Mandatory Arrest: "Itinerant Vendors"

[srqrebel]

Good questions.  What are your answers?

Nobody, and nothing, respectively.

What are your answers?

[John Edward Mercier]

Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.

The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those assigned the job of law enforcement. Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.

It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.

The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws. If there is a notable exception, it would be that a particular law does NOT require consistent enforcement -- rather than that it DOES require consistent enforcement.

But just as motorists routinely disregard certain traffic signs, because they can, law enforcement officers routinely ignore certain instances of lawbreaking, because they can. Just because motorists routinely get away with disobeying certain traffic signs, does not indicate that those signs are not "required" to be obeyed; and just because law enforcement officers routinely get away with ignoring certain instances of lawbreaking, does not indicate that those laws do not "require" enforcement.

That is, unless you are speaking from a purely utilitarian perspective... in which case we agree.

Some NH statutes are written to define the 'legal authority' to prosecute... especially on common property matters.
So this may be what everyone is reading.

[lildog]

Naturally. The auctioneers' cartel/"professional association" is probably pissed they're being out-competed by eBayers.

Nah, I wouldn't worry about that.  Baseball cards are heavy so you end up paying more for shipping then the cards are worth at times.  I much prefer live auctions for cards.  Not to mention when your buying online you can't pre-inspect the cards before bidding and condition has a lot to do with the value when it comes to baseball cards.

I think both markets are equally safe and can exist together quite nicely.

[highline]

Nevertheless, I did my research, and in NH police officers are at least mandated to enforce all highway laws:

106-B:12 Authority and Duties of Police Employees. – Police employees shall be ex-officiis constables throughout the state, shall patrol the highways, enforce the highway traffic laws and regulations, enforce the motor vehicle laws relative thereto and enforce regulations relative to the transportation of hazardous materials, pursuant to RSA 106-A:18 and RSA 106-B:15...

Chapter 106-B is the State Police only.  Not local police.  Local law enforcement has no such mandate.

What many of you might not know is that the State Police do not have authority to investigate crimes (other than explosive law violations, things having to do with registration/inspection of vehicles, or when ordered by the Governor) that occur in jurisdictions of more than 3,000 people.  They do have authority to act when they witness an offense though.

[highline]

A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be

In New Hampshire civilians (non-law enforcement) do indeed have arrest authority.  It is codified at RSA 627:5 (IV).  It reads as follows:

    IV. A private person acting on his own is justified in using non-deadly force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to arrest or prevent the escape from custody of such other whom he reasonably believes to have committed a felony and who in fact has committed that felony: but he is justified in using deadly force for such purpose only when he reasonably believes it necessary to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of deadly force.

In addition to this authority to use force to arrest someone for a felony - all citizens of this state have the authority to initiate the prosecution of an offense that is a class B misdemeanor or lower.  This is based in part on RSA 592-A:7 (I):


    I. Criminal proceedings before a district court shall be begun by complaint, signed and under oath, addressed to such court, briefly setting forth, by name or description, the party accused and the offense charged, provided that a complaint filed by a police officer, as defined in RSA 188-F:23, I, for a violation-level offense shall not require a signature or an oath. Any complaint filed electronically shall include notice that making a false statement on the complaint may result in criminal prosecution.


Any person can begin a prosecution, however, the respective county attorney or the Attorney General can stop the case from proceeding.

A private citizen here in NH absolutely has the authority to file and prosecute a "complaint" (a ticket) against anyone whom they have probable cause to believe has violated a law.  This is limited by a NH Supreme Court decision that restricts the cases a private citizen can prosecute to violation and misdemeanor "B" level offenses.  Ie: No jail time possible...  only a fine.  This would include many different violations to include speeding, parking, ect.... 

So says the Court ---> "However, we have held that "the common law of this State does not preclude the institution and prosecution of certain criminal complaints by private citizens." State (Haas Complainant) v. Rollins, 129 N.H. 684, 685, 533 A.2d 331 (1987). "

[J’raxis 270145]

I think both markets are equally safe and can exist together quite nicely.

Of course they can. That doesn't mean the incumbent businesses like someone new muscling in on their turf.

[mackler]

A bit off topic but does anybody know about "citizens arrests" etc. I've heard the term for years but didn't know if a regular citizen could apply it to...
a) citizens breaking the law
b) cops breaking the law
c) is just bullshit, put away your phony badge cop wanna be

Citizen's arrests are real.  It's part of the common law, so you may not find a statute on the subject, and that means you'd have to check your local case law to find the particulars.  But in general, as I understand, it can only be for a felony, and if the arrested person is not ultimately convicted, the arrester can be liable for unlawful imprisonment.

[mackler]

Okay, I will make one more attempt at explaining my position to mackler.

The only thing I have been arguing all along, is that the law, any law, by reason of its very existence, presupposes enforcement by those whose job it is to enforce law.

Wrong.  The only thing laws presuppose is that there exists a remedy for any violated rights.  There's a law against trespassing, isn't there?  Are you telling me the law presupposes that every time someone walks across your yard there will be a prosecution?  If you honestly believe that then you're living in a fantasy that no judge, law professor, or other legal expert in the world would agree with.  The only thing the law presupposes is that you have the right to prosecute in any instance of trespassing on your property if you so choose.  But if you don't do anything when someone trespasses on your yard, nothing will happen.

Laws do not need to state, "It is mandatory for law enforcement to enforce this law", because it is a built-in assumption.

You and your "built-in assumptions."  You can keep repeating that all you want.  It will make it about as true as if I decide there's a built-in assumption that police must wear pink tutus while on duty.  Go ahead,  Assume all you want.  The law doesn't care about your imaginary "built-in" assumptions.  The law is what it is, your assumptions notwithstanding.

It would be just as absurd as posting a second sign underneath a traffic sign, stating that it is mandatory for motorists to obey the sign. It is presupposed, by the dint of the fact the sign exists in the first place, and the fact that the original sign is clearly directed at motorists.

Is it mandatory?  I see people speeding all the time without being pulled over.  Define mandatory.  It certainly doesn't mean a guaranteed ticket.

The same applies to law enforcement: It is a built-in expectation of any law that it will be enforced by law enforcement, by dint of the fact that the law exists in the first place, and the fact that the primary job of law enforcement is to enforce laws.

You just love building in these expectations.  The thing is, sqlrebel, you're not a legislator, you're not a judge, so you don't have the power to build your expectations into the law.  You can expect all you want, you can assume all you want.  Fact is, your understanding about this is mistaken, and all your expectations and assumptions aren't going to change that. 

[Nathan.Halcyon]

This is mildly annoying. I assume this would include food vendors. I've been looking into NH for a few months now, and one of my preferred "legal" options for making a living for myself included small scale vending of food. I had thought to export my talent with Mexican cuisine, too much competition here in Texas, but perhaps I should downgrade to hot dogs.

Must investigate this.

Oh, and, hi, people.

[J’raxis 270145]

Welcome.

[ReverendRyan]

This is mildly annoying. I assume this would include food vendors. I've been looking into NH for a few months now, and one of my preferred "legal" options for making a living for myself included small scale vending of food. I had thought to export my talent with Mexican cuisine, too much competition here in Texas, but perhaps I should downgrade to hot dogs.

Must investigate this.

Oh, and, hi, people.

PLEASE DO. There is very little decent Mexican food here and pretty much no Tex-Mex. I've been having withdrawls for months.

[Nathan.Halcyon]

It's sounding more and more like a plan to me, and what little research I've done confirms what you say, Ryan. Sad, sad. There's only so much one can do with small scale vending, though. Going to be plenty of chorizo, the good kind, but I stop far short of consuming tripe. No menudo for you! Sope, fajita, tacos, tortas, and albondigas are obvious choices for "street" foods.

I just hope I can cope with the cold, hehe. I can't even stand in front of an open freezer for too long.

[Kat Kanning]

Mmm....a taco truck