Stay away from Ohio !!!

So the officer screwed up and forgot to bring his radar certification to court.  To say the observation was unaided is incorrect.  He was running radar, he forgot his training certification for the particularr unit he was using when he wrote the ticket when he testified.  The city should have dropped it when the speeder appealed and hired an attorney for a $177 speeding ticket.  I'll bet the speeder had a horrible driving record and couldn't afford another ticket or was about to lose the license for points etc.  I wonder what the attorney cost compared to the ticket?  The driver should move to Fargo/West Fargo where people with a poor driving record can appeal to the supreme court and cost the city millions because it's just not fair and they want to drive any way they want.  ANARCHY!!     

eatsleephunt Said:
So the officer screwed up and forgot to bring his radar certification to court.  To say the observation was unaided is incorrect.  He was running radar, he forgot his training certification for the particularr unit he was using when he wrote the ticket when he testified.  The city should have dropped it when the speeder appealed and hired an attorney for a $177 speeding ticket.  I'll bet the speeder had a horrible driving record and couldn't afford another ticket or was about to lose the license for points etc.  I wonder what the attorney cost compared to the ticket?  The driver should move to Fargo/West Fargo where people with a poor driving record can appeal to the supreme court and cost the city millions because it's just not fair and they want to drive any way they want.  ANARCHY!!     

Actually Fargo is required to follow state law just as the citizens are. And the supreme court ruling didn't "cost" Fargo anything, it simply righted a wrong and gave those the city tried to screw THEIR money back. It may not be a bad idea for you to look into how government works. A local jurisdiction can't pass a more stringent law than the state, as Fargo found out. Laws are to protect people, they were never intended to be used as a revenue generating machine so politicians had extra money to spend.

Fargo wasnt alone!!!
you dont need a radar unit to receive a ticket for speeding. lets say if you have someone that keeps speeding down your road and you know who it is and such you can cite that person. you obvisously dont have a radar unit so the officer would write up a care required ticket and you would then write your name next to it. its your word against theirs, not the officers.

Bowhuntin Said:

eatsleephunt Said:
So the officer screwed up and forgot to bring his radar certification to court.  To say the observation was unaided is incorrect.  He was running radar, he forgot his training certification for the particularr unit he was using when he wrote the ticket when he testified.  The city should have dropped it when the speeder appealed and hired an attorney for a $177 speeding ticket.  I'll bet the speeder had a horrible driving record and couldn't afford another ticket or was about to lose the license for points etc.  I wonder what the attorney cost compared to the ticket?  The driver should move to Fargo/West Fargo where people with a poor driving record can appeal to the supreme court and cost the city millions because it's just not fair and they want to drive any way they want.  ANARCHY!!     

Actually Fargo is required to follow state law just as the citizens are. And the supreme court ruling didn't "cost" Fargo anything, it simply righted a wrong and gave those the city tried to screw THEIR money back. It may not be a bad idea for you to look into how government works. A local jurisdiction can't pass a more stringent law than the state, as Fargo found out. Laws are to protect people, they were never intended to be used as a revenue generating machine so politicians had extra money to spend.

So riddle me this, appearently in your world lawyers work for free?  And what is the point of home rule?  When the home rule wave went through local jurisdictions awhile back, it was alot of peoples understanding that local jurisdictions could pass laws that were more strict then state law, but never less strict.  That's why so many home rule local jurisdictions passed higher fines for a lot of things including speeding.  If people want to keep THEIR money, don't break the law.  I know a few things, and I'm guessing your driving record sucks.   

eatsleephunt Said:

Bowhuntin Said:

eatsleephunt Said:
So the officer screwed up and forgot to bring his radar certification to court.  To say the observation was unaided is incorrect.  He was running radar, he forgot his training certification for the particularr unit he was using when he wrote the ticket when he testified.  The city should have dropped it when the speeder appealed and hired an attorney for a $177 speeding ticket.  I'll bet the speeder had a horrible driving record and couldn't afford another ticket or was about to lose the license for points etc.  I wonder what the attorney cost compared to the ticket?  The driver should move to Fargo/West Fargo where people with a poor driving record can appeal to the supreme court and cost the city millions because it's just not fair and they want to drive any way they want.  ANARCHY!!     

Actually Fargo is required to follow state law just as the citizens are. And the supreme court ruling didn't "cost" Fargo anything, it simply righted a wrong and gave those the city tried to screw THEIR money back. It may not be a bad idea for you to look into how government works. A local jurisdiction can't pass a more stringent law than the state, as Fargo found out. Laws are to protect people, they were never intended to be used as a revenue generating machine so politicians had extra money to spend.

So riddle me this, appearently in your world lawyers work for free?  And what is the point of home rule?  When the home rule wave went through local jurisdictions awhile back, it was alot of peoples understanding that local jurisdictions could pass laws that were more strict then state law, but never less strict.  That's why so many home rule local jurisdictions passed higher fines for a lot of things including speeding.  If people want to keep THEIR money, don't break the law.  I know a few things, and I'm guessing your driving record sucks.   

There's a reason the word "Ass" is in the word assume, thanks for pointing out that reason with your assumption of my driving record. Actually I have a clear record and anyone who knows me, which you obviously don't, knows I'm not a speed demon nor do I knowingly break any traffic laws. 

The common denominator with home rule charters is increased taxes. Name me one town that passed home rule charter that didn't increase taxes to pay for something some government entity wanted. Usually it was sales taxes that were increased, that way the people in the big cities of Grand Forks and Fargo could stick it to the people in the smaller towns by requiring them to pay for their pet projects without adding too much burden to the residents of the towns who actually got some benefit from the project.

It's a real slippery slope to allow individual entities the right to set fines for infractions like you suggest. Starts out 20 or 30 bucks more, then gets raised so they can reshingle the events center, then gets raised again so they can add more parking, pretty soon the fine for speeding is a couple hundred bucks, then some intelligent politician decides the law should be enforced to the letter of the law and people are fined a couple hundred dollars for driving 2 mph faster than the posted limit.

You sound like you're all trusting in government to do the right thing, I'm not quite there. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile as has been demonstrated many times in the past.

Oh, and as far as your comments on lawyers, we're all damn lucky we have them keeping the government honest or we'd be living in a police state. Attorneys are the important checks and balances in the system, even if some aren't smart enough to understand that.  

I gotta go with Bowhuntin on this one.  The ruling against the city of Fargo was the right one.  Fines were made to be a deterrance to commit offenses - not a revenue generating tool.  Fargo went out of its way to explain how this was going to increase safety and how it was not about the revenue - but immediately after Fargo passed the ordinance for the increased fines, enforcement on those offenses went up tenfold.  Claim what you want, but it was in fact a way for Fargo to make money and that was wrong. 

As far as the officer estimating the speed, again that was perfectly fine.  One of the steps when using radar is to visually estimate the vehicle's speed and check your estimation against the radar.  You are not supposed to rely soley on the radar by itself.  So an officer who has been doing it correctly for a few years gets pretty good at judging speed.  Also the US supreme court ruled that any lay person can estimate the speed of a vehicle to establish whether or not the vehicle was exceeding the limit.  So this case was correct - without a doubt in my mind.

     Sorry about the assumption on your drivers record.  I stand corrected.  From personal experiance, people who dislike traffic enforcement or appeal  moving violations in court do so more often because they have too, a lot less often out of principal.
     Fargo should absolutely be able to have higher fines for moving violations.  Speed kills!!  Speeding, failure to stop, or any moving violation is a lot more dangerous in Fargo where there are hundreds of cars on the road, then out in the middle of Slope county.  The courts should have recognized that, but failed.  And the officers who enforce the traffic laws should get the benefit of the doubt when issueing a citation, just like the court gave the officer in the original story.  A speeder should not get off because an officer forgot a piece of paper when testifying.  He should be reprimanded for not having the needed documents by his department, but the court understood the facts, the speeder was speeding.  The court did not have Fargo's back when the young ladies fine in Fargo was reduced.  Again the courts failed in not recognizing the importance of Fargo knowing what is right in Fargo, which in my thoughts and opinions was the purpose of home rule.  
     Cops enforce the laws and write whatever the set fine amount is on the ticket, the jurisdiction he works for decides where the money ends up.  It's a shame it goes into the general fund in most places and the cities use it for whatever they want.  There should be limited places it can be spent such as drug court, driver education/awareness programs, roads, street signs etc.   
     I'm more then willing to pay $10 extra dollars for a pair of volleyball shoes for my daughter in Fargo.  The town we live in doesn't have a store that sells them, or a place big enough for George Strait and Reba McEntire to play a concert in either.  Or a ballpark like Neuman Outdoor Field.  What's good for Fargo is good for the surrounding area as well.
     My comment on lawyers was a reply to your comment that the lawsuit did not cost Fargo anything.  Lawyers and accountants had to look through all the tickets and records to find the refunds that would be going out if people signed on to the lawsuit.  Neither profession works for free, and I'm sure neither side trusted the other to come up with the correct #'s with lawyers and accountants already on staff.

eatsleephunt:  I agree that violations in Fargo are much more dangerous than the same violation in Slope county.  My problem with it was that they started writing 20 times more tickets after the fines went up.  Are you kidding me?  The fines go up and all of a sudden there were 20 times more violations then ever before?  I was born at night but it wasn't last night.  It was a revenue generating tool and nothing more - it had squat to do with safety.  When the court ruled against the city, the very first official comment from the city was how it was going to hurt thier revenue - not how much more unsafe the streets would be.  Fargo did it for the absolute wrong reasons and like Bowhuntin said - where would it have ended?

eatsleephunt Said:
     Sorry about the assumption on your drivers record.  I stand corrected.  From personal experiance, people who dislike traffic enforcement or appeal  moving violations in court do so more often because they have too, a lot less often out of principal.
     Fargo should absolutely be able to have higher fines for moving violations.  Speed kills!!  Speeding, failure to stop, or any moving violation is a lot more dangerous in Fargo where there are hundreds of cars on the road, then out in the middle of Slope county.  The courts should have recognized that, but failed.  And the officers who enforce the traffic laws should get the benefit of the doubt when issueing a citation, just like the court gave the officer in the original story.  A speeder should not get off because an officer forgot a piece of paper when testifying.  He should be reprimanded for not having the needed documents by his department, but the court understood the facts, the speeder was speeding.  The court did not have Fargo's back when the young ladies fine in Fargo was reduced.  Again the courts failed in not recognizing the importance of Fargo knowing what is right in Fargo, which in my thoughts and opinions was the purpose of home rule.  
     Cops enforce the laws and write whatever the set fine amount is on the ticket, the jurisdiction he works for decides where the money ends up.  It's a shame it goes into the general fund in most places and the cities use it for whatever they want.  There should be limited places it can be spent such as drug court, driver education/awareness programs, roads, street signs etc.   
     I'm more then willing to pay $10 extra dollars for a pair of volleyball shoes for my daughter in Fargo.  The town we live in doesn't have a store that sells them, or a place big enough for George Strait and Reba McEntire to play a concert in either.  Or a ballpark like Neuman Outdoor Field.  What's good for Fargo is good for the surrounding area as well.
     My comment on lawyers was a reply to your comment that the lawsuit did not cost Fargo anything.  Lawyers and accountants had to look through all the tickets and records to find the refunds that would be going out if people signed on to the lawsuit.  Neither profession works for free, and I'm sure neither side trusted the other to come up with the correct #'s with lawyers and accountants already on staff.

First off, let me go on record as saying I fully support strong traffic law enforcement, in fact to the extent that I filed a citizens complaint not long ago after witnessing careless driving in my neighborhood. Got the vehicle description and license number and filed a citizens complaint and the person was brought to justice. I don't want to see some numbnut kill or injure an innocent person any more than you do it sounds like.

What I'm not in favor of is using traffic offenses as a money generating tool. I'm confused about what you posted, maybe you can help me out. You say Fargo should be able to have higher fines for speeding, but for what reason? Fargo had substantially higher fines than permitted until they were overturned by the supreme court, yet they were writing record numbers of tickets? How can that be, it seems a contradiction? I thought the high fines were supposed to curb speeding? See what I mean? The high fines didn't do anything to curb speeding, most who drove faster than the posted limit did so willingly, fully understanding the consequences of their actions, yet they drove too fast anyway. So the fines themselves did little if anything to curb speeding.

As I've said in the past, laws themselves have little effect on personal behavior. Take murder off the books and the murder rate wouldn't change a bit because most see murder as morally unacceptable. Those who commit the crime understand it's illegal yet kill anyway. Not to compare murder to speeding, but fines themselves have little to do with behavior.

I also agree what's good for Fargo is good for the area, but the "big city, can't do without us" attitude does get old after awhile.

Oh, and don't mind Sportsman, he agrees with everything I say.  

Per capita, large cities have it best when it comes to raising revenue without raising the amount of the fine?

Bowhuntin Said:
Oh, and don't mind Sportsman, he agrees with everything I say.  

Always. :)

Bowhuntin Said:

eatsleephunt Said:
     Sorry about the assumption on your drivers record.  I stand corrected.  From personal experiance, people who dislike traffic enforcement or appeal  moving violations in court do so more often because they have too, a lot less often out of principal.
     Fargo should absolutely be able to have higher fines for moving violations.  Speed kills!!  Speeding, failure to stop, or any moving violation is a lot more dangerous in Fargo where there are hundreds of cars on the road, then out in the middle of Slope county.  The courts should have recognized that, but failed.  And the officers who enforce the traffic laws should get the benefit of the doubt when issueing a citation, just like the court gave the officer in the original story.  A speeder should not get off because an officer forgot a piece of paper when testifying.  He should be reprimanded for not having the needed documents by his department, but the court understood the facts, the speeder was speeding.  The court did not have Fargo's back when the young ladies fine in Fargo was reduced.  Again the courts failed in not recognizing the importance of Fargo knowing what is right in Fargo, which in my thoughts and opinions was the purpose of home rule.  
     Cops enforce the laws and write whatever the set fine amount is on the ticket, the jurisdiction he works for decides where the money ends up.  It's a shame it goes into the general fund in most places and the cities use it for whatever they want.  There should be limited places it can be spent such as drug court, driver education/awareness programs, roads, street signs etc.   
     I'm more then willing to pay $10 extra dollars for a pair of volleyball shoes for my daughter in Fargo.  The town we live in doesn't have a store that sells them, or a place big enough for George Strait and Reba McEntire to play a concert in either.  Or a ballpark like Neuman Outdoor Field.  What's good for Fargo is good for the surrounding area as well.
     My comment on lawyers was a reply to your comment that the lawsuit did not cost Fargo anything.  Lawyers and accountants had to look through all the tickets and records to find the refunds that would be going out if people signed on to the lawsuit.  Neither profession works for free, and I'm sure neither side trusted the other to come up with the correct #'s with lawyers and accountants already on staff.

First off, let me go on record as saying I fully support strong traffic law enforcement, in fact to the extent that I filed a citizens complaint not long ago after witnessing careless driving in my neighborhood. Got the vehicle description and license number and filed a citizens complaint and the person was brought to justice. I don't want to see some numbnut kill or injure an innocent person any more than you do it sounds like.

What I'm not in favor of is using traffic offenses as a money generating tool. I'm confused about what you posted, maybe you can help me out. You say Fargo should be able to have higher fines for speeding, but for what reason? Fargo had substantially higher fines than permitted until they were overturned by the supreme court, yet they were writing record numbers of tickets? How can that be, it seems a contradiction? I thought the high fines were supposed to curb speeding? See what I mean? The high fines didn't do anything to curb speeding, most who drove faster than the posted limit did so willingly, fully understanding the consequences of their actions, yet they drove too fast anyway. So the fines themselves did little if anything to curb speeding.

As I've said in the past, laws themselves have little effect on personal behavior. Take murder off the books and the murder rate wouldn't change a bit because most see murder as morally unacceptable. Those who commit the crime understand it's illegal yet kill anyway. Not to compare murder to speeding, but fines themselves have little to do with behavior.

I also agree what's good for Fargo is good for the area, but the "big city, can't do without us" attitude does get old after awhile.

Attaboy on calling in the careless driver and following through on the complaint!  That could have potentially cost you time from work to testify etc...  Now put a police car in your neighborhood at the same time.  Officer sees the violation, makes a traffic stop and writes a citation.  Driver goes to court and appeals because he says there is no way the officer could have seen his driving because of trees and other cars parked on the street.  Officer prepares a too scale street map with trees and cars to the best of his recollection for court, but forgets it in his locker before going, so he uses a chalkboard in court to redraw the scene.  Is the judge going to trust the officers training and memory and find the driver guilty, or is he going to side with the driver and dismiss the ticket because there is reasonable doubt that the officer did not see the violation?  In the original story the court agreed with the officer.  
     In Fargo, tickets written by the city go to municipal court.  If the driver wishes to appeal, it goes to district court, which is where the problem started.  The district judge to me, undermined the city of Fargo's authority to govern itself, and undermined the police departments credability to enforce traffic laws.  Police officers in cities see the moving violations and write the appropriate ticket.  How many people, including the lady that started this (4 moving violations in two years??)  who are pushing points or high insurance rates are going to plan on going right through municipal court to district court?  It does not change the fact that the violation took place, but the perception is there that district court is maybe looking to put Fargo in it's proper place in the district judges pecking order.  Judges are just as capable of having egos and agendas as anybody. 
     Again, I believe officers write the violations they see.  Spikes in enforcement can come from something as simple as an older more laid back shift Sgt retiring and being replaced by a young go getter who makes sure his officers are working and doing their jobs.  Maybe a new police chief or patrol supervisor?  Citizen complaints of violations in certain areas can lead to a saturation of that area looking for certian violations.  So officers write 20 stop sign violations in a neighborhood that usually sees 2-3 in the same time period.  Spike, definately, but what lead to it?  Good communication is the key to avoiding misperception.  If you can prove that any increase in tickets came from someone in the city government outside of the police department, then it's time to make hay.  If not, well then I personally trust the officers to do their jobs and if they see 10 moving violations in a shift and write 10 tickets, so be it.  
     The big city CAN do without us, we CAN'T do without the big city.  If the wife and daughters didn't have Fargo or Bismarck to go to, my hunting, fishing and trapping time could be cut into drastically.  Thanks for a good clean argument, it's fun from time to time.  I agree to disagree.    
           

eatsleephunt,

I agree the big cities can do without the country folk a lot easier than the other way around, but the attitude of big cities using sales tax in lieu of property tax increases still pisses me off. The small towns don't get the help the big towns do and I'm not sure that's fair. Everyone is clamoring about getting a bypass dug asap to protect Fargo but you don't hear many worry about the downstream effects, but that's for a different time.

I'd still be interested in hearing your explanation of how increased fines curb speeding. I don't see it but maybe you do? Here's what I see, as I said I don't speed, generally I set the cruise control about 3 mph faster than the posted limit on highways. In ND where the fine for going 8 mph faster than the posted limit is something like $14.00 the other vehicles fly by me left and right. In MN where the fine for going 8 mph over the posted limit is something like $135.00 the same thing happens. It's not that I'm the only one who is aware of how expensive the fine is in MN, everyone knows that, yet they don't drive any different in MN than they do in ND.

As Sportsman pointed out, as soon as the courts ruled Fargo was charging too much and would have to refund speeding fines and reduce the price of new speeding tickets you didn't hear the chief of police on the radio talking about how he was worried about how it would effect safety, what you heard was the mayor complaining about budget shortfalls caused by the reduced ticket price. If city government is truly worried about some little kid being hit by a speeding driver why were they only talking about the millions of dollars it would cost the city each year? What does that sound like to you?

I'll stay away from the other part of your post, the hypothetical stuff about cops and bad guys. As I've said before on this site, and been blasted for it, even guilty people have rights in this country. That's what makes us so unique. When guilty people stop having rights in this country the rest of us won't have rights much longer either. That's a hard concept for some to understand but history is filled with examples of the pendulum swinging too far one way. Better to have 100 guilty people go free than to have one innocent person convicted because of heavy handed police tactics. There has to be checks and balances.

eatsleephunt:  I am not calling you names or thinking that you are stupid, but I do know that you are a little misinformed about a few things regarding law enforcement.  Here is a quote from you.               "Is the judge going to trust the officers training and memory and find the driver guilty, or is he going to side with the driver and dismiss the ticket because there is reasonable doubt that the officer did not see the violation?  In the original story the court agreed with the officer. " 

Your whole argument about reasonable doubt is what makes me think that there is plenty you don't know about law enforcement.  The standard of reasonable doubt is for criminal cases only.  Traffic cases require a much lesser standard of proof - basically what it boils down to is this - is it more likely than not that the person committed the violation as charged.  It isn't a very hard standard to meet at all, and things like forgetting a certificate or drawing rarely make any difference at all (it only makes a difference in courts where the judges themselves are unfamiliar with how the law is supposed to work).  Whenever I hear someone talk about reasonable doubt in a traffic case, I have to wonder about thier entire argument just simply because it is immediately apparent that they do not understand the law fully.

Bowhuntin:  You must be mellowing with age - or getting smarter - not sure which one.

Sportsman Said:

Bowhuntin:  You must be mellowing with age - or getting smarter - not sure which one.

I'm not sure it's me getting mellower or smarter, I remember an ex-cop that went ballistic a few years ago when I said even guilty people should have rights in this country.

I still think there are way too many laws in this country. Even the speeding laws we are discussing have little bearing on behavior. If all the speed limit signs came down in residential areas I would guess most reasonable people would still drive 15 - 20 mph through residential areas, and the assholes who tear around town at 40 mph right now would continue to do the same thing anyway. I'm reminded of a couple legislative sessions ago when the legislature passed a law making it illegal to throw a bottle of urine out the window. WTF???? I can honestly say that one helped, because I haven't thrown a bottle of urine out the window since they passed the law. Come to think of it, I don't remember doing it before they passed the law either. I generally just stop at a rest area, like most others do.

I'm not sure it's me getting mellower or smarter, I remember an ex-cop that went ballistic a few years ago when I said even guilty people should have rights in this country.

I have no problem with the guilty having rights - that is one of the basic fundamentals that this country lives by.  I think our argument came from the fact that you were pushing how the cops are out there harrassing all the poor, innocent, helpless people and it was the good and righteous attornies who were the only ones really concerned with justice - or something like that anyway.  I will let it go for now although I still have the exact opposite opinion on that topic.

I agree that there are way to many "feel good" but "do nothing" laws in this country and there are more and more passed every day.  I also agree (to a limited extent) that removing the speed limit signs probably wouldn't change many people's driving habits - but it would a few.  Just like the locks on your doors are to keep the honest people honest, the speed limits are there just to help the good drivers remember how they should be driving.  It also serves as a public service to let drivers know how fast they should be going.  There are many places in town that if I didn't know what the speed limit was, I would assume it was 40 when it actually is posted at 25.  How would someone from out of the area know if there were no signs?  The people who did not know might speed because they are not aware of the safety concerns in those areas that prompted the 25 zone.  As far as the fine not being a deterrant, I will disagree on that one.  I love to drive faster than the posted limit.  In fact, on those deserted county roads, I would drive 85 or more if I knew for absolute certain that I wasn't going to get stopped.  Getting stopped and fined (and the points on my license) does deter me from speeding.  I can only assume that I am not the only one.

Sportsman Said:
eatsleephunt:  I am not calling you names or thinking that you are stupid, but I do know that you are a little misinformed about a few things regarding law enforcement.  Here is a quote from you.               "Is the judge going to trust the officers training and memory and find the driver guilty, or is he going to side with the driver and dismiss the ticket because there is reasonable doubt that the officer did not see the violation?  In the original story the court agreed with the officer. " 

Your whole argument about reasonable doubt is what makes me think that there is plenty you don't know about law enforcement.  The standard of reasonable doubt is for criminal cases only.  Traffic cases require a much lesser standard of proof - basically what it boils down to is this - is it more likely than not that the person committed the violation as charged.  It isn't a very hard standard to meet at all, and things like forgetting a certificate or drawing rarely make any difference at all (it only makes a difference in courts where the judges themselves are unfamiliar with how the law is supposed to work).  Whenever I hear someone talk about reasonable doubt in a traffic case, I have to wonder about thier entire argument just simply because it is immediately apparent that they do not understand the law fully.

Bowhuntin:  You must be mellowing with age - or getting smarter - not sure which one.

     Yeah, I guess I'm an amatuer,  but I like to hope for the best.  The guilty should be found guilty and the innocent should be found innocent.  The guilty should never be let go on technicalities like the speeder in the original story and his attorney tried.  Common sense should prevail.  But I can hope in one hand and................you know the rest.
     I try not to speed, sometimes it does happen, but never out of state.  I like my clean drivers record and have plenty of other things to pay for then a speeding ticket.  The higher fines in MN and surrounding states cause me to set the cruise at the speed limit.  $100-$150 bucks is a pretty nice rod, a good amount of ammo, etc.......
     As far as the bottles of urine out the window.  Army convoys in the desert run by 1sgt's that fill you full of water then won't stop the convoy until the worst mpg vehicle is absolutely out of fuel cause strange things to happen.  Tapline road in Saudi is littered with broken down white Datsun pickups and bottles of piss.  So I'm guessing truck drivers caused that to be a problem somewhere in ND.    

eatsleephunt,
Understood, but my point is do we really need a law against throwing plastic bottles of piss into the ditches for grass cutters to hit with their mowers? And did putting the law on the books really stop that behavior? One last question, anyone ever been charged with the crime since they made it illegal?

 "The guilty should never be let go on technicalities like the speeder in the original story and his attorney tried.  Common sense should prevail.  But I can hope in one hand and................you know the rest."

I would say most of the time common sense does prevail in court, but every once in a while you will see some real bonehead moves.  Sometimes the judge will buy any lame excuse put before them and anyone with any excuse at all goes free, but not that often.  You see it a lot more in small towns where good ole boy policy runs free and its all about who you know.  Trust me, been there and done that - not going to do it again.