Why aren't real unmarked cars used for traffic enforcement?

[pepperell]

I've seen it argued here time and time again that CHP usually nab the lowest hanging fruit -- speeders. There have been several recent, well publicized "stings" on the bay area freeways.

It has also been mentioned and I believe confirmed by some BARF LEOs that it is not usually just speed that causes accidents but a host of contributing factors. I know speeders are not what I perceive to be the biggest danger on the road-- I am far more wary of inattentive and/or blatantly reckless drivers.

For example, almost every trip in my cage I am tailgated at some point, and I don't drive slowly. I've been rear ended twice in two years. The majority of time people do not use turn signals. They wait until the last minute to change lanes for exits or merges. They purposely get in the freer flowing lane and cut into traffic late to make their turn. People make left turns when there are signs specifically stating not too. They run red lights. They roll through stop signs.

It would seem that their are a host of more subtle, but arguably more dangerous infractions that go on constantly but are enforced sporadically at best (only when patrol is present). Why not put unmarked (and even better, non-interceptors, crown vics...etc) vehicles out on the roads? Then issue a big press release that this is going to happen.

I'd think this would be the best way to really make a difference out on the roads.

[Ace of Hearts]

I read an article where in AZ they do use unmarked cars for some traffic enforcement. The article I read had them using the cars not for speeders but bad drivers. The example in the article was a guy cut off and flipped off the trooper in the unmarked car.

Actually, the cars wern't unmarked, but they were painted with like a polarized paint, where you could only see the markings at a 90 degree angle, and they looked like a solid color from most deflections.

[L-2]

I think Pepperell's correct in that the failure to signal section is not used as much as the speeding sections. I have no hard data but have viewed various code sections cited and scheduled at traffic court and I don't recall 22107 being too popular.

There is VC 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.
22107 is more difficult to enforce in that one of the crime elements depends on another party being "affected", unless that party is the LEO.

Unmarked vehicles are generally unusable per VC 40800. Every traffic officer on duty for the exclusive or main
purpose of enforcing the provisions of Division 10 or 11 of this code
shall wear a full distinctive uniform, and if the officer while so
on duty uses a motor vehicle, it must be painted a distinctive color
specified by the commissioner.
On an exception basis, an unmarked vehicle will execute a traffic enforcement stop. I suppose the overall rationale is to "protect" the public from any form of entrapment, but I'm only speculating.

[monkeythumpa]

A judge also ruled that cars do not have to pull over for unmarked cars in California. You only have to pull over for marked police cars.

[motorman4life]

L-2 is correct. The law requires that any vehicle designated primarily for traffic enforcement must be "distinctively marked." That does not prevent the CHP and other agencies from fielding a variety of make/model and color vehicles.

I know years ago, about the time they stopped using their marked Camaro in the Bay Area, CHP started using many different solid colored Crown Vics; red, green, gold, silver, all 'round the bay. It caused quite a stir. These vehicles were designated for commercial vehicle enforcement, but were not prevented from doing routine traffic enforcement, if they saw a blatant violation. Mostly they were popping tractor-trailers violating the 55 law as well as trucks by-passing the weigh stations and operating on restricted routes or in violation of their licensing.

CHP policy now is that all of their non-undercover vehicles must be marked with the star on the doors and "HIGHWAY PATROL" on the back.

As far as I know, Milpitas PD uses (or at least used to use) the widest variety of marked and "low-profile" patrol vehicles that I know of. It makes it hard to tell what is behind you... a minivan, a Jeep Cherokee, a Saturn Vue, a Dodge Pick-up or Chrysler Sedan... could it be? Naw! ...Doooh!

[JackTheTripper]

Some asshat in a lexus was driving like an ass on 101 today. Cutting in and out of traffic with only inches to spare. in about a 5 mile distance he got maybe 1/2 a mile ahead of me. I got off at my normal exit and guess who I see at the traffic light 2 cars ahead of me. Then they turned down the next street I work down. Pulled into a business 2 buildings down from me. I almost followed them in to say something but decided against it.

If I see them again on my commute I made a pact with myself I would next time.

[dogcatfud]

Originally posted by monkeythumpa
A judge also ruled that cars do not have to pull over for unmarked cars in California. You only have to pull over for marked police cars.
Can you provide more details/proof?

"When you see flashing police lights in your mirror, stop immediately. Everybody knows if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them."
-Chris Rock

:p

[L-2]

Originally posted by monkeythumpa
A judge also ruled that cars do not have to pull over for unmarked cars in California. You only have to pull over for marked police cars.
Please reference your source as this may be true for a prior particular case. Otherwise the Vehicle Code still states:

21806. Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency
vehicle which is sounding a siren and which has at least one lighted
lamp exhibiting red light that is visible, under normal atmospheric
conditions, from a distance of 1,000 feet to the front of the
vehicle, the surrounding traffic shall, except as otherwise directed
by a traffic officer, do the following:
(a) (1) Except as required under paragraph (2), the driver of
every other vehicle shall yield the right-of-way and shall
immediately drive to the right-hand edge or curb of the highway,
clear of any intersection, and thereupon shall stop and remain
stopped until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed.

Note, this code section makes no reference to "police" cars or whether the emergency vehicle is "marked" or not.

[lewdog]

Originally posted by dogcatfud
Can you provide more details/proof?

"When you see flashing police lights in your mirror, stop immediately. Everybody knows if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them."
-Chris Rock

:p
I have heard of cases where people pretend to be cops and pull people over. I don't know all the details, but maybe this is the reason?

[RolnCode3]

While it is not a direct comment to traffic enforcement, one of the problems lies here:

2800.1. (a) Any person who, while operating a motor vehicle and
with the intent to evade, willfully flees or otherwise attempts to
elude a pursuing peace officer's motor vehicle, is guilty of a
misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more
than one year if all of the following conditions exist:
(1) The peace officer's motor vehicle is exhibiting at least one
lighted red lamp visible from the front and the person either sees or
reasonably should have seen the lamp.
(2) The peace officer's motor vehicle is sounding a siren as may
be reasonably necessary.
(3) The peace officer's motor vehicle is distinctively marked.
(4) The peace officer's motor vehicle is operated by a peace
officer, as defined in Chapter 4.5 (commencing with Section 830) of
Title 3 of Part 2 of the Penal Code, and that peace officer is
wearing a distinctive uniform.

[monkeythumpa]

Originally posted by dogcatfud
Can you provide more details/proof?

"When you see flashing police lights in your mirror, stop immediately. Everybody knows if the police have to come and get you, they're bringing an ass kicking with them."
-Chris Rock

:p

I can't find the particular CA ruling, which I saw on the news last summer, but lots of other states give you latitude when lit up by an unmarked car. I remember the judge told the state that they could document violations from an unmarked car, but stopping vehicles should be done by marked police cars. The reasoning was that if a reasonable person can't tell if a car is a LEO then they are under no obligation to stop for them. It is too easy for a person to buy a black Crown Vic and rig up blue and red lights on the dash. The ruling could have been overturned, the media are not all that thorough when reporting.

http://www.fearlesstiger.com/safetyTips/policeStoppingUnmarked.htm
http://www.co.ho.md.us/police/docs/tipsonunmarkedcars.pdf

[07chuck]

Originally posted by monkeythumpa
I can't find the particular CA ruling, which I saw on the news last summer, but lots of other states give you latitude when lit up by an unmarked car. I remember the judge told the state that they could document violations from an unmarked car, but stopping vehicles should be done by marked police cars. The reasoning was that if a reasonable person can't tell if a car is a LEO then they are under no obligation to stop for them. It is too easy for a person to buy a black Crown Vic and rig up blue and red lights on the dash. The ruling could have been overturned, the media are not all that thorough when reporting.

http://www.fearlesstiger.com/safetyTips/policeStoppingUnmarked.htm
http://www.co.ho.md.us/police/docs/tipsonunmarkedcars.pdf Oh, you mean that guy that works at the pizza shop on Irving...

[}Dragon{]

My understanding is (mind you, I'm not current on case law);

An unmarked vehicle can make a traffic stop, however as stated above with the quote of 2800CVC from RC3, you can not be charged with 2800CVC for evading.

If a real unmarked LE car lights you up and you don't thinks it's a cop: Drive at a safe and prudent speed. If it IS a real cop- they will call for a marked unit... prepare for the worst, but you can't be charged with violating 2800CVC... (You still could get charged w/ failing to yield).

IIRC:
Many moons ago, a former CA speaker of the house insisted that all police cars be black and white or all white with distinguished markings to do ANY traffic enforcement- because he was tired of getting pulled over in his Porsche commuting between Sac and the Bay Area ;) (The same speaker of the house also would not authorize CHP the use of RADAR on the freeways, just on unincorporated county roads if the county provided the RADAR units.)

[WinterSF]

I know years ago, about the time they stopped using their marked Camaro in the Bay Area, [/B]

CHP no longer uses the Camaro? When did this happen?

[dogcatfud]

Many police agencies "retire" vehicles from service after they've reached a certain mileage. Most, if not all the Camaros have probably exceeded the limit. And the Camaro has not been produced since 2002.

[WinterSF]

I didn't realize they stopped making the car. thanks

[wicked-98]

It will return :)
http://ls1tech.com/forums/showthread.php?t=635904

[DaveToo]

So does anybody know who the Fed was that was making traffic stops on 880 in and around Fremont a couple of years ago? Black, unmarked SUV, emergency lighting behind the grill and the usual hidden strobes.

The dumbass did a great job of hiding in my blind spot so that I couldn't tell who was yelling at me in his PA. I guess he figured he could see what I was doing in the car, but I until I turned down my stereo and craned my neck, I had no idea who was addressing me by P.A. I slowed down, and he stayed in my blind spot for a while, then took off after somebody who passed me on the right and pulled that car over. I saw him make several traffic stops, but then I stopped commuting down that path. I haven't seen him for over a year now.

It wasn't even a DHS plate, just a regular looking GSA plate. The driver was in some kind of uniform. I did see him a couple of times taking pictures/video of the bay from the sidewalk on the Dumbarton Bridge.

[JPM]

Originally posted by monkeythumpa
A judge also ruled that cars do not have to pull over for unmarked cars in California. You only have to pull over for marked police cars.

You can still be cited for failing to yield to an unmarked vehicle with lights and siren; you just can't be charged with EVADING if you drive reasonably to a lit or populated area if an unmarked police car pulls you over. This topic was beat to death in a couple of older threads. Search the LEO forum for unmarked.

[JPM]

Originally posted by pepperell
The majority of time people do not use turn signals. .

Originally posted by L-2
I think Pepperell's correct in that the failure to signal section is not used as much as the speeding sections. I have no hard data but have viewed various code sections cited and scheduled at traffic court and I don't recall 22107 being too popular.

There is VC 22107. No person shall turn a vehicle from a direct course or move
right or left upon a roadway until such movement can be made with
reasonable safety and then only after the giving of an appropriate
signal in the manner provided in this chapter in the event any other
vehicle may be affected by the movement.
22107 is more difficult to enforce in that one of the crime elements depends on another party being "affected", unless that party is the LEO.


That is one of my favorite sections; I wrote 2 today. And just to show you how the DMV will give any moron a license, one of the vehicles I stopped was changing lanes aggressively in her big Bronco moving from lane to lane to pass traffic going the speed limit. Afar the 4th lane change with no signal I hit the lights (Got to love how you can hide and get around on a M/C). When I asked her about the non-use of turn signals her exact quote was, "I didn't know there was a law that you had to use turn signals". :wow Needles to say she now has a copy of the section that she can use to refresh her memory.

[Noid]

CHP still has a few camaros. I just saw one on 242 about a month ago. And the CHP camaros do not have "Highway Patrol" on the back. Only the star on the side.

[DaveToo]

When I lived in Thousand Oaks, CHP were testing out some light brown Tauruses with only white markings on the doors, maybe that polarized paint. They news said they were supposed to be commercial units, but I saw a number of passenger car stops.

And then there were the Volvos.

[NorCalBusa]

Originally posted by JPM
That is one of my favorite sections; I wrote 2 today. And just to show you how the DMV will give any moron a license, one of the vehicles I stopped was changing lanes aggressively in her big Bronco moving from lane to lane to pass traffic going the speed limit. Afar the 4th lane change with no signal I hit the lights (Got to love how you can hide and get around on a M/C). When I asked her about the non-use of turn signals her exact quote was, "I didn't know there was a law that you had to use turn signals". :wow Needles to say she now has a copy of the section that she can use to refresh her memory.

Hey J,

Do you ever "pile on" violations?

Say ya see an asshat that, in the course of one mile; follows too close, makes multi lane changes without signaling, etc- can you write up separate violations for each individual act? I know ya got plenty of paper in that printer....

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by Noid
CHP still has a few camaros. I just saw one on 242 about a month ago. And the CHP camaros do not have "Highway Patrol" on the back. Only the star on the side.

Yes- Contra Costa CHP still does have a Camaro.


It says Highway Patrol... it's in white reflective lettering on white paint, just sorta hard to see during daylight hours.

[dogcatfud]

Originally posted by DaveToo
When I lived in Thousand Oaks, CHP were testing out some light brown Tauruses with only white markings on the doors, maybe that polarized paint. They news said they were supposed to be commercial units, but I saw a number of passenger car stops.

And then there were the Volvos.
Certainly CHP wouldn't use vehicles that were not certified by the manufacturer to perform police work... right?

Is there such a thing as a "police package" Taurus or Volvo?

[Noid]

Originally posted by }Dragon{

It says Highway Patrol... it's in white reflective lettering on white paint, just sorta hard to see during daylight hours.

Every Camaro I have seen and can find on the net does not have anything on the back. So prove it without your photoshop help. Untill then they don't have anything on the back. :twofinger :p

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/197/960/3052853-wizard.gif

[Noid]

example. Oh wait, now I see it. Dam can't believe I missed that. NOThttp://image04.webshots.com/4/3/58/0/58135800xtkjir_ph.jpg?track_pagetag=/page/photo/rides/camaros&track_action=/Shortcuts/FullSize

[Noid]

another

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/197/960/3052859-58136587uxunqj_ph.jpg

[Noid]

1

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/197/960/3052865-58135800xtkjir_ph.jpg

[NorCalBusa]

The Camaros were commissioned long before they decided they wanted the HP logo on the back. There's less than a handful of them left on the road- they are 5-speeds by the way (shift, drive, shift, talk on radio, shift, rinse, repeat). They were also the first to have those stealthy LED light bars, which have been remounted on Crown Vics as the Camaros were retired (Buellton has a 5 of the bars).

[NorCalBusa]

http://www.southbayriders.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=77290&d=1175186210

[}Dragon{]

Originally posted by dogcatfud
Is there such a thing as a "police package" Taurus or Volvo?

I believe there is... IIRC about 15 years ago I remember seeing a CHP Volvo on Hwy 5 on the grapevine.

The Taurus is discontinued, but I do believe they had a police package at one time.

[JPM]

Originally posted by NorCalBusa
Hey J,

Do you ever "pile on" violations?

Say ya see an asshat that, in the course of one mile; follows too close, makes multi lane changes without signaling, etc- can you write up separate violations for each individual act? I know ya got plenty of paper in that printer....

Sure I can. I got 5 boxes to fill before I hit the print button.:laughing

[Nozzle]

Originally posted by Noid
1

http://www.bayarearidersforum.com/forums/images/threads/000/197/960/3052865-58135800xtkjir_ph.jpg

ack, one of these totally pulled me over on the 5 near Modesto about 2 years ago. was sick, tired, and late for my final and was passing some stupid van that was barely going 70 on the fast lane. i guess i hit the gas too much cause one of these camarros totally tail-gated me after i passed the van on the right going ~85-90 (to piss off the van, not to speed.. but whatever. :()...

i was like "WTH i'm already going fast stop tail-gating", so i sped up a little more to lose him not knowing it was a cop ... then after about 15 seconds he rang the signal and pulled me over.

booooo.

[StuntrHuntr]

Originally posted by }Dragon{
I believe there is... IIRC about 15 years ago I remember seeing a CHP Volvo on Hwy 5 on the grapevine.

The Taurus is discontinued, but I do believe they had a police package at one time.
The Taurus SHO (Super-High Output) version, with a more powerful V-8 engine and other performance and handling modifications, was manufactured from 1989 to 1999 and was saw some popularity for police use. It was fast, but as with all front wheel drive cars, it had understeer and traction issues at high speed and under heavy acceleration. It was a "go fast straight" car. A bit cramped inside too, when compared to the standard at the time, the Caprice Sedan.