[*BCM*] Just got "pulled over" for running a red on Mass. Ave.

[Jim Leonard]

On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 05:59:12PM +0000, rawillis3 at juno.com wrote:
> I had the text of Hiibel in front of me as I wrote up the summary, but of course that does not mean that I did not misstate something.  At the end of my summary I raised the question whether this was a "Terry" stop.  Thanks for finding the statute, though, because it seems to me that statute attempts to apply Terry/Hiibel principles to a traffic infraction with an officer directly observes.  Someone wants to go to jail over this and take it up the Roberts court, go for it.

I don't think you'd fare so well if you tried to go against this.  Hiibel was a case where there was no reason to arrest the person other than him not providing his name (not that the officer ever asked for it, he only asked to see ID).  In the case of an officer witnessing a violation, the state has the option of arresting you.  It's just that in Massachusetts, the state chooses not to arrest you if it believes that it has sufficient information to arrest you later if you fail to show up in court/pay your fine.  Prior to Hiibel you may have been able to argue that the extra fine of $20 - $50 for not providing your name and address was unconstitutional but there may be other things that might have weakened that argument but I don't know and Ianal.

--jim