MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page speeding violations
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: Cory13

Hi,

I had an odd situation occur yesterday and was wondering on the ethics/common practice of it - so I was hoping to get someone else's opinion.

Basically I was followed by a police officer for about a mile or so. I didn't notice it was a police car until he pulled up behind me at a red light. The light turned green and I continued, driving carefully, and he continued behind me. I thought he might want to pass, so I slowly pulled into the left lane. As soon as I did so, he turned on his lights and pulled me over. At this point I was going 30 in a 40 zone.

He then informed me that I had been speeding about a half a mile down the road. My question is - why wait so long to pull me over? My only guess would be that he was hoping to entrap me into going faster than he had already "caught" me at, but is this really allowed? I was under the impressing that an officer had to pull you over as soon as the infraction occurred.

Anyone insight on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

thanks,
Cory

Posted by: CampusOfficer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cory13

My question is - why wait so long to pull me over? My only guess would be that he was hoping to entrap me into going faster than he had already "caught" me at, but is this really allowed? I was under the impressing that an officer had to pull you over as soon as the infraction occurred.

He could have waited to pull you over for a bunch of reasons: wanting to get into a safer location so he can make the stop, and also to basically observe how you are driving (possibly drunk). Also there is no law that I know of that an officer has to pull you over right away as soon as the infraction occurred. I could be wrong though (it has happened once before).

Posted by: SRRerg

What he said...

Sometimes people want to dig a deeper hole, so I let them. A few unsafe lane changes, or speeding over a longer distance make it harder for people to argue to the judge they were "just passing the one car when he saw me."

BTW,
1. If you want to let someone pass, move to the RIGHT.
2. It's only entrapment when I get on the PA and tell you "Go as fast as you want, I won't pull you over!"

Posted by: Gil

There is no law that states you have to be pulled over right away. Sometimes you don't have to be pulled over at all and can still receive a citation in the mail. (rare but it can happen).

The officer could have also been waiting for the listing on your plate to come back from the registry. It's always better to know who your stopping for safety reasons.

Posted by: j809

Quote:

It's only entrapment when I get on the PA and tell you "Go as fast as you want, I won't pull you over!"

You mean we can't do that?

Posted by: Cory13

Thanks for the info... Incidentially, I did pull into the right lane, just mistyped for some reason.

-Cory

Posted by: Cory13

As an afterthought, I had another question -

I got a citation code 90/18 for going 45 in a 30. I looked it up, and it says that I should pay $50 plus $10 per mph over the speed limit. By my reasoning this should be a $100 ticket, but it was written up as $150. Any possible fines I could be missing, or did the officer make a mistake?

It is not CDL, no hazardous material, missing seatbelt, accident, or anything else I could think of that would add fifty dollars.

thanks again,
Cory

Posted by: badogg88

The head charge is added on there, that's $50.

Posted by: Gil

$50, plus $10 for each m.p.h. in excess of 10 m.p.h. over limit, plus $50 head injury surfine.

The head injury surfine recently went from $25 to $50. Some citations still state $25 but the RMV wants the total figure based on the new surfine.

Side note: red light and stop sign violations where increased from $50 to $150.

Posted by: JohnBarleycorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

Side note: red light and stop sign violations where increased from $50 to $150.

Is that official Gil? I thought it was just being proposed?

Posted by: ppd34

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnBarleycorn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gil

Side note: red light and stop sign violations where increased from $50 to $150.

Is that official Gil? I thought it was just being proposed?

Sure is:

GENERAL LAWS OF MASSACHUSETTS
PART I.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE GOVERNMENT

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TITLE XIV.
PUBLIC WAYS AND WORKS

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHAPTER 89. LAW OF THE ROAD

Chapter 89: Section 9 Designation of highways as through ways; traffic control signs and devices

Section 9. The department of highways may designate any state highway or part thereof as a through way and may designate intersections or other roadway junctions with state highways at which vehicular traffic on one or more roadways should stop or yield and stop before entering the intersection or junction, and the department may, after notice, revoke any such designation. The department of highways on any state highway or part thereof so designated as a through way, or on any way where the department has designated such way as intersecting or joining with a state highway, shall erect and maintain stop signs, yield signs and other traffic control devices.

The local authorities of a city or town authorized to enact ordinances or by-laws, or make rules, orders or regulations under the provisions of section twenty-two of chapter forty may in accordance with the provisions of section two of chapter eighty-five of the General Laws, including department approval when required, designate any way or part thereof under the control of such city or town as a through way and may designate intersections or other roadway junctions at which vehicular traffic on one or more roadways shall stop or yield and stop before entering the intersection or junction, and may, after notice and like department approval, when required, revoke any such designation. Such local authorities of a city or town having control of any way or part thereof so designated as a through way shall erect and maintain stop signs, yield signs and other traffic control devices at such designated intersections or junctions.

Except when directed to proceed by a police officer, every driver of a vehicle approaching a stop sign or a flashing red signal indication shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After having stopped, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time when such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways.

The driver of a vehicle approaching a yield sign shall in obedience to such sign slow down to a speed reasonable for the existing conditions and, if required for safety to stop, shall stop at a clearly marked stop line, but if none, before entering the crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or, if none, then at the point nearest the intersecting roadway where the driver has a view of approaching traffic on the intersecting roadway before entering it. After slowing or stopping, the driver shall yield the right of way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another roadway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time such driver is moving across or within the intersection or junction of roadways; provided, however, that if such a driver is involved in a collision with a vehicle in the intersection or junction of roadways, after driving past a yield sign without stopping, such collision shall be deemed prima facie evidence of his failure to yield the right of way.

The driver of a motor vehicle shall not cross or enter an intersection, which it is unable to proceed through, without stopping and thereby blocking vehicles from travelling in a free direction. A green light is no defense to blocking the intersection. The driver must wait another cycle of the signal light, if necessary.

For the purposes of this section the word, ""vehicle'', shall include a trackless trolley.

[ Seventh paragraph effective until July 31, 2003. For text effective July 31, 2003, see below.]

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed fifty dollars for each offense.

[ Seventh paragraph as amended by 2003, 46, Sec. 86 effective July 31, 2003. For text effective until July 31, 2003, see above.]

Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $150 for each offense.

The above was taken from: http://www.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/89%2D9.htm

Posted by: Elusk4

Hey Gil, Question for you, Who is responsible for telling officers of the increase in fines. I Am in inservice this week and had MV an Crim law today and the increse for 89/9 was not mentioned. I have not been told by anyone at work either. I have been still writting cites out for $50. When will someone realize this and tell me. I garantee that their are many people I work with are not aware of this either. When I get back from inservice I am going to ask around just for shits and giggles to see how many people know.

Posted by: j809

I was told that we are still writing them for $50 until told otherise by the RMV. There is nothing on the LEAPS machine regarding this. This says that it was ammended last year yet no one knows about it

Posted by: SRRerg

Timing is everything....
Message came over the Teletype today from GHQ saying 89/9 and Crosswalk violations are both $150.00 and have been since July, 03.

Posted by: Gil

We where advised in January by brass that 89/9 should now be written for the $150 instead of the $50. There was mention at that time that it has been that way for a while.

Posted by: Gil

Quote:

Originally Posted by SRRerg

Timing is everything....
Message came over the Teletype today from GHQ saying 89/9 and Crosswalk violations are both $150.00 and have been since July, 03.

Oh a TT message.... no wonder half the dept's are still writing the $50. We all know TT messages get lost, tossed and mixed up in other listings.

RMV should put something in the news file or CSHB should create a file for updated laws etc...

Posted by: TPRSERG

FYI, the red light violation is back down to $100.00 for 1st offense and $150.00 for subsequent, as of 4/1/2004.
Crosswalk violations also increased from $100 to $150, and failing to stop for a school bus went from $200 first offense to $250, $400 second offense to $1000 and $1000 subsequent offense to $2000!

Posted by: ArsonLT

On 15 March 2004 a memorandum from Chief Justice Zoll (Trial Court of the Commonwealth) was issued to District Court Judges & Clerk-Magistrates and the subject of the memo is Revised CMVI Assessment Schedule effective 1 April 2004 This document is 24 pages and has an alphabetical index of citable motor vehicle offenses within the last 5 pages. A nice cheat sheet. Check with your court prosecutor he probably has a copy of same. Hope this helps

Posted by: texdep

Back to the original topic of this thread. While there is no statue requiring a m/v stop within a certain distance there is a historical basis to the poster's comments.

In the late 1980's around 1988 I think, about the time the $50 plus $10 a mile over fine structure started, violators were arguing in court that if their rate of speed was really a hazard why didn't the officer stop them immediately. (The defense came from an appeal to a DWI conviction were the defendant was followed for two and a half miles before a stop was initiated and the defendant won his appeal based on the fact that the probable cause for the stop was bad if it took the officer 2 1/2 miles to determine the possibility of a DWI) Anyway the speeding violators were getting their tickets dismissed using this defense.

Many Depts and the inservice classes at the time started to reccommend that officers initiate a stop within 1/8 mi in densely populated areas and within 1/4 mile in rural areas.
This was a knee-jerk reaction to the court cases which obviously has faded away by now 15 years later.

This history lesson brought to you by one of the "old-f*rts" on the board.

Posted by: capefiveo

To add to earlier posts, unless it is a blatant offense(severely impaired oper on populated roadway)I will wait the few extra seconds to run the plate via the MDT. In my opinion, I'd like to know if: 1) the car might be stolen 2) the owner(if operator) has warrants or a susp/revoked license and 3) BOP summary. To take the words from G.I. Joe, "knowing is half the battle."

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108