Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Poll: What's your opinion of RS 32:392.1 Impounding of vehicles; exceptions

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • patroldog
    replied
    Bunch of Bulls***, i have to pay, do you?? If so, everyone should pay or take the bus, As far as this LAW, its political pressure to ease off on the voters, bull, However, i hve no problem pulling the plate and issuing the green sticker along with a citation for 32:836.1 and a citation for thr reason of initial stop, any cars w/green stickers already in place provide new opportunity's to tow vehicle with no proof,we can get them anyway

    Leave a comment:


  • kjlaw
    replied
    Something everyone needs to know is that the insuracnce database with DMV is like the credit report they are quick to report bad but slow on the good alot. i.e the will report a stop but may not report the reinstatement.

    Leave a comment:


  • creolecop
    replied
    I asked the question at work and here is what I was told. 32:863.1 is just for PROOF of liability insurance. If they say they have it but they don't have proof in their vehicle and you are unable to confirm or deny that insurance then you issue the green weenie on the back window, take the plate, cite them and allow them to move on. If you can prove through mobile computer or otherwise that they do not have insurance ie...calling 1-800 number and checking the policy if they present an expired card but says they have the same policy. I'v done this when our computers were down and it was quick and easy. I say I'm so and so with agency X and need to verify a policy is still active, they ask for the number and say yes or no, thank you and hang up.

    On my mobile when I run the plate it tells me yes it's insured or NO it's not insured. If insured it will give me all the company and policy information as well as the date they got it. When they let it lapse then the insurance company notifies the DMV who changes it to NO insurance in the system (real time). So if it says no insurance I on the stop, I (we) will tow you, take the plate, issue NOV, and appropriate citations.

    Leave a comment:


  • LSUfan71
    replied
    There's been several times where I haven't towed a vehicle due to this statute (minor violations). What troubled me most about it is that this was a unanimous vote by the legislature, I've gotta believe most lawmakers never read it.

    Leave a comment:


  • creolecop
    replied
    We still tow for no insurance, failure to register vehicle, suspended DL, and of course arrest (rarely is there a passenger with a valid DL to take possession. They even came back after that came out and said continue business as usual.

    Leave a comment:


  • LSUfan71
    replied
    Originally posted by JPSO Recruit View Post
    Sadly since those ****** passed that law we can only tow for 2nd Offense Insurance Violation, however we are hardly unable to prove a 2nd offense unless they have the green NOV sticker. Retarded law, used to tow 5 vehicles a week on No Insurance, now I get maybe 1 a month.
    That's pretty much my take on it, the locals are becoming aware of it. Should only make the ins problem worse.

    Leave a comment:


  • JPSO Recruit
    replied
    Sadly since those ****** passed that law we can only tow for 2nd Offense Insurance Violation, however we are hardly able to prove a 2nd offense unless they have the green NOV sticker. Retarded law, used to tow 5 vehicles a week on No Insurance, now I get maybe 1 a month.
    Last edited by JPSO Recruit; 04-16-2011, 12:15 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Poll: What's your opinion of RS 32:392.1 Impounding of vehicles; exceptions

    3
    +2 Great idea, I like it
    0.00%
    0
    +1 Makes sense
    0.00%
    0
    No concern
    0.00%
    0
    -1 It's silly
    33.33%
    1
    -2 Horrible idea, I hate it
    66.67%
    2

    The poll is expired.

    I didn't like this when I first became aware of it, still don't like it. The law restricts impounding vehicles for first offense violations of RS 32:863.1 (proof of ins). Of course there are ways around it, i.e. danger to public, criminal act, evidence, arrest... etc. I'm interested in hearing others' opinions.

    If you're not familiar with it you can read it here:
    http://www.legis.state.la.us/lss/lss.asp?doc=726511
    Last edited by LSUfan71; 04-14-2011, 01:44 PM.

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 4116 users online. 238 members and 3878 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X