Posted on 08/26/2014 8:41:13 AM PDT by servo1969
ST. ALBANS (VT) — Police video and documents provided to the St. Albans Messenger show how an ordinary traffic stop last week degenerated into a physical altercation, which further disintegrated into the use of ethnic and homophobic slurs.
Local attorney Peter J.R. Martin, 74, was stopped by Officer Mike Malinowski of the St. Albans Police Dept. (SAPD) Thursday, June 12, at 5:30 p.m. for having tinted windows, which are not legal in Vermont. The incident occurred on Lake Road near Cherry Street at St. Albans Bay. Martin was subsequently charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. He has pleaded not guilty.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
The cop was just trying to fulfill his quota with a meaningless violation in Vermont.
Do tinted windows really create a vision problem? It is extremely doubtful as most states allow tinted windows except for totally dark ones.
Like Idaho’s problem with only one plate ... no one in government is using common sense.
Well of course you have a point, but it is beside the point of this little altercation, here, and whose side we are on.
The cop didn’t make the law that causes him to have to enforce it.
On the other hand, attorneys and city councils had a lot to do with bringing in the law that resulted in this stop, which basically protects cops and others (like witnesses) who are prevented from seeing danger, who can not see occupants in dark glass cars, or their guns, or any abuse taking place, etc., etc.
Yes, a Godless society brings a myriad of laws and over regulation to rule a Godless society. Stands to reason doesn’t it?
“This is like an officer in Idaho pulling someone over driving a car from New Mexico. In Idaho, two license plates are required, by law, one on the front of the vehicle, one on the back. “
It is NOT against the law in Idaho to drive without a front license plate.
Olim passi sumus a scelere. Leges autem quae patimur.
"Formerly we suffered from crime. Now we suffer from laws". -Cicero, circa 50AD.
I was paraphrasing him. But I thought the quote was from Tacitus.
I agree with everything you said.
BUT, our society pecks, nudges, pokes, prods, crosses boundaries in the name of THE LAW. Then we act surprised when people snap.
YOU ARE RIGHT! Ding ding! Publius Tacitus in Annals of Rome....gotta get more coffee!
Tacitus also said, “The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws.” .....how appropriate.
Absolutely NOT! It depends on the laws. Tinted windows is one where the transient has to obey the laws of the new state. While useful in Nevada or other hot sunny states, they may be illegal to some degree of tint in Ohio, for example.
It is for Idaho residents driving Idaho-titled/registered vehicles. http://www.legislature.idaho.gov/idstat/Title49/T49CH4SECT49-456.htm
Paragraph 1 states "plates" not plate.
Actually, according to what I could find, only the front driver/passenger windows cannot have tint in VT. The rear side windows and rear window are allowed to be tinted.
Then you retract your previous post where you cite that it is against the law for a NM resident to drive in Idaho without a front license plate? I will refresh your post below:
“This is like an officer in Idaho pulling someone over driving a car from New Mexico. In Idaho, two license plates are required, by law, one on the front of the vehicle, one on the back. New Mexico only requires one (on the back) and only issues one. “
You misunderstood my original post. I said, “This is like”. I didn’t say they did that. What I meant with my post was that cops don’t generally pull you over for things that would be legal in other jurisdictions. One plate, tint, bumper height, tires extending outside the fender (legal some places, but not others), snow tires. They’ll get in-state vehicles for those infractions, but will usually leave out-of-state alone, unless in the case of moving violations.
“You misunderstood my original post. I said, “This is like”. “
I understood perfectly what you wrote. My point is that it is not ‘like’ since one is about in-state registration and the other is about vehicle operation in the state.
You're right. I didn't catch the "Local attorney" in my first reading of the excerpt, and clicked the video link with the sound off.
VT does allow window tint, which the article improperly states it does not. What it doesn't allow, is window tint on the front side windows. Tint is allowed on the rear side windows and rear windows. The part when the driver's door is opened by the tow truck driver is obscured a bit, but it does appear the windows do have somewhat of a tint, but they don't appear to be as dark as the rear window, but can't tell if that's due to the overcast and low-light situation, or actual tint.
Vermont's inspection guide http://dmv.vermont.gov/sites/dmv/files/pdf/DMV-VN112-Vehicle_Inspection_Manual.pdf
Just went back to the whole video and also listened closer.
From the appearance of the window when the truck driver got in, the left front window was definitely tinted.
The cop called the tow truck. I am not sure if the attorney had agreed on the one called.
When the attorney found out his insurance wouldn’t pay for it he objected and tried to disconnect the tow cable.
The tow truck driver then attempted to ‘confiscate’ the car for non-payment!
Listening with the audio made a whole lot more sense. Couldn't do it earlier. Why didn't the attorney call his own tow truck via his insurance? He could have told the cop he'd call his own. I would have. I have AAA, and it would have been free.
Whuz up with with the suit shorts? LOL!
I am not sure but most states require you, if you have a carry permit, to notify the police if you have a gun in the car. The lawyer should know. He should be charged with that too if that’s the case
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Just a couple of them require you declare when first approached. In others, if the Cop asks you are required.
However if you are ‘foolish’ enough to have it on you in NY/NJ and most of that part of the country, it is best they ‘find’ it rather than you tell them - the penalty is no ‘worse’.
If I am in a real ‘gun friendly state’ I may tell him/her but it really depends on the situation. I think I would declare in my own state, but not really required to - again, dependent on the circumstance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.