Woman Prosecuted for Holding Up Speed Trap Warning Sign

[Jamie123]

Natalie Plummer arrested for holding sign warning drivers about police speed trap | Mail Online

Now in this video Mr. Officialdom defends what the police did:

Rather an interesting spin, don't you think? A few observations:

1. If holding up a sign by the road creates a hazard, then surely road signs and roadside billboards are also a hazard.

2. Contrary to what this guy says, The officers did not just "remove" her. They arrested her - not even for distracting drivers from the road (which this spin-doctor cites as the main issue) - but for "felony obstruction of justice".

3. They did not charge her with "felony obstruction of justice", nor with anything remotely related to the speed trap warning, but with "walking on the road where a side walk was available".

Here's what I think this is all about:

1. A private citizen does something which is not actually illegal, but which interferes with something the police are trying to achieve.

2. The police react angrily and arrest that citizen in violation of her constitutional rights.

3. Senior cops are quick to recognize that the arresting officers have acted wrongly - that however inconvenient Miss Plummer's actions were for them, there was no question of any "felony obstruction of justice". She has merely exercised her right to free speech.

4. The arresting officers are questioned by their superiors. One of them says that he might have seen Miss Plummer momentarily set foot upon the road. Well, well! There's the solution! Instead of releasing her with an apology and setting ourselves up for an expensive false arrest lawsuit, we can save face by charging her with jaywalking!

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out: Plenty of drivers must have seen her holding the sign, and could testify that she was on the side walk not the road - in fact some of them have even posted so on the Mail's website.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Jamie123

[prisonchaplain]

These stories are so fun. What's frustrating is that we almost never get to hear how they turn out.

[Guest]

And herein proves, once again, that a speed trap is not intended to be a means to keep the roads safer. A speed trap is nothing more than another way for the city to gain revenue. So, if they can trick you into speeding, that's even better.

[Dravin]

And herein proves, once again, that a speed trap is not intended to be a means to keep the roads safer. A speed trap is nothing more than another way for the city to gain revenue. So, if they can trick you into speeding, that's even better.

I can buy the argument that objections to warnings means there is more going on than simply wanting to slow down traffic on that stretch of road, but how does a speed trap trick you into speeding?

[Vort]

I can buy the argument that objections to warnings means there is more going on than simply wanting to slow down traffic on that stretch of road, but how does a speed trap trick you into speeding?

The classic "speed trap" is set up, for example, at the bottom of a small downhill section where a driver might accidentally gain 5 mph and be going 30 in a 25 zone.

[Dravin]

The classic "speed trap" is set up, for example, at the bottom of a small downhill section where a driver might accidentally gain 5 mph and be going 30 in a 25 zone.

I know what a speed trap is, your example is not tricking you into speeding unless the cops are somehow responsible for gravity. They may be laying in wait to catch you in a technical violation that doesn't particularly pose a danger to anyone on the road, but that isn't tricking you into speeding.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

I can buy the argument that objections to warnings means there is more going on than simply wanting to slow down traffic on that stretch of road, but how does a speed trap trick you into speeding?

I didn't say that this particular speed trap tricks you into speeding. I'm saying that the woman holding the sign makes people slow down to avoid the speed trap (which is supposed to be the point isn't it? To get people to slow down on the road?) thereby reducing revenue.

My sentence about "if they can trick you into speeding, even better" is an indication that they'd rather you speed and they get revenue than you slow down and they don't get revenue.

A perfect example of this is Waldo, Florida. If you're coming from the north entering Waldo, the speed limit is at 55mph. You pass a sign that says, Reduce Speed Ahead, so you tap on the brakes and by the time you see the 45mph sign, you'd still be going on 50mph on a normal deceleration. If you want to make that 45mph after seeing the reduce speed ahead sign, you have to use up some major brake dust. I have gotten a ticket there a lot more than once. The first time I was okay with since I was going 60 on that highway and got down to 55 at the 45 sign and got the ticket. The second time, I knew that sign was there, so I hit the brakes hard at the reduce speed sign made it to 45 at the 45mph sign and I still got ticketed... for going 55mph. The cop clocked me AT the reduce speed sign. I was mad. I wanted to go to court for it but I couldn't be in Waldo at the court appointed date, so I ended up paying the fine.

Guess what, Waldo's main source of revenue is traffic tickets.

[Dravin]

I'll buy a sudden shift in speed limit such that otherwise unreasonable deceleration is required to not speed as qualifying for the city tricking you into speeding. The key would be the unreasonable deceleration and that it'd be based on the previous speed limit, if you (generic you) are going 60 mph in the 55 mph zone the individuals who proposed the speed limits aren't required (in my mind) to take into account you needing to lose 5mph more speed then they are calling for.

Edited July 3, 2012 by Dravin

[Guest]

I'll buy a sudden shift in speed limit such that otherwise unreasonable deceleration is required to not speed as qualifying for the city tricking you into speeding. The key would be the unreasonable deceleration and that it'd be based on the previous speed limit, if you (generic you) are going 60 mph in the 55 mph zone the individuals who proposed the speed limits aren't required (in my mind) to take into account you needing to lose 5mph more speed then they are calling for.

And what's more... the section of road that is 45mph is no different than the section of road that is 55mph. There's no change in business zoning, no change in road conditions, no traffic signs coming up. Nothing. If you're not familiar with the area, you are going to get a ticket. Guaranteed.

[Just_A_Guy]

Stockton, Utah (just outside of Tooele) is another example of this. I've never gotten a ticket there--or even seen a cop as I've driven through--but it has similar issues with the signage and has a popular reputation as a speed trap.

[prisonchaplain]

This is the second internet news case I've seen of police who are legitimately frustrated by citizens legal-but-obstructionist behavior, but who cross the line in their reaction. The other case involved a group of motorcyclists who were intentionally driving in front of police in a manner that forced them to break. They were not speeding, they were not failing to signal, they were just "teasing" the police. One motorcyclist who appeared to be taping the action with a helmet cam was pulled over. The officer told him he was being arrested for obstructing police, and that his camera was being taken as evidence of the actions of the motorcyclists he was riding with. The individual said he was not with them, and that he was doing nothing wrong, and that the police had no right to take his personal property, since he was not involved in a crime.

Conclusion: The arrested him because of an obstructed license plate.

Again, we don't know the aftermath, but the whole thing was on a youtube video. It would seem that the police were right to be upset, but wrong to take the guy's camera--even though he probably was with the motorcyclists making the trouble.

Chris Moore, Biker, Claims He Was Arrested For Wearing Helmet Cam By Dallas Sheriff's Deputy

Edited July 3, 2012 by prisonchaplain

[MorningStar]

A friend of mine got a ticket for briefly stopping in front of handicapped parking to drop off her daughter at our school for Boys and Girls club. She wasn't parking. She was just stopping where she could make sure her daughter got inside the door safely. She wasn't blocking anyone either. The cops have just been hanging out there.

[MarginOfError]

My sentence about "if they can trick you into speeding, even better" is an indication that they'd rather you speed and they get revenue than you slow down and they don't get revenue.

I have no doubts that some of this occurs, but I don't think it is wise to come to this conclusion without first considering traffic accident data.

In Augusta, Maine, there is a place commonly known as a speed trap. It is a busy section of road. The speed trap is half way down a steep hill going into the city. Just after cresting the hill, the speed limit changes from 50 mph to 35 mph. Many tickets are given on that stretch of road, and the conclusion from people is always that the city is just trying to generate revenue. What people fail to consider is that the intersection near the speed trap and the one just beyond the speed trap (going into the city) have some of the highest accident rates in the city.

[Guest]

I have no doubts that some of this occurs, but I don't think it is wise to come to this conclusion without first considering traffic accident data.

In Augusta, Maine, there is a place commonly known as a speed trap. It is a busy section of road. The speed trap is half way down a steep hill going into the city. Just after cresting the hill, the speed limit changes from 50 mph to 35 mph. Many tickets are given on that stretch of road, and the conclusion from people is always that the city is just trying to generate revenue. What people fail to consider is that the intersection near the speed trap and the one just beyond the speed trap (going into the city) have some of the highest accident rates in the city.

I find it wise to come to this conclusion in this particular case where a woman holding up a sign warning of the speed trap is arrested for it. You see a speed trap sign, you slow down. Traffic accidents avoided.

[mordorbund]

So are those of you posting about well-known speed trap areas now in danger of arrest?

[Jamie123]

So are those of you posting about well-known speed trap areas now in danger of arrest?

Just make sure they don't catch you jaywalking!

[RipplecutBuddha]

If the department in question had, at its core, the goal of reducing speeders on a given road, the best way to do so would be to post a warning sign of a speed trap. After all, who would suspect the cops of warning about their own traps? Place a patrol car at the supposed trap with the torso of a mannequin, and presto...reduced speeding.

Unfortunately, not only is the federal gov't in trouble financially, but much of this 'revenue centered' activity on the part of law enforcement, could be part of an attempt to keep bugets solvent for local and county authorities.

Nevertheless, those that don't speed have nothing to worry about. As for deliberately set-up speed zone changes, the best option is to work within the system to get them changed for the better.

[Jamie123]

If the department in question had, at its core, the goal of reducing speeders on a given road, the best way to do so would be to post a warning sign of a speed trap.

I don't totally agree.

The theory behind speed traps is that they condition drivers to expect the unexpected. Because a speed trap might be around any bend, the driver learns to drive as though they are around every bend, and to keep their speed down.

Speed trap warning signs defeat this purpose.

It's debatable whether or not this theory works in practice, but either way it provides a moral justification to be trundled out every time the town needs to defend its use of speed traps which (by a startling coincidence) also generate large amounts revenue for the town.

And by another staggering coincidence, warning signs defeat this purpose also.

[unixknight]

It seems that in Maryland, the State Police have been told to step up their traffic citations by a factor of 10. No, not 10 additional tickets, but to multiply their current quote by 10.

...to cover a state budget shortfall related to a recent embezzlement fiasco.

Anybody who tells you traffic tickets are about safety and not revenue is either being naive or works for the police department.

In some places, red light cameras are being removed because they're actually working, making intersections safer and thus reducing revenue.

An example

I suppose a few accidents a year are a small price to pay to make sure lawmakers can keep their spending up.

[BenRaines]

I worked traffic in the city I lived in for 10 years. Never once did I have a quota or an amount of tickets I was expected to write. Just my experience.

Ben Raines

[prisonchaplain]

BEHOLD...an update of sorts: Houston Woman Jailed for 'Speed Trap' Sign Receives Support - ABC News

I found it interesting that in some states the more common form of speed trap warning (flashing headlights) is illegal--including my own! :::gulp!:::

This is a he-said she-said story. The officer claims she was standing in the road, waving her hands at drivers. She says she wasn't. Most of us believe there are such a thing as "speed traps," or know of incidents where a warning seemed sufficient, but the officer chose to issue a hefty ticket--so we're sympathetic to Plummer's claims.

On the other hand, speed traps catch speeders, not law-abiders. And, color me naive, I do believe Ben's experience is true for nearly all police. Quotas are mostly a myth. Doesn't mean there aren't times when the officers are told from time to time to use less discretion, and simply write the tickets. However, those cases are usually publicized, "The police will be out in full force this holiday weekend..."

Nobody likes a ticket, but very few of us would trade our jobs in for that of traffic cop.

[HoosierGuy]

There are many good police officers so I don't want to include them all in this, but in cases where they clearly abuse their powers or step over the line, they need punished. It's time to start firing the punks in the police force. I suspect though that the State Police in many states are becoming the enforcers for the governors of those states, so the lawmakers will leave the State Police alone and let them get away with abuse in more and more cases.

One thing we can do is use video cameras that are becoming more and more cheap and small and easy to hide.

[unixknight]

One thing we can do is use video cameras that are becoming more and more cheap and small and easy to hide.

Problem is more and more we're seeing people being punished for using them.

Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it?