|
|
05-14-2013, 09:28 PM | #23 |
Major General
296
Rep 5,686
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-29-2013, 12:52 PM | #24 |
Captain
169
Rep 826
Posts
Drives: 2017 C43 AMG
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: NOVA
|
Funny story - I got pulled over about a year ago in a avalanche that had a V1 hardwired. He pulled me over and asked for license, registration, and the radar detector. told him it wasn't coming out. he seemed to be an a** so i just stood by my statement. he asked me to step out and told me that he was going to search the vehicle. i told him go for it, he couldn't find it after a good 10 minutes of looking around. didn't give me a ticket. same cop got me on 495 again about 3 weeks ago but in a different car. he didn't recognize me at first but once I told him that the radar wasn't coming out because it was hardwired the look on his face was priceless. he didn't even bother with anything. just let me go after running license and registration.
__________________
2014 X5 xDrive50i Mineral White | DinanTronics Stage 1 | Vossen HC3
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-29-2013, 02:15 PM | #25 |
Former N54 Fanatic
84
Rep 1,927
Posts
Drives: Slow
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NoVA
|
Remember, they gotta prove you had it on. If you have one that's invis to the spectre then you should be straight.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-29-2013, 02:17 PM | #26 |
I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2...
3104
Rep 3,471
Posts
Drives: E36 M3 Coupe, e39 M5, i3s
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: LI, NY
|
So, let me understand this. If the trooper sees the detector, can he take it or is that illegal? I ended up taking mine out since I didn't want to get caught with it. Also, if he sees it, it's only a $40 fine?
__________________
2019 Imperial Blue Metallic i3s BEV
2003 Le Mans Blue e39 M5 Dinan S1 1997 Alpine White e36 M3 (the old gal) 2013 Mineral White e92 M3 (sold ) 2014 Carbon Black 650i M-sport (sold) |
Appreciate
0
|
05-29-2013, 02:32 PM | #27 |
Former N54 Fanatic
84
Rep 1,927
Posts
Drives: Slow
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NoVA
|
It's not illegal to own one, but illegal to use it. So the burden of proof is on them to prove that it was on and being used. I think there's one Passport that's invisible to Spectre other than that... I wouldn't use a detector in VA.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
05-29-2013, 07:49 PM | #28 | |
Major
48
Rep 1,017
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-03-2013, 01:57 PM | #29 |
Track? What Track? I was just riding along . . .
47
Rep 694
Posts |
If Virginia LEO catches you using a detector, the protocol is for the LEO to copy down the serial number of the unit and return it to you on the spot. If he or she can't find a serial number, then the LEO takes it as evidence and it is returned to you after you cop a plea or lose your court case.
They don't have to "prove" anything. The law prohibits the car from being "equipped" with the detector. It it's accessible in the passenger compartment, it's equipped. If it's hardwired, it's equipped (and most LEOs are trained to find the serial number on the unit on a hardwire. If the driver was massively irritating, it's possible the LEO would impound the whole car. But this is unlikely, because it's bad community relations and the LEO comes off like a dick). The LEO needs probable cause to search your car but the PC threshold in a motor vehicle on the road is almost nil. The LEO doesn't need a Specter (however you spell it) alert, and doesn't need to see the unit - PC can be ascribed to your behavior, such as sudden slowing in the presence of radar. But the fine is $40 plus costs. When you're busted, you're busted. Mail in the check! |
Appreciate
0
|
06-10-2013, 10:31 AM | #30 |
Former N54 Fanatic
84
Rep 1,927
Posts
Drives: Slow
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: NoVA
|
"B. A person shall not be guilty of a violation of this section when the device or mechanism in question, at the time of the alleged offense, had no power source and was not readily accessible for use by the driver or any passenger in the vehicle. "
So yes, they HAVE to prove it was on and being used.
__________________
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-10-2013, 10:52 AM | #31 | |
Studying...
36
Rep 860
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-10-2013, 11:03 AM | #32 |
General
68378
Rep 26,121
Posts |
Here in Belgium they take your radar detector and ..... your car
Good proof of it was.............. Last year i was at my BMW dealer and a guy was walking around the parking of BMW and looked inside the car's on the drivers side . So i found this suspicious,he looked also in to my car,and yes...he took his mobile,and after 15-20 min. the police and a truck was already there The result was..... 4 BMW's on the truck with radar detectors ! So the guy was actualy the police, dressed in civilian ! And i was glad that i don't had a radar detector in my car , the next day it was also in the newspaper |
Appreciate
0
|
06-11-2013, 04:17 PM | #34 | |
Track? What Track? I was just riding along . . .
47
Rep 694
Posts |
Quote:
This post is useless without CASELAW. Leeth v.Commonwealth, 223 Va. 335, 340-41, 288 S.E.2d 475, 478 (1982). Discussing the PC standard for searches of cars for radar detectors in Virginia. Can you read? I didn't say the PC bar is nil. There is no warrant requirement for searching a car once the LEO has probable cause to believe a violation. I don't know what experience you have with drug stops, but the LEO doesn't need a dog if it looks like you're high, or if you were driving weird, or if your breath smells funny. If the LEO can testify to something articulable and reasonable that gave him or her suspicion of a misdemeanor or felony, it's a good search. The only thing they can't do (generally) is pull you over for a traffic violation and then use that violation as grounds for a drug search. But there are exceptions even to that. Like a DUI arrest, which is grounds to search the car, and upcharge you to possession if they find an illegal drug anywhere in the car. With a radar detector violation, the cop can establish PC if he thought he saw something like a radar detector on the windshield (even if it turned out to be a GPS and you had something built in under the hood), or if he had a SPECTRE alert near your car, or if he thought you hit the brakes suddenly after he turned his radar on you and thought he saw you fumbling to hide something (the radar detector). Or whatever. Judges don't like granting defense exclusionary motions to bar evidence from trial. Because it lets criminals get away with a crime, and everybody knows it. So the precedents have developed over time to let the police do their jobs without constant prior judicial oversight and approval. You have a fair amount of constitutional protection in your house (unless the police articulate probable cause to a judge and get a warrant) or underpants (unless you do something else that entitles an LEO to take you into custody for questioning, in which case there goes that). But not much right to expect warrant rigamarole on your porch, in your driveway, or on a state-maintained roadway in a moving vehicle with direct public view into 80% of the passenger compartment. Last edited by WarrantyTracker; 06-11-2013 at 05:04 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-11-2013, 04:42 PM | #36 | |
Track? What Track? I was just riding along . . .
47
Rep 694
Posts |
Quote:
"Except as provided in subsection B of this section, the presence of any such prohibited device or mechanism in or on a motor vehicle on the highways of the Commonwealth shall constitute prima facie evidence of the violation of this section. The Commonwealth need not prove that the device or mechanism in question was in an operative condition or being operated. B. A person shall not be guilty of a violation of this section when the device or mechanism in question, at the time of the alleged offense, had no power source and was not readily accessible for use by the driver or any passenger in the vehicle." It's a defense. See the part where it says "The Commonwealth need not prove that the device or mechanism in question was in an operative condition or being operated"? That means they don't HAVE to prove it was on, or that it was being used. YOU have to prove it was not readily accessible and had no power source. Not readily accessible = locked in a separate trunk. No power source = no power available in the trunk. Look, people have been killing LEOs on traffic stops for years, typically using a gun they have in their car glove box. The judiciary is smart enough not to put up with that, so they have developed very high standards to establish that something's not "readily accessible" in an auto. Those precedents quickly hopped over to booze, and then to radar detectors. Last edited by WarrantyTracker; 06-11-2013 at 05:10 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2013, 01:54 PM | #37 | |
Studying...
36
Rep 860
Posts |
Quote:
I agree that he may still search, and you may have to fight it in court. However I'm not sure the case law you presented is the best supporting evidence for your assertion, seeing as how it was an appeal where the judges overturned the search as unlawful...precisely what you said doesn't happen =) Not trying to get into a war here over this, I do like the debate though -- I'm a libertarian and this sort of thing (warrantless search) really gets me going. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2013, 02:49 PM | #38 | |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 454
Posts
Drives: :O
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Scottsdale
|
Quote:
Here's the important stuff though of his opinion: The operation of a motor vehicle equipped with a radar detector to detect radar used by law enforcement personnel is unlawful on the highways of the Commonwealth and constitutes a traffic infraction. Code 46.2-1079. Traffic infractions are not felonies or misdemeanors but are violations of public order and are not deemed criminal in nature. Code 18.2-8. However, Code 46.2-937 provides that "[f]or purposes of arrest, traffic infractions shall be treated as misdemeanors" and "the authority and duties of arresting officers shall be the same for traffic infractions as for misdemeanors." If the offense of possession of a radar detector was a misdemeanor, the officer could have searched the defendant incident to the arrest. See Leeth v. Commonwealth, 223 Va. 335, 340-41, 288 S.E.2d 475, 478 (1982) (holding that because the officer possessed probable cause, he could search the car for a radar detector). So basically, if a cop's RDD goes off, he can then search your car since it's a misdemeanor to have one. But how does the cop actually know that you are the one that actually has one if you're riding in a group of cars? I guess the RDD going off is enough PC to search any or all that group of cars. Last edited by SYZ; 06-18-2013 at 02:56 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2013, 03:32 PM | #39 |
Studying...
36
Rep 860
Posts |
Yeah, i did read that opinion as well -- but was unsure if it applied to a routine stop mainly because it says that 'while a radar detector is a traffic infraction, for purposes of *arrest* it can be considered a misdemeanor' -- Seems if you aren't under arrest it still wouldn't constitute PC for a search all by itself.
Either way, it seems the best advice may be to move out of VA entirely, since an RD seems to create an entirely new PC reason for LEOs to search your car at a traffic stop there. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-18-2013, 04:40 PM | #40 |
Lieutenant
34
Rep 454
Posts
Drives: :O
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Scottsdale
|
Wait a sec... backing up here.
Judge Cole states having an RD is a "traffic infraction" and NOT a misdemeanor. But then later cites Leeth v. Commonwealth (1982) whereupon possession of a RD was a misdemeanor thereby constituting an arrest whereupon a search could be performed. HOWEVER, that was 1982. So the laws on the books today state that possession of a RD is no longer a misdemeanor? If so, then no way they can search your car just because their RDD went off! |
Appreciate
0
|
06-26-2013, 08:32 AM | #42 |
Captain
71
Rep 954
Posts |
Broke the rules, got caught, gotta pay the ticket. At least it's no points and he didn't take your radar detector.
I had a V1 for a while but ended up selling it. Driving between MD and VA it was more trouble than it was worth. I think in the time I had it I found 1 speed trap. Most of the time at least where I drive (I270) it seems like most speeding busts are by unmarked cars pacing you in traffic. |
Appreciate
0
|
06-26-2013, 09:42 AM | #44 |
Banned
322
Rep 8,495
Posts |
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|