I'm a carriage driver in San Antonio. We have certain routes that we have to follow, and if the police catch us off-route, they can write us a ticket. One of our routes has been recently 'banned,' and the police will write us a ticket if we're caught on it, even though the city ordinance still has it listed as a valid, legal route. I'm not sure exactly how they're able to do that, but whatever...

Anyways, 3 carriages went on the 'banned' route on Friday. Two of them got caught, but the cop was only able to ID one of them (they don't pull you over right there, they wait until you get back to the carriage stand to talk to you/write you a ticket). He wrote the one guy a ticket, and was looking for the other one. Basically, he's a fucking retard, and was looking for "a black guy in a cowboy hat." He couldn't remember any details other than that. He thought that it was a carriage from a different company, and the owner of that company happened to be a black guy in a cowboy hat, so he went and talked to him and I'm assuming he either wrote him a ticket for being down there or sent him in, even though it wasn't him.

It's now Tuesday, and apparently the guy who got caught down there on Friday ratted out the guy that actually was down there. The cop called him (I don't know how he got his number) and asked if he was down there on Friday, and he denied it. Immediately afterwards, he called our boss to see how the cop got his number and to ask him what to do. Our boss said that the guy who got caught on Friday had told the cop that he was the one who was with him, rather than letting the cop think that it was the owner of the other company. I don't know why he told on him, but he did for some reason.

Can he still get a ticket for being off-route even though:
1) The route that he was on is still a legal route (the owner of the company told both drivers to get the ticket so that she could go to court and fight it [usually the cops will give you an option of either going in early and not making anymore money, or getting a ticket and staying out])
2) The cop couldn't ID him that night. Isn't there some sort of statute of limitations regarding how long you can be written a ticket after the fact? If I was speeding down the road one day, then got pulled over and ticketed for it 4 days later because the cop said that somebody told him that I had been speeding 4 days before, that wouldn't hold up in court (right?).
3) The cop is basing everything on one guy's 'testimony.' All the cop knew was that there were 3 black guys driving that night, and he assumed that it was one of the other ones. Then somebody else told him who it actually was, and now he's trying to ticket him. But how does the cop know that he wasn't lying or mistaken? If the cop himself couldn't tell who it was on the same night, how could another driver remember 4 days later?

Also, could he get in trouble for lying to the cop when the cop called him today and asked him if it was him?

Weren't you the chick that was in ROTC at college or something?

Weren't you the chick that was in ROTC at college or something?

Yea. I'm still in college, but no longer in ROTC.

Yea. I'm still in college, but no longer in ROTC.

Why not?

And to attempt to answer your question, I believe that there is no limit on a police officer filing a charge (which is basically what a ticket is, an allegation that the law was broken) after the fact, as long as it is within the statute of limitations. I don't know what the statute is in Texas for breaking a municipal ordinance, but I would guess 4 days would be within that. Police base charges on witness ID and affidavits all the time; the only difference between that and getting pulled over for speeding would be that you would call the witness to testify under oath in court rather than the officer. Then it becomes a credibility issue, and whoever the judge believes, wins.

^^^ Pretty much this... but to add my US$ 0.02

In most jurisdictions that I am aware of (limited) the issuance of a citation for any misdemeanor crime (including such things as parking, speeding, littering, etc..) ranges from 90 days, up to a year and sometimes more than that.

Your (or your SWIM buddy) really should revolve around a completely seperate issue: on of the LAW!

You say that a particular route was "banned".

Banned by who, and by what method?

If there is an ordinance permitting/prohibiting carriages on certain several routes, then That is the LAW. It is filed with the state and that is the Only thing that anyone can enforce. If your City Council adopted a Resolution modifying or rejecting any part of that Law, it means squat.

Before I ramble on aimlessly for too long (which I sometimes like to do) let me give you a hypothetical:

In Florida, there is no law prohibiting running a red light. On Tuesday I run a red light as clearly witnessed by not just me, or all seven of the passengers in the SUV I just T-boned, but also two local sheriffs and five state troopers who were chasing me.

On Wednesday the state legislature passes a law, quickly signed by Governor Christ, that makes it a first degree felony to run a red light. The 'arresting' officers may have up to two years to file charges against me, but those charges must be for a crime that was committed BEFORE the law that made them illlegal was properly filed with the Secretatry of State.

So I am an asshole, but not a criminal.

Go tell that to your (SWIM) friend to use that as a defense, if any of it applies, not the stupid/lame excuse that it took them four days to track him (you) down.

K???

Why not?

I got a job as a carriage driver and now make in a (good) weekend what I would make in a whole month doing ROTC. Short term thinking ftw.

^^^ Pretty much this... but to add my US$ 0.02

In most jurisdictions that I am aware of (limited) the issuance of a citation for any misdemeanor crime (including such things as parking, speeding, littering, etc..) ranges from 90 days, up to a year and sometimes more than that.

Your (or your SWIM buddy) really should revolve around a completely seperate issue: on of the LAW!

You say that a particular route was "banned".

Banned by who, and by what method?

If there is an ordinance permitting/prohibiting carriages on certain several routes, then That is the LAW. It is filed with the state and that is the Only thing that anyone can enforce. If your City Council adopted a Resolution modifying or rejecting any part of that Law, it means squat.

Before I ramble on aimlessly for too long (which I sometimes like to do) let me give you a hypothetical:

In Florida, there is no law prohibiting running a red light. On Tuesday I run a red light as clearly witnessed by not just me, or all seven of the passengers in the SUV I just T-boned, but also two local sheriffs and five state troopers who were chasing me.

On Wednesday the state legislature passes a law, quickly signed by Governor Christ, that makes it a first degree felony to run a red light. The 'arresting' officers may have up to two years to file charges against me, but those charges must be for a crime that was committed BEFORE the law that made them illlegal was properly filed with the Secretatry of State.

So I am an asshole, but not a criminal.

Go tell that to your (SWIM) friend to use that as a defense, if any of it applies, not the stupid/lame excuse that it took them four days to track him (you) down.

K???

Before or after?

That's what they're planning on doing. He's going to court with our boss and the owner of the company, and they're going to argue that since the city ordinance that has the routes wasn't changed, that they can't ticket us for going down there. The cops apparently just randomly decided that they didn't want us going down there and told us that we can't do it anymore, and that they'll ticket anyone that they catch going down there. There' snothing in the city ordinance that says that we can't go down there, although it does specify that we can't be there past 10:30pm because it's a neighborhood.

the simple answer is ..


Yes.


for example, the mayor around here was driving drunk on a bridge, and they didn't write him a ticket till two weeks later.

Before or after?

That's what they're planning on doing. He's going to court with our boss and the owner of the company, and they're going to argue that since the city ordinance that has the routes wasn't changed, that they can't ticket us for going down there. The cops apparently just randomly decided that they didn't want us going down there and told us that we can't do it anymore, and that they'll ticket anyone that they catch going down there. There' snothing in the city ordinance that says that we can't go down there, although it does specify that we can't be there past 10:30pm because it's a neighborhood.

My bad... I meant to say AFTER... it's the old "ex post facto" provision in the constitution.

Your plan is sound and should be successful if argued logical, rationally and responsibly.

The only point you have to make is that the LAW does not support the citation.

Good luck !

the simple answer is ..


Yes.


for example, the mayor around here was driving drunk on a bridge, and they didn't write him a ticket till two weeks later.


Haha, good ol' Eddie "Boozehound" Price.

My bad... I meant to say AFTER... it's the old "ex post facto" provision in the constitution.

Your plan is sound and should be successful if argued logical, rationally and responsibly.

The only point you have to make is that the LAW does not support the citation.

Good luck !

The plot thickens... Apparently, they changes the ordinance in August, but didn't let anybody know (or they might have told the owner of the company, and she just never told us). Now all of the routes have been changed, and all of the routes that we're doing are illegal. An inspector came out one night and told us not to worry about the new routes, to just keep doing the old ones.

I think he's fucked when it comes to the ticket.

The ordinance can be found here:
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11508&sid=43
It's Chapter 33, Article IV, and the routes are under Division 4, Section 33-432

Yeah, you are probably correct that SWIM is screwed with respect to the ticket. Depending upon the cost of the citatation, it is most likely most prudent to just pony up to the fine rather than trying to fight it. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it.

Again, the most logical and plausible defense would be to verify when the amended ordinance was officially filed with the secretary of state versus when the alleged offence was committed. If the ordinance amendment was not formally filed prior to the date of the infraction, then there is solid grounds for dismissal.

If the fine is extraodinarily high, or your friend is just in the mood to "fight city hall", I could not help but notice that there is no 'severability' clause in 33-432. Such a clause normally states along the lines of "If any portion of this ordinance is deemed to be unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, yadda yadda yadda, that portion shall not have any effect on the balance of this law" (yeah, it is worded better than that, but I can't be arsed to quote it all) but you get the idea?

What that means, in plain terms is that. absent a severability clause, if you can find ANY part of that law is either inappropriate or unconstutional, then the ENTIRE law can be deemed null and void.

I find particularly offensive, in this respect is the contents in 33-432 (d):

(d) Additional restrictions may be imposed by the city council as necessary to promote the public safety. Furthermore, temporary restrictions may be imposed by the director of public works and/or the police department during periods of heavy traffic congestion resulting from construction, holiday activities, or special events.


Ordinances enacted by the State Legislature cannot, as a rule, be amended, augmented, or enhanced by local jurisdictions, either on a permanent or temporary basis without due process by the Legislature. Not just the city council (who generally does have a degree of legislative discretion, but also the director of public works (one pencil-neck geek) or the police department (is that just a meter maid? or must it be the cheif of police?) Can we talk about vauge???

On the one hand, it may involve a battle up to the Supreme Court of Texas to assert the legitimacy of such an argumnt. On the other hand, just going into court with the threat of such a battle may easily gain your friend a quick and easy acquittal of their fine.

Just food for thought?

Ooops... just found this in your MuniCode stuff...

Sec. 1-15. Effective date of ordinances; no emergency clause necessary.
(a) All ordinances shall become effective upon the date stated in the ordinance; if no date is stated, then the ordinance shall become effective ten (10) days after its passage.
(b) No emergency clause shall be necessary to make an ordinance effective on the date it is passed and approved, if such ordinance is approved by the council by a vote of eight (8) members of the entire council; provided, any measure making or amending a grant, renewal or extension of a franchise or other special privilege shall not become effective until at least ten (10) day from its passage and approval.
(Ord. No. 17210, § 1, 2-21-52; Code 1959, § 1-15)

And also this:

Sec. 1-17. Severability of parts of Code.
The sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses and phrases of this Code are severable, and if any phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph or section of this Code shall be declared unconstitutional by the valid judgment or decree of any court of competent jurisdiction, such unconstitutionality shall not affect any of the remaining phrases, clauses, sentences, paragraphs and sections of this Code.
(Code 1959, § 1-3)

Uh.... Wow. Thanks for all the info.

It's only a $25 fee, but I think they're still going to fight it somehow. My friend isn't, but the boss is because they want us to be able to keep doing the route. Oh well.