Is this Entrapment?

[Peabo]

I am in Illinois.

I was traveling in the middle lane going 55 in a 55 zone. A police officer then passes me on my left. I change lanes and follow him. The officer increases his speed and I match him. Remember, I am currently BEHIND the officer. I looked down at one point and saw that the officer was going nearly 80 in the 55 zone. It should be noted that the officer did not have his lights on and there was nobody infront of him to follow. The officer then made a very unsafe lane change, without signaling. This startled me so i began to slow down. The officer then slammed on his breaks, I passed him on the left and when I passed him I know for a fact I was going 55. He then zipped behind me and pulled me over. From what I understand this is entrapment. Anyone have any advice?

It should also be noted that I have never had a moving violation.

Thanks.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

I would love for you to explain this to a judge.

"You're honor, I wouldn't have sped except that the cop was speeding so I thought it was o.k.".

Ya right.

 

[Peabo]

So are you saying then that police officers dont have to obey traffic laws when their lights are not on?

 

[Curt581]

So are you saying then that police officers dont have to obey traffic laws when their lights are not on?

Did the officer hook a chain to your front bumper, and tow you along to those speeds?

To answer your question, there are circumstances where police officers are allowed to violate traffic law without running red lights and siren. Examples would be when an officer is attempting to catch up to a traffic violator, when an officer is responding to a call where the offenders are still present, and he doesn't want to warn them of his approach, or when an officer is collecting evidence of a speeding violation.

As far as I know, it was your right foot on your gas pedal, not his. I can not understand what possessed you to accelerate to what you knew was an illegal speed, and try to pace a police car.

I'd like to thank you, and thank everyone that thinks as you do. As long as you're around, I never have to worry about job security.

 

[CdwJava]

It is NOT entrapment. As was said, he coul dhave had a lawful reason to be violating the speed limit. And even if he WAS violating the limit, that is not good cause for you to do so as well. Once you pulled in behind him he could well have been pacing you from in front ... as long as you kept up with him he had a good pace on you.

If you want to complain about his speed, complain to the city/county/state agency that governs the officer. But it is not going to absolve you of your offense.

- Carl

 

[Peabo]

Thank you all for your very cinical responces, however, you are all wrong. I contacted the DA for my county and after meeting with him, he waved my ticked becuase of entrapment.

 

[CdwJava]

Thank you all for your very cinical responces, however, you are all wrong. I contacted the DA for my county and after meeting with him, he waved my ticked becuase of entrapment.

Interesting.

Well, he may have dismissed it, and maybe he didn't like the officer's speeding, but I can't see where it would be entrapment.

Lucky you.

Hopefully you slow down.

- Carl

 

[You Are Guilty]

Thank you all for your very cinical responces, however, you are all wrong. I contacted the DA for my county and after meeting with him, he waved my ticked becuase of entrapment.

Yeah right In the three hours (after working hours I might add) that it took between posts, you managed to not only speak to the correct ADA< but, solely via telephone, get the ticket dismissed. Suuuuuuure.

You are not only guilty, you're an idiot.

 

[seniorjudge]

Thank you all for your very cinical responces, however, you are all wrong. I contacted the DA for my county and after meeting with him, he waved my ticked becuase of entrapment.

The state's attorney may have dismissed this but he does not have to tell you a reason.

As a former prosecutor, I would have dismissed it too because if the cops had wanted me to prosecute you under your set of facts, I would've told them, "I am a lousy actor and cannot present this with a straight face to a jury."

 

[jkruler]

The state's attorney may have dismissed this but he does not have to tell you a reason.

As a former prosecutor, I would have dismissed it too because if the cops had wanted me to prosecute you under your set of facts, I would've told them, "I am a lousy actor and cannot present this with a straight face to a jury."

Umm...OK. Just out of curiosity, in what jurisdiction do traffic ticket disputes go before a jury?

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Umm...OK. Just out of curiosity, in what jurisdiction do traffic ticket disputes go before a jury?

The same jurisdiction where you can contact an ADA after business hours, speak for a few minutes over the phone and get a traffic ticket dismissed.

Get real, this jerk is not only a speeder, but a liar as well.

 

[JETX]

So are you saying then that police officers dont have to obey traffic laws when their lights are not on?

If the officer is on a call (not all calls require lights and sirens), he can exceed the posted speed limit.
We used to have three types of responses:
Code 1: Lights and sirens
Code 2: Lights only
Code 3: No lights or sirens, SAFE speed.

Thank you all for your very cinical responces, however, you are all wrong. I contacted the DA for my county and after meeting with him, he waved my ticked becuase of entrapment.

Clearly, you are confused... or lying. Let me help you to understand how we can tell.

entrapment
n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or government agents inducing or encouraging a person to commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of the criminal act originated with the police or government agents instead of with the "criminal." Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal prosecution.

You can clearly see that your claim of entrapment doesn't even come close to the facts.

 

[CdwJava]

In my state you may only break certain traffic laws when driving with lights AND sirens. Without one or the other, the officer would not be covered. And even when driving with lights and sirens there is an affirmative duty for an officer to drive with care and due regard for traffic and roadway conditions.

And out here the common terminology would be just the opposite:

Code 1: Normal, routine driving.
Code 2: Lights only; expedited transit
Code 3: Lights and sirens.

Although no agency out here that has revised their policies in the last 10 years or so is going to have a "code 2" policy as it does not protect you of anything. In CA it's supposed to be either lights and sirens or nothing. Though in practice, there are calls we take a risk to get to that don't fall into the code 3 driving policies, so we cross our fingers and do it.

- Carl

 

[racer72]

My BS meter was pegged too. Only a judge can dismiss a ticket, all the DA can do to dismiss the charges and hope the judge agrees. And I have seen judges not go along with the DA's reccommendation. I would wonder if the OP would post the county he received the ticket and his citation number. Illinois has a very friendly site for searching the court system, I am sure this would be posted there.

 

[thomas111]

some patrol units have radar pointing from the back of the car, FYI. It sounds like he gave you the old fashioned brake test.

Why were you following the PU at such a high speed? He can get you for disgregard for safety (PC not HS code). It doesnt matter if the unit didnt have his lights on - you saw it.

entrapment should only apply to those situations where a driver did not see the patrol unit.

is there a way for you to prove the lights werent on?