Please send whatever Speed Traps info you have on Oregon Coast cities and towns' Speed Traps to webmaster@ocnsignal.com, and we'll post it from this page.

Also, we are interested in posting Road Rage and related stories, of serial killers who take down Motor Home license numbers of visitors from Washington State (noted for driving 35 in a 55), and after that we don't know what happens to them - the serial killers or the visitors from Washington State or their licensed Motor Homes...

Of course, in our line of work we have found it necessary to employ the services of a comedy coach, who offers the following...

A police officer pulls a guy over for speeding and has the following exchange:

Officer: May I see your driver's license?

Driver: I don't have one. I had it suspended when I got my 5th DUI.

Officer: May I see the owner's card for this vehicle?

Driver: It's not my car. I stole it.

Officer: The car is stolen?

Driver: That's right. But come to think of it, I think I saw the owner's card in the glove box when I was putting my gun in there.

Officer: There's a gun in the glove box?

Driver: Yes sir. That's where I put it after I shot and killed the woman who owns this car and stuffed her in the trunk.

Officer: There's a BODY in the TRUNK?!?!?

Driver: Yes, sir.

Hearing this, the officer immediately called his captain. The car was quickly surrounded by police, and the captain approached the driver to handle the tense situation:

Captain: Sir, can I see your license?

Driver: Sure. Here it is.

It was valid.

Captain: Who's car is this?

Driver: It's mine, officer. Here's the owner' card.

The driver owned the car.

Captain: Could you slowly open your glove box so I can see if there's a gun in it?

Driver: Yes, sir, but there's no gun in it.

Sure enough, there was nothing in the glove box.

Captain: Would you mind opening your trunk? I was told you said there's a body in it.

Driver: No problem.

Trunk is opened; no body.

Captain: I don't understand it. The officer who stopped you said you told him you didn't have a license, stole the car, had a gun in the glovebox, and that there was a dead body in the trunk.

Driver: Yeah, I'll bet the lying dirtbag told you I was speeding, too!

Not so funny is Racial Profiling which has gotten a lot media attention lately. The California Highway Patrol admitted the practice as routine. The little cities and towns along the Oregon Coast don't admit it but some of them do it. It is not unusual for a motorist to be stopped for Driving While Hispanic or Black. 1960s longhair-types are also subject to unwarranted stops. Same with folk who drive "beater" cars; large mostly old rusted out sedans. Young drivers are routinely stopped for being young. Good lookin' women driving alone on Highway 101 are also a favorite target of cops with nothing better to do while across town someone's house is being burglarized.

A little free publicity for Watering Holes where in-town cops wait for patrons to leave with the hope of getting their DUI quota is ok too.

In Lincoln County, Oregon, the locals accuse the cops of "economic profiling" as a means of generating revenues; driving after 10 at night in a car 10 years or older is good for an automatic stop under the guise of probable cause for Driving Under the Influence.

So, our visitors should be warned, and God knows the lack of info available could cost our guests enough to wish they'd spent their vacation money in Montana, where people drive like maniacs but there only two Highway Patrol officers for the whole danged state and they aren't inclined to issue citations to speeders unless the perp exceeds 95 mph on an icy, zero visibility fog-bound road after 10 at night or in a school zone during school hours.

Your comments welcome here.

NOTE: Traffic Fines are doubled in Construction Zones throughout Oregon. Also note that a lot of "construction" is done on Highway 101 during the spring and summer.

Subject: SHUT YOUR MOUTH AND TAKE THE TICKET
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2001 08:41:03 -0700
From: Carl Worden wolfeyes00@earthlink.net
To: Oregon Coast News Signal editor@ocnsignal.com

Ladies & gentlemen:

"Today, the Supreme Court handed down a decision allowing police officers to arrest and handcuff anyone for offenses as minor as infractions and punishable by no more than minor fines.

In an age when police abuse of power has hit an all time high, any police officer can now arrest a motorist for a minor traffic violation -- even a jaywalker crossing the street -- and haul them off to jail, book them and make them post bond. In the case of the motorist, his/her accompanying minor children could be taken into "protective" custody and the automobile could be impounded, costing the motorist hundreds of dollars more to get it back, all in addition to the fine for the minor traffic offense.

The opportunity for police to abuse their authority has now been given them as a constitutional right. If you so much as mouth off to a police officer or deny doing what he said you did, you could be going for a very expensive and emotionally traumatic ride. If you so much as remind the police officer of someone who wasn't nice to him as a child, you could be going to jail if he stops you for a traffic violation. So you can exercise your right to free speech and free expression if you want, but don't do it around a police officer if there is even a scintilla of a chance you fractured some obscure law. And because our state and federal legislators have been churning out obscure laws by the hundreds of thousands to make it look like they are accomplishing something, the chances are good that you are violating one of those laws no matter what you are doing.

And mark my words, people: There will be horror stories about to unfold where police officers target specific individuals they don't like for whatever the reason -- even if they had filed a police brutality complaint against the officer -- and that officer and his buddies can now follow that person around until they see even the smallest lapse of compliant driving, and turn that person's life into Hell. And they can do that repeatedly, because the Supreme Court said so today.

So my best advice to you, my friends, is shut your mouth and take the ticket.

Carl F. Worden
Liaison Officer
Southern Oregon Militia

WASHINGTON -- Clarifying the extent of police power in roadside stops, the Supreme Court held that officers can arrest and handcuff people even for minor offenses punishable by a fine. The justices ruled against a driver who was arrested and handcuffed for failing to wear a seat belt.

Such arrests do not violate the constitutional protection against unreasonable search, the court declared Monday. In the 5-4 ruling, which could affect anyone who drives a car, the justices said such an arrest does not violate the Constitution's Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures.

Police generally can arrest anyone they see breaking the law, the court said as it barred a Texas woman from suing the officer who handcuffed her and took her to jail.

The Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures." A lower court had ruled that Gail Atwater could not sue over her arrest because the officer did not violate her constitutional rights.

Atwater was driving her two children home from soccer practice in 1997 in Lago Vista, Texas, when she was stopped by a police officer who had noticed the three were not wearing seat belts.

Texas law allows police to make arrests for routine traffic violations, except for speeding. The officer arrested Atwater, handcuffed her hands behind her back and took her to the city police station. A friend looked after her children and her pickup truck was towed away.

Atwater's mug shot was taken and she was released after posting bond. She later pleaded no contest to the seat belt offense and paid the maximum $50 fine.

Atwater and her husband, Michael Haas, sued the city and the police officer, saying the arrest violated her constitutional rights.

The high court majority rejected her argument that police should not have arrested her for a crime that would carry no jail time.

"The arrest and booking were inconvenient to Atwater, but not so extraordinary as to violate the Fourth Amendment," Justice David H. Souter wrote for the majority.

Souter was joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer dissented.

A lower federal judge had thrown out Atwater's lawsuit. A three-judge appellate court reinstated it, but the full 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled she could not sue.

The appeals court said the arrest was reasonable because the officer had reason to believe Atwater violated the law and the arrest was not carried out in an "extraordinary manner."

The states have widely varying policies on whether police can arrest people for minor offenses. Some states allow officers to arrest people for offenses punishable only by a fine, while others prohibit it. Some states let officers arrest someone they witness committing a misdemeanor offense only if the offense is considered a breach of peace.

During arguments at the Supreme Court last December, Atwater's lawyer said the Fourth Amendment restricts the use of arrest for minor offenses. The case would be different if someone were stopped for drunken or reckless driving, which could cause danger for others on the road if they were released, her lawyer said.

O'Connor, writing for the minority, said Atwater's arrest was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It does not make sense for the majority to say both that Atwater's arrest served no state purpose and also to say that it passed constitutional muster, O'Connor wrote.

"Because the court's position is inconsistent with the explicit guarantee of the Fourth Amendment, I dissent," she wrote.

The city's lawyer had argued that police are allowed to make an arrest if they witness someone violating the law. Police often don't have enough information to know if someone's actions are a misdemeanor or felony, the lawyer said.

The case is Atwater v. Lago Vista, 99-1408.

© 2001 The Associated Press

The Mark Wyatt Speed Trap Warning Case - A Happy Ending?

Wyatt was arrested for holding up a sign warning approaching motorists of a speed trap just over the hill on Highway 62 in Eagle Point. The arresting OSP officer had obviously forgotten his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States when he arrested Wyatt. Wyatt was interacting and communicating with the approaching motorists, and wasn't even standing in sight of the OSP officers conducting the radar operation, but he was charged with obstructing governmental administration anyway.

It is clear the arresting officer intended to teach Wyatt an expensive lesson, because instead of simply citing him, Wyatt was arrested and hauled off to jail where he had to put up $4,000.00 bail before being released.

The incident was reported in the local newspaper and the Southern Oregon Militia received at least 35 very angry calls on their hot line in one day alone. Sgt. Floyd at the OSP office had been fielding the same heat all day himself.

As it turns out, Mark Wyatt received a personal visit from Captain Tim McLain, the OSP's district commander, who informed him the OSP had asked the charges be dropped. Captain McLain also apologized to Mr. Wyatt for the arrest.