Decepticon Maserati, "Impersonating a police officer."

[AZCamaroFan]

well on the reverse side of thing's there are a lot of unmarked crown vic's. so i guess if someone wanted to fake being a cop all they'd need are the lights inside the car on the dash or whatever.

[Overflow]

Originally Posted by c5Legend

So everyone who has a crown vic that isn't low enforcement should be charged with the same crime?

This is true.

[Camaro_Corvette]

I see cars everyday that look like cop cars. I don't see them getting arrested.

[ChrisBlair]

Boy do I know Braintree and Braintree can be plenty odd.

But the key here, folks, is not the car's paintjob. It's what the man said. He knew he was fooling people into thinking he was a cop, and he felt that was a good thing. Quote:

"The Ledger reported that Holt pulled the car over, only to have the driver claim he was actually helping law enforcement keep the roads safe.

Foster said the driver told Holt that he believed he was assisting the police “because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle.”

Whether or not they can make that stick is debatable, but he was by his own volition allowing people to think he was a cop. In fact, he sort of admitted to pretending to be a cop.

The question is: what really constitutes impersonating a cop? Does my Mass State Police T-shirt do that? Well, the State cops gave me the damn thing so I have to believe they assume I'll wear it. But in the case of this man with the Maserati, the crux of the matter will be that he knew people were being fooled, and he went with it. I think that will be a little damning. Nothing but being a cop gives you the privelege of acting like a cop, even if it's "for good".

[CruisingSpeed]

Originally Posted by c5Legend

So everyone who has a crown vic that isn't law enforcement should be charged with the same crime?

Exactly there are so many people driving around in those retired police cars. Hell why can't they get pulled over. Half the time it looks like a drug bust could be happening everywhere they go. A 20 year old retired undercover police car with a spotlight and black wheels looks just like a new undercover police car with a spotlight and black wheels.

[ChrisBlair]

Again folks, the issue here is not really the car. It's the behavior and intent of the driver.

[mr_honez]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Again folks, the issue here is not really the car. It's the behavior and intent of the driver.

This.

[KeepItShut]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Again folks, the issue here is not really the car. It's the behavior and intent of the driver.

If he's just going about his daily routine than he has no intent. Which is what happened in this case, him being pulled over cause his car had decals, paint job, etc. and not because of any specific actions. You can't control how people act when you're driving around (Lord knows I would like to able to though!)

[ChrisBlair]

I think almost everyone is looking at this wrong. Gonna be an involved reply but I hope people read it because I really think there's a need to see the real issue. If you consider that the car was a 'disguise' or a 'prop' used in impersonating a police officer, I think it gets easier to see the problem. That the car was a lousy disguise or prop is not the issue and dsoesn't matter.

Originally Posted by KeepItShut

If he's just going about his daily routine than he has no intent. Which is what happened in this case

Demonstrably not true, actually, by the driver's own admission, according to the report. He was not going about his daily routine. He was trying to be seen in this car for a purpose other than going about his daily business- he had a little extra curricular goal. He describes his intent clearly. Again, the quote:

""The Ledger reported that Holt pulled the car over, only to have the driver claim he was actually helping law enforcement keep the roads safe.

Foster said the driver told Holt that he believed he was assisting the police “because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle.”

He knew exactly what was happening; he had full knowledge of the impact of his actions. He had full intent to do what he did. He wasn't thinking straight, and he wasn't considering what his actions entailed, but he still did it.

Originally Posted by KeepItShut

him being pulled over cause his car had decals, paint job, etc. and not because of any specific actions.

That is the specific action though. It wasn't just because of "decals" or a "paintjob". That standpoint makes it seem like any old black and white paint scheme, or some stickers, makes Johnny Law overstep his bounds and harass somebody. That's not what happened here.

You might feel he was minding his own business. But he certainly wasn't. He was minding the business of other people- he wants them to slow down so he decided to act like a cop acts- he's in effect patrolling- instead of calling an actual cop and having the actual cops do an actual cop job. The Police do not know why this man has painted his car this way. This is probable cause if you ask me- the 5-0 are not mind readers, and if you paint your car to look like a Police car, then you should expect to have cops ask you a question once in a while. That's common sense. A Crown Vic having the black and white paintjob with all the crests and decals etc removed doesn't fit this description, either. Completely different from this maserati

Originally Posted by KeepItShut

You can't control how people act when you're driving around (Lord knows I would like to able to though!)

And neither can this Maserati driver, although he was trying to do exactly that, by allowing people to think he was a cop. If you tried to fool other people into thinking you were a cop, you'd be impersonating a policeman too.

We have two distinct things here:

1) Cop pulls over a car that looks like a cop car but isn't. I don't think I would ever agree that in a case like this that the cop is in the wrong for asking 'what's up with that'. That's probable cause to stop as I understand it.

2) Driver of the car indicated he knew that was letting people think he was a cop. That's evidence of an actual crime. Cops can't 'un-see' that, and they sure as hell can't leave the guy alone now, that's encouraging him to feel he's doing the right thing by letting people think he's a cop.

[Scalded Dog]

There's a guy in my 'hood who drives a black Crown Vic... his license plate frame reads:

"this is not a
POLICE CAR"

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Boy do I know Braintree and Braintree can be plenty odd.

But the key here, folks, is not the car's paintjob. It's what the man said. He knew he was fooling people into thinking he was a cop, and he felt that was a good thing. Quote:

"The Ledger reported that Holt pulled the car over, only to have the driver claim he was actually helping law enforcement keep the roads safe.

Foster said the driver told Holt that he believed he was assisting the police “because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle.”

Whether or not they can make that stick is debatable, but he was by his own volition allowing people to think he was a cop. In fact, he sort of admitted to pretending to be a cop.

The question is: what really constitutes impersonating a cop? Does my Mass State Police T-shirt do that? Well, the State cops gave me the damn thing so I have to believe they assume I'll wear it. But in the case of this man with the Maserati, the crux of the matter will be that he knew people were being fooled, and he went with it. I think that will be a little damning. Nothing but being a cop gives you the privelege of acting like a cop, even if it's "for good".

So? He pointed out the obvious, that “because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle,” doesn't mean he was impersonating a police officer. It means people are too stupid to know that he's not one. Unless he was using his car to pull people over and give them fake citations, he cannot be cited for anything. The intelligence of the other drivers on the road is not what's on trial here.

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Again folks, the issue here is not really the car. It's the behavior and intent of the driver.

Was he taking part in rolling road blocks or pulling people over? No? Then he can buy a car and paint it however he wants. So long as his door does not say "POLICE" on it, his vehicle is perfectly legal to drive on any public road at any time of day.

Originally Posted by mr_honez

This.

Nope. Not this.

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

I think almost everyone is looking at this wrong. Gonna be an involved reply but I hope people read it because I really think there's a need to see the real issue. If you consider that the car was a 'disguise' or a 'prop' used in impersonating a police officer, I think it gets easier to see the problem. That the car was a lousy disguise or prop is not the issue and dsoesn't matter.

Again, if I buy a Crown Victoria at police auction and alter the color scheme to look similar to a police vehicle, but I do not put "POLICE" anywhere on the vehicle (aside from that little "Interceptor" badge on the trunk) and then decide to drive exactly the speed limit or 5mph under it, I have not broken any laws. You and I know damn well everyone is going to think I'm a police officer, but so long as I do not attempt to pull anyone over, I am not committing the act of "impersonating" an officer.

Just because I have a high and tight hair cut does not mean I'm impersonating a Marine. It means I like not having to use all that much shampoo when I shower. If you make the mistake of thinking I'm a Marine, that's your own problem, not mine.

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

Demonstrably not true, actually, by the driver's own admission, according to the report. He was not going about his daily routine. He was trying to be seen in this car for a purpose other than going about his daily business- he had a little extra curricular goal. He describes his intent clearly. Again, the quote:

""The Ledger reported that Holt pulled the car over, only to have the driver claim he was actually helping law enforcement keep the roads safe.

Foster said the driver told Holt that he believed he was assisting the police “because other drivers noticed him and slowed down, thinking it was a police vehicle.”

He knew exactly what was happening; he had full knowledge of the impact of his actions. He had full intent to do what he did. He wasn't thinking straight, and he wasn't considering what his actions entailed, but he still did it.

Again, so? Am I not allowed to just go for a drive in my car? Am I not allowed to paint my doors white? Where does the law-book say I cannot have a black car with white doors? Nowhere? Did the guy pull anyone over? Nope?

No laws broken.

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

That is the specific action though. It wasn't just because of "decals" or a "paintjob". That standpoint makes it seem like any old black and white paint scheme, or some stickers, makes Johnny Law overstep his bounds and harass somebody. That's not what happened here.

You might feel he was minding his own business. But he certainly wasn't. He was minding the business of other people- he wants them to slow down so he decided to act like a cop acts- he's in effect patrolling- instead of calling an actual cop and having the actual cops do an actual cop job. The Police do not know why this man has painted his car this way. This is probable cause if you ask me- the 5-0 are not mind readers, and if you paint your car to look like a Police car, then you should expect to have cops ask you a question once in a while. That's common sense. A Crown Vic having the black and white paintjob with all the crests and decals etc removed doesn't fit this description, either. Completely different from this maserati

So, if I sit in my front yard with a radar gun and aim it at passing vehicles while wearing a dark blue polo and aviator sunglasses, I will get cited for impersonating an officer?

Originally Posted by ChrisBlair

And neither can this Maserati driver, although he was trying to do exactly that, by allowing people to think he was a cop. If you tried to fool other people into thinking you were a cop, you'd be impersonating a policeman too.

We have two distinct things here:

1) Cop pulls over a car that looks like a cop car but isn't. I don't think I would ever agree that in a case like this that the cop is in the wrong for asking 'what's up with that'. That's probable cause to stop as I understand it.

2) Driver of the car indicated he knew that was letting people think he was a cop. That's evidence of an actual crime. Cops can't 'un-see' that, and they sure as hell can't leave the guy alone now, that's encouraging him to feel he's doing the right thing by letting people think he's a cop.

People are allowed to think whatever they want. If they're too stupid to know the difference between a Maserati and a police vehicle, that's their own stupidity, and there's no law saying I should get in trouble for them being morons.

1) I feel like I'm typing the same thing over and over, but here you go. If I buy a car, ANY car, and have it painted similar to a cop car's paint scheme, I have not broken any laws. If I drive it around on my free time at or slightly below the speed limit, I have not broken any laws. If I pull someone over and harass them, I have crossed over into breaking the law. But so long as all I'm doing is driving a car that "looks" like a cop car, there is absolutely nothing in the law that says I am required to advertise to all other motorists that I am NOT a police officer.

2) Everyone who purchases a Crown Vic from a police auction knows damn well that their vehicle will make other people think they are a cop. And you and I know damn well every one of those driver's has no intention of letting people know that they are NOT a cop at all. So what? Whether or not it's right doesn't matter, it's not against the law.

Are you trying to imply that all former police vehicles sold at auction should have "THIS IS NOT A COP" spray painted on all four sides? Because that's the only "solution" to the "problem" you believe is against the law...

[pickwithaustin]

Originally Posted by Jay_LHD3

I see so many retired cop cars on the road everyday. Unless his decals say police, or other law enforcement agency, I don't see the problem.

I drive one. People call me "officer" all the time. I'm pumping gas and a woman at the next pump will say, "Hello, Officer." The other day I was dropping something off at a local law enforcement facility and I parked and walked up to a security locked door and an officer outside the door swiped it for me, I guess assuming I was a cop. ? - That said, the original police logos are removed from the vehicle and it simply looks like an unmarked (Crown Vic). Dressing up any car after a kid's toy seems a bit odd to me though.

[motorhead]

Originally Posted by CamaroSkooter

Unless he was actually pulling people over, or was using strobe lights and sirens to run red lights and/or stop signs, then the court has literally zero case against him.

You can purchase any and all LEO stuff you want, but as long as you're not actively using it to harass other motorists, then no law has been broken.

Besides, any idiot who thinks a Maserati is a police vehicle used in everyday traffic stops must be one dumb SOB (unless you're in Dubai).

In Pa, you are not allow to display any light bars turned on or turned off. They have to be covered and say out of service. Other than that, I believe you can copy a police vehicle all you want. Like others have said too, there are many unmarks in the hands of civilians.

[CamaroSkooter]

Originally Posted by motorhead

In Pa, you are not allow to display any light bars turned on or turned off. They have to be covered and say out of service. Other than that, I believe you can copy a police vehicle all you want. Like others have said too, there are many unmarks in the hands of civilians.

Right, obviously from state to state the laws differ and I can only speak to the legality in Texas. I imagine having a lightbar over the roof is crossing into a pretty grey area, but if all the lights in the lightbar are clear/white and/or amber in color, it would be completely legal for a civilian to own in Texas. In fact, I've seen several instances where a civilian vehicle has a smaller lightbar on the roof (typically a truck, though) where I'm speculating that the driver probably uses on construction sites.

Again, completely legal to own here. If you start to use that to pull people over though, completely illegal.

And to be quite honest, if you're using a lightbar to attempt to pull people over, it doesn't matter what your car's paint scheme is. It's illegal.

Owning a black Maserati that has white doors and some decals though, not illegal, in any state.