Got a ticket for not using my turn signal

customcruiser said:
Well, I am cool as I got this 2 fridays ago.

But there is no way I am pay this without a fight.

Its not my fault that Charlotte doesnt have any money, hell I pay enough in taxes.

I havent gotten a ticket in 15 years

They will see my middle finger before they see my cash....... they may see my cash but only after they hear my mouth. Yea, I know I may go to jail but I will try and not take it that far with everyone in court saying damn I wish I had the balls to do that.
Click to expand...
I GUESS YOU NEED TO SPEND ALITTLE MORE MONEY NEXT TIME YOU BUY A CAR AND GET TURN SIGNALS ON IT:)flipoff2: DO YOU MEAN LIKE THIS)
 
RufusTheRam said:
all of you saying "just suck it up and pay it" are exactly one of the reasons we live in such a fucking nanny state of a country now. i'm as big of a fan of personal responsibility as anyone, but i draw the line when that is misrepresented for taking it up the ass. you're letting the government run you over, and reccomending that the rest of us do the same. no thanks.

i don't agree with all the middle finger/causing a scene on purpose stuff but this man, as well as any other u.s. citizen, has the right to fight any charges against him as he sees fit. the burden lies on the state to prove he did it, make them do their damn jobs and do your part in trying to keep the system in check. he has no legal or moral obligation to just give in, whether or not he actually commited the crime is completely irrelevant until he has his day in court.
Click to expand...


i agree, however...
he got a ticket for not signaling. it had nothing to do with a firearm, anything they found/did not find in the truck, how long he spent there....and the judge is not going to really care how aggravated he was about his day being ruined, because none of that is relevant to whether or not he signaled before turning.

i wasn't there, i don't know whether he signaled or not. that is between him and the judge if he chooses to go to court over it.

i just get sick of reading posts by people that are trying to weasel around the system...i believe that it makes this board (and on a larger scale this country and it's judicial system) look irresponsible.

it brings to mind a certain thread in the garage involving a murder case (obviously a more extreme example)...
 
Go in at about an hour or half an hour before your court date is expected to start. Talk with the DA prior to going in and tell him/her the situation and ask if it could be dropped. Usually they will do it if you are well spoken and dont come off angry. If not, ask if they will reduce it. It will probably go on as an "Inproper Lane Change" which I dont beleive will give you any points off your license and the ticket isnt much.

I feel your pain though, I honk/flash lights at all people that cant use a turn signal. Even the cops (who are most guilty). I wish I could site them for inproper lane change!

You were just targeted is what it boils down to. The fact that you had a gun was more reason for them to hold you to insure you arent packing anything else, registered or not.
 
Either way. A layer isnt worth your time/effort/money.... pay it and call it a day if they dont drop it.
 
Can I get the cops name? I want to thank him for pulling folks like you over. I absolutely hate it when people do not use turn signals. I could understand it if the act of flipping the switch was difficult. It comes down to people be lazy. Someone can cut me off using their turn signal and I will not get as PO'd as I would if they turn a m ile ahead of me without using their signal.

Follow the law and you wont have these problems. You are whining becuase you got caught. the moment you said you have a gun in the truck gives them probalbe cause to looke around.

:popcorn:
 
gmcjimmy88 said:
the moment you said you have a gun in the truck gives them probalbe cause to looke around.
:popcorn:
Click to expand...
No it doesn't.

And FWIW I don't generally use my turn signals if I'm in a turn lane or if my turning doesn't effect any other drivers.
 
rbo1577186 said:
It is what it is.
Let them do their job, and be cooperative. They want to separate you from the firearm for their safety as stated. They're going to run it in to be sure it's not stolen, be sure you are the rightful owner or used in a crime.
Maybe you aren't happy with it, but this is how they find drugs, weapons, fugitives, etc. I've had my car searched and I was detained in the back of a car while it was being searched because of my age and the time of night I was out, it happens. I wasn't doing anything wrong, they didn't damage my car or charge me with anything. You were only cited for a moving violation, as you may be guilty of. Get an attorney and be done with it. With your clean driving record it shouldn't be an issue having it dropped. You said you probably shouldn't have went through the yellow light... maybe you did cut it a little too close.. A court appointed attorney may work for you, but with the governments looking for extra income it may not..
I also got cited for running a red light a long time ago. It was total BS, but technically I ran a red light. I was in a small town and the light just turned red.. Nobody was coming - I could see for at least 300 yards in any direction (it was night ime, headlights are easy to spot). Of course I went on through and there was an officer hiding behind a gas station..... I got searched that night, then the red light ticket. I went to court and it was reduced to improper equip or dismissed (can't remember, been a while).
Click to expand...


Wow.

Some of you need to learn your rights and exercise them from time to time.
 
y2kcrawler said:
The fact that you had a gun was more reason for them to hold you to insure you arent packing anything else, registered or not.
Click to expand...

gmcjimmy88 said:
the moment you said you have a gun in the truck gives them probalbe cause to looke around.
Click to expand...

i was going to stay out of this thread until i saw that...

thats BULL:poop:

A concealed carry tells any officer with common sense that you are someone who will go the extra mile, through as much backround check as the state can perform, to deal with weapons in a responsible way. no one is going to go apply to get a CC and then steal firearms.

a CC permit also means you are helping the officers out, making their job easier. i dont know a single officer who doesnt respect those with a permit, and i also know plenty of officers who will let people off of speeding ticket and other minor infractions when they see a CC permit. (assuming you have a good attitude) If that officer gave him a hard time due to having a CC permit and a pistol, then that officer is an idiot. They already are an idiot if they search the truck without consent, because anything that they found that truck that actually mattered to the law would have been supressed in court. he could have had 50 bricks of crack and a bloody murder weapon and it would be thrown out of court.
 
customcruiser said:
So who has gotten or even heard of someone getting a ticket for not using a turn signal??

Thats what I want to know...........
Click to expand...

I was pulled for this once. I was in a left turn lane that was separated from the main road by concrete islands so it was pretty obvious I was crossing traffic. I had just left a bar with a bunch of drunks, obviously the "infraction" was a ploy for a DWI check. Officer Friendly told me why I was pulled over, I explained about it being a turn-only lane with a deceleration lane separated by concrete islands. I walked the line, he let me free :beer:

I kind of agree with most of the posts on here. Going in to the courtroom with "guns ablazing" will just end up pissing you off more, and give everyone from the judge to the court stenographer something to laugh about for years. If you want to stand up and start a revolution, feel free, post up a few hell yeah's, but I'll wait a few years before I jump on your bandwagon. On the other hand, you could suck it up, play the game, with or without a lawyer, and most likely walk away scott-free. I've gone to court without a lawyer, usually come out no worse than pleading guilty, until the insurance bill comes at an increased rate for 3-5 yrs. A lawer has always paid off, its usually wash financially but the insurance doenst ream you for the short term future. It still pisses me off what a lawyer can do because he's in the know and I'm not, but that's what they do. It also pisses me off everytime I pay insurance at the higher rate.
 
Banned User said:
A concealed carry tells any officer with common sense that you are someone who will go the extra mile, through as much backround check as the state can perform, to deal with weapons in a responsible way. no one is going to go apply to get a CC and then steal firearms.
a CC permit also means you are helping the officers out, making their job easier.
Click to expand...
Generally yes, but just like anything else, ie having good cops and bad cops...people are people. 99% of my contact w/ccw holders is good, but one went downtown because of a host of issues, including carrying concealed while intoxicated...
Banned User said:
They already are an idiot if they search the truck without consent, because anything that they found that truck that actually mattered to the law would have been supressed in court. he could have had 50 bricks of crack and a bloody murder weapon and it would be thrown out of court.
Click to expand...
you can do a Terry frisk of a vehicle just like you can a person, but you have to be able to articulate your justification for the frisk. You don't have to articulate it to the person your frisking, but maybe in court, to IA, etc....would a terry frisk of the vehicle apply here?? don't know, wasn't there, and not about to speculate.
If you want to fight it..then fight it. Be prepared to follow the rules of the courtroom regarding procedure. I've seen plenty of folks with good intentions try to represent themselves and it did not go well. It can..but be prepared. If you dont' want to mess with that I'd ask the DA for a pjc.
good luck....
 
tsjeepcj said:
you can do a Terry frisk of a vehicle just like you can a person, but you have to be able to articulate your justification for the frisk.
Click to expand...

Terry frisk of vehicle = search. I'd have to see the statutes of what you're saying to believe it.
 
chuckwhut said:
i agree, however...
he got a ticket for not signaling. it had nothing to do with a firearm, anything they found/did not find in the truck, how long he spent there....and the judge is not going to really care how aggravated he was about his day being ruined, because none of that is relevant to whether or not he signaled before turning.

i wasn't there, i don't know whether he signaled or not. that is between him and the judge if he chooses to go to court over it.

i just get sick of reading posts by people that are trying to weasel around the system...i believe that it makes this board (and on a larger scale this country and it's judicial system) look irresponsible.

it brings to mind a certain thread in the garage involving a murder case (obviously a more extreme example)...
Click to expand...
i'm not really sure i see your point? you agree with me, re enforce my points, then seem to pass judgement on the situation anyway.

what you call "weasling around the system" is part of our basic constitutional rights! if the system isn't used and tested, how does it ever improve or evolve?? it's admirable to be a responsible and moral person, but not blindly to the point of giving up your rights as an american.
 
I was under the impression that the search of a motor vehicle pulled over for a traffic infraction was allowed and completely legitimate.

However, if the car is parked they would need a warrant to search it. Something about a moving entity? Not sure if Im right with this or not.

The CC Permit really wouldnt have affected this situation that much either way, they would have probably searched the car anyways, seems like they were in that state of mind. While I wont say the ticket for no turn signal is stupid (you did break a traffic rule), I will say I believe there are bigger fish that these guys could be trying to go after. Searching the car IMO was a bit unnecessary, but Im not a police officer, so my say doesn't mean crap.
 
customcruiser said:
He was beside me, two lanes over and I was in a right hand turn lane.

There is now way that his camera will show if I did or didnt use my signal which I am 85% sure that I did.
Click to expand...

If I remember, if you are in a turn lane and all you can do is turn then you don't need to use a blinker.
If he said that you did not use a blinker at the light to turn then you may have an out, if he said you made a turn into the turn lane with out then you got a problem.
 
RufusTheRam said:
i'm not really sure i see your point? you agree with me, re enforce my points, then seem to pass judgement on the situation anyway.

what you call "weasling around the system" is part of our basic constitutional rights! if the system isn't used and tested, how does it ever improve or evolve?? it's admirable to be a responsible and moral person, but not blindly to the point of giving up your rights as an american.
Click to expand...


my point is i don't perceive paying a turn signal ticket (especially if one failed to use their turn signal) as "giving up your rights as an american". to me it is not that extreme.

now if customcruiser feels like he was violated, or that his rights were violated by the officers in question by being searched w/o consent or for whatever reason, then i fully agree it is his right to go through the proper channels to press charges, file a lawsuit, or take whatever action seems appropriate to the situation.

but that is a different story. if he did not use his signal but should have, then the ticket is appropriate and his rights have not been violated in that manner. therefore i believe he should man up and pay the ticket. if he did signal, then i believe it is his right to try and fight the ticket.
 
13bullets said:
Those don't prove your point. The first mentions "persons temporarily detained in vehicles," not the vehicle itself, and the second immediately requires reasonable suspiscion. Even in the example they provided, a weapon was seen on the floor of the guys car, and he was acting erratically. Not to mention, neither of those has jack to do with NC.
Click to expand...

http://www.enfacto.com/case/U.S./463/1032/

2. The protective search of the passenger compartment of respondent's car was reasonable under the principles articulated in Terry and other decisions of this Court. Although Terry involved the stop and subsequent patdown search for weapons of a person suspected of criminal activity, it did not restrict the preventive search to the person of the detained suspect. Protection of police and others can justify protective searches when police have a reasonable belief that the suspect poses a danger. Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect. Thus, the search of the passenger compartment of an automobile, limited to those areas in which a weapon may be placed or hidden, is permissible if the police officer possesses a reasonable belief based on specific and articulable facts which, taken together with the rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the officer to believe that the suspect is dangerous and the suspect may gain immediate control of weapons. If, while conducting a legitimate Terry search of an automobile's interior, the officer discovers contraband other than weapons, he cannot be required to ignore the contraband, and the Fourth Amendment does not require its suppression in such circumstances. The circumstances of this case justified the officers in their reasonable belief that respondent posed a danger if he were permitted to reenter his vehicle. Nor did they act unreasonably in taking preventive measures to ensure that there were no other weapons within respondent's immediate grasp before permitting him to reenter his automobile. The fact that respondent was under the officers' control during the investigative stop does not render unreasonable their belief that he could injury them. Pp. 1045-105

Terry v ohio is the basis for the frisk of a person which is why I linked to it, and Michigan v Long extended the frisk to vehicles.

reasonable suspicion is the basis for traffic stops at a minimum and the officer has to be able to articulate his reason for conducting the frisk. i'm not speaking to the o.p's situation, only that i think that what could be construed as a search could have been a terry frisk, the difference being the scope of what is done. for example, if you have reasonable suspicion that there may be a gun in the vehicle, it would not be reasonable to frisk the ashtray, as it would be too small to conceal a gun. was a terry frisk, or a search, justified in this case?? as i said before, don't know, wasn't there, and not going to speculate.
 
OK, so a Terry search is for the safety of the officer, right? So if the officer removes him from the vechile that means that the officer has no threat from anything inside the car how does that make a search of the car legit?
 
I thought I remember in my CC Class that it was unlawful for an officer to even touch my weapon since I have a CC permit, but I may be mistaken.

I feel that I did use my signal. I even passed the officer 10 seconds before I turned and I knew he was there. If I was 100% sure I didnt use my signal than I would man up and pay the fine or hire a lawyer or take driving school.
I am not 100% sure because all I was thinking about is he is going to write me a ticket for turning at a yellow light, or red but I knew that since he stated that "you probably shouldnt have turned at that yellow light" and I knew that it would be thrown out if he was even going to write me a ticket.

I know that the officers want to be safe and dont want to die, if he was that concerned with his safety why didnt he frisk me??

I feel that I didnt do anything wrong and the police did, and I got the ticket. Even if I didnt use my signal, it should have taken 5 mins for him to do what he needed to do but it took about 40 mins so to me, I feel he was fishing and that I got profiled due to my truck not for not signaling which, again I feel that I did.
 
tsjeepcj said:
Roadside encounters between police and suspects are especially hazardous, and danger may arise from the possible presence of weapons in the area surrounding a suspect.
Click to expand...

LOLs... do you know why roadside encounters are "especially hazardous?" Because cops step out into the travel lanes and are hit by passing vehicles. The threat of bodily harm to an officer by any other source is statistically insignificant when compared to his own propensity to step out in the street before looking both ways.

That aside, with the attitude you're showing here, I'm not surprised that the copy treated you like an asshole.

If you feel like your rights were violated, get an attorney. If you want out of the ticket, get an attorney.
 
Back
Top