On Nov 24, 7:52 am, Mark Shaw <utahspee...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> a speeder who refused to sign his traffic ticket. Discussion on ...
> question of whether, and in what jurisdictions, one can be arrested
> for such refusal.
It can happen in MD and probably many other states. Keep in mind that the basic authority of law enforcement is to use force on behalf of the State (which has a legal monopoly on the use of force) to bring into court those accused of crime. That generally means they have the power to arrest any suspect -- take him into their custody -- by physically restraining him and transporting him to a magistrate (usually after a pit stop at the police station for "booking" - photos, fingerprints, ID check, etc.) within no more than 48 hours, where the suspect will receive an initial hearing to determine whether charges are properly brought and whether the suspect can be released from custody, either on his own recognizance (with no further security requried), or after posting bail to ensure his further appearance in court when summoned. The cop does not determine guilt; the law merely gives him the tools to bring the accused to court where the judge or jury, following proper procedures and hearing the evidence from both sides, can determine whether the state has proven the defendant guilty of committing the offense charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.
A ticket, or citation as it is sometimes called, is basically issued as a courtesy in lieu of arrest to those accused of minor infractions (those punishable only by fine, not imprisonment) where the accused can safely be allowed to continue on their way after acknowledging and receiving a copy of the citation. The law in MD provides that signing the ticket is not an admission of guilt, merely a promise to show up in court when summoned and to respond legally to the charges contained in it, either by paying the fine, or by requesting a hearing on the merits of the charge (i.e. a trial). Failure to sign can lead to arrest, and the tickets issued here generally say so, right above the signature line. I suppose the theory is that one who refuses to sign the ticket cannot be trusted to acknowledge the authority of the issuing officer to issue the ticket, or trusted to show up in court when summoned, and that anticipated resistance to legal authority is what justifies the need for arrest in such circumstances. But nothing more in the way of defying authority other than mere refusal to sign the ticket need be shown to justify the arrest.
I do not know, because I haven't researched the question, whether a cop in MD can legally in the first instance simply arrest a person for a minor infraction, such as speeding, without first offering to just write a ticket. As a practical matter, almost all cops would rather just write a ticket, since it takes too much of their time and paperwork to effectuate an arrest and they'd rather be out on patrol again sooner, writing more tickets. But if the cops really want to arrest a particular person, they can usually find (or concoct) some reason for doing so even if it is outside of their usual procedure and even if the charges are so flimsy that they do not survive the first hearing with a magistrate. While this type of conduct risks exposing the cops who do so to a civil lawsuit for false arrest, or excessive use of force, such abuse of power goes unchallenged often enough that it does continue to happen occasionally. IMO however, most cops most of the time are honest, not trying to be sadists, and are just trying to do their job, to protect and to serve the safety of the citizenry.
Now, as to what happens or legally can happen in terms of police use of force to effectuate the arrest, that depends in large part on exactly how the accused responds at the scene. If he does _anything_ (other than the initial refusal to sign the ticket) that indicates he is not willing to submit to the alternative of being arrested, the cops can use appropriate force to accomplish the arrest. I won't begin to discuss what the standards are here as there are whole books written on the subject, on which cops are supposed to be trained. Suffice it to say that the higher the threat level displayed by the suspect, and the greater the risk to the safety of the officers or bystanders, the more force the officers are allowed to use to subdue the suspect, up to and including use of deadly force where appropriate. I haven't seen the taser video and have no desire to, so I can't comment on whether that was an example of appropriate use of force.
--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.
Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685 (fax) 410-740-4300
No comments:
Post a Comment