|
|
|
run don't walk - bike for sale on gta
- Thread starter boyoboy
- Start date
Grimmy I agree civil seizures are best done by bailiffs and sheriffs. I was merely pointing out if a police officer has reasonable and probable grounds to believe a vehicle in "plain view" is stolen they may run the VIN.
We certainly agree on one thing the "mechanic" which he has never stated if it is a proper shop or just someone operating out of their garage. Needs to get educated. From his posts he seems to be doing it without full knowledge, and that coud eventually cost him financially if the i's are dotted and the t's not crossed.
GREAT info thanks for the insight and info. GTAM needs this type of post. Hopefully a mod can C& P your post and make them a sticky
We certainly agree on one thing the "mechanic" which he has never stated if it is a proper shop or just someone operating out of their garage. Needs to get educated. From his posts he seems to be doing it without full knowledge, and that coud eventually cost him financially if the i's are dotted and the t's not crossed.
GREAT info thanks for the insight and info. GTAM needs this type of post. Hopefully a mod can C& P your post and make them a sticky
IF he has reasonable and probable grounds. And if the vehicle is in plain sight.
Scenario:
Driver pulled over with bike in pickup bed, all fairing and numbered up.
"Where ya going?"
"Shannonville Racetrack for a track day"
"Oh. Well since you are just going on your way down the road, I think your bike is stolen, im just gonna jump up here into the bed and read the VIN number, OK?
"No officer, that's isn't OK, I'd like to not be unlawfully detained, and free to go on my way"
"I dont care, since I saw you down the road, my spidey sense triggered and I knew that you have a stolen bike and I am checking to make sure".
"Officer, I just want to go to the track with my track bike."
"Oh, well the VIN came back as someone elses, and isn't registered as stolen in CPIC. I'm just gonna seize it right here and now cuz I feel like it".
"But officer, I bought the bike from a machanic who had a mechanics lein on it. Here's the bill of sale".
"I dont care, I'm taking it anyway".
Sorry Hedo. It's just so rediculous, a police officer can't just go do whatever they want, and that includes fabricating out of thin air the just cause to search and seize.
Do you know what occurs when a person, even a police officer, seizes something unlawfully? It's called theft. That's a criminal offense, even if a police officer does, even while he is on duty. Intent is the key. Error is one thing. But purposeful negligence and willfull action to remove property from another person knowing it is unlawful, welp, is against the criminal code no matter who you are.
Scenario:
Driver pulled over with bike in pickup bed, all fairing and numbered up.
"Where ya going?"
"Shannonville Racetrack for a track day"
"Oh. Well since you are just going on your way down the road, I think your bike is stolen, im just gonna jump up here into the bed and read the VIN number, OK?
"No officer, that's isn't OK, I'd like to not be unlawfully detained, and free to go on my way"
"I dont care, since I saw you down the road, my spidey sense triggered and I knew that you have a stolen bike and I am checking to make sure".
"Officer, I just want to go to the track with my track bike."
"Oh, well the VIN came back as someone elses, and isn't registered as stolen in CPIC. I'm just gonna seize it right here and now cuz I feel like it".
"But officer, I bought the bike from a machanic who had a mechanics lein on it. Here's the bill of sale".
"I dont care, I'm taking it anyway".
Sorry Hedo. It's just so rediculous, a police officer can't just go do whatever they want, and that includes fabricating out of thin air the just cause to search and seize.
Do you know what occurs when a person, even a police officer, seizes something unlawfully? It's called theft. That's a criminal offense, even if a police officer does, even while he is on duty. Intent is the key. Error is one thing. But purposeful negligence and willfull action to remove property from another person knowing it is unlawful, welp, is against the criminal code no matter who you are.
Last edited:
I agree with that scenario being ridiculous.
I stated the officer must have reasonable and probable grounds, (that is a legal term and it is defined by the SCC, "spidey sense" doesn't qualify).
I also pointed out if the VIN is run and comes back to another person and the person in possession of the bike has no reasonable excuse for having the vehicle, (a bill of sale would qualify as reasonable proof of ownership). However, as you pointed out if a mechanic with a legal lien on the bike had sold it, it should have also come with an ownership. Then the officer could contact the RO and confirm that the person in possession of the vehicle was authorized to be so.
You have done so well with presenting factual statements and reasoned arguments, can we avoid the silly scenarios. Yoou forgot to have the officer pull his weapon and fire 10 rounds into the driver.
This is apparently all a moot point as it appears given the "mechanic" in this thread has stated the bike was close to being sold, I would suspect properly or not it is long gone.
I stated the officer must have reasonable and probable grounds, (that is a legal term and it is defined by the SCC, "spidey sense" doesn't qualify).
I also pointed out if the VIN is run and comes back to another person and the person in possession of the bike has no reasonable excuse for having the vehicle, (a bill of sale would qualify as reasonable proof of ownership). However, as you pointed out if a mechanic with a legal lien on the bike had sold it, it should have also come with an ownership. Then the officer could contact the RO and confirm that the person in possession of the vehicle was authorized to be so.
You have done so well with presenting factual statements and reasoned arguments, can we avoid the silly scenarios. Yoou forgot to have the officer pull his weapon and fire 10 rounds into the driver.
This is apparently all a moot point as it appears given the "mechanic" in this thread has stated the bike was close to being sold, I would suspect properly or not it is long gone.
Last edited:
Exactly, but the scenario I presented is so outragous, that so would your scenario of an officer finding probable cause to investigate a bike on a flat bed trailer, for no other reason of a traffic stop. Fleeing the scene of a 911 call and theft of motorcycle in progress, that's another animal. But it is not reasonable for a police officer, during the course of a normal traffic stop, to start checking vin numbers and snooping around trailer contents, doing road side skip tracing, and calling RO's. Only to be told if there was an issue, that it is an RSLA matter, which any SGT with half a brain knows its a civil matter and not to get involved. Especially if the bike is not registered as stolen, or hasn't been for a considerably long period of time. I am not addressing this again - a police officer would get fried on the stand for seizing a bike over an RSLA matter, performed perfectly (see legal definition of perfected) or not. And, no, colour of right won't apply either.
|
|
|
|
|