was riding like a tool on private property and the Officer observes it- they can be arrested.

What generally happens is someone wrecks their quad, dirt-bike or pick-em-up truck while out in their back 40... 911 is called for an injury collision (which you get Fire, Ambulance and CHP) and the driver of said vehicle can be popped, at the scene or later.

[windex]

When I started on dirt bikes, I wrecked good and messed up my ankle; at the ER, 2 CHP walk in and ask the receptionist for me.:wtf They said they needed to make a report since it was an injury accident. Scarey as hell for me at the time, thought I'd did something wrong by crashing. But that was 26 years ago and I was 5; it did teach me not to crash for awhile.

[Junkie]

wait, they had to talk to you when you were 5 years old? wow.

[zeefrenchspy]

Originally posted by silversvs
Definition of a vehicle:

670. A "vehicle" is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway, excepting a device moved exclusively by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks.

But "highway" is defined as :

360. "Highway" is a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

So since your private property is not publicly maintained, it's not a highway. Does that mean that when you drive your car on your private property it ceases to be a vehicle? :confused

[ateamer]

Nope. The section defining a vehicle has nothing to do with where the vehicle is actually driven. It says "may be propelled, moved or drawn upon a highway". That means if it is capable of such, it is a vehicle.

[bmer97]

San Francisco: Prohibits elephants from strolling down Market Street unless they are on a leash; It is illegal to wipe one's car with used underwear; Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street; It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner; Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

Funny how posting the numbers of the specific infractions serves to 'authenticate' laws. There is a 'law' against just about everything a human does.

If a LEO willy nilly cites every 'infraction' it is truly a Barney Fife type world.

As long as you don't hurt anyone else, you should be able to anything you d**n well please on your own property!

I sure do.

[windex]

Originally posted by Junkie
wait, they had to talk to you when you were 5 years old? wow.

Yep, and many times since:laughing

[silversvs]

Originally posted by bmer97
San Francisco: Prohibits elephants from strolling down Market Street unless they are on a leash; It is illegal to wipe one's car with used underwear; Persons classified as "ugly" may not walk down any street; It is illegal to pile horse manure more than six feet high on a street corner; Giving or receiving oral sex is prohibited.

Funny how posting the numbers of the specific infractions serves to 'authenticate' laws. There is a 'law' against just about everything a human does.

If a LEO willy nilly cites every 'infraction' it is truly a Barney Fife type world.

This thread is discussing DUI driving. If impaired drivers are "willy nilly" to you, so be it. To me, DUI driving is totally avoidable and causes senseless trajedies every day across our state.

As for posting the numbers of the specific codes, I believe that helps others in understanding the laws and seeing how they are worded. We started the LEO section on BARF just for that reason, to help people and answer questions. I realize you are anti-police in most regards, but you are way off topic here. You tend to try to stir things up in this section, and I'm glad for the most part you are unsuccessful in doing so.

[JPM]

Originally posted by bmer97
Funny how posting the numbers of the specific infractions serves to 'authenticate' laws. There is a 'law' against just about everything a human does.

If a LEO willy nilly cites every 'infraction' it is truly a Barney Fife type world.




Hmm, when someone specifically asks a question as to why bikes can be arrested for DUI when they say another section seems to exclude them; the best thing is to show the section that applies to bikes.

Originally posted by brichter
Ok, where's the exclusion that includes bicycles despite the quote above from VC 670 that would seem to exclude them?

[brichter]

Ok, so show it? :teeth

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by silversvs
This thread is discussing DUI driving. If impaired drivers are "willy nilly" to you, so be it. To me, DUI driving is totally avoidable and causes senseless tragedies every day across our state.

I've lost family members to DUI's... my brother has been the victim in two DUI incidents that will affect him for the rest of his life. (One on a motorcylce.)

:|

I wouldn't say it's willy nor nilly. :|

[edscholl]

Originally posted by JPM
Drinking While Driving

23220. (a) No person shall drink any alcoholic beverage while driving a motor vehicle upon any highway or on any lands described in subdivision (b).

(b) As used in subdivision (a), "lands" means those lands to which the Chappie-Z’berg Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Law of 1971 (Division 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000)) applies as to off-highway motor vehicles, as described in Section 38001.

Applicability of Provisions

38001. (a) Except as otherwise provided, this division applies to off-highway motor vehicles, as defined in Section 38006, on lands, other than a highway, that are open and accessible to the public, including any land acquired, developed, operated, or maintained, in whole or in part, with money from the Off-Highway Vehicle Trust Fund, except private lands under the immediate control of the owner or his or her agent where permission is required and has been granted to operate a motor vehicle. For purposes of this division, the term "highway" does not include fire trails, logging roads, service roads regardless of surface composition, or other roughly graded trails and roads upon which vehicular travel by the public is permitted.

(b) Privately owned and maintained parking facilities that are generally open to the public are exempt from this division, unless the facilities are specifically declared subject to this division by the procedure specified in Section 21107.8.


this reads to me like you CAN drink and drive on your privately owned and maintained, not generally open to the public, property, no? :teeth

[T-1 Thunder]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
So to the OP, what it breaks down to is if one was riding like a tool on private property and the Officer observes it- they can be arrested.

What generally happens is someone wrecks their quad, dirt-bike or pick-em-up truck while out in their back 40... 911 is called for an injury collision (which you get Fire, Ambulance and CHP) and the driver of said vehicle can be popped, at the scene or later.

Bingo! So a few years ago, I was on the bumper of this quad(4 people total). We go down the hill, dude doesn't turn, and off the cliff we go. I hit ground face first, and quad with 3 heads rams directly into the center of my back. I stop it with my spine.

Get to the hospital, and just as the docs glue my ear back on cops walk in and ask me if my buddy driving was drinking. :( I refused to answer. Can't do that to a friend, especially one with a well-known family like his. Cops suspected it, but without my coopertation, they were powerless to go pursue him(he was back at the ranch). Asked me if I wanted to sue, I said no, and they left.

Ever since then I've always wondered about it, because the cops really didn't seem to pursue it that bad, even though you could tell they knew.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by edscholl
this reads to me like you CAN drink and drive on your privately owned and maintained, not generally open to the public, property, no? :teeth

Yes.

And you can also be arrested for driving while impaired.

I know I sound like a parrot and keep repeating myself, but I can't help it.

Alcohol + vehicles = bad things!

I've seen so many people impacted by someone's decision to drink alcohol and then take control of a vehicle. This includes cars, trucks, motorcycles, off-road motorcycles, and watercraft.

[JPM]

Originally posted by brichter
Ok, so show it? :teeth

Go back to page 2, read my post there, you have been showed. :laughing

[JPM]

Originally posted by edscholl
this reads to me like you CAN drink and drive on your privately owned and maintained, not generally open to the public, property, no? :teeth

What he said.

Originally posted by silversvs
Yes.

And you can also be arrested for driving while impaired.

I know I sound like a parrot and keep repeating myself, but I can't help it.

Alcohol + vehicles = bad things!

I've seen so many people impacted by someone's decision to drink alcohol and then take control of a vehicle. This includes cars, trucks, motorcycles, off-road motorcycles, and watercraft.

[Junkie]

sounds to me like if your vehicle is not capable of traveling on a road, it isn't a crime to drink and operate it on your own property. so, could you arrest someone for DUI on a (small, entirely on their own property) train or (on a lake that they own) jetski?

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Junkie
sounds to me like if your vehicle is not capable of traveling on a road, it isn't a crime to drink and operate it on your own property. so, could you arrest someone for DUI on a (small, entirely on their own property) train or (on a lake that they own) jetski?

An old El Camino up on blocks in the front yard isn't capable to be propelled, so no I don't think it would be a DUI if you were sitting in the driver's seat and had a few too many. :laughing

The jet-ski: yes- no question

The train: Well that's a really tough one :nerd I'd think there may be a federal statute that addresses "DTWI" : Driving Twain While Impaired. We'd have to call the choo-choo police for that one :rofl (I'm picturing the FST's: OK walk this straight track)

[T-1 Thunder]

Don't ever leave a loaded gun in that El Camino on blocks while you are out of it - you will be charged just as if you were driving it. Know, been there, done that. Trust me. ;)

[Junkie]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
An old El Camino up on blocks in the front yard isn't capable to be propelled, so no I don't think it would be a DUI if you were sitting in the driver's seat and had a few too many. :laughing

The jet-ski: yes- no question

The train: Well that's a really tough one :nerd I'd think there may be a federal statute that addresses "DTWI" : Driving Twain While Impaired. We'd have to call the choo-choo police for that one :rofl (I'm picturing the FST's: OK walk this straight track) so there must be another code that applies to boats or something? and yeah, the train was thrown in as something that I think is highly unlikely to ever happen, but would be an interesting case.

[JPM]

Originally posted by Junkie
sounds to me like if your vehicle is not capable of traveling on a road, it isn't a crime to drink and operate it on your own property. so, could you arrest someone for DUI on a (small, entirely on their own property) train or (on a lake that they own) jetski?

To clarify: there is no law against DRINKING in a vehicle on your own private property. But you can be arrested for DUI (Driving under the influence) on your own private property. So don't drink enough to get to a .08 BAC.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Junkie
so there must be another code that applies to boats or something?

Harbors and Navigation code:

Go knock yourself out!

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html

[JPM]

Originally posted by Junkie
so there must be another code that applies to boats or something? and yeah, the train was thrown in as something that I think is highly unlikely to ever happen, but would be an interesting case.

Boats: http://www.dbw.ca.gov/PDF/2006CBL.pdf

Public Utilities Code

7679. Any person employed upon any railroad as engineer, conductor,
baggage-master, brakeman, switchman, fireman, bridge-tender,
flagman, or signalman, or having charge of the regulation or running
of trains upon any railroad, in any manner whatever, who either
becomes or is intoxicated or who is impaired due to the unlawful use
of a controlled substance while engaged in the discharge of his
duties, is guilty of a misdemeanor. If any person so employed does
any act or neglects any duty, by reason of such intoxication or
illegal drug use, which act or neglect causes the death of, or bodily
injury to, any person or persons, that person so employed is guilty
of a felony.

[Junkie]

so would the train thing end up on your DMV record and therefore increase insurance/suspend license/etc, or not?

[JPM]

Originally posted by Junkie
so would the train thing end up on your DMV record and therefore increase insurance/suspend license/etc, or not?

No, a train is not considered a vehicle and does not fall under the vehicle code (Unless one of the train guys knows more about it than I do) however I think that would be the least of your worries with losing your job / career and criminal charges.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by JPM
No, a train is not considered a vehicle and does not fall under the vehicle code (Unless one of the train guys knows more about it than I do) however I think that would be the least of your worries with losing your job / career and criminal charges. I was talking about essentially a toy train in a yard or something.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Junkie
I was talking about essentially a toy train in a yard or something.

Are the tracks afixed to the ground?

[Junkie]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
Are the tracks afixed to the ground? yes. by "toy" i don't mean a children's toy, I mean something someone built as a hobby. obviously they could move the tracks to go out on the street, but without doing so they can't operate it on the street (and I could be wrong, but I suspect that being able to operate it on the street with modifications to the street != being able to operate it on the street)

[Traq]

Like those tracks up at Tilden, where all the weirdos come with thier little toy trains and ride them around!

[Junkie]

Originally posted by Traq
Like those tracks up at Tilden, where all the weirdos come with thier little toy trains and ride them around! exactly. on private property though, idk whether there would be different rules because of the park.

[Alan_Hepburn]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
The train: Well that's a really tough one :nerd I'd think there may be a federal statute that addresses "DTWI" : Driving Twain While Impaired. We'd have to call the choo-choo police for that one :rofl (I'm picturing the FST's: OK walk this straight track)

I used to know a guy who had his wife convinced that whenever there were two sets of tracks side-by-side it was because trains were known to speed in that area so they put in a special track for the "police trains" so they could pull over the speeders ...

[}Dragon{]

Wow! This thread sure got derailed :p

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/187/857/2885862-derailed1.jpg

[Burner]

Originally posted by silversvs
To me, DUI driving is totally avoidable and causes senseless trajedies every day across our state.

DUI fatality statistics are misused and grossly exagerated by the justice dept and DOT. because of this, it is perceived by the public to be a much greater threat than it really is. also, short term crack-downs are a waste of money and effort. they do not work in reducing drunk driving in the long run (initial deterrence decay). also, the risk of arrest is still extremely low. The DOT estimates that someone would have to drive drunk between 200 and 2,000 times to be apprehended and even then still only faces a 50% chance of being punished.

but i do agree with you that it is totally avoidable.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by Burner
DUI fatality statistics are misused and grossly exagerated by the justice dept and DOT. because of this, it is perceived by the public to be a much greater threat than it really is.

My opinion is based on personal experience. I have cleaned up way too many DUI collisions and been present too many times when loved ones are told that their family members are dead or seriously injured.

I generally don't worry about my family being victimized by some violent criminal (rape, robbery, murder), but I do worry that they will be involved in a serious collision which could likely be caused by an impaired driver.

[brichter]

^^^

+1

The car crash that screwed up my Mom's neck for life was a drunk that fell out of the car when the cops opened his door. I still have a 1 inch scar on my head from hitting the dash.

He hit us on Mission in the city doing 70, we were stopped at a light. he kept telling the cops he could drive, though. :mad

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by silversvs
23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.

Sorry to burst your bubble Thunder, but you are wrong. You can be arrested for DUI anywhere, driving any vehicle. If you drive your riding lawn mower in your backyard while intoxicated you are subject to being arrested for DUI.

We recently arrested a DUI off a forklift in a bussiness park.

Wrong!

If you are on private property drunk or driving drunk, pissing drunk or what ever you like to do drunk its your business. Just like if you wanna speed, drive wreckless or anything else. There is no vehicle code covering your own private property. LEO's dont have authority to go on private property unless a crime has been commited.

Whats the PC for arresting a person for driving his lawnmower while drinking a brew? There is none.. VC covers state, county, and local roadways; not backyards.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Wrong!

If you are on private property drunk or driving drunk, pissing drunk or what ever you like to do drunk its your business. Just like if you wanna speed, drive wreckless or anything else. There is no vehicle code covering your own private property. LEO's dont have authority to go on private property unless a crime has been commited.

Whats the PC for arresting a person for driving his lawnmower while drinking a brew? There is none.. VC covers state, county, and local roadways; not backyards. if it meant on a highway (meaning any official roadway) it would specify that it meant that, many VCs do.

[GingerNinja]

They dont have jurisdiction on private property. Just like if you run into someone in a walmart parking; they cant do shit but take a report for insurance reasons

[Junkie]

tell that to everybody who has been convicted of reckless driving or DUI on private property, I know a few people who have gotten reckless.

[Noid]

I was on a ride along when we arrested a drunk driver at southland mall parking lot for DUI. So your right you can't get arrested for it. mmmmmmmmmm yeh right. Go try it and let us know how it goes.

[brichter]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
They dont have jurisdiction on private property. Just like if you run into someone in a walmart parking; they cant do shit but take a report for insurance reasons

You are wrong. Probable cause covers this. If you're sitting in your living room snorting whiskey and drinking cocaine, and a cop spots you through your front window, you're going to jail.

[silversvs]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Wrong!

If you are on private property drunk or driving drunk, pissing drunk or what ever you like to do drunk its your business. Just like if you wanna speed, drive wreckless or anything else. There is no vehicle code covering your own private property. LEO's dont have authority to go on private property unless a crime has been commited.

Whats the PC for arresting a person for driving his lawnmower while drinking a brew? There is none.. VC covers state, county, and local roadways; not backyards.

I guess I would be obnoxious to tell you to read through the entire thread before posting. You can be arrested for DUI on private property.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
They dont have jurisdiction on private property. Just like if you run into someone in a walmart parking; they cant do shit but take a report for insurance reasons

I feel pretty good about shooting some asshole in WalMart's parking lot then, as the cops can't do anything. Amazing- that also means I can burglarize the place and the cops can't do anything about that either. How about shoplifting? No one ever gets arrested for that. Damn, I love BARF, I learn so much here.:barf

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
I feel pretty good about shooting some asshole in WalMart's parking lot then, as the cops can't do anything. Amazing- that also means I can burglarize the place and the cops can't do anything about that either. How about shoplifting? No one ever gets arrested for that. Damn, I love BARF, I learn so much here.:barf

You forgot to mention the ACLU :laughing

We need more e-lawyers :thumbup

[NorCalBusa]

Originally posted by brichter
You are wrong. Probable cause covers this. If you're sitting in your living room snorting whiskey and drinking cocaine, and a cop spots you through your front window, you're going to jail.

Yeah but...that ain't Probable Cause- it's Plain View. If the cop is in a position that it is lawful for them to be in- anything they see is Plain View.

I think we need a couple online AJ classes for, well, everyone. No one's fault, but it is amazing the "off" notions that get perpetuated.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
You forgot to mention the ACLU :laughing

We need more e-lawyers :thumbup

It's entrapment I tell ya, entrapment. Walmart sold me the booze and I drank it in THEIR parking lot and I took a piss after in their parking lot.

Gosh those cops are dumb, that's entrapment and I'm getting off! Yippee!

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
It's entrapment I tell ya, entrapment. Walmart sold me the booze and I drank it in THEIR parking lot and I took a piss after in their parking lot.

Gosh those cops are dumb, that's entrapment and I'm getting off! Yippee!

I blame Suzuki for making your 'Busa exceed 65- it's there fault! :toothless


:laughing

[NorCalBusa]

It's a conspiracy Dragon- you found it! Suzuki, Walmart and the dirty rascal cops. Quick- call 60 Minutes!

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
It's a conspiracy Dragon- you found it! Suzuki, Walmart and the dirty rascal cops. Quick- call 60 Minutes!

:laughing :laughing :laughing :applause

I'n calling Andy Rooney for ya!

http://www.skunkworks.webaxxs.net/image.jpg

[JPM]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
:laughing :laughing :laughing :applause

I'n calling Andy Rooney for ya!

http://www.skunkworks.webaxxs.net/image.jpg

Did you ever know... that when people get drunk and stupid (In my best Andy Rooney voice)

[JPM]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
They dont have jurisdiction on private property. Just like if you run into someone in a walmart parking; they cant do shit but take a report for insurance reasons

It's been posted and pretty clear that you can be arrested for DUI on private property. And just keep spinning those tires and driving reckless in the Wal-Mart lot if you think the cops can't do anything.

Reckless Driving

23103. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(b) Any person who drives any vehicle in any offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

(c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104.

[NorCalBusa]

And that's just Vehicle Code sections. I imagine it wouldn't take much imagination to crack open the Penal Code and look for something there, especially if someone could get hurt.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
Yeah but...that ain't Probable Cause- it's Plain View. If the cop is in a position that it is lawful for them to be in- anything they see is Plain View.


It's both. They cover different things.

The things you saw in plain view give you the probable cause to make the arrest.

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Wrong!

If you are on private property drunk or driving drunk, pissing drunk or what ever you like to do drunk its your business. Just like if you wanna speed, drive wreckless or anything else. There is no vehicle code covering your own private property. LEO's dont have authority to go on private property unless a crime has been commited.

Whats the PC for arresting a person for driving his lawnmower while drinking a brew? There is none.. VC covers state, county, and local roadways; not backyards.

Wow. This is just amazing.

As most people have figured out, don't listen to this guy. He doesn't know what he is talking about. This thread alone cites many vehicle codes that are enforceable on private property.

Just to clarify for those who are confused by this. Division 11 of the vehicle code, the 'Rules of the Road', are applicable only to highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to (sec 21001 CVC) A highway is basically a publically maintained road (sec 360 CVC) That means every VC section in Div 11 of the vehicle code must explicitly state if it is enforceable on private property. Some of those exceptions have been noted in this thread already. The most common are DUI (23152 CVC), reckless driving (23103 CVC), but others that you might not realize, such as parking in disabled spot and parking in fire lane. If those sections did not explicitly state they were enforceable on private property, then you couldn't get tickets for them.

Additionally, the local city may enact an ordinance that allows some or all vehicle codes to be enforced on certain private property (21107 CVC). In that case, signs must be posted stating that vehicle codes are enforceable.

[brichter]

Originally posted by Trogdor
It's both. They cover different things.

The things you saw in plain view give you the probable cause to make the arrest.

Thank you. ;)

[T-1 Thunder]

One time, on Mythbusters "quack-science" show - they were with the CHP and were allowed to get drunk and drive.

Now how about that?

Is it just because CHP was supervising(and the place was safe, blah blah)? So if we invite a cop to watch, we're clear?

[NorCalBusa]

Yes.

[brichter]

They call it "Community Education".

[deaconblues]

That is one of those special cases where it was deemed ok to get drunk and stupid while under trained supervision.

and it's hard to drink and drive down here in Texas, at least for us transplants, you tend to forget which county will sell you liquor, before you get into the car.

"Uh.. we need more beer. But ah cain't remember if the liquor store is toward Denton or Fort Worth... or if I have to go on down to San Antonio... ah screw it, y'all can get yer own beer, I'm goin' ta bed!"

[Junkie]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
One time, on Mythbusters "quack-science" show - they were with the CHP and were allowed to get drunk and drive.

Now how about that?

Is it just because CHP was supervising(and the place was safe, blah blah)? So if we invite a cop to watch, we're clear? they did sobriety tests over the limit, but they made sure they were only at .07 for the actual driving.

[motorman4life]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
One time, on Mythbusters "quack-science" show - they were with the CHP and were allowed to get drunk and drive.

Now how about that?

Is it just because CHP was supervising(and the place was safe, blah blah)? So if we invite a cop to watch, we're clear?
I don't know myself what level the drivers were operating at in that Mythbusters episode. I do know, that like a racetrack or stunt show, there can be permits issued for activities that would be otherwise illegal... look at the Formula 1 races on city streets in San Jose, for example. Same goes for a motorcycle jump or stunt show, whether it is on privare property or a public street that has been temporarily set asside as a closed course. The permits would require event insurance, safety measures (like restricted access, participant and spectator protection and adequate medical support and security on scene).

No doubt, the Mythbusters were operating on a closed course and under a special permit and with all of the above protections in place.

Okay if you invite a cop to watch? No. :hand
Okay if you get the required permits and run an insured, closed course with all mandated safety measures in place? Yes. :thumbup

My new tagline: This ain't rocket science people. A little common sense goes a long way. -MM4L

[NorCalBusa]

I've always found having a cop or two in the pack to be VERY helpful when getting pulled over... Sure, don't count on it every time- but if its them v. some clapped out Hooligan with an asshole attitude- I'll take curtain #1!

[brichter]

Hey, Deac! You still hiding down there in Cowboy territory?

Do they still allow open containers in Texas?

[T-1 Thunder]

That's it, then. We define that a closed course is, and if they have enough $$$ in place of insurance, they just might be ok.

After all, those big jumps on bikes in Vegas don't get handcuffed afterwards...

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by Trogdor
Wow. This is just amazing.

As most people have figured out, don't listen to this guy. He doesn't know what he is talking about. This thread alone cites many vehicle codes that are enforceable on private property.

Just to clarify for those who are confused by this. Division 11 of the vehicle code, the 'Rules of the Road', are applicable only to highways, unless a different place is specifically referred to (sec 21001 CVC) A highway is basically a publically maintained road (sec 360 CVC) That means every VC section in Div 11 of the vehicle code must explicitly state if it is enforceable on private property. Some of those exceptions have been noted in this thread already. The most common are DUI (23152 CVC), reckless driving (23103 CVC), but others that you might not realize, such as parking in disabled spot and parking in fire lane. If those sections did not explicitly state they were enforceable on private property, then you couldn't get tickets for them.

Additionally, the local city may enact an ordinance that allows some or all vehicle codes to be enforced on certain private property (21107 CVC). In that case, signs must be posted stating that vehicle codes are enforceable.

Id like to see a LEO come onto my familys property and try to pull some shit like that. There are no public roads meaning there are no rules.. So piss off with your nonesense

[Junkie]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Id like to see a LEO come onto my familys property and try to pull some shit like that. There are no public roads meaning there are no rules.. So piss off with your nonesense get drunk, start driving around there, and call one of the LEOs here. I'm sure they would be happy to oblige ;)

[StuntrHuntr]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Id like to see a LEO come onto my familys property and try to pull some shit like that.
We're at the trailer park all the time!!! Oh, and tie that damed dog up 'fore it gets rundover!

There are no public roads meaning there are no rules.. So piss off with your nonesense
:orly I meet people like you every day (most of them reside at the county jail). One day, when you wake up in a 6x8 cinderblock room wearing an orange jumpsuit, please remember this simple message: overconfidence and ignorance are a bad combination. Oh, and don't bend over to pick up the soap. :sex

I've pretty much considered GiNin a moron, based upon past posts, but guys, I'm thinking someone must have hijacked GingerNinja's account. Even GiNin is not this stupid!

[brichter]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Id like to see a LEO come onto my familys property and try to pull some shit like that. There are no public roads meaning there are no rules.. So piss off with your nonesense

Spoken by someone who is completely ignorant of the law.

And since you brought it up, what exactly would you do if a LEO "came onto your family's property and tried to pull some shit like that", pray tell? :teeth

Please enlighten us as to just how far you're willing to screw yourself. :laughing

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by brichter
Spoken by someone who is completely ignorant of the law.

And since you brought it up, what exactly would you do if a LEO "came onto your family's property and tried to pull some shit like that", pray tell? :teeth

Please enlighten us as to just how far you're willing to screw yourself. :laughing

First, What PC is there for a police officer to trespass?
Second, unless there has been a crime, i.e. felony or misdemeanor, there is no legal reason for an officer to take action. Now even if a misdemeanor traffic violation is committed it doesn’t mean that a LEO can take action (Legally) when you are on private property. LEO’s don’t have the authority to take action on private property for something like traffic violations. My family has 200 acres in the central valley and simply stated vehicle code doesn’t exist on that land. Our vehicles are not insured nor are they licensed because they do not leave the property thru they are not subject to the ca veh code. We race, drive like maniacs and have a few beers as we work and there is no law that says we cant when we are on our property. Now if they were to use public roadways they yes they are in violation.

LEO’s think they can do anything, this is a common issue in the bay area, but the fact is that they are bound to the law the same way we are as citizens.

So, take your weak ass assumptions and feeble attempts to insult me for expressing my thoughts on this subject somewhere where you know what your talking about. Better yet just keep following the sheep as your doing.

[brichter]

Not going to answer my questions, huh? :laughing

As far as your statement "unless there has been a crime, i.e. felony or misdemeanor, there is no legal reason for an officer to take action", well, that's exactly what we've been saying. Thanks for proving us right. :teeth

So much for my "weak-ass assumptions"! There's no need to insult you, you're doing such a fine job of it yourself! :laughing :twofinger

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
First, What PC is there for a police officer to trespass?

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by brichter
Spoken by someone who is completely ignorant of the law.

And since you brought it up, what exactly would you do if a LEO "came onto your family's property and tried to pull some shit like that", pray tell? :teeth

Please enlighten us as to just how far you're willing to screw yourself. :laughing

It would be handled in court. No need to confront a big headed leo at the time of their unjust action of law.

I like how you try to bait me into being confrontational, but its not going to happen. Treating the leo like your spouse and letting beleive they are superior is the easiest way to manipulate the situation.

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by brichter
Not going to answer my questions, huh? :laughing

As far as your statement "unless there has been a crime, i.e. felony or misdemeanor, there is no legal reason for an officer to take action", well, that's exactly what we've been saying. Thanks for proving us right. :teeth



That’s what I have said from the beginning, but I was specifically stating my points about VC violations. Comprehension is your friend!

[brichter]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
That’s what I have said from the beginning, but I was specifically stating my points about VC violations. Comprehension is your friend!

So whay are you arguing, if you agree with the rest of us? :loco :laughing

[NorCalBusa]

[i]Please enlighten us as to just how far you're willing to screw yourself. :laughing [/B]

That's the funniest line I've read this year!

[Junkie]

GingerNinja, the case law I have seen says that it doesn't require a warrant for an LEO to trespass, or even cross barbed wire cattle fences (or similar types) on rural land.

[NorCalBusa]

Hey Ginger,

Seriously dude- you need to go take AJ101 or something. You have some notions that simply aren't the way it works, or the law. I'd hate to see ya get your tit in a wringer because you have some misconceptions.

[JPM]

Originally posted by GingerNinja First, What PC is there for a police officer to trespass?


602.5. PC- (a) Every person other than a public officer or employee
acting within the course and scope of his or her employment in
performance of a duty imposed by law, who enters or remains in any
noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place
without consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in
lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

603. PC- Every person other than a peace officer engaged in the
performance of his duties as such who forcibly and without the
consent of the owner, representative of the owner, lessee or
representative of the lessee thereof, enters a dwelling house, cabin,
or other building occupied or constructed for occupation by humans,
and who damages, injures or destroys any property of value in, around
or appertaining to such dwelling house, cabin or other building, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

Now what.

[T-1 Thunder]

Bottom line(and to spare us some stress) - I think it comes down to this:

What would be the probably cause(from the cops view) to justify the tresspass to conduct the DUI test in the first place, let alone make the arrest?

(It's not like the truck lights up with a neon DUI when the driver is loaded...)


THINK. I think we got something tricky here.

[Junkie]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
Bottom line(and to spare us some stress) - I think it comes down to this:

What would be the probably cause(from the cops view) to justify the tresspass to conduct the DUI test in the first place, let alone make the arrest?

(It's not like the truck lights up with a neon DUI when the driver is loaded...)


THINK. I think we got something tricky here. LEOs don't need probable cause to trespass.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Junkie
LEOs don't need probable cause to trespass.

OK- both of you define 'trespass' :laughing


So T-1, I'll bite... mind you that I'm not a LEO, but I did stay at a HolidayInn Express™ last night :teeth

So here is a scenario for you:

A Police Officer spots a pickup truck driving on a gravel road next to the highway. The gravel road is two miles long on private property leading to a ranch. The Officer observes the driver of the truck has an open alcoholic beverage container. The Officer realizes an open container on private property is not illegal, but it does get his attention. Officer Fife then decides to slow down and watch the truck. He notices the truck is being driven in an erratic manor, to the point where the driver appeared not to be in control of his vehicle.

Can the Officer stop this truck and arrest the operator for DUI?

I'm pretty sure that would be a "yes".

Reality is (and this is just an educated guess,) that most private property DUIs involve an injury accident- where law enforcement and Fire/EMS is invited to the scene.

[T-1 Thunder]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
OK- both of you define 'trespass' :laughing


So T-1, I'll bite... mind you that I'm not a LEO, but I did stay at a HolidayInn Express™ last night :teeth

So here is a scenario for you:

A Police Officer spots a pickup truck driving on a gravel road next to the highway. The gravel road is two miles long on private property leading to a ranch. The Officer observes the driver of the truck has an open alcoholic beverage container. The Officer realizes an open container on private property is not illegal, but it does get his attention. Officer Fife then decides to slow down and watch the truck. He notices the truck is being driven in an erratic manor, to the point where the driver appeared not to be in control of his vehicle.

Can the Officer stop this truck and arrest the operator for DUI?

I'm pretty sure that would be a "yes".

Reality is (and this is just an educated guess,) that most private property DUIs involve an injury accident- where law enforcement and Fire/EMS is invited to the scene.

That all sounds exactly what I think reality is. Perfect.

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by JPM
602.5. PC- (a) Every person other than a public officer or employee
acting within the course and scope of his or her employment in
performance of a duty imposed by law, who enters or remains in any
noncommercial dwelling house, apartment, or other residential place
without consent of the owner, his or her agent, or the person in
lawful possession thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

603. PC- Every person other than a peace officer engaged in the
performance of his duties as such who forcibly and without the
consent of the owner, representative of the owner, lessee or
representative of the lessee thereof, enters a dwelling house, cabin,
or other building occupied or constructed for occupation by humans,
and who damages, injures or destroys any property of value in, around
or appertaining to such dwelling house, cabin or other building, is
guilty of a misdemeanor.

Now what.

They still need probable cause, a legitimate reason, and or a warrent to go onto private property outside of city limits. JPM, you have always been an arrogant asshole to me and I welcome your over weight doughnut eating ass to meet me at the entrance to our property and arrest me for DUI, Reckless Driving and Pissing in public when I do all of it when your standing right there watching. You are welcome to bring your friends and all your barf buddies to see you get your feelings hurt when you find out your off your rocker.

There is not athing you can do to me when I'm on my private property (fenced) driving around drunk. You can sit at your computer and search for all the case law and vc you want to. The fact is those Vc's apply to public roadways and property not privatly owned and maintained fenced property. Now, if I were to hurt some one or cause some sort of physical damage then yes you (Law Enforcement) have the authority to act.


Originally posted by Junkie
LEOs don't need probable cause to trespass.

The badge does not give any officer the right to avoid the laws on the books. He or she could illegally enter private property to issue a citation and or gain an arrest for DUI but the courts would throw it out.

trespass
n. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

LEO's have to have the LEGAL authority to enter private property. Since our property is private, fenced and secured it would require a LEO to forcefully gain entrance thus making this action a trespass unless he /she had a warrent to do so or if a crime had been committed.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
They still need probable cause, a legitimate reason, and or a warrent to go onto private property outside of city limits. JPM, you have always been an arrogant asshole to me and I welcome your over weight doughnut eating ass to meet me at the entrance to our property and arrest me for DUI, Reckless Driving and Pissing in public when I do all of it when your standing right there watching. You are welcome to bring your friends and all your barf buddies to see you get your feelings hurt when you find out your off your rocker.

There is not athing you can do to me when I'm on my private property (fenced) driving around drunk. You can sit at your computer and search for all the case law and vc you want to. The fact is those Vc's apply to public roadways and property not privatly owned and maintained fenced property. Now, if I were to hurt some one or cause some sort of physical damage then yes you (Law Enforcement) have the authority to act.




The badge does not give any officer the right to avoid the laws on the books. He or she could illegally enter private property to issue a citation and or gain an arrest for DUI but the courts would throw it out.

trespass
n. entering another person's property without permission of the owner or his/her agent and without lawful authority (like that given to a health inspector) and causing any damage, no matter how slight. Any interference with the owner's (or a legal tenant's) use of the property is a sufficient showing of damage and is a civil wrong (tort) sufficient to form the basis for a lawsuit against the trespasser by the owner or a tenant using the property. Trespass includes erecting a fence on another's property or a roof which overhangs a neighbor's property, swinging the boom of a crane with loads of building materials over another's property, or dumping debris on another's real estate. In addition to damages, a court may grant an injunction prohibiting any further continuing, repeated or permanent trespass. Trespass for an illegal purpose is a crime.

LEO's have to have the LEGAL authority to enter private property. Since our property is private, fenced and secured it would require a LEO to forcefully gain entrance thus making this action a trespass unless he /she had a warrent to do so or if a crime had been committed.

:rolleyes

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
JPM, you have always been an arrogant asshole to me and I welcome your over weight doughnut eating ass to meet.......

Your flaming/baiting/name calling will not be tolerated. This is the only warning you'll get.

Please play nice.:|

[GingerNinja]

Originally posted by Mortifer
Your flaming/baiting/name calling will not be tolerated. This is the only warning you'll get.

Please play nice.:|

Thanks, Your appreciated from the bottom of my XXX

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by GingerNinja
Thanks, Your appreciated from the bottom of my XXX

no idea what that's is supposed to mean.:wtf

but you are suspended for comments in this thread and the other you just posted in.:|

[wackyiraqi]

Wow, you guys caught a live one in here! :laughing

EDIT: Heh! He deleted his "go catch some lead" post?

[T-1 Thunder]

Originally posted by Mortifer
no idea what that's is supposed to mean.:wtf

but you are suspended for comments in this thread and the other you just posted in.:|

Please don't silence the only competition. Until those comments, the arguements did hold onto the only ground for debate on the subject.

Eliminate that, and we're all just bobbin' heads, agreeing...forever.

Personally, I feel I could and would defend my position until enough data changes my mind. Don't stop the data, without I'm making a less educated guess.

[Mortifer]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
Please don't silence the only competition. Until those comments, the arguements did hold onto the only ground for debate on the subject.

Eliminate that, and we're all just bobbin' heads, agreeing...forever.

Personally, I feel I could and would defend my position until enough data changes my mind. Don't stop the data, without I'm making a less educated guess.

ummm...:dunno....he is out for 24 hours. sorry.

[JPM]

Aww, I'm honored; I even made it in his title section under his avatar. I hope you know you really hurt my feelings with your comments. I might even lose some sleep over it (Or NOT). You asked someone to show you the law that says officers can trespass and I did. I have no idea why that would give you such a hissy fit. Some day you might grow up but I’m not holding my breath. And you say you want to become a police officer? :hand

[Baptistro]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
Please don't silence the only competition. Until those comments, the arguements did hold onto the only ground for debate on the subject.

Eliminate that, and we're all just bobbin' heads, agreeing...forever.

Personally, I feel I could and would defend my position until enough data changes my mind. Don't stop the data, without I'm making a less educated guess.

Differing opininons are encouraged and welcome, but there is certain behavior that will not be tolerated on this board. Making an online argument personal, and attacking the individual, will get your privileges revoked pretty quick.

Keep in mind that he is getting off easy. We should have our new suspension policy ironed out by the end of this month, and it will be a much more no nonsense policy.

JPM, let's drop it since we don't want this to start all over again once he is allowed back since he can't post now.

[Bad Dad]

Originally posted by wackyiraqi
Wow, you guys caught a live one in here! :laughing

EDIT: Heh! He deleted his "go catch some lead" post?


look above his avatar...

[NeverSubmit]

Wow, after reading those whole thread I'm really amazed that people are so quick to pass a harsh judgment on this guy. So many scenarios, so many options, and way to many opinions for me to side either way. GingerNinja makes some valid points and they have not been shot down in any way which was valid. I'm not a LEO nor am I a veteran of this forum but a fresh set off eyeballs can see that there are defiantly some large ego's and people set in there ways despite common sense.

I agree with having a forum policy but this guy is just arguing his point in the best way he knows how. I would get a little aggressive is it was me against the entire forum on this one. I can almost bet that there are others that have the same opinions as he /she does but don't like to rock the boat.

[T-1 Thunder]

Bingo, baby.

I'm glad I'm not the only one to speak up. I sent him a PM and told him I value his input, and asked him to keep cool next time so we can continue the exchange of intellect without the "nuts" getting in the way.

I even told him that there are others out there, silent, that agree.

Glad to hear one speak up. I know there are more. After all, this is AMERICA, land of the free. We kick ass to protect our rights.

I think everyone has a right to be stupid in their own house. If you want to juggle knives and hurt yourself, your choice. No safety police needed on that when no one innocent is at stake...

[Trogdor]

Nobody is trying to dismiss his input. But re-read his posts. Re-ead the responses. His claims have been repeatedly addressed and contradicted by people citing laws. He just comes back to the same claims and disregards the laws that have been quoted to him. Regardless of his demeanor, I think he is doing readers a disservice by repeatedly claiming things that several officers have all contradicted and backed up by citing laws. Some people will be swayed by his claims and end up doing something that will get them arrested.

[}Dragon{]

Not to mention indirect threats :| (Like "go catch lead")

[silversvs]

I tried to PM Ginger but he was not accepting any.

I like his devils advocate approach in this forum. Its kind of fun to poke holes in his arguments by busting out the good book (the Vehicle Code). It is also good to hear a different opinion. I think everyone can learn from the give and take. But as Trogdor stated above, Ginger kept coming back to the same argument that had already been addressed.

What I don't like about Gnger is the blatant attacks on other members of the forum, and the indirect threats that were made in some of the posts. That is what earned him the ban.

[NeverSubmit]

Well I have not been around for too long but from what I have read in the past few days didn't justify silencing him with a ban. I don't think a ban is the fair way if we or the few with power over these boards don't agree with his opinion or how he goes about expressing it. That just shows the intolerance and immaturity of the people that actually run these boards.

Originally posted by Bad Dad
look above his avatar...

Originally posted by }Dragon{
Not to mention indirect threats :| (Like "go catch lead")

People such as above egg things on and get the Admins riled up to where they think they need to take some action. The guy is just trying to get his point across. From what I seen, he wanted to get some more comprehensive answers with some clarification on the specific situations from the Leo's. But they just seem to answer everyone questions with quotes off an online source in a very general fashion and not really answering whats being asked.

Although, I don't agree with everything he has said, I do agree with certain aspects of his arguments.

I think if JPM met up with him and had a few beers they would be ol friends by the end of the night. :)

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
I think if JPM met up with him and had a few beers they would be ol friends by the end of the night. :)

:rofl :rofl

Hell, they could go out for ice cream too! :laughing

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
:rofl :rofl

Hell, they could go out for ice cream too! :laughing

Oh ya, Im sorry for my ignorance. geesh, I forgot that LEO's don't hang out with us peons. Damn, how could I have been so stupid to think like that. Sorry


:p

Wonder if the reason threads get off track is because people only answer the snide sarcastic comments instead of the meat of the posts?????

[silversvs]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Wonder if the reason threads get off track is because people only answer the snide sarcastic comments instead of the meat of the posts?????

Realizing that you are a little new here, but..........

That is the beauty of BARF! You never know what is going to be said by whom.


To be honest, the legitimate questions in this thread have been answered many times in many different ways.

[brichter]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Well I have not been around for too long but from what I have read in the past few days didn't justify silencing him with a ban. I don't think a ban is the fair way if we or the few with power over these boards don't agree with his opinion or how he goes about expressing it. That just shows the intolerance and immaturity of the people that actually run these boards.

First order of business: Go check out Faz's sticky in the Newbie forumand see what those smilies mean.

We understand with only 5 posts you may not be up on how things work around here, that's why we have the newbie forum to begin with. A little education goes a long way. ;) Still, you have a differing opinion, but you haven't made threats toward anyone. And, no big surprise, you're not on a 24 hour suspension. :thumbup You've kept your posts respectful of others, as you'd expect them to do to you.


People such as above egg things on and get the Admins riled up to where they think they need to take some action. The guy is just trying to get his point across.

There's a difference betweeen getting a point across and personal attacks. You seem to know the difference, and that's expected of everyone on BARF.

From what I seen, he wanted to get some more comprehensive answers with some clarification on the specific situations from the Leo's. But they just seem to answer everyone questions with quotes off an online source in a very general fashion and not really answering whats being asked.

The actual Vehicle and Penal Code references aren't general at all, they are the laws that pertain to the questions he was asking. There is no more specific answer to a legal question than quoting the law, because when you get into court, that's the basis the case will be decided on.


Although, I don't agree with everything he has said, I do agree with certain aspects of his arguments.

The issue he had was a failure to understand the topic of the thread. If you read his first post, then SilverSVS's response, you'll see what I'm talking about. This wasn't about traffic infractions like speeding or failure to signal, it was about a specific crime (either misdemeanor or felony) called DUI. It's even in the thread title.

I think if JPM met up with him and had a few beers they would be ol friends by the end of the night. :)

Could be, I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't make threats to JPM if he met him face to face.

If he did act that way to his face, I can guarantee they wouldn't be old friends by the end of the night, and that was Dragon's point.

Differing opinions are welcome, threats and personal attacks are not.

:welcome to BARF!

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Wonder if the reason threads get off track is because people only answer the snide sarcastic comments instead of the meat of the posts?????

I would have said more (and gone into some history) but I'd rather laugh about :)

BTW: I'm not a LEO

[T-1 Thunder]

Spirit of the law VS word of the law.
Officer discretion.


The DUI book was written to protect the innocent. The spirit intends to protect the innocent, the general public on public roads. That is the spirit of it. With that in mind, a guy that's on his square loaded and poses a threat only to himself doesn't seem to go against the spirit of that law.

Furthermore, officers have power to excersize judgement in many ways. They see someone on the road, nail em. See someone on their own ranch with no one else around, heck - it's ok.

Besides, people drive crazy in a 4x4 sometimes. It's the nature of wheelin'. You can't really tell if someone is drunk behind that wheel. Heck, sometimes a couple beers will take the edge off and actually improve your off roading.

Someone else said it - unless there is an injury(as in my prior situation), I've never heard of one. And even with the injury, at the hospital - the cops ASK. And nothing can be proven because I could have drank before going to the hospital...

Bottom line: We're all adults. We can behave like adults, and especially if you own land - hopefully you'll have good judgement and know just how much you can drink and limit yourself with your own dicipline, regardless of the law.

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by brichter
Could be, I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't make threats to JPM if he met him face to face.


So, Britcher... Do you know JPM and Ginger personally?

You said Ginger would not make his aggressive comments in person?

Why is that? Because he's a cop? Dude, I know so many cops that are complete pansies when they don't have a uniform and badge on. The "badge" gives them courage and motivation to do what they have to do when on duty. I'm not trying to start a flame here nor am I saying that all cops are pansies but some are.

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Dude, I know so many cops that are complete pansies when they don't have a uniform and badge on. The "badge" gives them courage and motivation to do what they have to do when on duty. I'm not trying to start a flame here nor am I saying that all cops are pansies but some are.

I know so many cops that don't want to get involved in stupid crap off duty, that they'd rather be thought of as pansies than deal with another agency, their own management and paper work regarding off-duty incidents...

:cool

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by T-1 Thunder
Spirit of the law VS word of the law.
Officer discretion.


The DUI book was written to protect the innocent. The spirit intends to protect the innocent, the general public on public roads. That is the spirit of it. With that in mind, a guy that's on his square loaded and poses a threat only to himself doesn't seem to go against the spirit of that law.

Furthermore, officers have power to excersize judgement in many ways. They see someone on the road, nail em. See someone on their own ranch with no one else around, heck - it's ok.

Besides, people drive crazy in a 4x4 sometimes. It's the nature of wheelin'. You can't really tell if someone is drunk behind that wheel. Heck, sometimes a couple beers will take the edge off and actually improve your off roading.

Someone else said it - unless there is an injury(as in my prior situation), I've never heard of one. And even with the injury, at the hospital - the cops ASK. And nothing can be proven because I could have drank before going to the hospital...

Bottom line: We're all adults. We can behave like adults, and especially if you own land - hopefully you'll have good judgement and know just how much you can drink and limit yourself with your own dicipline, regardless of the law.

Well stated.

I believe that is what ginger was trying to say but just couldn't express it due to his personal involvement. Sometimes people see things a little different than an outside party would perceive with no personal connection.

Look at me for instance, I was a fresh set of eyes and I seen his point of view. Risking being ostracized on my 1st point, I tried to take his side and help his cause because I seen that he was the underdog in the thread. I dont know Adam from an Asshole since I'm new to the community but I do know when some one is being ganged up on.:wow

Originally posted by }Dragon{
I know so many cops that don't want to get involved in stupid crap off duty, that they'd rather be thought of as pansies than deal with another agency, their own management and paper work regarding off-duty incidents...

:cool

Exactly my point. Follow what you preach! They get involved with the stupid crap when they are on duty but would walk by it when off-duty. It's an excuse or is it the mature way to handle it? I could say a little bit of both, depends on the situation and all the specifics. My personal position or opinion on it is that their badge gives them balls that ordinarily they don't possess. When it suites their fashion some would act off-duty in a different way. Integrity starts off as the#1 trait (Next to Officer Safety) to instill in to a new officer but over time and the lack of leadership leading by example the integrity slips to the aft. Again, I'm not generalizing or saying that all LEO's are this way; just more than you would think. In my experience with LEO's most have been very upfront, honest. and professional with me (for what I know) so I'm not bashing anyone here. Fact is they are a lot of officers that do abuse their authority and in my life no one is above suspicion when looking at things. Facts out weigh everything else!

but anyways.. I'm done with this thread. As I can see you guys could debate beating a dead horse all freaking year.


:laughing

[Trogdor]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit

but anyways.. I'm done with this thread. As I can see you guys could debate beating a dead horse all freaking year.


:laughing

I love how you sign up for an account, take a thread that has, even by your own admission, been beaten to death already, make some broad based allegations that cops are pansies because they don't get involved in off-duty incidents (wtf does that have to do with any of the debate that has gone on thus far?), then back out and say you are done with this thread. :loser

Just remember that the cops who are in this forum aren't getting paid for it. They don't get a gold star. They aren't looking for a debate with anyone. They are just here to answer questions and hopefully educate the public. I consider it a pretty valuable resource. If all threads turn into this, then they won't bother responding anymore, and everyone will have lost a valuable resource.

[brichter]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
So, Britcher... Do you know JPM and Ginger personally?

Nope. I don't need to.


You said Ginger would not make his aggressive comments in person?

Nope. Learn to read. That's not what I said.

Why is that? Because he's a cop?

Nope. 3 strikes, I guess you're out. :rolleyes You really need to learn how to read. You asked 3 questions, you got all 3 wrong.

I said I'd be willing to bet that GN wouldn't make those threats to JPM if he was sitting across the table from him because I've found people are usually a lot more respectful of other people's opinions when they're discussing a topic over a beer or 2 than they are on the Intarweb. The humor that some people speak with is also a lot more apparent in person than it is when conveyed with smilies. ;)

BTW, you also missed the part of my reply that stated if GN did take that attitude, he and JPM wouldn't be old friends by the end of the night. You wanna try to contradict that statement too? You could go for a perfect 4 out of 4 wrong! :laughing :twofinger

[brichter]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Again, I'm not generalizing or saying that all LEO's are this way; just more than you would think. In my experience with LEO's most have been very upfront, honest. and professional with me (for what I know) so I'm not bashing anyone here. Fact is they are a lot of officers that do abuse their authority and in my life no one is above suspicion when looking at things.


So, your experiences have been positive for the most part, but you're stating that there are a lot who abuse their authority, more than we think, etc., etc.? How did you arrive at that conclusion, then?

My experiences with LEOs (a lot of experiences) have been the same as yours, and I'd say that the percentage that abuse their authority are the rare exception rather than the rule. I've had apparently the same experience as you've had but using that data, I come to a different conclusion.

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by Trogdor
I love how you sign up for an account, take a thread that has, even by your own admission, been beaten to death already, make some broad based allegations that cops are pansies because they don't get involved in off-duty incidents

I know I said I was done but I have to respond to this guy.

I can see exactly why this thread have staggered on for weeks. You can not really say that my opinions were broad based can you? I said...

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
So, Britcher... Do you know JPM and Ginger personally?

You said Ginger would not make his aggressive comments in person?

Why is that? Because he's a cop? Dude, I know so many cops that are complete pansies when they don't have a uniform and badge on. The "badge" gives them courage and motivation to do what they have to do when on duty. I'm not trying to start a flame here nor am I saying that all cops are pansies but some are.

Where is the broadness? I specifically stated that not all cops were nor was I implying that any that are on these forums were.

I guess I am getting to see where ginger was getting his aggressiveness from when he was trying to state his opinions and then getting the third degree because some people here cant respect others opinions. I know he came off aggressive but it may have been warranted.

Originally posted by Trogdor
then back out and say you are done with this thread. :loser



I stated my opinions and had my brief stand on the soapbox. I'm not here to change anyone mind or get in to a heated debate on who is right or wrong. Nothing really gets resolved in forum debates anyways. If you really care and want to have a conversation about this then I'd be glad to buy you a beer (providing you are 21) and have a nice little chat about our opinions.



Originally posted by Trogdor


Just remember that the cops who are in this forum aren't getting paid for it. They don't get a gold star. They aren't looking for a debate with anyone. They are just here to answer questions and hopefully educate the public. I consider it a pretty valuable resource. If all threads turn into this, then they won't bother responding anymore, and everyone will have lost a valuable resource.

So who makes them "Holier that tho"? I don't get paid for my opinions or technical knowledge in this forum so why should they? We are all here for enjoyment/ entertainment so why are the leo's any different? From what I have seen the cops here do Like to debate and get into the conversation just like the rest of us. Some like to quote an online resource, some like to give a personal perspective and others like to ramble on about how they know best. I don't know what forums you have been reading but in the short time I have been here I can see that clear as day.

Originally posted by Trogdor

They are just here to answer questions and hopefully educate the public.

People that use this word "educate" makes me very edgy. You or any officer have no business in the line of education unless you have a Masters or a Doctorate in the specific field. Educate is a very subjective word when used in a debate Most of the time when it is used in debates it is used in a negative and insulting manner when the speaker/ writer is trying to justify their ideology and or discredit some one else via some sort of so called education.

I'm not here to justify my own personal beliefs nor am I here to educate anyone on my opinions. I just entered this thread after reading everyones posts and deciding that ginger, although aggressive had some valid points on the topic.

So sue me if I have done wrong.

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by brichter
So, your experiences have been positive for the most part, but you're stating that there are a lot who abuse their authority, more than we think, etc., etc.? How did you arrive at that conclusion, then?



Used to be married to a cop.


Originally posted by brichter
Could be, I'd be willing to bet he wouldn't make threats to JPM if he met him face to face.


How did you come to this conclusion when you don't know them personally?

We could go on for ever bantering back and forth.

It seems like some of you people are forums trolls and look for drama to incite. Since GN cant reply because he has been banned I guess since I stood up for him that I'm the target now.

lol good luck with that.

[brichter]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Used to be married to a cop.

That sounds like a marriage issue rather than a cop issue! I have an ex-wife too, but I'd not base my interpretation of all beauticians or all women on my experiences with her, that's for sure! :laughing




How did you come to this conclusion when you don't know them personally?

Damn, dude, this is like a conversation with my 16 year old! :twofinger :wtf :rolleyes :laughing You're killing me here!

I think this is the first time I've ever quoted myself :laughing :

Originally posted by brichter
I said I'd be willing to bet that GN wouldn't make those threats to JPM if he was sitting across the table from him because I've found people are usually a lot more respectful of other people's opinions when they're discussing a topic over a beer or 2 than they are on the Intarweb. The humor that some people speak with is also a lot more apparent in person than it is when conveyed with smilies. ;)


Any questions now?:laughing

I don't mind having a discussion with you, but please try to at least read my posts before you ask questions I've already answered.;)

[NeverSubmit]

Originally posted by brichter
That sounds like a marriage issue rather than a cop issue! I have an ex-wife too, but I'd not base my interpretation of all beauticians or all women on my experiences with her, that's for sure!

Yea, it was a marriage issue based on a lack of integrity. See the connection yet Inspector Clueso?

Now I know why GN was aggressive. Also I know why you have an ex-wife. Your wrapped up in your own little world. Now that GN is gone your going to start in on me with the personal insults.(or try to) I realize that the majority of LEO's are good but there are a lot that are abusive of their authority. Now thats my opinion, its not fact!

So let it go and agree to disagree!

[brichter]

Originally posted by NeverSubmit
Yea, it was a marriage issue based on a lack of integrity. See the connection yet Inspector Clueso?

Brilliant! You've realized that a lack of integrity in a marriage can only be present if one of the partners is a LEO, and a person of no other profession would ever exhibit a lack of integrity in their marriage! :applause

Not only that, but you're using an example of 1 LEO whom you've had experience with (and that experience wasn't even in a professsional context, which is what we're addressing in this thread) as the base of your statement that "many", or "a lot" of LEOs abuse their power. The comedic content of your logic is only surpassed by it's complete lack of basis in reality (I won't name-call here, since that would be a personal attack, and against the TOS, but pointing out the fallacy of your logic isn't;)).

Also I know why you have an ex-wife. Your wrapped up in your own little world.

Oh, really? Why don't you go ahead and post up the intimate details of my divorce, since you're so intelligent? :laughing I'll be waiting. Here you are posting that I shouldn't be able to form an opinion if I didn't actually have personal contact with the involved parties, but now you (without ever having met either myself or my ex-wife) are posting up the theory that you know exactly why I'm divorced? Welcome to your hypocrisy!:confused :laughing

The reasons for my divorce have been posted here in pertinent threads before, and none of them had to do with me or my attitude, they were strictly based on the safety of my child and our finances.

Now that GN is gone your going to start in on me with the personal insults.(or try to)

What personal insults? Can you point out a single personal insult I've made to to you? I'll wait for that, too.:hand

I realize that the majority of LEO's are good but there are a lot that are abusive of their authority. Now thats my opinion, its not fact!

Ok, now you're learning. You're welcome to your opinion, even if it is based on the interaction of you and your ex-wife. That doesn't make it right, however, and you never did define "a lot".

So let it go and agree to disagree!

What, you want to give up now? :teeth

[T-1 Thunder]

I used to be a forum brawler. They call me the Grizzled Bastard Shoreliner on the fishing board. I've even called people out "meet me on the pier at high noon, alone, no weapons".

Looking back, I could have been killed. My balls and pride were bigger than my brain.

And because of that, I, personally, appreciate when the mods step in. To help out the young bucks that are like me when I was young. I am wiser now, but could have used some moderation in the past. <- the whole point being THANKS mods for what you do.

#2: Let's not derail this into space. Let's not degrade it.

I also don't want Britcher and NeverSubmit to stop the exchange of ideals, but to tame the exchange of "me vs you".

Personally, I thank everyone in thread for their part. Be it good or bad, you've added color and depth to the subject.

Now play nice or I'll be forced to grab both of you and drag you two out and buy you both beers and enforce a group hug!

;)

DUI thing: I say do what you want, risk what you control, but never extend that risk to others(innocents).

[brichter]

Ok, Grizzled Bastard Shoreliner!


12ozers at 10 paces! :laughing

[enki]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
So to the OP, what it breaks down to is if one was riding like a tool on private property and the Officer observes it- they can be arrested.

What generally happens is someone wrecks their quad, dirt-bike or pick-em-up truck while out in their back 40... 911 is called for an injury collision (which you get Fire, Ambulance and CHP) and the driver of said vehicle can be popped, at the scene or later.

My question: How do you prove they were DUI when they crashed? Where is the chain of custody? What if they say they crashed their motorbike, ATV, pickup and then slammed some Johnny Walker because they were in pain?