Mandatory Arrest: "Itinerant Vendors"

[FTL_Ian]

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

A Itinerant vendor is defined as: "all persons (as defined by RSA 358-A:1), both principals and agents, including those persons whose principal place of business is not in this state, who engage in a temporary or transient business in this state, either in one locality or traveling from place to place, selling goods, wares and merchandise, with a total value greater than $ 500, from stock or by sample for future delivery, and who, for the purpose of carrying on such business, hire or occupy a temporary place of business. A "temporary place of business" means any public or quasi-public place including, but not limited to, a hotel, motel, rooming house, storeroom, building, part of a building, tent, vacant lot, railroad car, or trailer temporarily occupied for the purpose of making retail sales of goods to the public."

[ReverendRyan]

[David]

Whenever I open my own business, I do not intend to ask gov't for permission.  But I have lived in Keene almost a year, so I would not qualify as an Itinerant  vender/business.  Unless I am reading your post right. 

[FTL_Ian]

As I understand it, anyone with over $500 in inventory (not necessarily on hand-you could take orders) selling from a temporary location qualifies.

Taking orders for laptops off the back of your truck?  Mandatory arrest.

[srqrebel]

Okay, Ian... seriously, what do you mean by "mandatory" arrest?

My understanding is that technically, any lawbreaking is mandatorily subject to sanctions by the police (unless there is a law that makes no provisions for enforcement). If not an arrest, at least a fine -- and if the fine is refused, even that becomes a mandatory arrest.

The two main reasons (that I am aware of) for the police not taking action against certain instances of lawbreaking, are 1) it does not fall under their jurisdiction, or 2) they are not being monitored to make sure they are "doing their jobs". There are also blue laws which are not enforced due to lack of popular support, and situations such as lack of jail space or work overload, which compel police to assign priority to certain "offenses".

Anytime a police officer is not being monitored, and there is no real risk of being "found out" afterward, responding to lawbreaking of any kind is entirely at his discretion.

[FTL_Ian]

According to someone inside the system:

Cops have discretion on almost all arrests except for a few.

Underage drinking and driving police DO have discretion.  It is underage TRANSPORTATION of alcohol that police do NOT have discretion.

169-C:21-a  Violation of Protective Order; Penalty.
(Child protective orders issued by DCYF)

173-B:9  Violation of Protective Order; Penalty.
(Restraining orders)

321:22  Prosecutions.

(Police SHALL arrest Itinerant vendors)

458:16  Temporary Relief and Permanent Restraining Orders.

(Divorce decree orders...  essentially a perminante restraining order as a stipulation of a divorce)

633:3-a  Stalking.

(Violation of a stalking order)

163-B:6 Enforcement.

(Police are DIRECTED to enforce the litter control laws of the state)

[srqrebel]

The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their normal job?   ???

[FTL_Ian]

The corollary being that police are NOT required to enforce the rest of the laws, as a part of their job description?

I trust my source.  Police do not have any obligation to arrest in the supermajority of cases.  Some exceptions noted above.

[srqrebel]

In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

[David]

My read on it is the police are allowed discression, but when the law mandates an arrest, the officer would be in actual violation of the law if he did not.  For example, if a trooper (god forbid) let me go for not registering my car, that is okay.  But if I was doing an illegal puppet show, if he let me go, he would actually be doing something illegal himself. 

[srqrebel]

I am not aware that police discretion is protected by law.

I could certainly be wrong.

[KBCraig]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".

Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.

[srqrebel]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".

Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.

In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?

[Coconut]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

How many times a day does a cop drive by someone going 5mph over and not do anything? They have selective enforcement, and that is why they can see 3 speeders going the same speed, and only pull over one.

[KBCraig]

The notion that police are allowed by law to deliberately turn a blind eye to lawbreaking, is a first on me.

"Not arresting" is not necessarily the same thing as "turning a blind eye".

Officers can issue a summons in lieu of arresting, for most offenses.

In that case, I wonder if the intended implication is simply that in the supermajority of cases they are legally allowed to let the "offender" off with a lesser sanction, such as a fine or court appearance?

Summons in lieu of arrest doesn't imply a lesser penalty. Whether arrested and arraigned, or just issued a summons, the court appearance is the same (assuming the charge is the same).