OSP or any Ohio Officer

[VirtualSVT]

How does this make sense?

ORC 4549.13 Marking and equipment for motor vehicle used by traffic enforcement officers.

Any motor vehicle used by a member of the state highway patrol or by any other peace officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color and shall be equipped with, but need not necessarily have in operation at all times, at least one flashing, oscillating, or rotating colored light mounted outside on top of the vehicle. The superintendent of the state highway patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive marking or color for the state highway patrol.

There is an argument on a local board where one member says this means that an UC cannot pull you over. That they must have lights on the external of the vehicle..

Help..hahaha

 

[svtcop]

How does this make sense?



There is an argument on a local board where one member says this means that an UC cannot pull you over. That they must have lights on the external of the vehicle..

Help..hahaha

You really need to be able to decipher the ORC in order to understand it. Surprisingly enough, a LOT of people (including some police officers, prosecuters, etc.) tend to want to read one part of the section but not in its entirety. They also don't want to pay attention to the wording. The ORC was written by LAWYERS essentially and you damn near need a law degree to understand some of it. But not even that will always help. Just a gift for some I guess. :coolman:

4549.13 Marking and equipment for motor vehicle used by traffic enforcement officers.
Any motor vehicle used by a member of the state highway patrol or by any other peace officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color and shall be equipped with, but need not necessarily have in operation at all times, at least one flashing, oscillating, or rotating colored light mounted outside on top of the vehicle. The superintendent of the state highway patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive marking or color for the state highway patrol.

Effective Date: 10-25-1979

can you be stopped by an undercover unit...yes. Would the undercover unit be there to "enforce" traffic laws...NO....keep reading

4549.14 Incompetency of officer as witness.
Any officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person charged with violating the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, such officer being on duty exclusively or for the main purpose of enforcing such laws, is incompetent to testify as a witness in any prosecution against such arrested person if such officer at the time of the arrest was using a motor vehicle not marked in accordance with section 4549.13 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953

4549.15 Distinctive uniform for traffic officers.
Every member of the state highway patrol and every other peace officer, while such officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall wear a distinctive uniform. The superintendent of the patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive uniform for the state highway patrol.

Effective Date: 10-25-1979

Are you noticing the trend in the law? As it is written, basically, you CAN be stopped. The UC officer's duties and assignment would NOT be traffic enforcement! But again, if you read the highlighted areas, EXCLUSIVE OR MAIN PURPOSE There is definately room for arguement in this law on both sides. But then again there is room for argument essentially in all laws.

The UC's purpose IS NOT traffic enforcement. And making a traffic stop kind of defeates the purpose of "undercover" I would say it is blown at that point.

Sorry for the long post and I know...you really do not have a solid answer. The one I gave is to the best to my abilities. Poll five different Lawers/prosecuters and you will have 5 different answers. One thing will remain the same though. NO UNDERCOVER OFFICER WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A TRAFFIC DETAIL. /

 

[VirtualSVT]

Wow that is ugly. How is that still a law? Honestly.

 

[FordSVTFan]

You really need to be able to decipher the ORC in order to understand it. Surprisingly enough, a LOT of people (including some police officers, prosecuters, etc.) tend to want to read one part of the section but not in its entirety. They also don't want to pay attention to the wording. The ORC was written by LAWYERS essentially and you damn near need a law degree to understand some of it. But not even that will always help. Just a gift for some I guess. :coolman:

4549.13 Marking and equipment for motor vehicle used by traffic enforcement officers.
Any motor vehicle used by a member of the state highway patrol or by any other peace officer, while said officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall be marked in some distinctive manner or color and shall be equipped with, but need not necessarily have in operation at all times, at least one flashing, oscillating, or rotating colored light mounted outside on top of the vehicle. The superintendent of the state highway patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive marking or color for the state highway patrol.

Effective Date: 10-25-1979

can you be stopped by an undercover unit...yes. Would the undercover unit be there to "enforce" traffic laws...NO....keep reading

4549.14 Incompetency of officer as witness.
Any officer arresting, or participating or assisting in the arrest of, a person charged with violating the motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, such officer being on duty exclusively or for the main purpose of enforcing such laws, is incompetent to testify as a witness in any prosecution against such arrested person if such officer at the time of the arrest was using a motor vehicle not marked in accordance with section 4549.13 of the Revised Code.

Effective Date: 10-01-1953

4549.15 Distinctive uniform for traffic officers.
Every member of the state highway patrol and every other peace officer, while such officer is on duty for the exclusive or main purpose of enforcing motor vehicle or traffic laws of this state, provided the offense is punishable as a misdemeanor, shall wear a distinctive uniform. The superintendent of the patrol shall specify what constitutes such a distinctive uniform for the state highway patrol.

Effective Date: 10-25-1979

Are you noticing the trend in the law? As it is written, basically, you CAN be stopped. The UC officer's duties and assignment would NOT be traffic enforcement! But again, if you read the highlighted areas, EXCLUSIVE OR MAIN PURPOSE There is definately room for arguement in this law on both sides. But then again there is room for argument essentially in all laws.

The UC's purpose IS NOT traffic enforcement. And making a traffic stop kind of defeates the purpose of "undercover" I would say it is blown at that point.

Sorry for the long post and I know...you really do not have a solid answer. The one I gave is to the best to my abilities. Poll five different Lawers/prosecuters and you will have 5 different answers. One thing will remain the same though. NO UNDERCOVER OFFICER WILL BE ASSIGNED TO A TRAFFIC DETAIL. /

Excellent explanation. :beer:

To the OP, even if not UC, but just slick topped, as long as the stop is not a misdemeanor the stop it is permissible. Or if a misdemeanor, but not a traffic enforcement officer, it is permissible.

 

[svtcop]

Wow that is ugly. How is that still a law? Honestly.

As you can see the last update to any of the three was is 1979. Seems to still benefit the motorist. I wouldn't complain. At least you still know what to look for before you do a burnout. :lol1: :burnout: