there ya go, tear that argument to shreds and let's go from there
Be happy to.
Say you have a department, and you run into this issue that a fat chunk of citations given either don't pay, or fail to appear. This in turn means more warrants for stupid stuff, which is an increase in cost, time...
so, now you have to serve this warrant, and all the info you have is that person's last known address. Who knows if they still live there or what...
I don't know what you consider a "fat chunk"...but for arguments sake...lets say that 50 % of folks fail to pay or appear (which I doubt). Clearly there is a problem here and steps need to be taken to encourage citizens to do the right thing, we can all agree on that. So....the City/Courts/Police dept./Whoever... decides that the best way to do that is to collect PERSONAL information from ALL citizens in hopes of scaring them into appearing/paying. The obvious purpose is to create an apprehension that if the person is served a warrant, it will happen at work (something less than desirable).
I can not imagine there is any added cost or time involved (as you suggest) by serving the warrant at a persons home or any other place. Its simply a matter of convenience for the police since most folks work normal daytime hours. The cost associated with a serving a warrant is there either way..and is probably born by the offender in the end, if it isn't then it should be.
And as far as "warrants" go....it would be a pretty safe bet that precious little time is spent by most Dept's. running down "warrants" for people with traffic violations...right? What happens in real life..is that the offender is stopped sometime in the future..the warrant is discovered... and the person is arrested (as they should be). My suggestion is that the courts adopt a "triple the fine" policy for offenders that intentionally ignore their duty to address citations.
alright, so now let's look at this policy. Is it illegal? nope, ain't illegal to ask someone where they work. a cop can pretty much ask you anything,
It's also not illegal to refuse to answer extraneous questions, right? Seems like a colossal waste of the officers time and mine.
if a cop gets the impression you do not plan to pay your fine, or at the very least appear in court, he has the legal authority to take you to jail.
And just how does one determine this? Maybe by the sweat on my upper lip?
Is this ability to look into the future taught at the academy now. Yes, I know that much of what an officers does.. involves some amount of "street smarts", so I don't require any lectures about that. I recognize also.. that there exists a delicate balance of "letting LEO do their job" and the potential for abuse of authority. So...I am at a quandary with this. But...I am not entirely comfortable having the outcome of my day based solely on a whimsical "impression".
he had this authority *before* he asked you for your job info, so what's the difference?
He/She had the authority to arrest you for a "violation" (excluding speeding) NOT for refusing to answer questions that are neither required by law or necessary to insure that you will show up in court or pay your fine.
That is the "difference" and the whole point of this discussion.
The real problem is that increasingly...people (of all ages and backgrounds) are becoming less and less responsible. A person with any respect for the law, sense of duty and integrity will take care of such issues.
I see no reason why those of us that DO.. need be treated the same as those who Don't.
In closing...let me make one thing perfectly clear:
I generally have the greatest respect for the Men and Women in Law Enforcement..and I genuinely appreciate the hard and often dangerous work that they do. I have nothing against an officer who is simply trying to their job...(even if it involves some lame-brained policy from on high). But I DO have a problem with any officer who might think it is their duty to "teach someone a lesson" over an issue that is not required by law.
We sure as heck don't need any more "wedges" driven between LEO and the public IMO.
Done with my rant.
Respectfully,
Flint.