Posted on 01/10/2017 5:35:58 AM PST by outpostinmass2
ROSEVILLE, Mich. (WXYZ) - Did you know you could get fined for heating up your car? One man's parking ticket has gone viral, with thousands of views after he was ticketed for heating up his car in his own driveway.
Taylor Trupiano says he's still shaking his head over a parking ticket he got on his own property.
"I thought it was some kind of joke at first, and then I was thrown back by it," he said. "I was really surprised."
The ticket was for leaving the keys in the ignition with the motor running and no one around. Trupiano said he was only doing something many people in Michigan do during the winter.
"I was in and out in probably about 7-8 minutes," he added. "So in that amount of time he ran up here, gave me a ticket and by the time I got out he was nowhere to be seen."
Frustrated with the ticket, he posted a photo on Facebook where he racked up thousands of comments and shares.
The Roseville Police Department ticket comes with a $128 fine. There is no state law against leaving your car turned on and unattended, but dozens of cities across Michigan have local ordinances.
"We have five to ten cars stolen this way every winter," Roseville Police Chief James Berlin said. "It's dangerous, and of course it drives everyone's insurance rates up. It drives our crime rates up."
Many of the ordinances will allow you to use a remote start because the vehicle is locked.
Berlin tells 7 Action News they will not apologize and in fact, he encourages his officers to enforce this law.
"It's common sense. We can't warn everybody of the law there is. Common sense says you don't leave your car running unattended," Berlin said.
(Excerpt) Read more at wxyz.com ...
The simple and obvious solution is to show up in numbers above 100 at the Roseville city council meeting and demand that this stupid eco-fascist ordinance be rescinded. But that would require that so-called conservatives get off their lazy, Mammon-worshipping asses and attend the meeting. Good luck with that.
After working in local government for years, I’m still surprised that “conservatives” can’t figure out why laws like this get passed and remain on the books.
So you think it is acceptable to criminalize a victim for not properly securing their personal property from a criminal?
So, if I leave my house unlocked and a criminal comes in to take my stuff, I am at fault?
The act of deprivation is the crime. Carelessness is not.
We lost our basic freedom re personal property rights decades ago. Low-flow toilets which became mandatory started it all, I think.
Zoning laws. About 1900 they were ruled as Constitutional and not a “taking” of property.
I recall it was a 3 judge panel, and the dissenting judge said: “You are going to regret this decision”.
Many have.
I agree the headline seriously diminishes the poorly written article.
The subject seems to be the risk to the public of leaving an automobile unattended, accessible to the public, with the keys in the ignition. There is no mention of doors being locked or unlocked.
The headline and parts of the article create the false perception that the owner was cited for warming up the car rather than the potential risk of an unattended, running auto being stolen by opportunistic criminals and being used to harm the public.
Controlling public risk from private property is certainly Constitutional if done properly.
This is a mischaracterization of the occurrence without confirmation that the running auto was secured or unsecured, the critical point.
There is no mention of doors being locked or unlocked
Give me a couple of seconds and I can open the door.
That could be dangerous, especially if it is an SUV.
Those things can take off on their own and do all kinds of havoc on the streets and highways.
How many headlines have we seen that start out ‘SUV kills x number of people’?
[/s]
Just like it's too tempting for rapists if women dress provocatively. That's why provocatively dressed women are fined. < /s >
When I lived in Germany, you had to shut off your engine if you were waiting for a train to cross. You could get a ticket for excessive idling there, too.
That invalidates this Police Chief’s argument then doesn’t it?
Maybe so, maybe not, but locking the doors raises the property owners action from negligent to reasonable.
I don’t have much use for the ACLU. They are always on the wrong side of battles they choose to fight. In my opinion.
If you agree that a person should be fined for leaving a car running and unattended; because it invites car theft...do you agree that a woman should be fined for dressing provocatively; because it invites rape?
One point that everyone seems to be missing is this:
This law is a restriction on honest citizens who are minding their own business. It was created because of CRIMINALS, supposedly to protect citizens from criminals. The real solution would be better policing and rounding up the criminals who steal cars.
In most places, police make no effort whatsoever to recover a stolen car or to catch the thieves. So this law became necessary because of police REFUSING TO ENFORCE already existing laws. By refusing to enforce, they sent the message to car thieves that stealing cars is a low risk enterprise. In effect they have invited the thieves to steal.
When the cops start doing their jobs, the need for stupid laws like this one will go away.
This is a mischaracterization of the occurrence without confirmation that the running auto was secured or unsecured, the critical point.
Not a critical point; a moot point.
Only by twisting the Constitution and the intent behind it can you justify fining a person for "tempting theft".
For most people, their common sense would tell them leaving a car running without the driver can get people hurt or killed. Thus you get this law.
#1: If car engages due to mechanical failure possible dead people.
#2: Some minor goes by, sees the operating car and takes their first self-driving lesson. Possible major problems right there.
Yes, a slightly small chance, but significant enough to not risk it.
The same justification this cop gave will be the same one that will be used in the future to justify putting trackers on everyone’s cars.
“It’s dangerous, and of course it drives everyone’s insurance rates up. It drives our crime rates up.”
++++
Next, it will be illegal to not lock your house, and for the same reasons.
I have been heating my cars while I waited inside———for many years.
This ticket business is nonsense.
.
Not really. So far the only theft I see in this story is the $128.
I said nothing about "tempting theft", I said "Constitutional if done properly," and that is already tested law.
Many states require a property owner to secure their private property ON their private property commonly identifying such property as an "attractive nuisance" and imposing fines and torts to force compliance.
Such actions have already been ruled Constitutional on appeal and have been enforced.
Defendants have been exonerated when they have performed reasonable actions to secure their private property, and penalized when they have not.
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.