[Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

[Iudex]

That is wrong. Not the correct thread, however. Message me with your concerns.

[Samuel_Tsai]

(11)10. Driving While Impaired (DWI) mentions that government employees should receive the maximum sentence and the HR department of that employee should be contacted. The (11)11. Driving Under The Influence (DUI) charge, however, does not state anything related to government employees. I feel like this is something that was overlooked.

(11)12. Registration Violation dictates that law enforcement should give a driver’s warning or impoundment of the individual’s vehicle at the peace officer’s discretion. The "or" should be changed to "and/or". I feel like police officers should be given the discretion to both impound and give an official driver's warning.

(11)15. Driving without a Valid License ↑
1. A person operating a motor vehicle without carrying a valid driver's license.
Shouldn't this be changed from "carrying" to "possessing"? Since if someone decides to Roleplay forgetting their driver's license at home they would be committing a misdemeanor. Exploitable for corrupted officers. It is also repeated in 3. A person operating a motor vehicle without a valid, unexpired permit or license. This is basically the same as 1.

(11)20. Fire Hydrant Parking Restriction should mention that emergency vehicles can leave their vehicles standing near fire hydrants in case of emergencies. Currently, only the Fire Department has the possibility to stop, park, or leave their vehicle standing near these hydrants however emergency services might not have the time to drive another 15 feet to park their vehicle.

[Paddy]

(11)10. Driving While Impaired (DWI) mentions that government employees should receive the maximum sentence and the HR department of that employee should be contacted. The (11)11. Driving Under The Influence (DUI) charge, however, does not state anything related to government employees. I feel like this is something that was overlooked.

The misdemeanor offence may not be a disqualifying factor for government employment and as such there has to be an alternative mandated punishment. The felony will result in termination of that employee's career, so the standard charge circumstances should apply.

(11)12. Registration Violation dictates that law enforcement should give a driver’s warning or impoundment of the individual’s vehicle at the peace officer’s discretion. The "or" should be changed to "and/or". I feel like police officers should be given the discretion to both impound and give an official driver's warning.

It's always been and/or. I believe this is merely a typo.

(11)15. Driving without a Valid License ↑
1. A person operating a motor vehicle without carrying a valid driver's license.
Shouldn't this be changed from "carrying" to "possessing"? Since if someone decides to Roleplay forgetting their driver's license at home they would be committing a misdemeanor. Exploitable for corrupted officers. It is also repeated in 3. A person operating a motor vehicle without a valid, unexpired permit or license. This is basically the same as 1.

Carrying is correct, which is why 3 is needed. The law stipulates that you should be carrying your license when operating a vehicle. As for being exploitable, that's what IAB, IAG and the Courts are for.

(11)20. Fire Hydrant Parking Restriction should mention that emergency vehicles can leave their vehicles standing near fire hydrants in case of emergencies. Currently, only the Fire Department has the possibility to stop, park, or leave their vehicle standing near these hydrants however emergency services might not have the time to drive another 15 feet to park their vehicle.

Only the Fire Department should be able to park next to hydrants because only the Fire Department need access to Hydrants. In the event of an emergency such as those you are referring to, Law Enforcement are exempt from Title 11 offences anyway until such time as the emergency has been dealt with, at which point that cruiser should be moved immediately to allow access for Fire.

[FiendFyre]

As for registration violation, I think personally it's fine as OR. Impoundment is enough of a headache as is

[Paddy]

As for registration violation, I think personally it's fine as OR. Impoundment is enough of a headache as is

I think the issue that stems from it being "or" rather than "and/or" is that it results in a loss of discretion depending on the circumstances surrounding the charge. While I understand that towing or the practicality in obtaining a wrecker isn't always present, that shouldn't be the grounds for amending the law to limit the penalty of an absence of registration.

[FiendFyre]

As for registration violation, I think personally it's fine as OR. Impoundment is enough of a headache as is

I think the issue that stems from it being "or" rather than "and/or" is that it results in a loss of discretion depending on the circumstances surrounding the charge. While I understand that towing or the practicality in obtaining a wrecker isn't always present, that shouldn't be the grounds for amending the law to limit the penalty of an absence of registration.

It was changed at the penal code revision, so another change would require the senate IC. Personally I prefer the OR and not the AND/OR. If you're going to impound, shouldn't give them a driver's warning to boot imo.

[Paddy]

It was changed at the penal code revision, so another change would require the senate IC. Personally I prefer the OR and not the AND/OR. If you're going to impound, shouldn't give them a driver's warning to boot imo.

I see where you're coming from. It's a bit of a double whammy. That said, I feel that the act of having an unregistered car is pretty deliberate and you should be subject to the full penalty of law with regards to it. That also said, I think it's a very minor detail and I personally would just go with what's in effect without caring too much.

[.Angelo.]

I believe LEO discretion is fair in that matter. If the vehicle is unregistered or has no plates, the owner will have to get it to the dealership to complete registration. LEOs should issue a 5000$ fine in addition to a driver warning, they can either impound the vehicle or allow the driver to call for a tow truck to carry the vehicle to the dealership so the registration process can be done.

[FiendFyre]

I believe LEO discretion is fair in that matter. If the vehicle is unregistered or has no plates, the owner will have to get it to the dealership to complete registration. LEOs should issue a 5000$ fine in addition to a driver warning, they can either impound the vehicle or allow the driver to call for a tow truck to carry the vehicle to the dealership so the registration process can be done.

As it stands it's a warning or impoundment. I've also personally followed people to the dealership when I was a cop to allow them to register their vehicle, back when I was in SD. Just depends on the situation, that's why there's charges that allow discretion.

[Samuel_Tsai]

(11)15. Driving without a Valid License ↑
1. A person operating a motor vehicle without carrying a valid driver's license.
Shouldn't this be changed from "carrying" to "possessing"? Since if someone decides to Roleplay forgetting their driver's license at home they would be committing a misdemeanor. Exploitable for corrupted officers. It is also repeated in 3. A person operating a motor vehicle without a valid, unexpired permit or license. This is basically the same as 1.

Carrying is correct, which is why 3 is needed. The law stipulates that you should be carrying your license when operating a vehicle. As for being exploitable, that's what IAB, IAG and the Courts are for.

While I understand that carrying is indeed correct in the sentence, I find it very curious that someone can be arrested for simply not having their drivers license with them, even when having a valid drivers license at home. I find a citation a lot more fitting here.

As for regulations on peace officers being exempt from title 11 infractions, I can't find anything in the penal code related to this. Maybe something that should be added? Since the fire department is specifically mentioned here, it feels like it excludes any other emergency service.

As for unlicensed vehicles, I feel like vehicles that are standing on the side of the road without license plates should be towed and fined. I feel like there is no reason to hold back officers from fining and impounding the vehicle.

[FiendFyre]

(11)15. Driving without a Valid License ↑
1. A person operating a motor vehicle without carrying a valid driver's license.
Shouldn't this be changed from "carrying" to "possessing"? Since if someone decides to Roleplay forgetting their driver's license at home they would be committing a misdemeanor. Exploitable for corrupted officers. It is also repeated in 3. A person operating a motor vehicle without a valid, unexpired permit or license. This is basically the same as 1.

Carrying is correct, which is why 3 is needed. The law stipulates that you should be carrying your license when operating a vehicle. As for being exploitable, that's what IAB, IAG and the Courts are for.

While I understand that carrying is indeed correct in the sentence, I find it very curious that someone can be arrested for simply not having their drivers license with them, even when having a valid drivers license at home. I find a citation a lot more fitting here.

As for regulations on peace officers being exempt from title 11 infractions, I can't find anything in the penal code related to this. Maybe something that should be added? Since the fire department is specifically mentioned here, it feels like it excludes any other emergency service.

As for unlicensed vehicles, I feel like vehicles that are standing on the side of the road without license plates should be towed and fined. I feel like there is no reason to hold back officers from fining and impounding the vehicle.

As for your first point, you can bring it up IC to a senator.

As for your second point, they aren't exempt. If they run intersections without an emergency they can technically still be fined - but has to be done through their own department's chain of command.

For your third point - they have absolute cause to do this. I used to. Some just don't want to.

[Tony Gunter]

Prison'ing someone without identifying them doesn't make any sense to me. There is not a single prisoner IRL whose identity is unknown. With that being said, I don't understand why the 900 minute penalty exists. I believe PD/SD should be allowed to NPC that DCR would process the suspect and the suspect would be successfully identified. Something along those lines.

[Flemwad]

Prison'ing someone without identifying them doesn't make any sense to me. There is not a single prisoner IRL whose identity is unknown. With that being said, I don't understand why the 900 minute penalty exists. I believe PD/SD should be allowed to NPC that DCR would process the suspect and the suspect would be successfully identified. Something along those lines.

That would be powergaming though. If we don't have any records and we can't access your information then we cannot force you to give up your information. At the end of the day, this is to discourage this type of roleplay/behavior as you can see the apparent flaws.

[alexandra.]

Seems the recent change in age of consent is illogical; did LS somehow get a hyper-conservative government and that's what caused that change? Nearly all of the most democratic countries in the world have lowered the age of consent. It's also highly illogical and realistically problematic for a government to change a law in the manner to increase it after it being lower. There's no way in court a judge can find a persons in wrong doing for maintaining relationships, or not dissolving previous relationships in light of such a change in law. Legally, trying to request that would be a nightmare considering its pretty much a basic human rights violation to say two people, who were previously by law able to be together and began seeing each other due to it being legal, now can't.

Did anyone consider the realistic legal aspects of this change of law, or was it a simple edit of numbers in the text? Did anyone consider the major legal problems revolving around persons previously declared to be able to give their consent, now suddenly not being able to, and the major violation of that persons right to freedom?

Consider contacting an attorney if you believe this law to be unfair or unjust. My door is always open. :D

[Tony Gunter]

Prison'ing someone without identifying them doesn't make any sense to me. There is not a single prisoner IRL whose identity is unknown. With that being said, I don't understand why the 900 minute penalty exists. I believe PD/SD should be allowed to NPC that DCR would process the suspect and the suspect would be successfully identified. Something along those lines.

That would be powergaming though. If we don't have any records and we can't access your information then we cannot force you to give up your information. At the end of the day, this is to discourage this type of roleplay/behavior as you can see the apparent flaws.

Well then how does the identification part take place for those who refuse in real life because there's no prisoner unidentified IRL? Maybe LSRP can adopt similar techniques.