[Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Moderator: Senior Lead Admins

User avatar
Laos_Macen
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 3892
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 3:15 pm
Ingame name: Laos_Mason

[Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Laos_Macen » Sun Feb 28, 2016 3:53 am

The next update is in progress and people may make suggestions.

Please note the beginning of your suggestion like so:
[PC CHANGE/ADD/REMOVE] [NAME OF PC ENTRY]

What should be changed:

Why:

Code: Select all

[divbox=white][b] [PC CHANGE/ADD/REMOVE]  [NAME OF PC ENTRY][/b]

[b]What should be changed:[/b]

[b]Why:[/b][/divbox]
This is not the place to discuss people's suggestions. Please only post to make suggestions.

Thanks for your suggestions!

User avatar
LIBERTY SPEAKER
Civilian
Civilian
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2015 2:20 am
Ingame name: Am I being detained
Location: San Andreas Based

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by LIBERTY SPEAKER » Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:05 am

[PC ADD] [ILLEGAL CHECKPOINT]

What should be changed: Checkpoints run by either law enforcement agency are to be made illegal. Person in charge to either be given jail time or death sentence.

Why: The checkpoints they run are absolutely suspicion-less and are in direct violation of the fourth amendment.

User avatar
MoralesLSRP
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:21 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by MoralesLSRP » Sun Feb 28, 2016 11:59 am

Laos has already been made aware of this issue and has stated that he is looking into it for the possible update, I am just posting it here for organizational/reference purposes.
[PC CHANGE] [(4)02. Failure To Pay A Fine]

What should be changed: Add a section in the charge notes referencing something like the following, which clarifies some significant warrant and service issues involved with the officer discretion part of the charge. People are filing a bunch of arrest warrants on fines other people wrote and they are cancelling arrest warrants that other people have written just because the suspect pays later. If it is an active warrant, it cannot be cancelled by someone else just because someone pays, which has been previously established by Laos. This proposed change will make that clear in IC law and also prevent people who didn't write a citation from filing random outstanding warrants on citations someone else issued. This is important because an arrest warrant removes the ability to allow the suspect to pay. The proposed addition is as follows, which can obviously be shortened or clarified if needed.
  • "While any law enforcement officer has the power to arrest an individual who has overdue fines when they encounter them, an outstanding warrant or outstanding charge demanding that individual's future arrest may only be filed by the person that issued the original fine or the Court of authority over that fine, at their discretion. No law enforcement officer should file an arrest warrant regarding a fine that they did not issue themselves. If an outstanding arrest warrant or outstanding charge has been filed for an overdue fine by the person that issued the fine or the Court of authority over that fine, the individual must be arrested and the option to pay the fine to avoid arrest no longer applies unless the person or Court that filed the warrant/charge agrees to cancel the warrant/charge to allow the individual to pay the fine in lieu of arrest. The option to pay the fine in lieu of arrest should only be considered if there is no previously existing arrest warrant for that fine. This note is specifically intended to prevent law enforcement officers from filing outstanding warrants on fines they did not originally issue and to prevent law enforcement officers from cancelling an active warrant another law enforcement officer filed just because someone pays an overdue fine at a later date."
Why: This is in reference to a previous discussion with Laos, as the quoted topic has brought up some more issues that need to be resolved. I will just quote the post I submitted recently about this, which Laos has already been made aware of.
Laos_Macen wrote:
Bladeraven wrote:
(4)02. Failure To Pay A Fine ↑
A person who fails to pay a fine or court ordered fee within clearly stated and allotted time period.
A person CAN be given the opportunity to pay all fines in lieu of being arrested when being approached.
- Penal Code (4)02 is a misdemeanor punishable by 15 minutes imprisonment. This falls under Officer Discretion.
This is fine and well for people who have unpaid overdue fines and haven't had a charge added to their record yet.

However...

How does this relate to arrest warrants that have already been filed and 402 charges that have been applied to the MDC for the arrest of the subject? Does the officer serving the warrant HAVE to arrest them at that point (as it IS a warrant, not just an unpaid fine) or can the officer serving the warrant offer them the chance to pay the fines? Serving an arrest warrant that someone else made for 402 is different than just pulling someone over and seeing that they have an unpaid overdue fine with no charge added yet. If someone else wrote the arrest warrant, I am not comfortable giving them the option to pay the fine, as the person making the warrant may have intended for their arrest. Conversely, if I have to make an arrest warrant for someone who failed to pay a fine, I am not comfortable with some other officer letting them pay the fine and not arresting them (essentially cancelling my warrant...) on the charge that -I- filed. It says 'officer discretion' but if there is an arrest warrant, it doesn't clarify which officer's discretion it is... the one that made the warrant, or the one that is serving the warrant.

This should be clarified before the code is effective or it -will- cause confusion for currently existing warrants.
If there are arrest charges in the wanted it's a warrant and yes, they must be arrested.
Bladeraven wrote:Not to bring up a dead issue, but there is another problem which has recently surfaced regarding this.

If a deputy or officer issues a citation, is another deputy or officer legally allowed to make an active outstanding warrant (not an arrest, a warrant FOR arrest) on a citation that THEY did not originally issue? This is popping up lately and is important. They were allowed to do it before the officer discretion change, but now that the officer discretion and option to pay is in play, it complicates the issue of people filing warrants on someone else's issued tickets.

Example:
1. I issue a ticket to Bob Dole.
2. Another deputy sees that he failed to pay his fine on time but he has not actually encountered the guy.
3. That deputy (not me) issues a warrant for failure to pay a fine referencing the fine that I issued, not him.
4. Now people are obligated to arrest him without consulting with me, the fine issuer, to see if I wanted a warrant posted or not.

If not, I would recommend a formal change to the charge stating something like "While any law enforcement officer may arrest an individual who has overdue fines when they encounter them, an outstanding warrant/charge demanding that individual's arrest may only be filed by the person that issued the original citation at their discretion. If an arrest warrant/charge has been filed for an overdue fine by the person that issued the fine, the individual must be arrested and the option to pay the fine to avoid arrest no longer applies unless the person that filed the warrant/charge agrees to cancel the warrant/charge to allow the individual to pay the fine in lieu of arrest." This can obviously be shortened/simplified, but I wanted to make sure I get what I'm saying across.

This would clarify the issue on Failure to Pay warrants. It would prevent people from letting someone go on someone else's warrant and it would stop people from filing a bunch of arrest warrants on citations they had nothing to do with, under letter of IC law. It basically puts what you and I discussed, and what I just suggested in this post, into IC law. This is something that is currently relevant because people are issuing warrants on citations they had nothing to do with in the first place and there is nothing currently written in the Penal Code to prevent that. Further, there is nothing formally written in the Penal Code clarifying that officer discretion on Failure to Pay no longer applies when there is an active warrant for that charge and some people have used that to cancel warrants that they didn't file in the first place just because the suspect paid their fine when the warrant was being served. It may be implied, but people aren't seeing that and it needs to be clarified under letter of law in my opinion because people keep doing the wrong thing without realizing it.
Image
Retired Faction Leader (Chief Justice) of the Courts of San Andreas / Retired Tester / Retired Government Management (Faction Management)
Current Characters: Alice Evans (Retired Chief Justice) | | Alexis Addison (Private Attorney)

Fly high, Pitch. We love you.

User avatar
Fallcon
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 666
Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2014 8:14 pm
Location: Ireland

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Fallcon » Sun Feb 28, 2016 2:18 pm

[ADD] [Tinted Windows]

What should be changed: They should be illegal if they don't let a certain level of light in. Citation similar to registration violation (3000~5000) and impoundment of vehicle at officers discretion sounds suitable.

Why: In most places you can't have full on tinted windows. Or they have to let something like 70% light in.

State Traffic Unit have tint meters also to check the Darkness of tint which is measured by Visible Light Transmission percentage (VLT%)

thekillergreece
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 859
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 10:49 am
Ingame name: Jessica Eponimos

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by thekillergreece » Sun Feb 28, 2016 4:41 pm

[PC CHANGE] [Vandalism]

What should be changed: Vandalism charge which is misdemeanor.

Why:
Because Vandalism for arrestable offence is a bit overkill and too much. I am suggesting a change. Whoever is vandalising a wall, a vehicle or anything else, shall be fined with 2500$ price.

If the person caused too much damage, he shall be finedd with 5000$
Ex-Corporal Jessica Eponimos

Used to serve the San Andreas Sheriff Department in 7th June 2015 till August 2017. Better faction than the LSSD.

ImageImage

User avatar
Bospy
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2091
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 10:23 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Bospy » Mon Feb 29, 2016 7:34 pm

[PC ADD] [Mayhem]

What should be changed: A charge essentially used against people that permanently disfigure/disable a victim in some way, eg cutting an arm off/making them blind. Different from torture in that it could be negligence that causes it, and it could be done on accident during a fight.

Why: Common state-based penal code charged, it's a step above Aggravated Battery.
I don't mind if you send me a PM for an outstanding ban appeal if I haven't answered within 48 hours.

Image
RETIRED CHIEF OF POLICE BAUDELIO HUERTA
Los Santos Police Department — "To Protect and to Serve"

User avatar
knppel
Bad News
Bad News
Posts: 2779
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2014 12:20 am
Ingame name: Carry Saunders

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by knppel » Mon Feb 29, 2016 8:39 pm

[11] [Abandoned Vehicle Definition]

What should be changed: A vehicle permanently standing (/v buypark) on a public parking space, or a private one the vehicle holder has no legal access to by permission of the property owners, is defined as abandonded vehicle and to be charged with 11 (04), as well as impounded by traffic units (on demand of the owner in case of private parking spaces).

Why:While there's been attempts ic lately to enforce a somewhat realistic parking order at certain hotspots, I, being a keen oberver ic of (not only, but mainly) the scenery located around the mall, could not help but notice that the approach to simply prevent parking reaches to short.
What causes the totally random-looking clusters of cars is less people simply ignoring physics and driving up parking randomly (some do, but then again on those you can already call the cops), it is mostly the fact a lot of people actually have cars permanently located at the mall (and to an extinct, other spots such as Idlestacks).
They will (and do) /v get their cars no matter how filled the parking lot already is (I did regularly call 911 lately because of people getting their cars on top of mine).
A passage such as this could enable public as well as private disitributers of parking space to maintain the property and guarantee it's actual use for parking of customers and deliverers, in the case of the mall, rather than to serve as hangout spot AND storage "house" for homeless people (who often tend to park several cars at the mall, one to show off, one for the stash etc- while a poor level 3 in an admiral can be realistically treated as homeless person ic, it gets ridiculous when some wannabe gangbanger has a bullet, a banshee and a sultan all parked at the mall, one of them full with drugs and guns).

User avatar
VACANT
Mafia
Mafia
Posts: 304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 8:50 pm
Ingame name: Austin_Mitchell
Location: Georgia, United States

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by VACANT » Tue Mar 01, 2016 4:12 am

[PC CHANGE] [(11)10. Driving Under The Influence (DUI)]

What should be changed:
1. A person who drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol at or above the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAV
2. A person who drives a vehicle or operates heavy machinery while under the influence of alcohol at or above the legal limit of 0.08 percent BAV - This is the same as 1.
3. A person who drives or operates heavy machinery under the influence of awareness-altering drugs, regardless of whether those drugs are being used under a prescription. - This should not be limited to heavy machinery. A motor vehicle is just as dangerous as heavy machinery when someone is operating it under the influence.

Why: I've stopped several people who have been under the influence of marijuana, but marijuana isn't measured by blood alcohol content, neither is being under the influence of any type of prescription drug or controlled substance. I also believe that if you're under the age of 21, the legal limit should be 0.02 and while operating a commercial vehicle(semis, trucker vehicles, etc), the legal limit should be 0.04
Image
Deputy Sheriff Austin A. Mitchell
Los Santos County Sheriff's Department

'A Criminal's Worst Nightmare'

User avatar
MoralesLSRP
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 1:21 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by MoralesLSRP » Wed Mar 02, 2016 6:56 pm

[PC CHANGE] [(8)01. Driving With A Suspended License]

What should be changed: Add an OOC clarification note to the charge stating something like...

"OOC note: Going to the DMV and getting another script driver's license while your license is ICly suspended does NOT cancel an active license suspension. If your driver's license is suspended ICly, getting a script license to replace it does not count. You must either ICly have the suspension revoked by proper authorities or wait until the suspension time has been served, THEN get another script license from the DMV, in order to legally drive."

Why: Too many people who get their driver's licenses suspended seem to think that they can go to the DMV and get a replacement script license and that it cancels the suspension, then they argue about it when they are getting arrested for driving on a suspended license. This OOC clarification note gives us as cops something to point out to them in clear and concise text. This is already something that is in effect, it would just help if it was written down in the charge.
Image
Retired Faction Leader (Chief Justice) of the Courts of San Andreas / Retired Tester / Retired Government Management (Faction Management)
Current Characters: Alice Evans (Retired Chief Justice) | | Alexis Addison (Private Attorney)

Fly high, Pitch. We love you.

User avatar
shotofwhiskey
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 931
Joined: Sun Aug 11, 2013 2:20 am
Ingame name: Althea_DeWynter

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by shotofwhiskey » Wed Mar 02, 2016 8:35 pm

[PC ADD] [Repeat Violation (Enhancement?)]

What should be changed: A person that is found to be committing an offense and has been convicted of that offense 3 or more times within a set period of time.

Why: This is more thought toward misdemeanors like: (11)14. Driving without a Valid License - Where persons refuse to correct their wrong doings and continue to commit the offenses despite their already being punished for the act. The system should work as an escalation of the punishment each time if committed within a certain period of time, say a month. This system would also work for misdemeanors like Vandalism & Illegal NoS possession.

Vokttam
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 874
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2014 1:56 pm
Location: Dixie Land.

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Vokttam » Fri Mar 04, 2016 1:28 am

[PC CHANGE] [(11)11. Registration Violation]

What should be changed:- Road Law (11)11 is an infraction of $5000, as well as a driver’s warning or impoundment of the individual’s vehicle at the peace officer’s discretion

Why:I think the driver's warning should be removed since it's not a traffic offense and makes no sense to receive a warning for something that isn't road related.

alexandra.

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by alexandra. » Fri Mar 04, 2016 4:35 am

[PC CHANGE] [Suspension of Motor Vehicle Licenses]

What should be changed:
[1] When a misdemeanor traffic offense has occurred, a felony traffic offense has occurred, or any two different road infractions have occurred during the same instance in conjunction with each other, an officer shall have the discretion to suspend the motor vehicle license of the offender.
[2] When any two disjoint traffic infractions have occurred within a 6 hour time-frame of each other, an officer shall have the discretion to suspend the motor vehicle license of the offender.
[3] Suspensions shall be a minimum of three days in length, and a maximum of 7 days in length, using officer discretion, except where other specifications apply. The Superior Court of San Andreas, Criminal Division, shall hold discretion to suspend a person's motor vehicle license for any reasonable time period.
[4] Any individual who evades authorities by vehicular means shall have their motor vehicle license revoked and suspended for a period of 10 days following completion of their sentence. Any individual who evades authorities by vehicular means and is convicted of a third charge of Evading a Police Officer shall have their license revoked and suspended for a period of 30 days, and 30 days for each subsequent charge of Evading a Police Officer.

Why:
People are mad reckless with evading because the reward is higher than the risk.

User avatar
Airwalk
Spam Machine
Spam Machine
Posts: 7326
Joined: Wed May 30, 2012 5:52 am

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Airwalk » Sat Mar 05, 2016 6:12 am

[PC CHANGE] [(2)16. Fraud]

What should be changed: Change it to a misdemeanor, minimum time of 30 minutes in county, maximum time of 120 in SACF.

Why: The charge is hardly used, but I have noticed that many people apply it for the usage fake licenses as an example and going to prison for a faked license is just silly in my opinion. Maximum time can be given under certain circumstances, depending on the severity of the Fraud or repeated offenders, so they can still be sent to prison.

Cortez
Super Lawyer
Super Lawyer
Posts: 4822
Joined: Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:36 pm
Ingame name: Lance_Richmond
Location: District of Columbia

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Cortez » Sat Mar 05, 2016 7:14 pm

[PC CHANGE] [(2)16. Fraud]

What should be changed: Charge should be authorized by the Department of Justice and not left to officer discretion.

Why: The charge is often misapplied by PD/SD, for example to imprison people who failed to repay a loan. Owing money is not a criminal offense and should be handled through the civil courts instead.

User avatar
Hudson
Wannabe Don
Wannabe Don
Posts: 1474
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:24 pm

Re: [Suggestions] 2016 Penal Code Update

Post by Hudson » Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:37 pm

[PC CHANGE] [(3)03. Prostitution]

What should be changed: The note.

Why: The "Prostitution punishes the payee. The payor is charged with Indecent Exposure or Lewd Conduct." doesn't make sense. It's the opposite of what the description says originally. Please update it somehow. Also, don't forget, if someone asks a girl to commit prostitution then it's (10)03. Soliciting, so he'd get the same punishment.

Locked

Return to “Laws & Acts of San Andreas Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users