Is Hooning in a snowy parking lot illegal?

andrave wrote: well, technically, a po po can't pull you over unless he has reasonable suspicion that youre breaking the law, and also technically, he can't accost you on private property without a warrant.

So, you are saying if he is standing on a public road and sees you "hooning" on a private parking lot, that he doesn't have reasonable suspicion, or the right to question you??

I think you are mistaken.

He absolutely has reasonable suspicion, and every right to question you, just as if you were doing the same thing on my front lawn.

I don't know where you guys get this idea that police can't do their work on private property. They are almost ALWAYS doing their job on private property. Reasonable suspicion gives him the right. "Hooning" gives him reasonable suspicion.

novaderrik wrote:

andrave wrote: well, technically, a po po can't pull you over unless he has reasonable suspicion that youre breaking the law, and also technically, he can't accost you on private property without a warrant. So it would be a pretty stupid po po that would drive onto private property to pull over the landowner. I could get that ticket tossed in fewer seconds than it takes a yugo to go from 0-60 on an ice road.

so you'd never get that ticket tossed?

I was thinking the hearing would probably be about 15 minutes long. that sounded fair. lol

SVreX wrote:

andrave wrote: well, technically, a po po can't pull you over unless he has reasonable suspicion that youre breaking the law, and also technically, he can't accost you on private property without a warrant.

So, you are saying if he is standing on a public road and sees you "hooning" on a private parking lot, that he doesn't have reasonable suspicion, or the right to question you?? I think you are mistaken. He absolutely has reasonable suspicion, and every right to question you, just as if you were doing the same thing on my front lawn. I don't know where you guys get this idea that police can't do their work on private property. They are almost ALWAYS doing their job on private property. Reasonable suspicion gives him the right. "Hooning" gives him reasonable suspicion.

Correct. Now if you are the property owner and trell him to berkeley off, he will leave... And follow you when you leave in order to ticket you for something else.

SVreX wrote:

andrave wrote: well, technically, a po po can't pull you over unless he has reasonable suspicion that youre breaking the law, and also technically, he can't accost you on private property without a warrant.

So, you are saying if he is standing on a public road and sees you "hooning" on a private parking lot, that he doesn't have reasonable suspicion, or the right to question you?? I think you are mistaken. He absolutely has reasonable suspicion, and every right to question you, just as if you were doing the same thing on my front lawn. I don't know where you guys get this idea that police can't do their work on private property. They are almost ALWAYS doing their job on private property. Reasonable suspicion gives him the right. "Hooning" gives him reasonable suspicion.

clearly someone from the blue shirt type community. I'm an attorney. Police can't go onto my private property except in very limited circumstances. Me doing donuts wouldn't be one of them unless I had the misfortune of living in a state where reckless driving extended onto private property. Cops don't look at the law and say "if I do this, will whatever i discover be admissible in court," they just do whatever they want and think they can justify to their supervisor. A cop might THINK he can go onto my property and harass me over private property hooning, but if he decided to write me a ticket I'd easily get it tossed. Its not "reasonable suspicion" to trespass on someone's property. Its only reasonable suspicion to pull someone over. The supreme court has decided people have less right to privacy in their cars on a public road.

I find this part funny.... Clearly.

andrave wrote: clearly someone from the blue shirt type community. I'm an attorney.

If youre making the argument that cops can and should be able to troop onto private property any time they want to, just to check things out and look around and see if they can find anything to cite or anyone to arrest, well, that sounsd like most people I know in the law enforcement field. "hey, if you wasn't doing nothing wrong then why do you care?"

In reply to andrave:

Just pointing out that for an attorney, you sure seem to assume a lot, which I would expect to be against your nature.

Clearly you don't know many attorneys.

In reply to andrave:

No, and we'll keep you the only one I "know" for now.

If an oficer observes an illegal activity, he has the right to intercede. Private property or not. If the officer sees "hooning" as illegal or more properly trespassing, then he is in the right.

"Trespassing" is the key.

So much fail there. Lets see: No, an officer doesn't have the right intercede any time he sees an "illegal" activity, first off. I can plant marijuana in a greenhouse on the front lawn and he is still gonna need a warrant.

It doesnt' matter if the officer "sees hooning as illegal," the issue would be whether the hooning is actually in violation of a state statute. If its, then perhaps he could intercede. If its not, as it isn't in most states (on private property), then he can't intercede. If its not a crime then he can't legally interfere, regardless of whether he "sees it as a crime." You mentioned trespass. Trespass is not a crime against the public, so it can't be charged with a complaint against the trespasser. In some jurisdictions, landowners can "post" their property and/or give law enforcement permission to treat anyone found upon the land as trespasers, but generally not. If you are "hooning" on your own property you should be free from police intereference.

andrave wrote: So much fail there. Lets see: No, an officer doesn't have the right intercede any time he sees an "illegal" activity, first off. I can plant marijuana in a greenhouse on the front lawn and he is still gonna need a warrant.

What kind of lawyer are you? Divorce? Because I'm pretty sure that's completely wrong.

They absolutely are able to enter some private property in response to witnessing certain crimes. A parking lot does not have the same protections as the interior of someone's home. You car also does not have the same protections. If they have probable cause, they can involuntarily haul you out of your vehicle - private parking lot or not - and arrest you. Witnessing pot possession, or even smelling pot, is enough to allow them to do that. They do not need a warrant or your consent to search and arrest you if they witness a crime.

Sigh....this is turning into Arrest, Search, and Seizure 101. I cant even get into plain smell, plain view, private property, and expectation of privacy because those subjects are just too big. Specific instances such as doing donuts in a snowy lot and whether it is illegal is very specific to what state it occurs in because of the exact wording of the laws. In Texas Transportation code 545.401 states " A person commits an offense if the person drives a vehicle in wilful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" -note that there is no mention of being the owner of the property but you do effectively have to have people in danger of injury or damaged property. The law then mentions that it applies to "a private access way or parking area provided for a client or patron by a business, other than a private residential property or the property of a garage or parking lot for which a charge is made for the storing or parking of motor vehicles" -means it applies to parking lots but not your house's yard or a pay lot. It also later mentions that it applies to highways and public roads. In Texas there are also racing and breach of the peace laws, but that is another issue.

I would agree that they are complex. And no I don't do much criminal law. I was a prosecutor for a while but I only handled the civil aspect of abuse and neglect cases. So its outside of my zone where I am extremely knowledgeable and inside my zone where I knew it to pass a class in law school and had to demonstrate some sort of knowledge in it 6 years ago to pass the bar.

But the point is that the statement "if a cop sees you doing something he thinks is illegal he can come arrest you for it," or whatever, is not true. In some circumstances he can, but in just as many he cannot without lots of hassle a cop wouldn't go through.

BTW the texas definition above doesn't provide exemptions for autocross and drift events. So that could get interesting. The cops in Houston were always working hard to harass attendees of motorcycle and car shows and informal "meet and greets," it really wouldn't surprise me if they showed up at gulf greyhound park with rollbacks.

I have to age with andrave for the most part. Were talking about private property mixing with traffic law. Its a very sticky subject. Being caught in the commission of a felony or violent misdemeanor is a completely different story. Does that clear this issue up?

Looked up the WV statute, as its been a while: §17C-5-3. Reckless driving; penalties. (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon any street or highway, or upon any residential street, or in any parking area, or upon the ways of any institution of higher education, whether public or private, or upon the ways of any state institution, or upon the property of any county boards of education, or upon any property within the state park and public recreation system established by the Director of the Division of Natural Resources pursuant to section three, article four, chapter twenty of this code in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving. (b) The provisions of subsection (a) of this section shall not apply to those areas which have been temporarily closed for racing sport events or which may be set aside by the Director of the Division of Natural Resources within the state park and recreation system for exclusive use by motorcycles or other recreational vehicles. (emphasis added) So thats interesting. I see successful prosecution of this very dependant on "in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty." For instance, of the only property you willfully and wantonly disregard the safety of is your own, why would they care?

Do note that our statute at least has a provision exempting racing or sporting events.

Virginia apparently has a specific statute drafted for parking lots: § 46.2-864. Reckless driving on parking lots, etc.

A person is guilty of reckless driving who operates any motor vehicle at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger the life, limb, or property of any person:

1. On any driveway or premises of a church, school, recreational facility, or business or governmental property open to the public; or

2. On the premises of any industrial establishment providing parking space for customers, patrons, or employees; or

3. On any highway under construction or not yet open to the public.

I do like that Tennessee spends so much time worrying about motorcyclists riding wheelies... honestly when is the last time you heard of anyone being killed by a wheelie other than the squid on the bike? Tennessee Code §55-10-205: Reckless driving [6] (a) Any person who drives a vehicle with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property commits reckless driving. (b) A person commits an offense of reckless driving who drives a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground in willful and wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property on any public street, highway, alley, parking lot, or driveway, or on the premises of any shopping center, trailer park, apartment house complex, or any other premises which are generally frequented by the public at large. Provided, the offense of reckless driving for driving a motorcycle with the front tire raised off the ground shall not be applicable to persons riding in a parade, at a speed not to exceed thirty (30) miles per hour, if the person is eighteen (18) years of age or older.

In re-reading my post it was not entirely polite, I did intend it to be jokey but it came across as kind of mean. Sorry about that andrave!!

New York- looks like its highway only in NY: New York VEHICLE & TRAFFIC LAW Section 1212. Reckless Driving § 1212. Reckless driving. Reckless driving shall mean driving or using any motor vehicle, motorcycle or any other vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power or any appliance or accessory thereof in a manner which unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway, or unreasonably endangers users of the public highway. Reckless driving is prohibited. Every person violating this provision shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.

In reply to andrave:

Note the part in the Texas law about "parking lot for which a charge is made". If you or your club paid a dollar or a donut for the use of the lot then it is a paid lot and there can be no reckless driving charge. I got a late night call a few years ago about a group of guys on monkey bikes that had coned a grocery store lot late at night and were racing at 2 am. There were no noise complaints and the officer asked me what he should do. Turns out they paid the property owner a 6 pack to use the lot.

I told the officer he should get a cup of coffee and enjoy the show.

In reply to andrave:

Could you find a relevant Missouri law? I'm lazy.

Only thing I find for mizzou is what you guys must call 'careless driving,'

Motorists to exercise highest degree of care--violation, penalty. 304.012. 1. Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care.

1. Any person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a class B misdemeanor, unless an accident is involved then it shall be a class A misdemeanor.

But to be fair, I didn't scour the statutes looking for ancillary statutes. Some things are easier on the internet, like looking for a specific statute. But looking for related laws is typically much easier with a paper copy and of course I don't have one for other states.

In reply to andrave:

I know we have a lot of tickets some states may not have, so I'm sure there's something more relevant. C&I driving, for instance is a ticket that some states may not have.

N Sperlo wrote: In reply to andrave: Could you find a relevant Missouri law? I'm lazy.

I'll vouch for that. (You also know more than one attorney, Sperlo.)

..and here he is!

In MO, the catchall statute usually used for charging careless and imprudent driving states as follows:

"Every person operating a motor vehicle on the roads and highways of this state shall drive the vehicle in a careful and prudent manner and at a rate of speed so as not to endanger the property of another or the life or limb of any person and shall exercise the highest degree of care." (RSMO 304.012 ).

I don't really like that, because it's a really broadly drawn statute that gives a lot of "discretion" to LEO's, but it DOES specifically only reference "roads and highways".

Disclaimer: Not actual legal advice. No attorney-client relationship implied. Consult your doctor to determine whether or not you are healthy enough for hoonage. Your mileage may vary (and should). Unprofessional driver on a closed course. Car may explode at any time for any reason.