77zach
Regular Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtudZ3R6U4#t=260
Wa police breaking the law with impunity. Because they're more equal than us.
Wa police breaking the law with impunity. Because they're more equal than us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPtudZ3R6U4#t=260
Wa police breaking the law with impunity. Because they're more equal than us.
The legislation is clearly against using unmarked cars for traffic enforcement. It contains some reasonable exceptions, such as uses for undercover work or "traffic control", like if a police chief in his unmarked car has to shut off a lane during an emergency.
Law enforcement, and the WA State Patrol in particular, have twisted this around and basically thumbed their noses at the legislature. And the legislature has proven too cowardly or beholden to do anything about it.
I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.
RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
Is it a joke or is it serious?I'm not sure that's the case. The Legislature did act; just not how we'd have like.
RCW 46.61.025 was amended in 2003 to remove the need for the police vehicle to be marked, specifically because courts reversed convictions. The current version requires that the officer be in uniform and that the vehicle shall be equipped with lights and sirens.
Er... how exactly does "RCW 46.61.025: Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles." have anything to do with police vehicles? >.>
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.025
Ok... it took me a second... but I got the joke lol
And if you didn't intend that to be a joke then I just made it into one
Er... how exactly does "RCW 46.61.025: Persons riding animals or driving animal-drawn vehicles." have anything to do with police vehicles? >.>
http://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=46.61.025
Ok... it took me a second... but I got the joke lol
And if you didn't intend that to be a joke then I just made it into one
Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.Sorry, I meant 46.61.024
Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.
I'm curious where the statute is that says they CANT have unmarked cars.
Looks like a fail to stop for police statute. Makes sense.
I'm curious where the statute is that says they CANT have unmarked cars.
Then why did they need this law saying they CANT if they couldn't in the first place?Items not prohibited are allowed is not for the state and government agencies.
Then why did they need this law saying they CANT if they couldn't in the first place?
So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?Because obviously they were doing it....duh....doesn't mean it was legal.
The mrs. wanted to stop by the jewelry store last weekend. Pulled next to a dark grey explorer. Then I noticed the lights behind the dark glass. Then on the door, a black KC insignia. Nice, fellas. :banghead:
So previous to this do you have cites saying it was illegal? Say with a penalty or course of action such as this statute has?