Replies

A traffic stop is a non-custodial arrest. The Police officer has the otion of issuing a citaion or taking the violator forthwith to a magistrate. The Citation is the default option.

The violators signature is a promise to appear, and acts as a bond. If the violator refuses to sign, they are stating they want to see a judge NOW. Depending on the state, the officer is required by law to take the violator to the judge "Without Delay"

Of course, if our roadside tax collectors follow rational rules, they would not need to use this criminal procedure (note that the accused does not have the same rights to jury and presumption of innocence as does an actual criminal). The cop has the vehicle reg. The driver's license, and every chance to take a photo of the accused. The signature requirement is irrational and needless, as is tasering people who see the stupidity of the requirement.

If she doesn't show up in court, issue an arrest warrant.

You are speaking from what is an obvious anti-police bias. I do not consider myself or the officers I work with as a road tax collector.

If you knew anything about criminal or traffic law, you would know that taking offenders before the judge is so that the Judge can read the charge and further explain the violators rights. One of the those silly little Constitutional protections you seem so hot on.

Thank you for your input. I have given it the consideration it deserves