Massachusetts Cop Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Founder of MassCops
Joined
·
6,401 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Situation...

You stop a car, the operator is not the owner of the vehicle, the vehicle comes back revoked for insurance.

Opinions please....

Who would you cite the operator who stated she did not know the plates were revoked or the owner who is not in the car?

I have been citing the operator for 90/23, 90/9 and 90/34J but now I am being told that I should only be citing the owner because the operator is using the "I didn't know" defense. So the operator goes unscathed?

Opinions please.....
 

·
Out of the Loop
Joined
·
2,512 Posts
The operator... what if the owner never drove the vehicle because it was uninsured and the operator "borrowed" it without the owner's knowing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
221 Posts
I would go with cite them both. That is what I've usually done in the past. Let the courts settle it. Shame on the operator for using the car and not knowing, and shame on the owner for letting the "unknowing" operator drive thier car.
 

·
Retired Fed, Active Special
Joined
·
8,679 Posts
I cite the owner, and hoist the vehicle from under the operator. thats cuz I'm a tender-heart. (unless I'm CERTAIN due to circumstances, that the operator is operating knowingly/willingly for some time)
:wink:
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
228 Posts
You can cite them both or if you want to give the poor operator a break if you belieive he/she is telling the truth, cite the owner for allowing operations.
 

·
Subscribing Member
Joined
·
2,280 Posts
michaelbos said:
You can cite them both or if you want to give the poor operator a break if you belieive he/she is telling the truth, cite the owner for allowing operations.
I usually do what Michaelbos says here. Unless of course the operator has an attitude. :A: Rule of thumb I go by is I will cite the owner for revoked insurance, allowing another to operate said vehicle just like Michaelbos suggests. However!!!! I will choose to cite the operator if he lives in the same house hold. My personal reasoning behind that is a person who live in the same household should know the MV has a revoked insurance. That also includes all other options in which a PO can cite owner and operator This is just my two cents. :sb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
371 Posts
I usually cite the owner for 90/23 & 90/34J, because to operator usually doesn't know. Unless that is they are the only one I ever see driving that car, then it's usually their fault for he revocation.
 

·
Zombie Hunter
Joined
·
4,815 Posts
Call me a hardass but I cite them both; out here its very common for people to register cars for "friends" of theirs (can you say crack rental?). So the operator is the de facto owner so I cite them both and let the courts sort them out. :D
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top