NOTE: All timestamps are in the future because WE are in the future. The care takers of Midnight Ridazz.com reserves the right to remove, edit, move or delete anything for any reason. None of the opinions expressed on these boards represent the Midnight Ridazz nor can anyone purport to speak on behalf of Midnight Ridazz.
An interesting point in this ongoing saga... We're not always required to pull over when a cop says to.
"First, there’s a widely-held perception that if a law enforcement officer tells you to pull over, you are required by law to comply with that order, even if the order itself is unlawful. ...
The first issue—whether cyclists must obey the orders of law enforcement officers—was central to the “motion to dismiss” hearings for Tony and Ryan. As the Court held, if the cyclist hasn’t broken a traffic law, then the cyclist can’t be lawfully arrested, and the order to pull over is itself unlawful. Therefore, if the order is unlawful, the cyclist is not required to obey the order, and can’t be arrested for failure to comply. Now, this is the law in Ohio, but it is based on 4th Amendment jurisprudence, so the jurisprudence in other states should be similar." SOURCE
But this is the sort of thing you'd want to try only if you were ABSOLUTELY SURE you were in COMPLETE obedience to the law, as evading a police officer / resisting arrest / obstruction of a police officer and a whole slew of other fun would probably be added to the ticket. Plus, the officer will be more likely to remember you and take the time to show up in court.
Geezzz this makes me cringe in so many ways. Let's start from the top. First of all this isn't a LAPD vs bicyclist case. It's a (Ohio) Lawrence County Sheriff vs bicyclists case. Then the poster gives the impression that you don't have to stop when an officer tells you to stop. Yeah, you can do this if you feel you're not doing anything wrong. I wonder how long it would be until someone got shot if this were the case? I'm betting it would happen within a week. Next issue I have is that the poster left out a very important last sentence to quote. It suppose to read;
"The first issue—whether cyclists must obey the orders of law enforcement officers—was central to the “motion to dismiss” hearings for Tony and Ryan. As the Court held, if the cyclist hasn’t broken a traffic law, then the cyclist can’t be lawfully arrested, and the order to pull over is itself unlawful. Therefore, if the order is unlawful, the cyclist is not required to obey the order, and can’t be arrested for failure to comply. Now, this is the law in Ohio, but it is based on 4th Amendment jurisprudence, so the jurisprudence in other states should be similar. If somebody knows of contradictory 4th Amendment jurisprudence in another state, please let me know.
Do you're research before you think ignoring an officers' request is a good idea. Chances are you'll be looking at alot of added charges. It'll make that impeding traffic charge look like a bargain to cop to! That is if you're even lucky enough to have that offered to you.
-->
Ridazz Roulette!
