Is this Legal/Ethical?

[SuccessAndBiscuts]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew. So i was wondering, are cops allowed to do this. And if they are, do you agree with it. Explain.

*Also, i would like to note that this isnt a hypothetical, it happened next door to me, i mean the house DIRECTLY next to mine.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already but there is one thing about this bugging me. Road conditions are NEVER entirely predictable (it was a traffic cop taught me that when I did a driver training programme with the local force) It is entirely possible this guy left with plenty of time but was delayed by unpredictable conditions.

Given that as a fact, surely there should be some leeway given. In the same way that being a couple MPH over the limit can be put down to a slightly inaccurate speedometer (There is no such thing as a truly accurate speedometer - again another lesson)

Personally I would have urged him to fight it, then again I'm not sure on how your legal system (American?) works. Its always a sad day when a legal technically overrules common bloody sense.

Edit:
To everyone saying

The law is the law

It really isn't, it is continually changed and revised to suit the changing world we live in. Some rules need to be bent or even broken occasionally and if you can't accept that then you are not much more use than a robot. (I don't mean this in an offensive way, I just hate when people blindly follow. In my mind most of our problems as a species stem from that.)

 

[Lord Honk]

Spoiler: Why is this not here yet?

Anyway, IMHO the problem is that the penalties are bound to a certain timeframe, where there is no "just a bit late" or "really late", just "too late". There should either be a specific timeframe for every single interpretation of "too late", or they should go for some kind of fuzzy logic attempt, e.g. you're 15% into the restricted time, you get 15% the punishment.

I don't like it when something like that happens (like, I run out of the restaurant to refill my parking meter, am 2 minutes late and get a ticket), but if they were less strict, where would the "definitive" end be? If five minutes late is ok, why not 6 minutes, it's no big difference right?

Either adjust the penalty system or give the officer the liberty to decide the intensity of the violation, and I bet that the latter will lead to quite a lot more outrage than the current situation.

 

[webzu]

SNIP

The driver broke the law.

The police officer did nothing wrong.

If you cannot understand that, best we stop the conversation here, least it turn into an argument.

To be honest I agree with you that this was law breaking on the drivers part but the police officer should NOT put 2 years over such a trivial time, more appropriate would be to either give a warning or just suspend for a smaller time (personally 3 min over curfew I would suspend his licence for a maximum of 2 weeks, 5 if this weren't his first time or if he argued a lot about my judgement). 2 years is just so ridiculously long for such a small breach of the law

 

[Hman121]

The cop is right. When they give you a driving permit they tell you what the curfew is when driving by yourself or with an adult.

 

[Beryl77]

Law isn't always good. Sure it's there for a reason and I'm not saying that everyone should do as they please but sometimes even a good law is stupid. I hate it how sometimes people just blindly follow it without even questioning it. Yes, he was driving past midnight but what difference would it have made, if he had arrived shortly before midnight? Nothing, it would have been the same. I think sometimes a cop should use his own brain and make a decision based on the situation. Cops should help and protect the people and not harass them.

 

[RIOgreatescapist]

Cop was in the right.

Neighbor was in the wrong.

Most bluntly correct statement you'll find in this topic.
How much of a prick the cop has been doesn´t matter, because in theory he did the right call.

 

[Jroo wuz heer]

the unethical law here seems to be the fact that curfew exists. it is a stupid idea

 

[ezeroast]

the law is wrong, the cop is right.

 

[Wicky_42]

Just like with speeding and essay question word limits there should be a small margin for error :/ I'd have said 5 mins after would be reasonable, especially if there were unusual traffic or weather conditions. If fact, I'd say that that would be better than making the kid rush because he was just about to break the curfew!

 

[Comrade_Beric]

Wow. The early statements in this thread seem insane to me. The kid was making every effort to be home on time short of breaking more laws by speeding. For being three minutes late he is punished by not being allowed to drive again for two years. THREE MINUTES people. How many of you would be mad if you were fired for being three minutes late to work once? Can you honestly just shrug that off and say "it's the law?" If you can then you're letting the law override your reason and morals and I hope you're never put in a position of power over other people, particularly a judge.

The kid should have fought the citation in court. Jury trials are the "check for sanity" step of the legal system. Even a judge is better at it than cops are.

Also, curfews are unconstitutional anyway. It's basically saying that the government can decide what times you're allowed to be outside of your home. Youth or not, that's an obscene infringement upon the liberty of the people punished for it.

 

[andrew.wright16]

There needs to be a cutoff point somewhere right? Where does the cop stop showing discretion and start taking action? Fair enough it sounds like the cop could have used some discretion here but the guy was playing with fire slightly by driving around so close to the curfew time.

The guy who was suspended should appeal for it- it does seem pretty pathetic.

SNIP

The driver did the wrong thing.

The law dictates a certain punishment.

The police officer, whose job it is to enforce the law, did just that.

There is nothing wrong here.

Simple.

Maybe not by a legal standpoint, but by an ethical one it is. Hell I walk my dogs a lot past curfew. They need to pee, so I do it. I think if a cop fined me for it because I am letting my dog do its business in my own yard, would be pretty stupid, and ethically questionable. How can this not raise questions about the ethical standing of the world when cops spend more time tailing a kid because he was driving home and took three to many minutes to get there instead of patrolling the highways for drunk, or reckless drivers? You know, people who might actually hurt, or kill someone?

I do see your point- but a curfew is there for a reason too right? People wont obey if they know they can bend the rules.

 

[Salviar]

So my neighbor, who is 16, a new driver was driving home on a Friday night. He arrived in his driveway at 12:03 to find that a cop had tailed him all the way back to his house. As the curfew was midnight he was technically violating it, so the cops suspended his license until he turned 18. thats just under 2 years for 3 minutes past curfew. So i was wondering, are cops allowed to do this. And if they are, do you agree with it. Explain.

That's harsh, I think, that because he was 3 minutes over they took his license away. But it is the law...
But, how did the cop know that he was 16 and driving past the curfew? If he was driving 3 minutes over and the cop was tailing him then that would mean that the cop was just waiting for him to get home so he could maybe, possibly book some kind for sorta being over the limit and then just got lucky. That means that cop obviously had nothing better to do with his time (say, catching bank robbers, checking to make sure no one's being murdered) than to try and catch teens driving home a little over their curfew.
...Or maybe I've got this curfew thing wrong? I don't recall ever having a driving curfew so I might have misunderstood.
But...Isn't 16 still a learner though? Like...you need a parent in the car with you, don't you? I couldn't drive by myself until I was 17, almost 18.

 

[thahat]

WTF is this curfew?

They don't have that in England. That's beyond ridiculous. Setting a curfew for drivers just because of their age. And a 2 year ban for 3 minutes over it is exceedingly harsh. I don't think anyone could justify that to me.

Personally. I'd be so pissed off, I'd likely follow the cop to his house and curl out a steamer on his doorstep.

but then again, england doesnt have 16 year old drivers, just like we dont have them in the netherlands, does it?...or does it? /not so sure

but the realy anoying question is: how the hell would the tailing cop know that he was bloody 16. and thus in the foul. dont people in the USA have the policy of dont harrass me unless you have reasonable suspicion that im doing something illicit?
and being home at 12:03 is NOT a good reason. AT. ALL.

 

[FoolKiller]

1. Ethical - No

There are many factors to consider in this instance. If the cop had not been following him, he may have been less nervous and made it home on time. Frankly, whenever a cop is following me for more than a block I turn into ANY driveway. They have no business following me.

Another problem I have with such a short time frame is there could be a million different things causing extenuating circumstances. For example, there could have been an accident or road closure that would extend the travel time unexpectedly. I have had to shut my car off because the traffic jam was so bad since they reduced 3 lanes to 1. The cops came and talked to me and said I couldn't do that. I told them that I wouldn't have enough fuel to survive this type of delay. The point is there are unexpected circumstances that will delay you no matter what you do.

Finally, this goes against the spirit of the law. Would someone rather this teenager exceed the speed limit to make the curfew? Because the laws around speeding may be harsh, but none result in a one to two year suspension of a licence that I know of.

2. Legal - Maybe

Is the ticket warranted for technically breaking the law? Yes.
Did the cop have a right to follow the teenager around? I'm not sure about that one.
Did the cop have a right to give the ticket on private property? I'm pretty sure this is a no. The officer would have had to pull the person over before getting home. In fact, I would have just said that the officer was mistaken and that I wasn't out past midnight.

 

[SinisterGehe]

Law does not equal Moral or ethics . Because everyone got different view on moral/ethics, taking all of these in consideration law would be impossible to create.

And yes it was legal, he was driving after the time he was supposed to stop driving. Unless there's specific part to the law that states that going home from somewhere is allowed. It was completely legal. There's no question about it., (And in what country is there law like that?)

SNIP

The driver did the wrong thing.

The law dictates a certain punishment.

The police officer, whose job it is to enforce the law, did just that.

There is nothing wrong here.

Simple.

Maybe not by a legal standpoint, but by an ethical one it is. Hell I walk my dogs a lot past curfew. They need to pee, so I do it. I think if a cop fined me for it because I am letting my dog do its business in my own yard, would be pretty stupid, and ethically questionable. How can this not raise questions about the ethical standing of the world when cops spend more time tailing a kid because he was driving home and took three to many minutes to get there instead of patrolling the highways for drunk, or reckless drivers? You know, people who might actually hurt, or kill someone?

Law does not equal Moral or ethics . Because everyone got different view on moral/ethics, taking all of these in consideration law would be impossible to create.

If an officer of law uses the law wrong, it is the officers that is wrong, not the law.
Maybe he was assigned to patrol for law breaking teen drivers.
And most likely, the officer saw it to be hes duty (Both Moral and Legal) to get these people who break the curfew. You CAN NOT expect everyone to have the same fair and moral standpoint on these things.
I would see it was totally legal, the teen should have reserved way enough time to get home, more than he would have though it takes to get home. Why things need always be done just right before the deadline? Why can't you reserve bit more time to do things that got a deadline of some sort? I see that it was completely right thing to do, the punishment was right in both law and moral, but the officers way of tailing him was wrong. Note these are both two different things, The punishment was right, the way of behavior from police to justify the punishment was wrong.

And starting to ask moral views about subject relating to law is pointless. Law is not moral.

 

[CaptainKoala]

I'm just going to say this:
Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
The fact that the law technically allows you to do something isn't an invitation to do it.

 

[Vaccine]

I know for a fact in Australia police can't follow people waiting to catch them, and I'm fairly sure they couldn't do something like that anywhere else either unless your law enforcement is completely hellbent on making your life shit.

3 minutes is a joke, if it was 12:15 or 12:30, yes they could get him for that. You can easily misjudge 3 minutes in driving time.

I'd just tell him to appeal it anyway if you know them, as much as it is technically right by textbook standards, still a dick move.

 

[Bob_F_It]

It's not right. Technically it's the law, but over here in the UK, some MPs have said that they can fiddle with their expenses because a technicality says that they can't be tried for it. This has only 2 outcomes: common sense prevails and the courts look at the facts to bring things to the right conclusion (as is what is happening); or the technicality is accepted, but then it's apparent that the law isn't doing what it's meant to do, that is discourage socially unacceptable behavour and allow the law abiding public to live their lives without hassle, and so the law has to be thrown out (much like what the cop is achieving here).

 

[AndyFromMonday]

Since when the hell did teenagers have government enforced curfews? Shouldn't that be left to the parents and teens to discuss? Goddamnit America, you disappoint me...

 

[biGBum333]

christ!

if anyone would think something like this is ethical and/or just then theyve clearly had their balls switched with their brains. i mean the guy who was driving couldve had his watch behind by just a few minutes. there was no reason why they couldnt give him a warning (after all he is techincally still a minor). honestly whats worth more? letting the kid go and keeping an eye out for actual crime. or follow some guy all the way home just to say ''tsk tsk three minutes behind curfew, no more driving for you for the next two years!'' even if it is legal it still isnt ethical and its completely unreasonable. this really isnt a win for law and order.