PA
This is an old thread from July 2007 , I just would like to update the information and let the board know that some of the "Freeadvice is misleading" they were never able to charge him with any wrongdoing.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
#16 07-09-2007, 07:47 AM
FlyingRon
Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio7707
Of course the driver is in default,
"Default" is not something that applies here. Will you please stop using civil court terms from your Judge Judy watching here. They do not apply to traffic/criminal citations.
Quote:
I am not defending that. The fact is that the officer did not give hime a ticket at the moment of the violation (expect it in the mail).
It is NOT required in Pennsylvania. Even for more serious crimes they can mail you the charges. They don't need to issue a citation, they don't need to arrest you. All you can argue is that you can dodge is the penalty for failure to appear if you can show you were never sent notice of the charges.
Quote:
The officer did search the trunk of a driver, he did not have a search warrant. The case was later dismissed because the officer did violate the law by not having a search warrant.
This goes similiar with "not being served properly".
What? How do you make that leap? An improper search doesn't "throw out" anything. What happens is that the evidence gained from an improper search can't be used (poisoned fruit). Hence if it was something that relied on that evidence as the basis to prove a crime was committed the charges get dropped.
"Service" has NO meaning to criminal matters in Pennsylvania or any other state I am familiar with.
FlyingRon
View Public Profile
Find all posts by FlyingRon
#17 07-09-2007, 12:08 PM
cepe10
Member Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MD, WV - formerly WA, UT, AL, MS and OR
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio7707
Thanks for all the replies , of course I post on about seven boards at the same time and it is amazing what different results I get. However this board seems to be just onesided and since researching the case I know that the most relevant issue here is that the plaintiff did
not serve the defendant properly (besides no mail received yet).
Well said - many of the senior members here rely on the "feudal lord" law system instead of US constitutional law and a very narrow minded to boot You have a legitimate angle - the law does apply and in PA defective service is an issue. Especially by non-certified mail... Motion to quash would be route to take on that IMO.
__________________
_____________________________________________________
“[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
This is an old thread from July 2007 , I just would like to update the information and let the board know that some of the "Freeadvice is misleading" they were never able to charge him with any wrongdoing.
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
#16 07-09-2007, 07:47 AM
FlyingRon
Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,120
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio7707
Of course the driver is in default,
"Default" is not something that applies here. Will you please stop using civil court terms from your Judge Judy watching here. They do not apply to traffic/criminal citations.
Quote:
I am not defending that. The fact is that the officer did not give hime a ticket at the moment of the violation (expect it in the mail).
It is NOT required in Pennsylvania. Even for more serious crimes they can mail you the charges. They don't need to issue a citation, they don't need to arrest you. All you can argue is that you can dodge is the penalty for failure to appear if you can show you were never sent notice of the charges.
Quote:
The officer did search the trunk of a driver, he did not have a search warrant. The case was later dismissed because the officer did violate the law by not having a search warrant.
This goes similiar with "not being served properly".
What? How do you make that leap? An improper search doesn't "throw out" anything. What happens is that the evidence gained from an improper search can't be used (poisoned fruit). Hence if it was something that relied on that evidence as the basis to prove a crime was committed the charges get dropped.
"Service" has NO meaning to criminal matters in Pennsylvania or any other state I am familiar with.
FlyingRon
View Public Profile
Find all posts by FlyingRon
#17 07-09-2007, 12:08 PM
cepe10
Member Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: MD, WV - formerly WA, UT, AL, MS and OR
Posts: 559
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gio7707
Thanks for all the replies , of course I post on about seven boards at the same time and it is amazing what different results I get. However this board seems to be just onesided and since researching the case I know that the most relevant issue here is that the plaintiff did
not serve the defendant properly (besides no mail received yet).
Well said - many of the senior members here rely on the "feudal lord" law system instead of US constitutional law and a very narrow minded to boot You have a legitimate angle - the law does apply and in PA defective service is an issue. Especially by non-certified mail... Motion to quash would be route to take on that IMO.
__________________
_____________________________________________________
“[w]hen a statute is clear and unambiguous and the legislative intent is plain, the statute should not be interpreted by the courts, and in such case it is the duty of the courts not to construe but to apply the statute.”
"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." Kent v. Dulles, 357 US 116, 125.
