MVA summonses

[patrol1111]

Is anyone out there actually writing summonses at MVA's for violations that they did not witness? I hope not!

[Grave Yarder]

Not me

[NOWAY!!]

GOOD LUCK TESTIFYING TO IT IN COURT!!!

GOOD LUCK TESTIFYING TO IT IN COURT!!!

It's as stupid as making a domestic harassment arrest that didn't occur in your presence.

It's as stupid as making a domestic harassment arrest that didn't occur in your presence
You are nt arresting the civilian is.

It's as stupid as making a domestic harassment arrest that didn't occur in your presence
You are nt arresting the civilian is.

Suffolk has decided that it knows better than the State and has directed it's officers to make violation arrests that didn't occur in their presence as a summary Police Arrest, NOT a civilian arrest. I guess the dopes have forgotten about the whole concept of POs only being able to arrest for violations that actually occur in their presence.

[Finally The Truth]

As far as I know, it's not uncommon for officers to issue summonses for 319.1 or 401.1a at the scene of an MVA. Obviously DWI is a seperate issue. As far as those domestics, I think the reason that the PO is making the arrest (for violations not in their presence) because, the civilian hears that whole "liability" clause in the civilian arrest form and they get cold feet. Easier to make the violation arrest and hope it doesn't go to trial. Or just make sure that the "victim" indicates the correst wording in their statement, --> then go with Assault 3. Le tthe DA reduce the charges from there. But that's just me.

Suffolk has decided that it knows better than the State and has directed it's officers to make violation arrests that didn't occur in their presence as a summary Police Arrest, NOT a civilian arrest. I guess the dopes have forgotten about the whole concept of POs only being able to arrest for violations that actually occur in their presence.



Back to top



Finally The Truth
Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:55 am



Guest






As far as I know, it's not uncommon for officers to issue summonses for 319.1 or 401.1a at the scene of an MVA. Obviously DWI is a seperate issue. As far as those domestics, I think the reason that the PO is making the arrest (for violations not in their presence) because, the civilian hears that whole "liability" clause in the civilian arrest form and they get cold feet. Easier to make the violation arrest and hope it doesn't go to trial. Or just make sure that the "victim" indicates the correst wording in their statement, --> then go with Assault 3. Le tthe DA reduce the charges from there. But that's just me.



Never heard that, violation not in my presence is still civilian arrest.No one has told me otherwise and my last one was 2/12. Right the insurance and reg arent movers. Dwi arent violations, theyre misdemeanors or better

[Fram Chroaotskid]

Nowhere does SCPD permit or even suggest that cops make arrests for violations not comitted in their presence.

Never has, never will. Can't do it. Not even on domestics.
What are you nutballs talking about? You guys must be a nightmare to supervise. :shock: :shock: :? :?

Nowhere does SCPD permit or even suggest that cops make arrests for violations not comitted in their presence.

Never has, never will. Can't do it. Not even on domestics.
What are you nutballs talking about? You guys must be a nightmare to supervise. :shock: :shock: :? :?

Do you even know what you are talking about, its done on domestics all the time.

Nowhere does SCPD permit or even suggest that cops make arrests for violations not comitted in their presence.

Never has, never will. Can't do it. Not even on domestics.
What are you nutballs talking about? You guys must be a nightmare to supervise. :shock: :shock: :? :?

Do you even know what you are talking about, its done on domestics all the time.

It's not legal, but Suffolk has it's cops who are too stupid to know they legally can't, do it anyhow. The county has already been sued, lost and paid money over this issue yet they continue to encourage illegal false arrests by their officers at domestics.

[TOO STUPID????]

Do you even know what you are talking about, its done on domestics all the time.


It's not legal, but Suffolk has it's cops who are too stupid to know they legally can't, do it anyhow. The county has already been sued, lost and paid money over this issue yet they continue to encourage illegal false arrests by their officers at domestics.


Ha you dipwad, we dont arrest on domestic harrassments, the victim does, civilian arrests, now take your feet out of your mouth and type a apology, UNBELIEVEABLE, the experts we have here.

Do you even know what you are talking about, its done on domestics all the time.


It's not legal, but Suffolk has it's cops who are too stupid to know they legally can't, do it anyhow. The county has already been sued, lost and paid money over this issue yet they continue to encourage illegal false arrests by their officers at domestics.


Ha you dipwad, we dont arrest on domestic harrassments, the victim does, civilian arrests, now take your feet out of your mouth and type a apology, UNBELIEVEABLE, the experts we have here.


You better go back and learn the law - arrests are done all the time without the victim agreeing

Do you even know what you are talking about, its done on domestics all the time.


It's not legal, but Suffolk has it's cops who are too stupid to know they legally can't, do it anyhow. The county has already been sued, lost and paid money over this issue yet they continue to encourage illegal false arrests by their officers at domestics.



Ha you dipwad, we dont arrest on domestic harrassments, the victim does, civilian arrests, now take your feet out of your mouth and type a apology, UNBELIEVEABLE, the experts we have here.



You better go back and learn the law - arrests are done all the time without the victim agreeing
Stop confusing the issues for yourself. According to the cpl, pl a VIOLATION can only result in a arrest by an officer if he sees it. If a officer doesnt see a violation, example ; 240.26 Harassment in the second degree.
A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with
intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person:
1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other
person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same; or
2. He or she follows a person in or about a public place or places; or
3. He or she engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts
which alarm or seriously annoy such other person and which serve no
legitimate purpose.
Subdivisions two and three of this section shall not apply to
activities regulated by the national labor relations act, as amended,
the railway labor act, as amended, or the federal employment labor
management act, as amended.
Harassment in the second degree is a violation
Can only result in a arrest by the victim, at that point the victim authorizes the police to process the CIVLIAN arrest, when he signs a statement to that effect. We are talking domestic harrassment, a violation, now shoo, back to the swingset

[FTO.]

Why dont you explain it a bit more for the general public, a violations is a offense or a infraction, not a crime. If a police officer in NY doesnt witness a violation occur in his presence, he cannot arrest or issue a summons, (except in dormant-land)hence why you cant call the cops and have them issue a summons to the punk on your block that runs the stop sign.
Likewise what is being discussed is going to a domestic situation where a claim of harassment exists, example a smack in the mouth, where no injury occurs. If the victim of this action wishes to prosecute, the victim must sign a civilian arrest form, stating that the victim is authorizing, whatever agency to process the arrest that the victim has made. Just as a example it doesnt have to be domestic, or a harassment, but any violation, not occurring in front of the officer, is a civilian arrest.
In other situations police can arrest without consent of the victim, example order of protection, misdemeanor or felony.
Hope this clears it up a bit.

[JUST STOOPID NUFF]

Ha you dipwad, we dont arrest on domestic harrassments, the victim does, civilian arrests, now take your feet out of your mouth and type a apology, UNBELIEVEABLE, the experts we have here
Why do these fools shock you? You must be new here. Everyone knows more than everyone, and we whom do this for a living dont have a clue as to what we are talking about.

[Fram Chroaotskid]

Criminy!!! What a bunch of nitwits we have posting here. Here's a clue: The only morons making Police arrests on Domestic violations not comitted in their presence are the bozos posting this nonsense.

You're the same guys that sit at inspections with your jaws dropped open, nodding your heads like you understand, then an hour later, you're screwing up and posting this baloney here. How about actually reading section 16-6 of the R&P's before spewing this phoney crap.

Identify yourselves, so we can start the disciplinary (aka termination) process ala Nathan F., ASAP

Criminy!!! What a bunch of nitwits we have posting here. Here's a clue: The only morons making Police arrests on Domestic violations not comitted in their presence are the bozos posting this nonsense.

You're the same guys that sit at inspections with your jaws dropped open, nodding your heads like you understand, then an hour later, you're screwing up and posting this baloney here. How about actually reading section 16-6 of the R&P's before spewing this phoney crap.

Identify yourselves, so we can start the disciplinary (aka termination) process ala Nathan F., ASAP

Wow I didn't realize disciplinary/termination procedures are followed out as per Iannones' text. I thought maybe it had something to do with the R&Ps, contract and article 75/76 of civil service law. The fact still remains rookie, SCPD not that long ago was directing it's cops via the R&Ps to make police arrests for domestic related violations that didn't occur in their presence. This illegal flawed practice ended after a few law suits educated the legal bureau and the County attorney's office about the powers of arrest for cops.

arrests are done all the time without the victim agreeingAND?
What the f does this have to do with a civilian arrest for a violation?
Who ever is posting nonsense here is ruining another thread, we are discussing mva utts for violations not occurring in our presence.

[Fram Chroaotskid]

blah blah blah.... The fact still remains rookie, SCPD not that long ago was directing it's cops via the R&Ps to make police arrests for domestic related violations that didn't occur in their presence...

Wrong butt-munch. The R&p's regarding domestic arrests (sec. 16-6) haven't changed in about 10 years. You're quite confused.

If you're referring to the fact that cops were made to classify Harassments with minor marks on the skin incorrectly as Assaults, in order to make Police arrests, then you'd be almost correct. That was a very bad and illegal idea. But never did cops get told to make Police arrests for offenses actually classified as violations.

You're mixing up your facts desk-man. How about citing some actual quote from any directive that ever gave you such new authority not granted in the CPL?

Hint: ain't none.

P.S. Cops can't sign a Court Information for a violation unless they have personal knowledge. Never did. Who was signing those Informations in the alleged cases of which you speak, genius? I fear it was you!

Now stop spreading rumours and post something that makes sense.

Now stop spreading rumours and post something that makes sense.

Мгновенные сделки без проскальзывания. Круглосуточный доступ к рынку Forex из дома, офиса или дилингового зала. Лучшая программа тех.анализа. Обучение и практику ведут опытные преподаватели. Работаем сгода. Все депозиты застрахованы!

[1874]

blah blah blah.... The fact still remains rookie, SCPD not that long ago was directing it's cops via the R&Ps to make police arrests for domestic related violations that didn't occur in their presence...

Wrong butt-munch. The R&p's regarding domestic arrests (sec. 16-6) haven't changed in about 10 years. You're quite confused.

If you're referring to the fact that cops were made to classify Harassments with minor marks on the skin incorrectly as Assaults, in order to make Police arrests, then you'd be almost correct. That was a very bad and illegal idea. But never did cops get told to make Police arrests for offenses actually classified as violations.

You're mixing up your facts desk-man. How about citing some actual quote from any directive that ever gave you such new authority not granted in the CPL?

Hint: ain't none.

P.S. Cops can't sign a Court Information for a violation unless they have personal knowledge. Never did. Who was signing those Informations in the alleged cases of which you speak, genius? I fear it was you!

Now stop spreading rumours and post something that makes sense.


Get your facts correct and learn whats going on in the department. Just because you want to sit on your ass all day and not doing any work dont misinterrept the law.

[Fram Chroaotskid]

Get your facts correct and learn whats going on in the department. Just because you want to sit on your ass all day and not doing any work dont misinterrept the law.

Looks like I caught you with your pants down, if that's your only comeback. You are unable to answer my question, so you resort to a lame comment.

Back up your claim that the Department had a policy of having cops make arrests for violations not committed in there presence.
What did that provision of the R&P's say that authorized such an action.

Find it, or shut up. You're clueless.

[Ringwold]

Мгновенные сделки без проскальзывания. Круглосуточный доступ к рынку Forex из дома, офиса или дилингового зала. Лучшая программа тех.анализа. Обучение и практику ведут опытные преподаватели. Работаем сгода. Все депозиты застрахованы!

I agree, except you for got to mention:

Мой раковидный палец ноги вставляет к моему ишаку. Когда fisherman примет вашего симпатичного супруги от моего рта?

[Guessed]

か。か。か。?????????? ????? か。か。か。か。????????? か。????? ?????. ????? 漁師の??? は?????? ???????????? ??????? か。か。????? か。か。か。か。

[1874]

Get your facts correct and learn whats going on in the department. Just because you want to sit on your ass all day and not doing any work dont misinterrept the law.

Looks like I caught you with your pants down, if that's your only comeback. You are unable to answer my question, so you resort to a lame comment.

Back up your claim that the Department had a policy of having cops make arrests for violations not committed in there presence.
What did that provision of the R&P's say that authorized such an action.

Find it, or shut up. You're clueless.

Actaully you are the one with your pants down all the time. But check the records and you will see all the arrests. Its all documented there for you

[Fram Chroaotskid]

... check the records and you will see all the arrests. Its all documented there for you

So, you have no facts. You can't admit that you're wrong. Or would you like to take the opportunity now, and just say that you mis-spoke? I'll give you one chance.

There are no records. It was never a policy. You've gotten it all wrong, and you're a supervisor's worst nightmare.
God help us. You could only be one man - so wrong - and yet so arrogant. Are you he?? Oh sweet Jezus, yes it is you. That explains it.

.S. Cops can't sign a Court Information for a violation unless they have personal knowledge. Never did. Who was signing those Informations in the alleged cases of which you speak, genius? I fear it was you!


I believe we advise the CIVILIANS to go sign the information at the pct, in the case of a domestic harrass. that night since there is no bail.
In the case of a ''normal'' violation civilian with bail sometime before the package goes to court, its also a ''PERSONAL KNOWLEGDE ARREST'' as opposed to information and belief, Are we sure we are discussing Scpd or some other jurisdiction? [/quote]

[another world]

I believe we advise the CIVILIANS to go sign the information at the pct, in the case of a domestic harrass. that night since there is no bail.
In the case of a ''normal'' violation civilian with bail sometime before the package goes to court, its also a ''PERSONAL KNOWLEGDE ARREST'' as opposed to information and belief, Are we sure we are discussing Scpd or some other jurisdiction
I'm thinking its Micheal Jackson's never land ranch, thats where some of these idiots must live, harassment= civilian arrest, unless you witness or are the victim/ complaintant.
The issue was utts at mvas for violations not observed, that could not even be done prior to dormer as commissioner, and will not hold up in court, you expect a officer to arrest for the same?

[Fram Chroaotskid]

...I believe we advise the CIVILIANS to go sign the information at the pct, in the case of a domestic harrass. that night since there is no bail.
In the case of a ''normal'' violation civilian with bail sometime before the package goes to court, its also a ''PERSONAL KNOWLEGDE ARREST'' as opposed to information and belief, Are we sure we are discussing Scpd or some other jurisdiction?

Correct. I don't know what some of these clowns are talking about. Violations not in cop's presence have ALWAYS been civilian arrests in Suffolk.

You can issue a utt for violations not witnessed only if there is Prima Facia evidence you can observe after the fact.
For example, if you respond to a MVA and it is at an intersection with a Yield sign where one vehicle obviously did not yield, then you can write that. (If that driver had yielded, there could not have been an accident).

In this case, you are basing your charge upon personal knowledge of your observations. It can stand up in traffic court, as the State Troopers have been following this procedure for more than a decade. This same info was distributed to SCPD cops about 20 years ago in a departmental legal bulletin after someone asked legal bureau if it were possible to do this at an accident scene.

Of course, nobody really ever wanted to do it, but could have always done so. True, TVB will probably throw them out, because they have trouble understanding the concept as well. So, why bother?

It's up to you. But only now has the Department decided to actively encourage the practice that has been done for years by other agencies, albeit with limited usefulness.

Time to stop the mis-information about Domestic Arrests, rookies.

[Fram Chroaotskid]

...
Time to stop the mis-information about Domestic Arrests, rookies.

That means YOU, 1874. :roll: