[Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Find all the Laws and Acts of San Andreas in this forum. Also contains the full Penal Code to list all crimes and punishments.

Moderators: Flemwad, Lead Admins

Post Reply
User avatar
Iudex.
veritas vos liberabit
veritas vos liberabit
Posts: 4027
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:15 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Iudex. » Wed Jul 18, 2018 8:03 pm

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

Samuel_Tsai
Civilian
Civilian
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:37 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Samuel_Tsai » Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm

(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.

User avatar
Paddy
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:12 pm
Ingame name: Terry_Reilley
Location: Scotland

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Paddy » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:23 pm

Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.
Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.
Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.
Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.
PADDY
ADMIN
RETIREE
DARRAGH A. MCLENAGHAN
LSSD ASSISTANT SHERIFF
CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
TERRY REILLEY
LSSD LIEUTENANT
BEACON HILL SHERIFF'S STATION
MARCEL V. PATRICK
LSSD SERGEANT
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU

User avatar
Marauder
Game Administrator
Posts: 11052
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:29 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Marauder » Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:08 pm

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

User avatar
Paddy
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:12 pm
Ingame name: Terry_Reilley
Location: Scotland

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Paddy » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:19 pm

Marauder wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:08 pm
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.
PADDY
ADMIN
RETIREE
DARRAGH A. MCLENAGHAN
LSSD ASSISTANT SHERIFF
CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
TERRY REILLEY
LSSD LIEUTENANT
BEACON HILL SHERIFF'S STATION
MARCEL V. PATRICK
LSSD SERGEANT
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU

User avatar
Marauder
Game Administrator
Posts: 11052
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:29 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Marauder » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 pm

Paddy wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:19 pm
Marauder wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 8:08 pm
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.

User avatar
Paddy
Retired Administrator
Retired Administrator
Posts: 2748
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 6:12 pm
Ingame name: Terry_Reilley
Location: Scotland

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Paddy » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:57 pm

Marauder wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:47 pm
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. :P
PADDY
ADMIN
RETIREE
DARRAGH A. MCLENAGHAN
LSSD ASSISTANT SHERIFF
CHIEF FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
TERRY REILLEY
LSSD LIEUTENANT
BEACON HILL SHERIFF'S STATION
MARCEL V. PATRICK
LSSD SERGEANT
SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT BUREAU

midox191
Gangster
Gangster
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 1:53 pm
Ingame name: Jennifer Wells
Location: Inside your closet

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by midox191 » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:27 pm

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.

User avatar
Marauder
Game Administrator
Posts: 11052
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:29 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Marauder » Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:45 pm

midox191 wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 5:27 pm
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
Civilian
Civilian
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2015 1:37 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Samuel_Tsai » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:04 pm

Paddy wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:23 pm
Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.

User avatar
Marauder
Game Administrator
Posts: 11052
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 5:29 am

Re: [Discussions / Questions] San Andreas Penal Code

Post by Marauder » Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:26 pm

Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:04 pm
Paddy wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:23 pm
Samuel_Tsai wrote:
Fri Sep 14, 2018 1:53 pm
(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.

Post Reply

Return to “Laws & Acts of San Andreas”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users