Alleged U-turn leads to felony warrant arrest for Alabama man
Submitted by Howard Owens on August 12, 2009 - 3:01pm
Apparently, Dannie Sims didn't want to pass through a State Police road check on Route 63 in Oakfield today.
Troopers spotted a Chevy Lumina making an alleged illegal u-turn after it started to approach the road check, so a trooper initiated a traffic stop.
It turns out that Sims may have had good reason for avoiding the road check -- a felony warrant in Monroe County. He is also a suspect in several alleged larcenies of purses, wallets and other items at several retail store locations. Sims is a "person of interest" for the Genesee County Sheriff's Office in several alleged larcenies in the Batavia area.
Sims, 53, is a resident of Alabama.
After his apprehension, Sims was turned over to the Monroe County Sheriff's Department. The investigation is ongoing in Genesee County.
The purpose of the road checks is to check all safety related equipment that is required by the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws as well as ensuring that all vehicles are properly registered, insured and inspected.
- Howard Owens's blog
- Login or register to post comments
August 12, 2009 - 3:05pm
#2
"The purpose of the road checks is to check all safety related equipment that is required by the New York State Vehicle and Traffic Laws as well as ensuring that all vehicles are properly registered, insured and inspected."
And to harass drivers and slow them down with no justifiable cause.
When the state troopers are able to do all that the other police forces in the state do like investigate murder, catch burglars and the like then maybe their budget will be justified. One act of luck doesn't warrant their existence.
August 12, 2009 - 3:29pm
#3
"Book him Dano" ! lol.
August 12, 2009 - 5:24pm
#4
Can't wait till the dudley doowrights up there arrest little peter, its only a matter of time. With the troopers, sheriffs, city police payrolls the only way they can justify their own existence is to raid darien lake put up road blocks and fine as many victims as they can to bring in some cash. So go out get drunk and go 90 down route 5 at 2:00 AM little peter they need your donation.
August 12, 2009 - 9:23pm
#5
Dick, do you know something we don't know? Are you calling him little Peter for some reason? :-)
I have to agree that stopping anyone without probable cause is unconstitutional. Roadblocks are nothing more than police-state harassment. Sure, I'm glad they caught this guy but I think they could have done this with old fashioned police work like "actively looking for him" instead of bothering everyone else.
One thing that really got my gall one time, I was going through the toll booth at the Henrietta entrance to the NYS thruway and as I cleared the booth, there stood a Trooper. He was looking into everyone's vehicle to see if he could spot people without their seat belts or any other infractions he might be able to fleece them for. Unreal!
"To serve and protect." I just wonder WHO.
August 12, 2009 - 8:34pm
#6
We are indoctrinated at a young age to respect our peace officers, only later to find out that their primary job is to take money from people to subsidize their salaries and their extravagant retirements. I could not go to a job every day and be told my purpose for the day is to write tickets for victimless crimes like holding a cell phone, not wearing a seat belt,or expired vehicle inspection(not required in many other states)I couldn't harass a 20 year old military person for having a beer. I know that many of these officers don't agree with these laws but still impoverish people everyday because of them. I could not, and believe many others could not sleep at night after ambushing people at a roadblock or ticketing people for a crime that has not harmed anyone. I wonder if their is a point at which law enforcemnt officers would draw a line and refuse to enforce a clearly victimless crime - created by legislators to gain a sound bite or balance a budget.
August 12, 2009 - 9:31pm
#7
"We are indoctrinated at a young age to respect our peace officers, only later to find out that their primary job is to take money from people to subsidize their salaries and their extravagant retirements."
Really Terry? You would be the first person screaming for a cop if your house was robbed, or you were hit by a drunk driver.
Police Officers enforce the law. It’s not their job to decide which one they will enforce. If you don’t like the law, lobby to get it changed. Fact is, most people support the laws you make fun of. Politicians pay attention to what voters want.
August 12, 2009 - 10:24pm
#8
Quote: "Politicians pay attention to what voters want."
Since when? Politicians don't give a hoot what you want and we see evidence of that every day.
I don't see anyone making fun of any laws. What I do see are every day observations. I don't disrespect the police for what they're supposed to be doing. I do however have problems with many of the laws that have been passed that neither make sense nor do anything other than financially burden the public.
I think Terry made a valid point that the police should organize and protest against many of the things they've been burdened with. This is what happens when more and more laws are added to the list of laws already in place. We don't need new laws and neither do the police. I bet if you sat down with an officer, they could tell you all the ridiculous crap they have to do every day that cuts into their real duties.
The police should be proud of what their oath stands for but they should also double check what they've become, tools of the state and local governments as a revenue raising entity.
Police should never sit idle on that stretch of road just waiting for that one speeder who might come along. It's a waste of valuable and expensive time. Lets keep those cars moving and have those eyes inside covering as much territory as possible. Instead of trying to catch the speeder who really poses little threat, have those eyes looking for real crimes like burglaries, thefts, vandalism...etc. They can monitor traffic while doing that just as easily.
August 13, 2009 - 3:15am
#9
Wow Police Officers take your money? Well that is funny because, they tell all of you to go out and break laws such as drive drunk, do not wear your seat belt, drive with a suspended license, do not register or insure your vehicle, do not obey traffic control devices (stop signs or traffic lights), drive faster than the posted speed limits, drive wrecklessly and endanger your fellow drivers. Keeping Police from Harassing all you "Safe Driver" would help eliminate traffic related deaths. WHAT DUMASES!!!!!!!!
August 13, 2009 - 7:05am
#10
Doug,
I meant on laws like the ones we are talking about: Drunk driving laws and the like. My error to make it sound like all laws.
There are other laws that they pass to take care of donors and friends, or because the "Party" tells them to.
But they are always trying to get reelected and not make us too mad. It must work because, as you know, most get reelected. An exception to that rule is the City of Batavia. While some have been reelected a number of times, we at least, have a high turnover.
August 14, 2009 - 3:11am
#11
JW JR, when I travel back and forth to work or travel anywhere for anything, placing my cruise control at 75 MPH on the highway (conditions permitting) doesn't endanger anyone. I keep track of what's ahead, behind and to the sides and I set my safe distance zones accordingly to the vehicles in front of me. I'm not driving unsafely even though I'm in excess of the posted speed limit so why should I be fleeced for it?
People just plain not paying attention or who weave in and out of traffic to get a few car lengths ahead, tailgaters, those are examples of dangerous drivers.
I'll give you examples. Thursday afternoon I drove from Dansville to Henrietta and here's what I witnessed.
1. Abrupt lane changing with no signals by many vehicles. Several of these vehicles were also weaving as if they had dropped something or were texting.
2. Two school buses decelerating in the right lane to speeds lower than the legal 45 mph before pulling to the shoulder. This created a bottle neck and crowded traffic into the left lanes which caused a semi rig to take evasive action to avoid hitting the buses. They should've just pulled over as they were at highway speeds and used the shoulder to decelerate. Why they felt the need to pull to the shoulder instead of getting off at an exit ramp, I don't know. stopping on the expressway is for emergencies only because it creates a dangerous situation.
(BTW, I feel that pulling someone over on the expressway for speeding poses a far greater risk to EVERYONE than the speeder ever did. It creates a chain reaction distraction/hazard.)
3. (no lie) I saw a girl in a minivan with her legs in the crossed position bouncing up and down in the DRIVERS seat to the music blasting out her open windows and singing with her head tilted towards the roof. She was in the left lane going slower than the posted 65 MPH speed limit. (conditions were clear and dry) She was totally oblivious to the line of traffic moving into the right lane to get around her. Slower traffic to the right, through traffic to the left. It's a known road rule, written or not.
4. More vehicles in the left lane going slower than the posted speed limit ignoring the line of traffic behind them. Bad driving etiquette.
5. People tailgating and one tailgating a motorcycle.
6. People pulling past a semi rig and then switching back into the right lane directly in front of the semi without allowing any buffer for the trucker. I bet he couldn't even see the vehicle in front of his truck. This is a common one I see all the time. The thought of 80,000 lbs of truck behind me at less than a 6 count at highway speeds would scare the crap out of me.
Hmm..wearing my seat belt. Please tell me how this saves anyone else's life? I don't need one for the motorcycle so why should I be required by law to wear one in a vehicle? Wait..I know the answer to this one! So that you can get a ticket for it and be ripped off!
Hmmm...why are the police exempt from seat belt and cell phone laws but you and I aren't? Wait...I know the answer to this one! So that you can get a ticket for it and be ripped off!
The last time I checked, this was a free country and free people don't need to be protected from themselves. If I don't don't want to wear a seat belt, it's my business. Granted, I wear one because I have an inkling that it's statistically more safe to do so but it should be my RIGHT not to.
Ok, I don't need to go on and on more than I already have. Wake up, would ya?
August 14, 2009 - 3:32am
#12
#6 reminds me of an accident that happened on 390 a while back. A vehicle got pinned in front of a semi and was pushed down the highway.
August 14, 2009 - 3:23am
#13
I found the news article in Google archives:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=qNsPAAAAIBAJ&sjid=DY8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3...
Geesh..1990? Doesn't seem that long ago!
August 14, 2009 - 6:22pm
#14
Well Doug let me run something by you. Your excessive 75mph MOST CERTAINLY ENDANGER OTHER DRIVER. Let me put it like this. You may be keeping safe distances in front and back and while passing. You may not see large hazards, but what about small ones such as nails, shards of metal, broken glass, etc..... How many construction vehicles travel the thurway, 490, 390, 590, 290, 190, etc... Second how many times have you seen broken glass bottles (most likely beer) on the road.
So the possibility exist for these items to be present on our roads is high. We could play the what if game, but it is more important that people do not become naive and think their driving habits are so safe, that they are not endangering anyone. Example of the what if, You are driving down 490E, while driving, your vehicle's tire has rupture and while traveling at 75 mph you lose temporary control of your vehicle. Meanwhile your vehicle swerves in a barrier, median, or guard rail. This causes you into a vehicle coming onto the highway, the person you are passing, or across the median into oncoming traffic.
Police Officers are exempted from wearing seatbelts ONLY in their official patrol vehicle. Reason being is they may have to exit their vehicle in a rush (prevent a crime, chase a suspect, assist a rescue, etc...) As far as the cell phones they are authorized only for official calls while responding to an official incident. Are they following that rule? I do not know for sure. Some cops will wear their seltbelt, but remove it when they deem safe.
My department requires us to wear a seatbelt unless we are initiating a routine traffic stop or responding to an emergency (BLDG or fire alarm activations, terrorism incident, active shooter, etc..... If YOU KNOW what these COPS you see ARE RESPONDING TO, then maybe you should call their department and make a compliant.
As far as a seatbelt how could it possibly save someone else's live besides your own. Oh no a what if. If you are ejected from your car your body doesn't get thrown into the path of another car causing that person to swerve in a attempt to missing you. This happen in California the driver was ejected after losing control at between 60-70 mph and fell in front of another vehicle who swerved into another vehicle and you guess it! A MVA with injuries!
So Doug, are you telling me that nothing will ever happen at 75 mph? If so, here's your sign! AND BY THE WAY WAKE UP YOURSELF AND STOP BEING SUCH A DUMAS!
August 14, 2009 - 6:53pm
#15
Doug your comments on the 390 incidents are very VALID.
The School Buses should of pulled onto the shoulder. I have to look into this, but by law slower vehicles such as farm equipment need to yield for faster traffic. They are suppose to pull off the road onto the shoulder and wave you by. So, would this apply to school buses or any other traffic traveling 20+ mph under the posted speed. We know slower traffic is to keep right while driving.
The young teen girl flipping dramatically should of been reported especially, if she was swerving over the divider line and fog line or accelerating or deaccelerating abruptly.
The I am in a hurry drivers swerving in and out of traffic could also be reported (gather direction travel, license plate, color, make and model if possible)since they are wreckless in their manner.
Another point for speed is older driver's reaction times are quite slower.
Motorcycles if could show me a way to apply a seatbelt without endangering the operator, apply for a patent. As a fellow motorcyclist we are taught to seperate from your bike if you need to lay down with it. I had a severe wreck which should left me dead back in November 29, 2006. A Ford Explorer turn left in front of me and I was ejected into the vehicle and thrown into the air about 40-50 feet. The accident was on both the driver and I. My pelvis was broken and tore apart, my knees smashed into the handle bars, my right side hit the truck in the strongest part of the vehicle. I was flown to ECMC/ICU. I woke up 16 days later. I am still feeling the pain today. Amazing how the body recovers. Now the military feels I am strong enough to serve overseas.
Doug I am not saying I disagree with all you are saying just stop being naive and look outside the box.
