It's not state law, it's just become common operating procedure with departments. There's no way to have an accident without one or more drivers violating a traffic law. And if your driving was bad enough today that it actually caused an accident, a ticket is believed to be in order.
I don't agree with the practice. My departments reasoning is how do we decide what drivers get tickets, and which ones don't? I see their point too, especially in today's world when people think it's all about race. It's becoming a world in which the Officer is losing discretion because there's always allegations. Won't be any allegations if everyone gets a ticket for everything.
I stopped a gangster a while back, and he had a restraining order and part of it says he can't drink. They are fairly common in RO's when a person has shown the courts they can't handle themselves when drinking. We arrest people all the time when they're causing problems because of their drinking. But the department has come to the conclusion that we HAVE to arrest because it's a judges order. So I stop this kid, and he says he's had a beer. He is respectful, and cooperative. Run him through roadsides and he passes without a signs of impairment. I check his record, semi ugly past but no felonies, and not even a traffic ticket in 2 years. Says he's been doing good, and working full time. Has to be at work at a machine shop at 8am, it's like 11pm now. An arrest means he's unemployed.
It's a crap situation, because an arrest will restart his criminal cycle. Our goal is to change criminal behavior, and by all accounts his was changing. But my department felt I should arrest him no matter what.
I ended up letting him go, and just prayed no one in my agency found out, and that my cover officers didn't rat me out. Luckily agency didn't find out, and my cover officers stayed quiet, but man I was worried for a long time over that, all because I did the right thing.
Reply With Quote