No speeding tickets for lawmakers during legislative session

[EE_]

The question comes to mind, why, what reason, would a trooper/cop have to prevent a congressman/senator from voting?


SEATTLE - Taxpayers are stunned to learn that if a trooper pulls over a state representative during the legislative session, the officer will have to let them go.

It all comes down to language in the State Constitution that's a throwback to centuries ago, when politicians in England would try to arrest opponents to prevent them from voting in parliament.

Washington's earliest lawmakers didn't want that happening to them, so it was written into the State Constitution and remains today.

"We interpret the Constitution to say that they can't be impeded on their way to legislative session, and so we'll follow that policy," Washington State Patrol's Bob Calkins says.

Troopers say they can't know the face of every state senator or representative, but they do let one go about five or six times a year.

"If the trooper were to learn during the course of a traffic stop that the person is a legislator, that they're on their way to legislative session, the trooper would simply get them on their way as soon as possible," Calkins adds.

State Representative David Sawyer, only one year into his term, remembers hearing about the speeding privilege rule in ethics training.

"I don't think anyone would do that, because I think people would be outraged," Sawyer says. "You're not above the law, that's ridiculous."
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/No-speeding-tickets-for-lawmakers-during-legislative-session-223999701.html

[Publico]

As long as the legislator/driver is actually going to or from the meeting of the legislature then I have no problem letting the legislator go 15 to 30 m.p.h. faster (conditions permitting).

For example, if a legislator is driving home to his district 200 miles away on the weekend or driving to the legislature on Monday morning (they start at 1 p.m. on Mondays) and is speeding 30 m.p.h. over the limit on the interstate in light traffic then what's the problem? But doing 30 over the limit through a school zone then that's a breach of the peace and ticketable / arrestable. Just a little common sense.

[EE_]

As long as the legislator/driver is actually going to or from the meeting of the legislature then I have no problem letting the legislator go 15 to 30 m.p.h. faster (conditions permitting).

For example, if a legislator is driving home to his district 200 miles away on the weekend or driving to the legislature on Monday morning (they start at 1 p.m. on Mondays) and is speeding 30 m.p.h. over the limit on the interstate in light traffic then what's the problem? But doing 30 over the limit through a school zone then that's a breach of the peace and ticketable / arrestable. Just a little common sense.

So letting the legislator/driver going to, or from the meeting of the legislature go and tagging you for speeding 15 to 30 over m.p.h. right behind him, while you are going to your job meeting is okay?

For example, you are driving home from your out of town business, 200 miles away on the weekend, or driving to your business on Monday morning (you start at 8 a.m. on Mondays) and are speeding 30 m.p.h. over the limit on the interstate in light traffic, next to a congressman, and you both get pulled over...the trooper lets the congressman go and gives you a $400 ticket and 2 points on your drivers license, then what's the problem?

I believe in many states if you are going 30 mph over the interstate speed limit of 70 mph,
your car gets impounded, you go to jail and lose your license.

[palani]

If he happens to injure someone then he is still responsible. The state does not assume responsibility.

But then that is the common law. Statute law requiring the trooper to not pull him over is the law controlling the TROOPER and nobody else.

[Publico]

So letting the legislator/driver going to, or from the meeting of the legislature go and tagging you for speeding 15 to 30 over m.p.h. right behind him, while you are going to your job meeting is okay?

For example, you are driving home from your out of town business, 200 miles away on the weekend, or driving to your business on Monday morning (you start at 8 a.m. on Mondays) and are speeding 30 m.p.h. over the limit on the interstate in light traffic, next to a congressman, and you both get pulled over...the trooper lets the congressman go and gives you a $400 ticket and 2 points on your drivers license, then what's the problem?

I believe in many states if you are going 30 mph over the interstate speed limit of 70 mph,
your car gets impounded, you go to jail and lose your license.

A legislator is conducting the public business while my business is just that my business.

There was a reason for the founders putting in the privilege from arrest while going to and travel from their legislative duties. Personally, I would prefer the legislator be free from arrest for some minor offense than be hassled by the man.

Driving 30 mph over the limit on a lightly traveled interstate highway with 3 cars a mile is a lot different traveling the same road with 100 vehicles per mile. The former does not arise to the breach of the peace while the latter with the necessary weaving in the out may very draw great concern to public safety thus a breach of the peace.

I am not giving the green light for a legislator to violate the traffic laws willy-nilly I am willing consider what he was up and why to when pulled over. If the offense is that bad the legislative chamber and/or the voters can correct his action.

[madfranks]

I think the same rules should apply to everyone. Granting special privileges to "special" people is granting them a status higher than the rest of us. And by what authority can one man give rights to other people, rights that he himself does not have to give?

[VX1]

By your logic, Publico, the legislators should also be exempted from Obummercare, because they need to live as long as possible to 'bless' us with more laws.... (which they'll be exempt from)


Doh!

[vacuum]

The question comes to mind, why, what reason, would a trooper/cop have to prevent a congressman/senator from voting?

Very important/tight vote coming up, the legislator in question will vote against something that either the police chief is against or somebody who knows a cop which is willing to keep the legislator from physically being there due to detainment is against.

Basically, it's preventing the executive branch from interfering with the legislative branch of government.

The lower down you go the more important it becomes, I can see city councilmen being tied up so they can't vote on something important because of a back channel order from the mayor, for example.

[ximmy]

god bless our betters... :rolleyes:

[Serpo]

Another example of idiotic laws

[EE_]

Very important/tight vote coming up, the legislator in question will vote against something that either the police chief is against or somebody who knows a cop which is willing to keep the legislator from physically being there due to detainment is against.

Basically, it's preventing the executive branch from interfering with the legislative branch of government.

The lower down you go the more important it becomes, I can see city councilmen being tied up so they can't vote on something important because of a back channel order from the mayor, for example.

Thank you for making my point. The police department up to the chief, is corrupt, should not be trusted and easily bought off.
Corrupt laws for corrupt public servants.

[EE_]

By your logic, Publico, the legislators should also be exempted from Obummercare, because they need to live as long as possible to 'bless' us with more laws.... (which they'll be exempt from)
Doh!

Don't forget that we let them inside trade stocks. They create laws that affect markets and can move stocks. Beautiful thing.

[Publico]

Very important/tight vote coming up, the legislator in question will vote against something that either the police chief is against or somebody who knows a cop which is willing to keep the legislator from physically being there due to detainment is against.

Basically, it's preventing the executive branch from interfering with the legislative branch of government.

The lower down you go the more important it becomes, I can see city councilmen being tied up so they can't vote on something important because of a back channel order from the mayor, for example.


Thank you for making my point. The police department up to the chief, is corrupt, should not be trusted and easily bought off.
Corrupt laws for corrupt public servants.


Don't forget that we let them inside trade stocks. They create laws that affect markets and can move stocks. Beautiful thing.

"We" don't let them, they let themselves.

As for the reason the letting a legislator speed while traveling to and from the legislative session; it said a cop can pull over a driver for a traffic offense after 1/4 mile. Now who wants a Governor ordering his state troopers to pull over members of Congress to delay, prevent or otherwise hinder cause the Governor disagrees with. Now you have placed YOUR member of Congress who is suppose to REPRESENT you in Congress in jeopardy of being arrested by some two-bit Governor (or as pointed out above some local police chief).

Sorry, there are a hell of a lot more pressing problems with legislative members taking under the table pay offs and other corruption than compared to a member speeding to and from their legislative duties free from arrest except for treason, felony or breach of the peace. If the problem is really a problem the legislature or the voters can take of the problem.

There is a reason why EVERY state constitution and the federal constitution has a privilege from arrest clause for legislators. Those who don't know history are damned to repeat it.

And a parallel statutory provisions protects voters from arrest except for treason, felonies and a breach of the peace while going to and from the polling place. Now don't you feel better knowing you too can speed on election day while driving to and from the polling place?

[BrewTech]

I think the same rules should apply to everyone. Granting special privileges to "special" people is granting them a status higher than the rest of us. And by what authority can one man give rights to other people, rights that he himself does not have to give?

Law of Gravity ---> applies to all things, which is why it is called a LAW.

There is no such thing as "government law". Governments design and implement administrative public policy... applies selectively.

Definitely not LAW.

[mick silver]

all you guys need to know is that their better then all of us . they write the laws and there not for them to live by just us low folks