Is it really a traffic stop? Was I operating the vehicle? I was at a gas station parking lot. The vehicle is registered under my name. My license plate is revoked in the state of Kansas for 3 years. The tags were not able to be seen due to mud covering the tag. The gas station attendant did not see me operate the vehicle due to customer volume at the time. I returned to ask him. The people in the gas station were not familiar to me or the gas station attendant. There were several other vehicles and patrons in the gas station. An officer pulls into a gas station parking lot and comes up to "provide a courtesy by informing you your tag is too dirty to read" and does not view the person being provided this courtesy actually operating the vehicle. No emergency lights were ever turned on and I was not in the vehicle. After I was informed my tag was dirty I thanked the officer and he left. I went inside and purchased a drink and used the restroom and came back outside to pop my hood and add power steering fluid to the vehicle. During that time, the same officer and another unit pulled back into the lot, again without emergency lights, to "stop" a vehicle that was not in operation to arrest me for "driving" with a suspended license. Is this a "traffic stop"? And is it considered a driving offense to add power steering fluid to a vehicle on private property?
First off, the fact that they stopped you on private property is irrelevant. The traffic offense - you driving the vehicle with a suspended license - occurred on public property en route to the station. That offense does not simply disappear because you are now on private property, nor do the police need to wait for you to leave private property in order to stop or arrest you. So... forget the gas station even exists in this scenario. The real issue at hand here is whether or not the officer needs to actually see you driving the vehicle in order to make an arrest. The answer is no. There isn't any other valid reason your car would be where it is now other than it was driven there. If you are the only person with the car, then it's reasonable to assume that you were the one that drove it there. Plenty of people get arrested for this "connect the dots" way of proving they drove, especially in DUI cases. But the officer doesn't even need to assume that second part either. It all comes down to the actual definition of "driving" in the law books. Most citizens would interpret the word as meaning actually moving in a vehicle. That's wrong. Defining a driver and what constitutes driving is actually way, way broader in the eyes of the law. In Kansas, a driver is defined in such a way: 8-1416. "Driver" defined. "Driver" means every person who drives or is in actual physical control of a vehicle. Essentially, having physical control over the vehicle is generally enough to label you as the driver or that you are driving the vehicle. In a lot of states, having possession of the keys to the vehicle is enough for a court to say you had physical control of the vehicle, because "physical control" is more broadly defined as "capable of making it move and within close proximity" to the vehicle. Thus, you can be arrested for traffic-related offenses. It does not matter if the car is parked, if you're filling it with fluids, or just taking a nap in the front seat.
Tow truck drivers in general might be allowed to carry firearms if they have a concealed weapons license, but the shooter in the case at hand wasn't merely a tow truck driver. He was actually repossessing a car, and therefore under Florida Statutes 493.6101(21) he was acting as a recovery agent. Under 493.6401 he was therefore required to hold a Class &quot;R&quot; recovery agent license. And under 493.6118(1)(x)(9), Class &quot;R&quot; license holders are prohibited from: Carrying any weapon or firearm when he or she is on private property and performing duties under his or her license whether or not he or she is licensed pursuant to s. 790.06. The story says that the car was in a driveway, so it sounds like he was on private property. This would be grounds for discipline under 493.6118(2), up to and including revocation of his license. It could be that criminal penalties also apply, but I have not found them so far.
Can't park within 30 ft of a stop sign. Tex Tn Code 545.302 b4. If this is the law they don't need to post a sign. http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/TN/7/C/545/G/545.302
The problem with these situations is that you don't get to choose how it goes once it's in the hands of law enforcement. Possible scenarios on bringing a complaint to police or prosecutors: "So you guys had a dispute, but everyone's OK now. We're not pursuing this; we have more important things to do." "Hmm ... that could have gotten ugly. We'll do an investigation and check the records of both you and the bus driver to see if either of you have any priors." "We're trying to make this a more bike-friendly city. And we're cracking down on CDLs especially. Thanks, we'll investigate that driver." "Thanks for the evidence. You're going to get charged with criminal mischief, and the bus driver is going to get charged with assault." Of course, you could also send a complaint to the bus company. They are (hopefully) more likely to worry about what their drivers are doing. The DoT is also concerned with CDL safety, so you can file a complaint with the FMCSA NCCDB.
No party is granted the right of way, instead, some party is required to yield the right of way. Sec. 545.155 of the Texas Transportation Code says An operator about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, building, or private road or driveway shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching on the highway to be entered. Sec. 545.256 likewise requires that An operator emerging from an alley, driveway, or building in a business or residence district shall: (1) stop the vehicle before moving on a sidewalk or the sidewalk area extending across an alley or driveway; (2) yield the right-of-way to a pedestrian to avoid collision; and (3) on entering the roadway, yield the right-of-way to an approaching vehicle. The law against wide right turns says "To make a right turn at an intersection, an operator shall make both the approach and the turn as closely as practicable to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway"; intersection "means the common area at the junction of two highways, other than the junction of an alley and a highway", and highway or street "means the width between the boundary lines of a publicly maintained way any part of which is open to the public for vehicular travel", i.e. the part where the parking lot empties into the main road.
What you are describing may be the crime of insurance fraud: to avoid that, you would have to admit to the insurance company that you put a "Please steal me" sign in an unlocked car with the keys in the ignition, in a high-crime area. If we remove some of the elements of the scenario and reduce this to "leaving the keys in the ignition", this would probably be be considered contributory negligence, meaning that you failed to act prudently to protect your property. This can reduce the amount that the insurance company has to pay you. At this point, it depends on what state you're in, since sometimes a little bit of negligence (in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia) means that you may get nothing. However, negligence hinges on an assessment of the actions and intentions of a party, and what you describe isn't "neglect", there is the direct intent that the car be stolen. Insurance policies exclude coverage for intentional loss. So the bottom line would be that the person would be out a car, and could be in prison for fraud if they did not reveal what they actually did. One should assume that the thieves took a lulz video of the sign before they stole the car, and posted it on FaceTube where it entered the viral hall of fame and was used against you in a court of law, so fraud is the worst choice. An alternative if you have a car is to donate it to charity, and take a tax write-off.
There isn't any indication in that news story that the disabled son was anywhere nearby. I agree the situation you describe sounds like a legitimate use of the placard, but it seems in this situation, the placard was being used in a manner totally unrelated to the transport of a disabled person. My guess is that the cops cited her because the son wasn't in the car, and was not inside the establishment at which she parked. California code has this to say: A person to whom a disabled person placard has been issued may permit another person to use the placard only while in the presence or reasonable proximity of the disabled person for the purpose of transporting the disabled person. So as long as the disabled person is within a "reasonable proximity", and the placard is being used to transport them, they do not have to be inside the car to make using the placard legitimate. In this case, the woman was just transporting herself and using the placard anyway, which is illegal.
Unlikely, but specific facts may change this. The fact a vehicle gets the approval of the NHTSA and/or other safety regulatory bodies will probably mean that it already passed a certain level of safety testing, and any reasons for a recall will only surface after orders of magnitude greater sample and/or testing time. Therefore, the probability of causing endangering participants in traffic and others are negligible. The duty of notice will most likely be on the manufacturer under a product liability theory. Driving continuously and/or repeatedly after notice may be a different matter if it actually results in harming one — theoretically even oneself.