Rusty, I am really not trying to argue with you and I apologize if my previous post looked sarcastic or disrespectful. Was not my intention. Some people just don't understand that without the estimation rule,( and a few other discretionary allowances of L/E) you would have no legal grounds to stop the vehicle and even warn him. I agree with you 100% about an officer's lack of certification. If you cant maintain certification, stay home. But the scenario I gave you is real and I assure you it happens all the time. Just to expand a bit more on it. Lets say you estimate and when you pull the car over the person...was drunk or just robbed a bank or just smacked his wife around or just committed any crime. Without the estimation rule, you have no grounds to stop the vehicle. If you stop it anyway, anything you discover ie drunk, car full of money from bank robbery, bloody knuckles from domestic A&B etc... all of this is 100% inadmissable in court. In other words, because the evidence was obtained without probable cause for the stop, the evidence is lawfully excluded from trial (wong sun- fruit of poisonous tree doctrine).
Its a balancing test-
The rights of persons to be secure from illegal search and siezure (4th amd)
vs
The rights of the police to make reasonable attempts to ensure the safety of the motoring public.
Worst case- someone is unlawfully (but not maliciously) given a non criminal traffic fine
Best case- complete motoring anarchy is prevented (slight hyperbole)
Respectfully
HCG
|