Question: ..is this legal?

[Barry_Archer]

What is the name of your state? Iowa

I was working part time at a local gas station the other night, when a friend of mine drove up, filled his tank, then came into the store payed for the gas and since I wasn't busy, we talked for about 20 minutes or so. Afterwards, he was about to leave, and just as he was walking half-way between the store and his car, a police officer that had been rolling by at the same time suddenly pulls into our lot with his light bar flashers going, and pulled up behind my buddys car, ...my friend still hadn't quite made it out to the car yet). It was warm outside so I had the stores front door propped open and overheard the whole conversation. The cop said, "hey you, come here for a second." (motioned for him to come over to his squad car). As he walked up to the cop, the cop says, "Did you ever get your drivers license straightened out?". My friend said, "No sir, I didn't but I'm currently working on it, ...it's a long story but in short, no I haven't". The cop got out of his car, and proceeded to arrest the guy for driving on a barred license. Another cop that had pulled in (I suppose for backup purposes, if needed) while all this was going on, asked the guy if he wanted him to move his car (so it wouldn't get towed), the guy said, "Yes, thank you, I'd appeciate that, ..my keys are in my front pocket". As the second cop went to go move it, the first cop (who was on his radio at the time) jumped out of his car and said, "Hey, ..don't bother with it, I'm gonna call for a truck to come and hook it".

The guy who was being arrested began to mildly argue the same thing I was thinking at the time, he said, "What's the deal, sir? ...first of all, I wasn't even driving, I was simply walking at the time you'd pulled in here, ..so how is it that I'm under arrest for driving barred???" The cop was saying that he wasn't gonna argue with him, and to just deal with it.

The first cop pulled out and took the man off to jail, while the other cop waited for the tow truck to tow the car.

I'm rather troubled by this, as I have to agree with the man who was arrested, that this cop had arrested the guy without actually seeing him drive the vehicle.

So, was this a legal arrest? The guy stopped in the next night and talked to me for awhile, and told him that I plan on filling out a statement for him since I'd witnessed the whole thing, and heard everything that had been said.

Please advise.

Thanx!!! Barry

[racer72]

How did he explain his car getting to the gas station? Did it drive itself? Probably not. The officer appeared to have probable cause based on a previous encounter with your buddy. Nothing in your post suggests the officers did anything wrong, your buddy shouldn't have been driving. He gambled and lost.

[Happy Trails]

What do you think you could offer in a statement that would benefit this friend? I hope you are not considering making up a story.

Your friend simply should not have been driving, since he was not a legal driver.

[Barry_Archer]

While I certainly agree with you, he shouldn't have been driving. However, the question you ask, "how did the car get there", unless it was witnessed, really isn't relevant to the charge in which he was arrested for. In order for an officer to make an arrest, under Iowa Code, to be in violation of Iowa law, regarding the charge of "operating a motor vehicle while barred", an officer has to actually witness subject operating a motor vehicle. For one, the cop had NOT actually witnessed that the man had been driving other than by his mere assumption. Secondly, the cop certainly had no way of knowing for sure if it was HE who had been driving the car prior to that, ...for all that officer knew at the time of the arrest, although not the case, but really who was to say that the mans wife wasn't in the restroom, and perhaps she was the actual driver.

Ya see, ..the only arguement I have, is that the officer made an arrest that was based merely on an assumtion, without having actually witnessed the man violating the law for which he was charged with as being in violation of. I have a real problem with that.

Now, perhaps what that cop should've done, after seeing a car parked at a gas station, and if he suspected that it was possibly being driven by someone who isn't valid and/or supposed to be driving at the time, ...then he should've simply continued on down the road a little bit further and either pull over (blacked out) or turned around and waited for this guy to actually pull out of the lot and onto the road, THEN pull him over.

Happy Trails - I would never do such a thing. No need to make up any story, especially when a simple statement regarding the truth will do. I don't lie, nor would I ever lie for anyone else. You asked, "What do you think you could offer in a statement that would benefit this friend?" ....well, if my statement helps benefits him, then that's a bonus to him. However, as a witness, my statement may help prove the simple fact that indeed he was not driving at the time when the officer noticed the car that had been sitting (off and unattended) and pulled into our lot with his light bar on to make an arrest on a charge of "operating a motor vehicle while barred". If my statement can help in any way, I would hope that it would have an impact on how this particular officer goes about his duties. This arrest simply should not have happened until the car was witnessed in motion.

If the subject isn't in the car, and the keys aren't in the ignition, ...how the hell can you charge any man with any charge related to driving that vehicle? The officer having not witnessed the man driving the vehicle, ...hasn't a chance in a court of law. REMEMBER, we can NOT consider how the car got there, if the officer didn't witness it, then it's not relevant. No arrest shall be made based merely on an assumption. The arresting officer here, very simply had jumped the gun. Had he waited down the street until the man pulled out, or even waited until he moved at least a few feet or so, then that would be a completely different story, but since he didn't do that, I feel the charges are bogus and will more than likely be dismissed in the furtherance of justice.

[Curt581]

If you already knew the answer to your question, why bother asking it here?



Were you just looking for someone to agree with you?

[Barry_Archer]

Originally Posted by Curt581

If you already knew the answer to your question, why bother asking it here?



Were you just looking for someone to agree with you?

Why bother asking here? Simply to make people such as yourself wonder why I bothered to ask the question here! (lol!)

So then, ...nobody else gonna chime in? Your responses would be very much appreciated.

Thanks! Barry

[Barry_Archer]

Is this a legal advise forum?? Can someone such as myself, come here and post a rather challenging legal question, and actually get helpful responses?? The poor guy is currently unable to hire an attorney due to his financial hardship and raising children. Figured that a few of the legal gurus on the board would have chimed in by now , ..however, quite obviously that didn't happen. So, the question remains the same. I'll remain hopeful and optimistic that someone that's in the know on this particular subject, will drop in to offer his/her knowledge of the law. Would very much appreciate some help.

***MY BURNING QUESTION***

Can an officer according to Iowa state law, place a subject under arrest on a driving related charge (driving while barred), when in fact the officer did not, at no time actually see, view, or witness the said subject engaged in an act related to driving a vehicle, nor did he ever witness the said subject in a vehicle. The officer rolled up on the man as he was simply walking across a parking lot.

Please advise.

Thanks!
Barry

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by Barry_Archer

***MY BURNING ***

Can an officer according to Iowa state law, place a subject under arrest on a driving related charge (driving while barred), when in fact the officer did not, at no time actually see, view, or witness the said subject engaged in an act related to driving a vehicle, nor did he ever witness the said subject in a vehicle. The officer rolled up on the man as he was simply walking across a parking lot.

You're confusing an arrest with a conviction. If the Iowa statute requires visual confirmation of the act of driving as part of the crime (I have no clue whether it does since I don't have the time to look it up now), then he cannot be convicted absent that proof.

However, the police are not required to come anywhere close to that level of "proof" to make an arrest. They are entirely permitted to assume whatever logic dictates in making their determinations.

If your friend truly has no money (yet can afford a truck?), a lawyer will be provided to him, presumably at the arraignment, so he will not go unrepresented. He can discuss all this with his attorney.



PS: Try some penecillin for the "burning".

[Barry_Archer]

You Are Guilty - Thank you for your reply! Seeing that lame crap happen as I did, really bothers the sh*t outta me. I guess that you would've had to see it for yourself to understand what I mean.

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

If your friend truly has no money (yet can afford a truck?), a lawyer will be provided to him, presumably at the arraignment, so he will not go unrepresented. He can discuss all this with his attorney.

Perhaps a simple misinterpretation?

Originally Posted by Barry_Archer

As the second cop went to go move it, the first cop (who was on his radio at the time) had jumped out of his car and said, "Hey, ..don't bother with it, I'm gonna call for a truck to come and hook it".

I guess the word, "foul" comes to mind. When an officer rolls up on a guy that's walking, jumps out of his squad car and makes an arrest, falling well short of making any attempt to investigate the situation any further at all. Having nothing more than a mere assumption,

.....Hi there kids! I'm Jerry the giraffe, I mostly eat leaves, shrubs, greens and such, ...this doesn't mean I can't smell something when it smells foul.

Originally Posted by You Are Guilty

If the Iowa statute requires visual confirmation of the act of driving as part of the crime (I have no clue whether it does since I don't have the time to look it up now)...

So YAG, please tell me how and/or where I might find out the answer specific to that very question. Would be forever grateful.

Thanks again!
Barry

[You Are Guilty]

[URL=http://www.legis.state.ia.us/IACODE/1999/XVI.html]Start here[/URL]

Plenty of reading, but there may be a search function in there somewhere to help speed things up.

[Barry_Archer]

Thank you! I went to that site, however, I didn't see one thing related to driving or traffic offenses. I also tried using the "search" feature on the site, but it didn't work ad gave me an web page error.

Thanks anyway, I certainly appreciate your time and trying to help.

Thanks!
Barry

[You Are Guilty]

Originally Posted by Barry_Archer

Thank you! I went to that site, however, I didn't see one thing related to driving or traffic offenses. I also tried using the "search" feature on the site, but it didn't work ad gave me an web page error.

Thanks anyway, I certainly appreciate your time and trying to help.

Thanks!
Barry

I cannot get a direct link to the driving section, but start here: [url]http://www.legis.state.ia.us/[/url]

Then look for the link to 2005 Iowa Code.

Surf through it for "TITLE VIII - TRANSPORTATION", then "SUBCHAPTER 2 - VEHICLES", then "CHAPTER 321 - MOTOR VEHICLES AND LAWS OF THE ROAD".

What you're looking for is in there.

[Barry_Archer]

321.488 Procedure not exclusive.
The foregoing provisions of this chapter shall govern all peace officers in making arrests without a warrant for violations of this chapter for offenses committed in their presence, but the procedure prescribed herein shall not be exclusive of any other method prescribed by law for the arrest and prosecution of a person.
[C39, § 5037.05; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.488]

Does this look like the one that might cover it??

You Are Guilty - Thank you!!

[Barry_Archer]

Sorry to pester, but please take a gander at this (..below in bold):

321.488 Procedure not exclusive.
The foregoing provisions of this chapter shall govern all peace officers in making arrests without a warrant for violations of this chapter for offenses committed in their presence, but the procedure prescribed herein shall not be exclusive of any other method prescribed by law for the arrest and prosecution of a person.
[C39, § 5037.05; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77, 79, 81, §321.488]

...does this look pertinent to what I'm looking for?? I'd looked through that stuff for a little over 7 hours, and this was the closest, most relative thing I could find. Please advise. I'd greatly appreciate it.

Thanks for the help!!
Barry