Remember Chicken Steve?

[Joe Guy]

I found him on YouTube.....

[Sue U]

Sure, it's funny I guess, but what exactly did this guy do wrong to justify being arrested? Within a minute the cop went straight to "We can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way. The hard way, on the way to jail we're going to stop by the hospital." WTAF??? Threatening serious bodily injury and jail for what is at most a minor traffic ticket offense??? Fuckin' cops, man.

[Joe Guy]

Well, Steve is drinking alcohol while driving a machine that's not street-legal on a public road and being non-cooperative with a police officer. Other than that, the cop may not have used the best choice of words to communicate the alternatives available to the detainee.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Good job Steve's not black, eh? Conversation might be:

Bang bang bang
"We can do this the . . . oh"

[Gob]

Steve's not black?

[Sue U]

Well, Steve is drinking alcohol

Not illegal.

while driving a machine

Not a good idea, but most probably not actually illegal.

that's not street-legal on a public road

It's not an automobile, motorcycle, truck or similar vehicle regulated by the Motor Vehicle Code, so there is no "street legal" designation that's relevant. This doesn't appear to be a restricted access roadway, so anything is "legal" on it, from pedestrians to skateboards to bicycles to donkey carts to horses. I see plenty of front-end loaders and similar equipment driving down roadways all the time. What's different here? It's not like he was going on a road trip; he was going to a nearby worksite.

and being non-cooperative with a police officer.

What law requires anyone to "cooperat[e] with a police officer" if you are not at a minimum being "detained" or arrested?

Other than that, the cop may not have used the best choice of words to communicate the alternatives available to the detainee.

Steve here was not actually "detained" (there being no reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity); the cop attacked him in the scissor lift (while barking "Stop resisting!") without mentioning he was "under arrest" or identifying any charge justifying the "arrest."

If public safety were really the cop's primary focus, he could have provided Steve with a police escort to the worksite in the lift and advised his employer of the reason for the escort. Or he could have simply had a co-worker retrieve the lift. It would have taken at most a couple of minutes rather than the 20 involved on-site here, and nobody would be spending the rest of the day (or longer) in a lock-up for no legitimate reason. But this cop has only one tool in his kit: arrest and detention unless (or, probably, even though) you immediately comply with his every arbitrary demand.

The fact that this video is posted as har-har hi-larious whattamaroon rather than an example of really shitty and overbearing police work shows just how willing you are to accept a literal police state.

[Big RR]

It's not an automobile, motorcycle, truck or similar vehicle regulated by the Motor Vehicle Code, so there is no "street legal" designation that's relevant. This doesn't appear to be a restricted access roadway, so anything is "legal" on it, from pedestrians to skateboards to bicycles to donkey carts to horses. I see plenty of front-end loaders and similar equipment driving down roadways all the time. What's different here? It's not like he was going on a road trip; he was going to a nearby worksite.

Sue, since it is self propelled by a motor, are you certain it is not subject to registration requirements? I once had a client who drove an SUV on a public road and was ticketed for driving on the road (apparently there is a statute covering this and for driving an unregistered motor vehicle on a public road. We bargained it down, but my research showed both were statutory provisions.

Similarly, NJ's DUI law cover operation of all motor vehicles (which are defined as any vehicle not powered solely by personal muscle power, excepting motorized bicycles), so DUI detention/arrest was clearly possible.

Now I don't know where this occurred, but would imagine the laws in most jurisdictions are simiiar.

The cop clearly came across as a jerk, but you rarely, if ever, "win" by antagonizing the cop.

[Joe Guy]

The fact that this video is posted as har-har hi-larious whattamaroon rather than an example of really shitty and overbearing police work shows just how willing you are to accept a literal police state.

No, it doesn't. It's a video of a person operating a machine that is clearly not roadworthy. The police officer saw the man drinking from a can of beer and sitting on at least one case of beer while 'driving' so he had probable cause to believe the dumbshit could be intoxicated and a danger to others on the road - or a danger to himself.

The video is "har-har hi-larious" because of the way the idiot responded to the officer. He was acting like a drunk, which may not be funny to you. If a drunk on the road operating a scissor-lift isn't funny to you, I'd think you would at least give the officer some credit for attempting to assess the man's ability to continue to operate a potentially dangerous vehicle on a public road.

[Sue U]

Sue, since it is self propelled by a motor, are you certain it is not subject to registration requirements?

Well, since you asked, NJSA 39:3-1 specifically states "self-propelling vehicles as are used neither for the conveyance of persons for hire, pleasure or business, nor for the transportation of freights, ... are excepted from the provisions of this chapter." So no, a scissor lift would not be subject to registration requirements, anymore than would be a riding lawn mower or a forklift or a front-end loader. But even if it were, driving a vehicle without proper registration would not subject anyone to arrest.

Similarly, NJ's DUI law cover operation of all motor vehicles (which are defined as any vehicle not powered solely by personal muscle power, excepting motorized bicycles), so DUI detention/arrest was clearly possible.

Assuming a scissor lift could fit within the definition of "motor vehicle," maybe -- but there was no field sobriety test I saw being administered. And seeing one beer being drunk does not in and of itself suggest intoxication. (Theoretically they might have charged him with "open container," I guess.) But I don't know that a scissor lift could be considered a "vehicle," as it is certainly not designed or intended as a mode of transporting either people or cargo.

It's a video of a person operating a machine that is clearly not roadworthy.

And again, "roadworthiness" is not a basis for any kind of charge unless he were actually impeding traffic or otherwise posing a threat to other motorists.

The police officer saw the man drinking from a can of beer and sitting on at least one case of beer while 'driving' so he had probable cause to believe the dumbshit could be intoxicated and a danger to others on the road - or a danger to himself.

Without more, seeing him drinking from a can of beer is not probable cause for anything other than an "open container" violation -- if a scissor lift even qualifies as a "motor vehicle" (see my comments above). He could have been sitting on a barrel of beer and it still wouldn't mean a damn thing.

The video is "har-har hi-larious" because of the way the idiot responded to the officer. He was acting like a drunk, which may not be funny to you.

He was acting like a goofball, for sure. Which again is not illegal. I've known plenty of people who act like goofballs even when they're not drunk.

I'd think you would at least give the officer some credit for attempting to assess the man's ability to continue to operate a potentially dangerous vehicle on a public road.

Except that he didn't actually attempt to assess anything or remove "a potentially dangerous vehicle" by any means other than attacking and locking up a guy who hadn't harmed anyone and who, with a bare minimum of assistance, would be highly unlikely to. Instead, now some poor schmuck is enmeshed in the "justice system" facing serious penalties and costing both him and taxpayers substantial sums of money for something that was no more serious than a lunchtime joyride. This is emblematic of what is wrong with "policing" in this country.

[Joe Guy]

It's a video of a person operating a machine that is clearly not roadworthy.

And again, "roadworthiness" is not a basis for any kind of charge unless he were actually impeding traffic or otherwise posing a threat to other motorists.

I'd bet that "Roadworthiness" of a motorized vehicle is a basis for some type of charge in some jurisdictions. If you can't drive a car on the road that's actually built for the roadways when it has no brake lights or some other violation, it seems that unless there are legal exemptions for scissor lifts being driven on a public road by someone with an open container of alcohol, there are likely many places that it would not be allowed.

Without more, seeing him drinking from a can of beer is not probable cause for anything other than an "open container" violation -- if a scissor lift even qualifies as a "motor vehicle" (see my comments above). He could have been sitting on a barrel of beer and it still wouldn't mean a damn thing.

So it's your opinion that a police officer shouldn't be concerned if he sees someone drinking beer and then hopping on to a scissor lift stocked with beer and then driving down the road?

He was acting like a goofball, for sure. Which again is not illegal. I've known plenty of people who act like goofballs even when they're not drunk.

Yes, he was acting like a goofball. And he was drinking beer and his scissor lift was stocked with more beer.

I'd think you would at least give the officer some credit for attempting to assess the man's ability to continue to operate a potentially dangerous vehicle on a public road.

Except that he didn't actually attempt to assess anything or remove "a potentially dangerous vehicle" by any means other than attacking and locking up a guy who hadn't harmed anyone and who, with a bare minimum of assistance, would be highly unlikely to. Instead, now some poor schmuck is enmeshed in the "justice system" facing serious penalties and costing both him and taxpayers substantial sums of money for something that was no more serious than a lunchtime joyride. This is emblematic of what is wrong with "policing" in this country.

The officer attempted to get the man to come off the lift and talk to him. Then the idiot started bouncing up and down and acting stupid like a drunk. The dumbshit's response was enough for me to question the man's sobriety. Based solely on what we see happening in the video, I'd rather see an officer do what this one did rather than assuming the idiot was perfectly fine doing what he was doing. Besides being a potentially drunk driver, the guy shouldn't have been drinking while at work operating machinery. Then later he'd be drinking more and probably driving home on a public road. A potential tragedy may have been prevented by this officer.

[Bicycle Bill]

So, if I get drunk as a lord while riding my bicycle — which in Wisconsin does not meet the qualifications to be considered a 'motor vehicle' and requires neither vehicle registration nor a license or certification to operate it — on a public roadway and a cop pulls me over, I can just tell him to fuck off and go catch a real criminal?

Maybe not, but the cop CAN determine that, based on the circumstances, I am a hazard to the well-being of myself or others and detain me under what is called a "Chapter 51" hold in a hospital or mental health facility for up to 24 72 hours.
(edited to correct length of time one can be involuntarily held under Chapter 51)

-"BB"-

[Joe Guy]

.....Maybe not, but the cop CAN determine that, based on the circumstances, I am a hazard to the well-being of myself or others and detain me under what is called a "Chapter 51" hold in a hospital or mental health facility for up to 24 hours.

Here in California under DMV Vehicle Code 21200.5 you can get busted for a CUI (cycling under the influence) "Notwithstanding Section 21200, it is unlawful for any person to ride a bicycle upon a highway while under the influence of an alcoholic beverage or any drug, or under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and any drug........"

btw - California's legal definition of Highway under our Vehicle Code is: a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Highway includes street.

[Long Run]

Back in college days, a friend got a bicycling while drunk ticket.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It would have been OK if he'd been painted yellow

[Big RR]

Sue--

Assuming a scissor lift could fit within the definition of "motor vehicle," maybe -- but there was no field sobriety test I saw being administered. And seeing one beer being drunk does not in and of itself suggest intoxication. (Theoretically they might have charged him with "open container," I guess.) But I don't know that a scissor lift could be considered a "vehicle," as it is certainly not designed or intended as a mode of transporting either people or cargo.

Re your first point, I agree there was no field sobriety test administered, but then I do think the behavior of the person would probably be sufficient to indicate he was likely under the influence (at least as much as some of the things used, such as a furtive lane change would) and his failure to cooperate could well have been seen as making a roadside sobriety test difficult if not impossible to administer. Further, I do think a motor vehicle operator can be arrested and given a breathalyzer test without a roadside sobriety test so long as the police officer's reason was based on some evidence, and it is likely that this would suffice here (although a field sobriety test is generally performed as a fallback in case the breathalyzer results are thrown out). Sure, it would be fun to challenge it in court, and there are bases for such a challenge (including your second point re whether the jack is a motor vehicle), but the courts have pretty much upheld many things on a DUI which would into be sufficient if it were a criminal matter. Add to it that DUI' s are heard in municipal court where the judge is an employee of the same town that gets some of the revenue, and we see why procedures are much looser for DUIs despite the draconian penalties that can be imposed for even a first offense. FWIW, I don't have the time to look it up, but in one DUI course I took (when I had my own practice) I recall somone riding their lawn mower on the street was successfully prosecuted for a DUI; and people have even been convicted (and upheld on appeal) for DUI on private property.

[Sue U]

I'd bet that "Roadworthiness" of a motorized vehicle is a basis for some type of charge in some jurisdictions.

"I'd bet" is not an actual basis for either traffic code or criminal culpability; there has to be some actual statute defining the elements of the offense in order to charge anyone with anything.

If you can't drive a car on the road that's actually built for the roadways when it has no brake lights or some other violation, it seems that unless there are legal exemptions for scissor lifts being driven on a public road by someone with an open container of alcohol, there are likely many places that it would not be allowed.

You have it exactly backwards. Freedom to engage in any conduct -- including use of public roadways -- is generally available unless there is some law that limits or otherwise regulates it. Automobiles and trucks are subject to the equipment regulations concerning autos and trucks. Bicycles and bicyclists are subject to whatever regulations govern bicycling -- which are not the same as those governing autos and trucks, although both use the same roadways. All manner of construction, landscaping and other "vehicles" are operated on public roadways, many of which require nothing more than a red triangle or other emblem indicating a "slow-moving vehicle." But failing to have such an emblem -- or to ride a bike without a helmet or on the sidewalk or whatever -- doesn't subject the operator to arrest.

So it's your opinion that a police officer shouldn't be concerned if he sees someone drinking beer and then hopping on to a scissor lift stocked with beer and then driving down the road?

No, it's my opinion that a police officer shouldn't automatically resort to maximal coercive force when confronted with a minor and legally questionable "infraction."

Yes, he was acting like a goofball. And he was drinking beer and his scissor lift was stocked with more beer.

Yes, and so what?

The officer attempted to get the man to come off the lift and talk to him. Then the idiot started bouncing up and down and acting stupid like a drunk.

And then literally ONE MINUTE into the interaction the officer threatens physical violence requiring a trip to the hospital followed by detention in jail. Is that your opinion of a totally appropriate police response?

Based solely on what we see happening in the video, I'd rather see an officer do what this one did

I guess that answers my last question, then. Good luck with your civil rights.

Besides being a potentially drunk driver, the guy shouldn't have been drinking while at work operating machinery.

Not any of the cop's business.

Then later he'd be drinking more and probably driving home on a public road.

Do you always go on to spend the rest of the day drinking to excess if you' ve had a beer at lunch? Maybe he was going to put that case of beer in the trunk of his car at the worksite to take home. Maybe he was going to give beers to his co-workers. Maybe it wasn't even his. You have no idea. And neither did the cop.

Sure, it would be fun to challenge it in court, and there are bases for such a challenge (including your second point re whether the jack is a motor vehicle), but the courts have pretty much upheld many things on a DUI which would into be sufficient if it were a criminal matter.

We could argue forever about the technicalities of what offense if any may have been committed and whether the proofs would hold up in court. But that completely misses the point of my complaint here: If public safety were really the primary focus of policing, the cop could have resolved this extremely minor situation in a variety of other ways that did not require the excessive time, the needless public and personal costs, and the unnecessary burden on judicial and penal resources that go with the arrest here. But as I said, this cop has only one tool in his kit, and it is emblematic of what is wrong with policing in this country. Moreover, the fact that so many fail to even question the cop's conduct and even attempt to justify it as perfectly reasonable seems to me an indicator of submission to --if not a full embrace of -- authoritarianism and a police state.

[Crackpot]

Jim would have loved this thread. Conjures up memories of “bright safety yellow”

[Big RR]

The cop doesn't have just one tool, he has two big hindrances to acting in a matter to preserve public safety--his ego (and many cops have mighty big ones) and the pressure of the town and police force to generate revenue. I'm not defending the cop, but I do think it's likely he acted legally and within departmental guidelines, and both the law and the guidelines have more to do with revenue than public safety.

It's just that way. I recall a number of years back when radar detectors were selling, the towns and the cops tried to have them banned in the name of "safety"; safety(and less people speeding) could have been achieved by just putting radar signal generators at variable places in town, forcing those who had the detectors to slow down, but that would affect the revenue so we couldn't have that. We had to ban those devices.

As for ego and revenue combining, law or policy (I don't know which) requires roadside sobriety checks to be taped (and the tapes are discoverable), yet nearly every tape I have gotten has the testing to be done in the least visible area of the field of view of the dash cam--that cannot be a coincidence. But doing it that way soothes the cop's ego about being "watched" and makes challenging it much more difficult. Indeed, I recall once having a young female client and when they arrested her they performed the pat-down right in front of the camera (presumably to avoid any claims of molestation), while the check was partially offscreen--they could do it when it suited them.

did the cop act reasonably here? Not really. But I do think he acted legally. And personally, I'd much rather fight in court than try to reason with an unreasonable cop--you just won't win.

[TPFKA@W]

Good gravy Marie, you people do know how to squeeze the humor right out of a joke. Steve Jessup is known for these types of videos and I am quite sure it is not an actual legal incident, with no actual police involved. Lawyers

https://iknowmyrights.com/videos

[Big RR]

Never having seen a Steven Jessup video before, I did not know that. In the words of Emily Litella, "Never mind".