Implied Permission?

[woodyvt]

Vermont

Is implied permission by one police department an affirmative defense against being charged by another police department for the same activity?

I ride a motorized bicycle. I have been riding this motorized bike for two years and have been witnessed hundreds of times by the police department of the city where I live. I have had direct verbal contact with the city police numerous times riding this bike and have been allowed to continue to ride it.
I was recently stopped by a state police officer and was given a criminal DLS citation. I was arraigned yesterday.
If one police department interpreting a statute allows me to ride the motorized bike, how can I be prosecuted by another police department interpreting the same statute differently?

 

[Zigner]

Vermont

Is implied permission by one police department an affirmative defense against being charged by another police department for the same activity?

Nope - there is no requirement that you be cited for everything you do wrong.

 

[Some Random Guy]

Is implied permission by one police department an affirmative defense against being charged by another police department for the same activity?

Implied permission won't even prevent those same officers from the first police department from citing you at a later time.

If one police department interpreting a statute allows me to ride the motorized bike, how can I be prosecuted by another police department interpreting the same statute differently?

You can be cited by any police officer who believes you to be violating the law. The judge will interpret the statute and determine if you did in fact violate the law.

Your best bet would be to research Vermont law regarding motorized bikes, and licensing requirements. If needed, bring proof that your motorized bike meets those requirments (horsepower, engine size, etc)

 

[BOR]

Your premise is not without merit.

Some states, and I did not check VT, "specifically" codify the defense of "mistake of fact" and "mistake of law".

Even if not specifically in law, it can be asserted.

One would think any minor act done repeatedly and ignored by other officers can be considered legal, yes.

 

[Zigner]

One would think any minor act done repeatedly and ignored by other officers can be considered legal, yes.

That is an absolutely idiotic statement...you have no basis in fact (and very little basis in fantasy) to make this statement.

 

[BOR]

That is an absolutely idiotic statement...you have no basis in fact (and very little basis in fantasy) to make this statement.

I took you off ignore just to see if you were directing the post at me, and sure enough yes.

I reported you about 3 months ago for calling me an idiot.

You have over 27tho posts here and most of them are trolling.

You really must have a lonely life if you constantly feel the need to knock people here.

I will send this thread to Mary, but I want it left up. Last time she sent me an e-mail about your statement to me, it was not to support you.

 

[seniorjudge]

That is an absolutely idiotic statement...you have no basis in fact (and very little basis in fantasy) to make this statement.

BOR, just curious. Are you saying that Zigner's statement is wrong?

 

[tranquility]

There are rumors you are in possession of the FreeAdvice crystal ball. If you're rarely going to post here, you might give it to someone else.

I nominate someone from Greek mythology. Then we will have an Oracle.

 

[seniorjudge]

I gave it to Zigner.

Zig ... empty your PM mailbox.

 

[tranquility]

Nooooooooo**************...!

 

[Zigner]

I gave it to Zigner.

Zig ... empty your PM mailbox.

I pared it down a bit...

 

[Zigner]

I reported you about 3 months ago for calling me an idiot.

Didn't call you an idiot here - just called your statement idiotic. There is a difference.

 

[Some Random Guy]

One would think any minor act done repeatedly and ignored by other officers can be considered legal, yes.

But this is not explicit consent. It is implied consent. The poster never said that the police told him is was legal to drive a motorized bike while having a suspended license. The poster never even indicated that the local police knew that his license was suspended.

I am not familiar with VT law, but in other states, there are limits on the engine size of motorized bike/scooters before they require a license to drive. If VT law has similar provisions, then merely seeing the poster on a bike doesn't mean that the police knew the engine size of the bike, or that they had the authority to pull him over and check the engine size.

 

[BOR]

I'll send you a PM on that.

 

[BOR]

But this is not explicit consent. It is implied consent. The poster never said that the police told him is was legal to drive a motorized bike while having a suspended license. The poster never even indicated that the local police knew that his license was suspended.

I can't send one.

I understand that, thank you for the nice converstation.

There are 2 kinds of permission, express and implied.

The poster is simply using IP as a legal term when it is not really that, so I pointed out what I did.

IF conduct of such a minor nature is continued to be permitted by officers, the old adage ignorantia legis non excusat, (sp) ignorance of the law is no excuse, would seem to be not relevant here?

We are not taking about a law the "reasonably prudent" person would know is unlawful.


As a matter of fact, some states codify that mistake of fact and mistake of law are NOT defenses. Most traffic offenses are strict liability, so the defense, even if codified, is just that, a defense. It does not mean it will be given weight by the court.