Is a police car parked perpendicular to the road (with flashing lights) sufficient by itself to legally establish road closure to all traffic? Is a police car parked perpendicular to the road (with flashing lights) sufficient by itself to legally establish road closure to all traffic -- including non-thru (i.e. local) traffic to a residence which can only be accessed via the &quot;closed&quot; road? There is no additional signage, traffic control devices, or police officers out of the car directing traffic. Research: Note: Take my research with a grain of salt. I am a legal &quot;enthusiast&quot; and certainly not an expert. I also have a vested interest in proving that such a road is not legally marked as closed since I was ticketed for driving on a closed road in exactly this scenario. Therefore, I worry that my research is biased in that I may have stopped too soon when I found clauses which seem to support what I was thinking when I drove past the police officer's car to my house. Please keep this in mind as you read further as I am interested in the correct legal interpretation of all governing laws rather than what I would like to be true from my relatively limited research into what I think might be the applicable laws. Police have the authority to regulate traffic via police officers or traffic control devices per 4511.07 of the Ohio Revised Code (ORC). Quoted text from the Ohio Revised Code 4511.07 Local traffic regulations. (A) Sections 4511.01 to 4511.78, 4511.99, and 4513.01 to 4513.37 of the Revised Code do not prevent local authorities from carrying out the following activities with respect to streets and highways under their jurisdiction and within the reasonable exercise of the police power: ... (2) Regulating traffic by means of police officers or traffic control devices; ... A road may be closed by the authority having jurisdiction with posted appropriate signs per ORC 4511.71 at which point it is illegal to drive upon the road. Signs are a requirement listed in 4511.71, therefore it appears it would be inappropriate for a police officer to issue a citation for driving on a closed road due to inappropriate signage unless: A case can be made for the police car with flashing lights parked perpendicular to the road as a &quot;traffic control device&quot; in and of itself since there was not a police officer actively directly traffic. There is some other section of the code that applies to emergencies or unexpected events that I am overlooking which gives broader authority to police discretion on how to indicate a road is closed. Quoted text from the Ohio Revised Code 4511.71 Prohibition against driving upon closed highway. (A) No person shall drive upon, along, or across a street or highway, or any part of a street or highway that has been closed in the process of its construction, reconstruction, or repair, and posted with appropriate signs by the authority having jurisdiction to close such highway. ... 4511.12 Obedience to traffic control devices. (A) No pedestrian, driver of a vehicle, or operator of a streetcar or trackless trolley shall disobey the instructions of any traffic control device placed in accordance with this chapter, unless at the time otherwise directed by a police officer. No provision of this chapter for which signs are required shall be enforced against an alleged violator if at the time and place of the alleged violation an official sign is not in proper position and sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinarily observant person. Whenever a particular section of this chapter does not state that signs are required, that section shall be effective even though no signs are erected or in place. ... Now, if the police car parked perpendicular to the road with flashing lights is to be argued as a &quot;traffic control device&quot;, it must conform to the state manual (Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices [OMUTCD] 2012 Edition) per ORC 4511.11: Quoted text from the Ohio Revised Code 4511.01 Traffic laws - operation of motor vehicles definitions. ... (QQ) &quot;Traffic control device&quot; means a flagger, sign, signal, marking, or other device used to regulate, warn, or guide traffic, placed on, over, or adjacent to a street, highway, private road open to public travel, pedestrian facility, or shared-use path by authority of a public agency or official having jurisdiction, or, in the case of a private road open to public travel, by authority of the private owner or private official having jurisdiction. ... 4511.11 Local conformity to manual for uniform system of traffic control devices. ... (D) All traffic control devices erected on any street, highway, alley, bikeway, or private road open to public travel shall conform to the state manual ... Per 6I.05 01 of OMUTCD:2012: &quot;Emergency-vehicle lighting, however, provides warning only and provides no effective traffic control&quot;. Quoted text from Ohio Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2012 Edition CHAPTER 6I. CONTROL OF TRAFFIC THROUGH TRAFFIC INCIDENT MANAGEMENT AREAS ... Section 6I.05 Use of Emergency-Vehicle Lighting Support: 01 The use of emergency-vehicle lighting (such as high-intensity rotating, flashing, oscillating, or strobe lights) is essential, especially in the initial stages of a traffic incident, for the safety of emergency responders and persons involved in the traffic incident, as well as road users approaching the traffic incident. Emergency-vehicle lighting, however, provides warning only and provides no effective traffic control. The use of too many lights at an incident scene can be distracting and can create confusion for approaching road users, especially at night. Road users approaching the traffic incident from the opposite direction on a divided facility are often distracted by emergency-vehicle lighting and slow their vehicles to look at the traffic incident posing a hazard to themselves and others traveling in their direction. ... Therefore, I am left with the conclusion that as long as an individual slows down to pass the perpendicularly parked police car (in accordance with ORC 4511.213) in this scenario to reach his or her residence which is not blocked by the road obstruction, then the individual should not be ticketed for driving on a closed road (ORC 4511.71 quoted above) or failure to comply with police or traffic control instruction (ORC 4511.12 quoted above). Quoted text from the Ohio Revised Code 4511.213 Approaching stationary public safety vehicle displaying emergency light. (A) The driver of a motor vehicle, upon approaching a stationary public safety vehicle, emergency vehicle, road service vehicle, waste collection vehicle, vehicle used by the public utilities commission to conduct motor vehicle inspections in accordance with sections 4923.04 and 4923.06 of the Revised Code, or a highway maintenance vehicle that is displaying the appropriate visual signals by means of flashing, oscillating, or rotating lights, as prescribed in section 4513.17 of the Revised Code, shall do either of the following: (1) If the driver of the motor vehicle is traveling on a highway that consists of at least two lanes that carry traffic in the same direction of travel as that of the driver's motor vehicle, the driver shall proceed with due caution and, if possible and with due regard to the road, weather, and traffic conditions, shall change lanes into a lane that is not adjacent to that of the stationary public safety vehicle, emergency vehicle, road service vehicle, waste collection vehicle, vehicle used by the public utilities commission to conduct motor vehicle inspections in accordance with sections 4923.04 and 4923.06 of the Revised Code, or a highway maintenance vehicle. (2) If the driver is not traveling on a highway of a type described in division (A)(1) of this section, or if the driver is traveling on a highway of that type but it is not possible to change lanes or if to do so would be unsafe, the driver shall proceed with due caution, reduce the speed of the motor vehicle, and maintain a safe speed for the road, weather, and traffic conditions. Is there another law I am missing which contradicts my conclusion that a road in this scenario is not legally marked as closed? Just in Case Additional Detail Needed: Scenario: An unexpected obstruction occurs on 2-lane road that prevents through-traffic (e.g. car accident, downed telephone pole/power line). A police car is parked perpendicular to the road with flashing lights to allow other workers to clear the obstruction. The police car partially obstructs both main lanes of car travel, but there is enough room for a car to safely pass on the right-hand side of the road if utilizing the road's shoulder. There is no police officer outside of the car directing traffic, nor is it obvious that there is a police officer inside of the vehicle because the driver-side door is facing the obstruction rather than on-coming traffic. There are no signs of any kind in addition to the perpendicularly-parked police car. Road detail: 2 motorist lanes with 2 bicycle lanes (one on each outer edge of the road) There are driveways to residences directly off of this road. Several houses are completely obstructed on both sides. 35 mph speed limit Typical traffic is approximately 30 cars/minute during the busiest hours of the road's &quot;closure&quot;.
4511.71, &quot;driving on a closed road&quot;, doesn't apply here: it requires that the closure be done using a sign, rather than a generic &quot;traffic control device&quot;. It also appears to be intended to apply specifically to construction closures, not closures in general. However, what you describe is, at a minimum, a violation of: 4511.25, lanes of travel: (A) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle or trackless trolley shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: [exceptions that don't apply] where &quot;roadway&quot; is defined in 4511.01 as (EE) &quot;Roadway&quot; means that portion of a highway improved, designed, or ordinarily used for vehicular travel, except the berm or shoulder. and 4511.28, passing on the right: (A) The driver of a vehicle or trackless trolley may overtake and pass upon the right of another vehicle or trackless trolley only under the following conditions: (1) When the vehicle or trackless trolley overtaken is making or about to make a left turn; (2) Upon a roadway with unobstructed pavement of sufficient width for two or more lines of vehicles moving lawfully in the direction being traveled by the overtaking vehicle. In short, the road is &quot;closed&quot; in the sense that there is no legal way for you to drive past the police car. And it doesn't really matter which offense you're charged with: all three are classified as &quot;minor misdemeanors&quot;, carrying the exact same penalties.
U-turns are prohibited in certain circumstances (Highway Traffic Act Paragraph 143). It does not say that U-turns are prohibited at intersections controlled by traffic lights. By the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, U-turns at intersections controlled by traffic lights are generally allowed. However, in determining fault for insurance purposes in Ontario, The driver of automobile “A” is 100 per cent at fault and the driver of automobile “B” is not at fault for an incident that occurs, [...] when automobile “A” is making a U-turn [...] (Insurance Act Paragraph 19.)
If a police officer reviewed the footage and then went out and issued a citation in person to the offender, this could probably be used. Many states limit tickets issued by mail based upon camera evidence alone. But, while some state laws have specific requirements, but in general, authenticated video recordings are admissible evidence in court proceedings, and a citizen complaint can be a basis for initiating a traffic offense prosecution. To prove some offenses, like speeding, dashcam evidence of a third-party may not be very good evidence, but for running a red light or a stop sign, it could be powerful evidence.
As has already been said, as far as the vehicle registration, the officer likely already knows who the vehicle is registered to and whether it's expired or not before he walks up to your car, or at the least, he can easily find that information out. The proof of insurance is a different matter. The officer will need to see it to know if you have insurance or not. To him, it doesn't matter what the reason is that you don't provide it to him. Left it at home, misplaced it, lost it, destroyed it, or just refuse to provide it because you feel you have the right to refuse. He can't "force" you to provide it (unless he is able to search your car and happens to find it there). He can only issue you a ticket for not providing it. But your attitude could play a part in what happens next. Being upfront and letting the officer know you have left your documents at home could help your situation. In my experience... one time that this sort of thing happened to me, the officer agreed to hold my drivers license and allowed me to bring the documents to the police station and retrieve my license. Another time, in a parking related matter, I was issued a ticket, but I was allowed to bring the required documents to the police station where they then "invalidated" (cancelled) the ticket. Of course this won't always work, and is not at all likely to work if you are far from home. Keep in mind, (as far as I know, in most states) the real infraction is that you "don't have insurance"... that you failed to provide proof when asked, is secondary. In many cases (likely nearly all cases), if you show up in court and provide documents that your insurance is current, and was current at the time the ticket was issued, the judge (or the prosecutor) will likely dismiss the case with no penalties. But, what the officer has written down on the ticket about your attitude and what you told him at the time, may have an effect on how this all plays out.
The published statues pertaining to Vermont vehicle registrations reference operation by a person &quot;on any highway.&quot; This specific statute applies to a motor vehicle or trailer. A person shall not operate a motor vehicle nor draw a trailer or semi-trailer on any highway unless such vehicle is registered as provided in this chapter. There are no references I could find regarding private property within the statutes. It's common to consider that any vehicle operated exclusively on private property can be done so without registration and therefore without the inspection.
It's really the other way around: film crews can legally travel with the police. This is very similar or identical to what you saw on YouTube. From http://blogs.findlaw.com/celebrity_justice/2014/04/cops-and-suspects-rights-whatcha-gonna-do-when-they-record-you.html (dated 4/18/2014) "Cops" will soon begin a 10-week filming stretch in San Jose, California, for the first time in the show's 26-year history, reports the San Jose Mercury News. The "Cops" crew will hit the streets alongside San Jose's finest to provide a window into what these men and women do in America's 10th largest city. More from that link: When the officers on "Cops" arrest most of their suspects, the circumstances leading up to the arrest are out in public. However, in order to avoid unlawfully appropriating the images of those caught on "Cops'" cameras, the crew asks the arrestees to sign a release form. The "news crew" are producers who have permission from the police to follow along. As above, they ask each suspect to sign a release after the arrest. These arrests take place in public, on public streets and right-aways, where filming of the public is legal. If the arrestee does not sign the release, their face is blurred in the resulting footage that is made public. This does not mean the producers or videographers are automatically allowed into a private residence. They need a release to go onto private property (unlike the police involved in an investigation) and as such, the resident can actually forbid the cameramen from entering the house even while the police have entered. The footage from the body cams of the police are a different story; they are public employees of the local government and are bound by the laws of the locality. A search of Google News shows that in San Fransisco, the issues of the use of body cams by police and public access to that video is an ongoing issue; some laws have been finalized, others are bound to change. Around the US, some localities at this point in time allow public access to the footage from police cams; others only after department or local governmental review; still others only on in as need basis for prosecutions. ...the cop is the only one in this situation who can command the filmers to stop. Even if the "news crew" is not a news crew and just someone from the general public, it is generally legal for the public to film the police, as long as they are not causing issues with the police and stay out of the way (re: all of the recent news regarding police shootings and the footage available on YouTube and in news sources). There is case law pertaining to that, but IANAL, so I'll let someone else outline that. But https://photographyisnotacrime.com/ is a good resource. In the US, you pretty much have no expectation of privacy while in public.
An affirmative defense is a way of avoiding conviction by acknowledging you did the act claimed, but that such act was among the exceptions provided by the law which makes such acts otherwise an offence. That is, you affirm (acknowledge, admit) your action of using the device, but you are claiming that your use of the device (handsfree as a GPS guide) is okay, and therefore you should not be convicted. For all intents and purposes in this situation, your "2" and "3" are the same thing. The device is supported by something other than you holding it, and you are able to keep both hands on the wheel while using it in this way. Finally, a plain language reading of the definition for "hands-free accessory" suggests that using an object in the car to support the device where it can be seen, or using a feature of the device that speaks directions which you can hear, neither of which requires moving your hands off the wheel, will be considered such an accessory. It is also worth pointing out that such usage of a device (placed in a cradle or on the dashboard or turned up so it is heard) will be well-known to the legislators, and there is a reasonable interpretation of the law that would allow such usage. If this ever went to court, and somebody used this defence for this situation, they would probably be okay.
It's likely that you'll find similar statutes for your state. Florida's specifically considers the circumstances you've described: 316.081 Driving on right side of roadway; exceptions.— (1) Upon all roadways of sufficient width, a vehicle shall be driven upon the right half of the roadway, except as follows: (a) When overtaking and passing another vehicle proceeding in the same direction under the rules governing such movement; (b) When an obstruction exists making it necessary to drive to the left of the center of the highway; provided any person so doing shall yield the right-of-way to all vehicles traveling in the proper direction upon the unobstructed portion of the highway within such distance as to constitute an immediate hazard; This last entry represents your stalled car. An obstruction exists and you've yielded the right of way to oncoming traffic. You're good to go.