Should traffic police give parking tickets just because they have the power to?
543345
Yes they should.  They are officers to, no matter what their position is. They are still wearing a badge and they are still there for our protection. They have to know the law to so shur they should be able to give out tickets.  Be easy on them, just imagine being outside in the strange weather to give out tickets because of people parking wrong. Sorry to hear about the ticket. At least it doesn't show on the driving record.
83746
Sure, these guys deserve whatever they get for that act. \n\nBut consider that for every bonehead act by a cop that ends up in the news there are literally thousands of decent actions that are never given credit for. And they literally take their lives in their hands every working moment of every day dealing with people who would love nothing more that to feed off the anarchy that can result by having no law enforcement.\n\nThese guys are in a no-win situation 99% of their working lives. Everyone complains about the powers granted them and how much it costs to support a sufficient police force, but then complain because the cops weren't there when THEY needed them.
316429
I'd rather not get any tickets at all ...I can't choose because I just don't want any, no matter what it's for, I try my best to obey the law and not waste the police's time by doing something stupid when they could be out chasing the real bad guys...sorry, just can't pick one, don't want any..lol
849789
Yes,  As long as it was during the commission of a crime.  in your example a vehicle, and you were driving that vehicle, stopped and arrested.  If the police were to impound your vehicle, conduct an inventory of that vehicle to record everything you had in that vehicle as your property and found 20 pounds of dope in the trunk, they have every right to charge you for the dope.   \n\nNow if your vehicle was found abandoned on the side of the road and the police towed it,  I dont believe that the police should pop open your trunk.
769983
They deny they have quotas, but they have a little gimmick called citizen contact points.  The more points you get the better cop you are (and the more tickets you write and revenue you generate incidentally). \n\nNever talk to a cop, use the statement "If you choose to cite me or arrest me I will cooperate, otherwise I will now answer no more qustions" (AFTER you have provided I.D. registration etc.) \n\nIt is your right, and they know it.
199700
They have to read you your rights and tell you why you are being arrested. They cant stick you in a car and drive you to the station, then tell you.\n\nThey could loose a case against you
415078
let the police handle it
946693
It's my understanding that you have to be given the ticket at the time of the offense - either handed to you or attached to your car.  If this doesn't happen, you cannot be sent one in the post - it is invalid according to the law.  I have a friend who has used this defense a number of times and it has always worked.
402962
parking lots are private property so there has to be a sign posted saying that the property owner has allowed the police to patrol the parking lot.  If there is noting like that there is nothing that they can do to you unless you were pulling on to a city street, at least that is the law in CA
91597
The power to use force \n\nWhenever they are carrying out their "ordinary" function of preserving the peace, the RUC are not entitled to use force. They must act with restraint, resisting pressure rather than applying 'it. Even when controlling crowds or patrolling a procession or parade they must not apply force in an active manner. If they do so, they can be sued for assault. \n\nHowever, if the police are preventing crime or effecting a lawful arrest, they can use "such force as is reasonable in the circumstances" (s.3(1) of Criminal Law Act (NI) 1967). The burden of proving that the force used was reasonable lies on the police. For example, in Wasson v Chief Constable of the RUC (1987), since the RUC could not prove that their version of how Mr Wasson came to be injured by a plastic bullet was more likely to be true than Mr Wasson's version, they were held liable to pay compensation. But it seems that, even in the absence of any proof that the police knew that the person they fired at was committing an offence (such as driving a stolen car), a judge may still regard the use of real bullets as reasonable force whenever someone drives through a vehicle checkpoint. In Magill v Ministry of Defence (1988) it was held that a soldier's act in firing at a 15-year-old driver was reasonable use of force in the prevention of crime. A police officer would probably enjoy a similar immunity in such circumstances, though much would depend on the particular features of each case. \n\nIn relation to police powers expressly conferred by the PACE (NI) Order 1989, article 88 says that the police "may use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of the power". The term "reasonable" suggests that the force used must be in proportion to the gain the police hope to achieve through exercising the power. The term "necessary" implies that other means of exercising the power must be attempted first. This would seem to impose a stricter test than that contained in the 1967 Act, but as yet no court has ruled on how the two provisions inter-relate.
1093242
in britain, police are exempt from speed limits, providing that its neccessary for the purpose of policing. however, they are not exempted regarding driving with due care & attention. - for instance, if an accident occurs whilst they cross a red light, they may be prosecuted. thats why they slow down & go through slowly at junctions. ps, I know officers who have been prosecuted. Internal investigation departments can be very anti to other police
613136
If they own the car park, certainly. They can determine what happens on their property.
247455
a law is a law -- doesnt matter how long you were on the street...plead guilty and pay the ticket...I assume that is why you are asking...
158281
Not always.  If it's a minor infraction like a speeding ticket, then stuff like miranda doesn't really enter in explicitly.\n\nIf, however, you're talking about a real criminal charge where they haul you off to jail, then yes, you should be read your rights and placed under arrest.
115676
The officer has the discretion to give you a ticket or just a warning.  Look at a warning as a polite reminder from the police to drive more safely.  It does not go on your record.
312063
WHAT?\n\nIf you are asked for permission to search your car, and you decline to give permission to have your car searched, that does NOT provide probable cause.  What a ridiculous notion.  It is your right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, and merely exercising that right does not give the government probable cause to conduct it.  What kind of sense would that make?\n\nThe answer to your question, quite simply, is yes.  There are many reasons why the police might be able to legally search your vehicle without your permission, and if you've got a specific circumstances you're wondering about, post it and we'll see.\n\nProbable cause is one of the ways the police can search your car, and yes - the police get to decide that right there on the spot.  It's always subject to litigation later in court, but the police are allowed to search a vehicle under almost all conditions where probable cause is present.\n\nThere's a comment here about "Nope, but, it's your right to stop them if they do" and if that person is suggesting that you physically try to stop a police officer from searching your car, you're going to learn real quick that that isn't acceptable.  You always have the right to say no...always...even with a warrant, but that doesn't mean your wishes will be honored.  And if you try to physically enforce your wishes, I can just about guarantee you a really quick trip to the pokey.\n\nPolice cannot just impound your vehicle until you consent.  Equally ridiculous notion.  Given probable cause, police do not need to impound your vehicle and can just search it right there.\n\nMy answers are based on the Constitution and California law.  Iowa cannot make it any easier for the police than the Constitution does, but they can make it more restrictive.  I'd be willing to bet the rules are the same in Iowa, though.\n\nEDIT 4.26.06:\n\nDo we sometimes search "just because"?  Well, "just because" isn't a legal theory that allows a search, so we'd be wrong to search without your permission just because we chose to.  With your permission, however, we certainly could search "just because," and I suppose I have when I've had the hairs on the back of my neck stand up and I've received consent.
715435
i think that anytime you do anything you should have both your fingerprint and DNA recorded, the bigger the database the larger chance of criminals being caught. even for little things like traffic tickets - at least that way there is a real database. The only people who can be caught are those whose DNA is already on record; or the police have to go and get the DNA. That would bring in the whole: Do they really need to take my DNA for a parking ticket but  the general populace should have nothing to fear - unless they are planning to do something wrong. It would just make us safer and better able to put the right people behind bars.