Entrapment ??

[Berkhof]

I know this question could be viewed as 'motoring' but here goes ?

Could the use of a BLACK unmarked Police car parked, without lights, in a layby on an unlit road at night be viewed as 'Entrapment ' ?

[sara3]

entrapment?

what did you/ they do?

[ChuckFickens]

Entrapment: inducing a person to commit an offense which would be illegal and the person would otherwise have been unlikely to commit

How does parking a car (of any colour) in a layby induce a person to commit an offense?

[Berkhof]

Sorry ! The word entrapment may the the wrong choice. The correct section should come under 'Covert Operations' and the rules applied to such operations.

[sara3]

I don't get your question. the police are allowed to do "covert operations" with the appropriate authorisation under RIPA

[sn�gs]

''Could the use of a BLACK unmarked Police car parked, without lights, in a layby on an unlit road at night be viewed as 'Entrapment ' ?''

Could doggers...

[sn�gs]

^ *be*

[jackthehat]

So, you were speeding, safe in the belief that there was no way of catching you at it.........when lo! the vehicle you described suddenly became apparent too late for you to fall back within the speed limit and you were nabbed ?

You think that it was unfair and underhand for the police to behave in such a manner, but are yet to address the issue of your flouting of the rules of the road ?

Am I close ?

[sara3]

or did you tap on the window and ask if they were doing "business"?

[Berkhof]

Thank you Sara3,

I do not disagree with the use of unmarked police vehicles.

I wondered if there was any regulation / rules that would be applied to the use of a black unmarked car being used on an unlit road in the early hours of the morning. A road known for motorists speeding. What rules must the officers in the car adhere to ?

Could you explain what RIPA means please ?

[sara3]

http://security.homeoffice.gov.uk/ripa/

RIPA basically is applying for permission to carry out covert surveillance on a particular person/property for a set period of time, to detect or prevent a crime.

but that's not relevent in your case. you were speeding and you were caught.. job done!

[Berkhof]

Thank You Every One !

Just give a clearer picture. Yes, the officer did pull me up for speeding, and gave that reason for stopping me. Yet the officer did not charge me with that offence. Instead, the officer accused me of driving without insurance. This was because the PNC check showed the vehicle as uninsured. When, in fact, it was insured.
I admit that my speed was over excessive, and would have expected a heavy fine. Yet this officer waved this for another offence. In other words. The officer used the fact that I was speeding as an excuse to stop me. Rather than being the genuine reason for being pulled over. I believe this to be wrong ?

[sara3]

oh dear.

you were stopped for speeding and they will then do all the general car stop checks. if your breath stunk of booze they would have breathalised you, but that wouldn't have been the primary reason why you were stopped. if you had no tax disc, they wouldn't ignore that either. same if you hadn't passed your driving test.

if you've been charged with having no insurance when in fact you do, you have nothing to worry about. I suggest you produce your insurance details to the policec to stop the matter going any further.

[jackthehat]

I have no idea why he decided to waive the speeding offence. Perhaps he couldn't be bothered with the paperwork ?
If you whizzed passed him, and he proceeded to follow you, the automatic number-late recognition system would have flagged your 'not insured' status which could be considered to be the greater offence.
Having established that you are insured, he decided to let you proceed.
Would you have preferred that he gave you a ticket ?

[buildersmate]

It's standard practice to do a 'tax and tyres (plus anything else that comes to mind)' after one has been pulled over.
If the vehicle hadn't shown up (incorrectly) as uninsured on their system, you'd have been done for speeding. Count yourself a lucky man - this time.

[ChuckFickens]

Speeding probably was the reason you were stopped, the PNC check that showed you as having no insurance was probably not carried out until after the stop.

It sounds to me a you have basically got off with everything anyhow, they have not done you for speeding and if you really are insured and their PNC check was incorrect then the no insurance charge will go away.

[Panic Button]

I'm very pleased to hear that there are some traffic cops out there trying to enforce the law.

All power to them.

[paraffin]

Hi Berkhof:

I'm puzzled at the fact that you say you were pulled over by an unmarked Police vehicle. That just is not possible.

In order to require a vehicle to stop, a Police vehicle has to be of the marked variety and fitted with "blues + twos", and the Officer(s) have to be in uniform.

The only way that this could have happened as you described would have been if they had followed you until you stopped, then approached you. The Officer(s), though, would still have been required to be uniformed.

If he told you that you'd been pulled over for speeding, but was prepared to "waive" that offence, he was waffling and I'll tell you why. Simply because he wouldn't have had the right equipment in his vehicle to prove the offence anyway, owing to the fact thah his was an unmarked car. He wasn't doing you any favours. The only other way he could have tried to do you for speeding would have involved him having his own car calibrated by the traffic cops at a later stage which would have been a pain in the butt to have done.

He would at some point have done the PNC check which allegedly then showed up your car as being uninsured. This may have been out of date information, or else he was, again, waffling because you only have his word, right?

Could this be what really happened? Did he actually report you for anything or issue you with a "producer"?

[Panic Button]

Paraffin, there are plenty of unmarked police cars, with blue lights concealed in the radiator grilles, and in the rear window.

I see them pulling cars over on the M25 regularly. I only wish they were there when I see some appalling driving.

The rest of your answer I agree with.

[up4it]

It is a common myth that the police need a reason to pull you over - they dont!!!

They can pull you over just because they dont like the colour of your car if they so wish - They generally do give a reason but really dont need to

[Yorkie580]

Just to be pedantic paraffin.... any car can stop you - plain or marked.

Flashing lights, pulling alongside and indicating to pull over etc might all work.

The difference is that if you fail to stop you only commit an offence if the vehicle is marked.

Usually a marked car will have uniformed officers inside it, but again that is policy rather than law.

I agree that the reason the speeding issue wasn't dealt with was becasue that particular car didn't have the equipment in it - either that, or the speeding was marginal and the greater offence was considerd to be the lack of insurance. Both marked and unmarked traffic cars can contain the cameras and speed detection equipment.

Berkhof... it sounds like you got away with it all (if you are in fact insured).