Ask A Cop!!! Post Your Questions Here!

[diverrick]

If a blinking red light indicates for you to stop and proceed when safe,(like a blinking red stop light and a steady red(like the one the fuzz puts on you when they pull you over) means stop and stay stopped, until the light goes out or turns a different color, then why do school bus's use blinking red lights that would otherwise indicate (by legal discription) to stop and then proceed when safe. but by law, you cannot pass when the red blinking lights are on??? Seems to be a hole in the legal laws there.

 

[lowwall]

The requirement to stop for a school bus has nothing to do with the blinking light. That's just put on to get your attention.

You'll also note that emergency vehicles have flashing red lights. Once again, they are meant to get your attention. Depending on your jurisdiction you might not even have to stop at all for those red lights.

 

[diverrick]

I know because we were "spoken to" by the CHP Seems our Fire truck had a rear blinking red light. CHP said it was illeagal as it had to be yellow if it was pointing back. Blinking Red if facing forward, because you are supposed to yield(pull over and make room for them to pass) after they pass you can proceed, as you are now looking at blinking light in the rear of the unit. Seems that yellow Caution would be more appropriate, or better yet solid red,meaning stop. Just a funny thing I had noticed.

 

[RonDawg]

lowwall is correct, in the case of the CA Vehicle Code there is a distinction made between a "circular red signal" (i.e. a traffic light) and the red lights mounted on motor vehicles (which are referred to as red "lamps").

diverrick, in order to meet the CA Vehicle Code's requirements for "Emergency Vehicle" operation (which include the ability to legally violate many sections of the Code and more importantly the protections against civil liability should you be involved in a collision), you are required to have a "forward facing, steady burning" red lamp to the front, and also activate your siren as "reasonably necessary." Any other lamps, such as blinking red lights, and the blue and amber lights found on law enforcement vehicles, are strictly optional.

If your fire truck lacks this "forward facing, steady burning" red lamp, you do not meet the requirements of the CA Vehicle Code, and should your apparatus be involved in a collision, neither the driver nor your Department are shielded from any civil liability.

A bit of trivia: in CA, if the rear driver of an articulated ladder truck smacks something, guess whose driving record the accident gets recorded on?

 

[TJcop]

dirverrick: You are comparing apples to oranges. The laws are very specific depending on where they are being applied. For intersections, the law will directly talk about the signals and their meaning. When talking about a school bus, it will again be very specific to that circumstance. It's the intent behind the signal. The flashing red at an intersection is to make you stop, then proceed. The flashing red on a bus and/or police squad is to get your attention.

 

[bluesbro1982]

Easy now Scuba Doggies.......in California, there is two charges to a DUI:

California has two basic drunk driving laws, found in Vehicle Code sections 23152(a) and 23152(b):

23152(a) It is a misdemeanor to drive under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs.

23152(b) It is a misdemeanor to drive with .08% or more of alcohol in your blood. (this is where the DMV takes your license).

In most cases, both the 23152(a) and (b) offenses will be charged. Even though there is only one act, the law says that a defendant charged with drinking and driving can be convicted of BOTH offenses — but can only be punished for one (the punishments are identical). Vehicle Code section 23153 sets forth the "felony DUI" provisions where an injury results from the drunk driving, while Penal Code sections 191.5 and 192 describe the crime of "vehicular manslaughter" where there is a death.

In LA and Orange Counties, the judges have started warning people on their first DUI that they were driving a deadly weapon, in open court for the stenographer to hear. If the driver gets pulled over for a deuce the second time, depending on the circumstances the charges / penalties can be worse than what used to be standard for a second DUI.

Interestingly enough, I heard that from a public defender who was in traffic school with me. Bet the cop that pulled him over had some fun...

 

[RonDawg]

In LA and Orange Counties, the judges have started warning people on their first DUI that they were driving a deadly weapon, in open court for the stenographer to hear.

I have not heard of that, nor have I heard DUI drivers being charged with assault with a deadly weapon absent any malicious intent to use the vehicle as such (i.e. Road Rage incidents).

What is becoming more common is the practice of charging DUI drivers who have directly caused a traffic fatality with Second Degree Murder.

If the driver gets pulled over for a deuce the second time, depending on the circumstances the charges / penalties can be worse than what used to be standard for a second DUI.

CA laws have long provided for additional penalties for many repeat offenses.

However, you may be thinking of a law (CVC 23175) that could cause an ordinary misdemeanor DUI arrest to be charged as a felony one if you have had 3 or more prior DUI convictions within the last 7 years, even if you didn't cause injuries.

Interestingly enough, I heard that from a public defender who was in traffic school with me. Bet the cop that pulled him over had some fun...

I have an even better one...I arrested a lawyer for DUI :11:

I also wanted to correct some information in ShakaZulu's post (I wish I saw it earlier). The DMV is obligated to suspend your license for a conviction of ANY subsection of CVC 23152, not just (b). This same law (CVC 13352[a]) also mandates license suspension for CVC 23153 (felony DUI -- causing injury or death) and CVC 23109 (a) (engaged in a speed contest).

If you are arrested for CVC 23152(b) however, what is supposed to happen is that the officer is supposed to SEIZE your CA driver's license and mail it back to the DMV. Your license is automatically suspended 30 days after the arrest. If you had chosen blood or urine (which is not required to be offered anymore unless the other tests aren't available), and your results show you were under .08%, then DMV will null the suspension for the time being, and hand back your license.

 

[bluesbro1982]

What is becoming more common is the practice of charging DUI drivers who have directly caused a traffic fatality with Second Degree Murder.



CA laws have long provided for additional penalties for many repeat offenses.

However, you may be thinking of a law (CVC 23175) that could cause an ordinary misdemeanor DUI arrest to be charged as a felony one if you have had 3 or more prior DUI convictions within the last 7 years, even if you didn't cause injuries.



I have an even better one...I arrested a lawyer for DUI :11:

I also wanted to correct some information in ShakaZulu's post (I wish I saw it earlier). The DMV is obligated to suspend your license for a conviction of ANY subsection of CVC 23152, not just (b). This same law (CVC 13352[a]) also mandates license suspension for CVC 23153 (felony DUI -- causing injury or death) and CVC 23109 (a) (engaged in a speed contest).

If you are arrested for CVC 23152(b) however, what is supposed to happen is that the officer is supposed to SEIZE your CA driver's license and mail it back to the DMV. Your license is automatically suspended 30 days after the arrest. If you had chosen blood or urine (which is not required to be offered anymore unless the other tests aren't available), and your results show you were under .08%, then DMV will null the suspension for the time being, and hand back your license.

Hmm, I must have gotten that mixed up. I thought he might have said attempted murder, but I wasn't sure... Thanks for the clarification. I'm pretty much a teetotaller so this won't be applying to me, but I'll be sure to use it next time I'm forced to DD for someone I'm out with.

 

[papps953]

Washington has a vehicular homicide statute. A person who is under the influence, along with anyone who drives their vehicle in a reckless manner, or drives it with disregard for the safety of others and is the proximate cause of the collision, may be charged. Vehicular Homicide is a class A felony, punishable by up to life imprisonment and/or $50,000.

Anyone who drives in the above manner and causes a collision where serious injuries occur can be charged with vehicular assault. Vehicular Assault is a class B felony, punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment and/or $25,000.

 

[Arete]

I'm a guy in my early 20's and I drive a Nissan Skyline GTR. My dad has always been involved in motorsport and I like to run my car at the track every now and then with him.

As a young guy in a faster car, I'm getting very very used to being pulled over, and have a a fairly good number of low level speeding fines (the last one for being 3km in excess of the posted limit )

Most cops are ok. I've even had a couple who pulled me over just to check out the car and chat about it, before letting me go. If I'm getting ticketed I usually respond by politely saying I know I have a bad record but didn't mean to speed and would greatly appreciate it if he'd let me go with a warning, which is almost universally replied with a "Lose the fancy car son, here's your ticket."

There is however a certain percentage of cops who are intent on issuing a defect notice on the car in regards to modifications or assumed modificatiions, despite me keeping the engineer's certificates in the glove box and producing them in that situation. I've ended up in court a couple of times producing the same papers to a judge. It's incredibly frustrating to be standing there, evidence in hand and still get the ticket, then waste a day in court when all the officer had to do was accept that the car was in fact legal.

I understand that I'm in a group notorious for bad behaviour, but on the road I generally stick pretty much by the rules, or as much by the rules as the general motoring community, but I get a lot more attention from the police. Is the general police attitude towards young drivers in faster cars as bad as I generally percieve it to be?

About 6 months ago I parked the car in a shopping centre and when I came back I was hurled bodily to the ground, cuffed, thrown in a car and dragged back to the station. Apparently the 2 officers had run my VIN as a stolen car, and were arresting me for it. After half an hour of proclaiming my innocence in the station, they left the room and 10 minutes or so later a female officer I'd not seen before came in and told me I was free to go, and they must've mistyped the VIN when they did the check.
I asked if the officers were there and that I'd appreciate apology, to which I was told they were busy. I also asked for a lift back to my car and was told there was a taxi rank across the road. I was pretty appalled by the treatment I got, is that standard treatment for when you get the wrong guy?