Originally posted by Maxmars

con·spir·a·cy
n. pl. con·spir·a·cies
1. An agreement to perform together an illegal, wrongful, or subversive act.
2. A group of conspirators.
3. (Law) An agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.
4. A joining or acting together, as if by sinister design

The question now becomes, a) is it illegal, and b) was this a 'common' agreement between law enforcement and the judiciary?

Spot on, you have hit on the one thing that even the OP didn't post about. And that there must have been mutual understanding between the judiciary and law enforcement for him to do that on the ticket. The judge must have been a co-conspirator in knowing what this is, and for him or her to have information that the defendant doesn't is communication with one party. It's called Ex Parte Communications
from Litigants, the judge is a dolt and she was caught red handed with the cop and that is why she put it on hold. You see if she would have thrown it out, then their may be more tickets like that (you can bet your last dollar their is) and people would want their ticket thrown out also. And on top of that if there's an investigation Federally or by the State, then one or more of the cops or somebody in that court may turn state evidence and say the judge do this all the time and/or the cops and judge know this is a procedure. In essence this judge and other judges could face disbarment and/or prosecution over each and every case of Ex Parte Communications with one side over the other.

The court is supposed to take this seriously, but if there was a mutual understanding from both the judge and judiciary and the cops then it would explain why the cop can make a smiley face or frown or A**hole pictoral and the judge would understand what he meant and wanted. That is a conspiracy for sure.

I can't really say anything about this, since the few tickets I've received were earned, and so I just mailed in the ticket and a check for the fine and got on with my life. The way people drive, it's surprising that a lot more tickets aren't given out.

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Oh and the AH I put on my tickets is on the front, so the driver gets it on their copy too.

And did you explain to the victim of your arbitrary judgment exactly what your AH meant?

I have to ask, is this third grade? Are you the playground cop? Everyone has to deal with bad attitudes every day. The rest of us just take it and blow it off as part of being human, but you feel that somehow because your wear that uniform everyone has to be sweetness and light to you? Grow up. People are a*holes. Deal with it. Write the ticket for the laws that have been broken and leave the rest in kindergarten where it belongs.

We did something like that when i used to work at pizza hut. Don't be mean to the pizza guy.
Anyways, this does not mean much because in a court of law attitude does not mean anything. If you were a jerk or not does not help nor hinder your defence and a judge cannot make a decision off of something written on the back of a ticket. I think people that get mad and shout conspiracy over this have little to no knowledge of the legal system or how it works.

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Its the same as when someone comes to customer service and flips a lid or freaks out. Make a scene and then leave....as soon as you leave those you cast your anger at will pass it on to others that said person has issues. Same thing here.

It is not the same. Your job is to enforce the law, not attitude. Innocent people are often very very upset when being held up for crimes they did not commit. Why bother tell the judge they were being a jerk? What is that suppose to accomplish? Does it prove them more guilty than a nice person? It is not your job to pass that judgment. There is even a good chance that a jerk cop just thinks everyone he pulls over is a jerk. The judge only sees one side of that story since you resort to secret codes.

If you wanted to work in customer service, you should have.

My AH doesn't mean they WILL be found guilty, it doesn't sway a judge IMO. It simply lets the judge know that ON SCENE the person DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE LAW(S) THEY CHOOSE TO BREAK...and decided to focus their immaturity on me. Thats all...

No, it means that is your opinion of the person's reaction and again, it is not your job to judge a person's attitude. Basically you just proved my point. If they were not guilty, they would probably come across to you as not wanting to take responsibility for what they did. That is why it is not your place to worry about their attitude.

In ANY profession you expect to have some dialog in a mature way. When you KNOWINGLY violate the law in such a manner as to NOT care about others on the road, just simply be man or woman enough to sign the ticket and move on.

So you think you are a judge? Apparently you have no clue what your job as a police officer is. You just stated that you have already decided they are guilty and your opinion of their attitude is based on their acceptance of your decision to find them guilty. NOT YOUR PLACE!

Regardless of what I write on the ticket DOESN'T supercede the law you broke in such a careless way. Oh and the AH I put on my tickets is on the front, so the driver gets it on their copy too.

Do you explain to the driver what AH means or do you assume they all know what it means? Putting a secret code in plain sight is not revelation, it is still a secret code.

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

You just stated that you have already decided they are guilty and your opinion of their attitude is based on their acceptance of your decision to find them guilty. NOT YOUR PLACE!

But isn't that why he wrote them a ticket?

I know that in my neck of the woods, it's common practice for the judge to ask the charging officer in court if the offender was cooperative or not.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

I know that in my neck of the woods, it's common practice for the judge to ask the charging officer in court if the offender was cooperative or not.

Then that judge needs to be removed from the bench immediately. The only reason a citizen should be given a ticket is if they have broken a law. If they have broken a law, and are given a ticket, they should pay the fine. End of story. The only time attitude would even enter into the equation is if the judge was deciding whether to vary the penalty. Everyone should live by the same laws, and pay the same price when they don't. Or are some people more guilty than others?

Originally posted by Pauligirl

But isn't that why he wrote them a ticket?

I know that in my neck of the woods, it's common practice for the judge to ask the charging officer in court if the offender was cooperative or not.

Thank GOD someone gets it. I am NOT deciding their guilt as some members are confusing the two. I write the ticket based on the violation I WITNESSED. When I come to your window I say the following:

Sir/Maam, I am issuing you a citation for XYZ, I need you to sign in the pink block where i made the X. By signing this citation YOU ARE NOT admitting you are guilty, your simply signing to agree you recieved a copy of the charge against you.

So don't confuse me letting the judge know you wanted to be an a@@ and NOT take responsibility for YOUR choice to violate law, with me saying your guily. As Pauligirl pointed out, by writing a ticket, I DO think your guilty and had probable cause to show it.

Again don't let your bias against cops clud the reality. Reality is, you broke the law, you got caught, pay the fine and move on. Unless it is a BS ticket that deserves to be fought. Then I say take the steps you need to and fight it...I have no issues with that.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by K J Gunderson

You just stated that you have already decided they are guilty and your opinion of their attitude is based on their acceptance of your decision to find them guilty. NOT YOUR PLACE!

But isn't that why he wrote them a ticket?

I know that in my neck of the woods, it's common practice for the judge to ask the charging officer in court if the offender was cooperative or not.

No. The ticket is an accusation, not and adjudication. Please brush up on your law before you get pulled over for something you did not do next time.

This fellow here has clearly stated that he has decided that they are guilty of a crime. The purpose of the ticket is so that the cop can say they believe someone committed a crime, not that they have been proven guilty of it. BELIEVE they committed a crime. If the ticket was proof of guilt, you would not need to go to court.

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Thank GOD someone gets it. I am NOT deciding their guilt as some members are confusing the two. I write the ticket based on the violation I WITNESSED. When I come to your window I say the following:

You need to pay better attention to the words you use.

When you KNOWINGLY violate the law in such a manner as to NOT care about others on the road, just simply be man or woman enough to sign the ticket and move on.

You have just stated that they have indeed violated the law. That is the judges decision, not yours. You can only accuse them, not decide that it is what happened.

If you want to claim you are not judging them guilty, you should not claim that they are already guilty.

Originally posted by rcwj1975

p.s. AH stands for Aggressive & Hostile, not AHOLE...haha...for all of you assuming...

I always call them "Adam Henry's"

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Again don't let your bias against cops clud the reality. Reality is, you broke the law, you got caught, pay the fine and move on. Unless it is a BS ticket that deserves to be fought. Then I say take the steps you need to and fight it...I have no issues with that.

Biased against cops? Man are you wrong about that one!!!! What I am biased against is people who insist on bring partiality into the court system which is supposed to be impartial.

If the driver broke the law, they get a ticket. I have no problem with that. You adding YOUR OWN interpretation of that driver's attitude into the equation- THAT i have a problem with! Do you feel you are completely impartial when deciding whether a person gets a 'bad boy' on their ticket? Have you formulated a policy as to what is considered 'bad behavior', and do you follow that policy to the letter? Or do you go by the seat of your pants and make a determination on the fly. Does something that bothers you one day get a 'bad boy' and the next day you are feeling better it doesn't?

Give me a ticket for breaking the law, not because you are having a bad day.

Using your emotions to determine punishment is bad practice, for anyone in a position of authority. Period.

I wish the police were as enthusiasti about retreiving stolen property as they are about writing citations.
But they aren't can any police on this forum tell me why?

I am at the point of saying chuck the entire idea of the CHP and police (Note I am not including the sheriffs since they seem to have an actual desire to keep crime down) and if needed hire private security guards as procative steps and PIs as reactive steps.

Originally posted by rcwj1975
Atleast I put my "codes" on the front of the ticket...

I only use codes if your acting like an idiot. Sorry but if you blow a stop sign, are doing 85 in a 50, or pass on a double yellow making other motorists swirve, etc....I have NO sympathy for you and definitly will note on the ticket if your being an AH driver.

While I agree with the sentiment and can't stand the types of drivers you mention who recklessly put everyone at risk, isn't it your job just to document and give the ticket and not attempt to influence any sort of further punishment based on your opinion of the attitude of the violator at the time the ticket was given?

I ask because the ticket system itself should be punishment enough without having to make it come down to the subjective opinion of the officer via "secret code" as to whether or not the driver deserves more hassles. I think the ticket and documentation of the violation is more than enough without unfairly injecting the officers "opinion" of the driver in secret. The person has no way to defend themselves against this opinion and I have saw on video officers needlessly berating drivers over a basic violation.

No telling now what other extra punishment they got because of the officers foul mood.

My problem is what's to stop an officer from putting the "AH" on my ticket just because he doesn't like the way I look, the music I was playing, or the company I keep?

Who monitors the officers mood that day, their "sensitivity levels" and if these characterizations are just?

If the person is an "AH" with a bad attitude during the ticket giving, chances are this won't be easily hidden in front of the Judge and that they probably have a history already. If the ticket is just, then the appropriate punishment is delivered.

This however could cross over into the cruel and unusual punishment category.
Like a guard abusing a prisoner via providing tainted foods, soiled clothing, etc...because they don't like the crime he/she committed.

That isn't in their job description for a reason.

I say just do your job or write it so that the driver can see and have a fair chance to debate it.

After all...if an officer is rude at the fast food window, or known to be a jerk to the locals, I am sure they wouldn't like to have a secret code punched into their order telling the cook to spit in it.

- Lee



[edit on 1-3-2010 by lee anoma]

It goes both ways as I'm sure we all know. Some of us can be prats. Others of us have chips on our shoulders. Still others complain lifelong that they're 'victims' and have been 'picked on'

A neighbour once boasted far and wide about how he could evade all and any traffic citations. Then he tried it once too often. Typically for him, it was shortly after he'd just enjoyed what turned out to be a free meal at an upmarket restaurant (he and his wife ate most of it, then complained they'd found 'foreign objects' in the food. It was something he did regularly. He boasted about that, too. He had a loud, annoying American accent and restaurant owners waived the bill just to get him out of the place)

So, having inbibed a large amount of free wine, he was tooling along the highway and was pulled over for speeding. He argued. He shouted. He protested. He threatened he 'knew people', etc.

The officers remained calm and objective and told him to step from the vehicle. He ran. Left his wife in the car and ran down the highway and then took off into low scrub

Officers found him, told him to get to his feet, etc. So then he began throwing a fake asthma attack. Said he couldn't breathe, was having heart palpitations. Tried a few 'collapses'. Very dramatic

It ended with him being taken to hospital. Discharged. Spent several hours in the cells. Then to court. He lost. Cost him a packet. Incident found its way into the local newspapers

When you hear stories like this, it makes you sympathise 100% with police

As to 'secret codes' on tickets -- yes, I agree with what many have said here re: gilding the lily

But ... even butchers have a secret language: they speak backwards to each other. It's amazing to hear, because they're very fluent in their language, very fast, and swap insults about customers whilst smiling into the faces of the same customers

Freemasons (the originals) used secret codes, of course. Even family members have little code-words or expressions

Originally posted by rcwj1975

You think I mark a citation because of MY mood?????????

....so not sure why MY emotions come into it. I am simply documenting your behavior on my citation and dash cam.

Yes, I very much DO think you make the determination based on your mood. We humans are not machines, we are emotional animals. If you are trying to tell me that your interpretation of the extent of another's attitude (bad or good) doesn't vary by how YOU are feeling that day, someone is lying to them self!

Leave the emotions out of it. Both yours and theirs. The law is either broken or not, and whether the driver massages your feelings or not should have nothing to do with it. And usually the dash cam only comes in to it if you call them a bad boy, doesn't it.



[edit on 3/1/2010 by Montana]