do traffic police have to wear there hats?

[supasta1]

i was pulled over a few months ago for a minor driving offence foe which i have to go to court. i was just going to plead guilty by post but have recently been told that i can have it chucked out of court because the officer was by himself and was not wearing his hat, was just wondering how true this was???

[bednobs]

i think if they're wearing pink underpants it dosen't count

[Ethel]

A traffic officer does not have to be accompanied by another officer, and did you take a photo of him without his hat?

[Law Man1856]

Supasta1,

The officer would need to be in uniform but if it was 30 degrees would you expect him/ her to be wearing their jacket/ fleece. Yes the hat should be worn but the court will excuse it normally.

Minor traffic offence pay up.

[supasta1]

no we didnt take a picture, i know it sounds ridiculous but ive been told by numerous people that it is a legitimate loop hole, and that it would stand!! the fact that there was two of us against his word would be enough i was told... i was just wondering if any one else had heard of this??
no matter what temp an on duty officer must wear the hat at all times in public, when steps out car???

[joko]

it will not be just your word against his though.

he is a police officer and his word counts for more than yours in this instance, given that you have a lot to gain by lying.

why would you even notice if he was wearing his hat anyway?
if you had no prior knowledge of this 'loophole' you would surely not have been paying attention to his hat wearing habits, and therefore your word cannot really be relied upon to be accurate.

[supasta1]

i take it from your answer that you have never heard of this before then?? that is all i was wondering!! thanx
and yes i can quite clearly remember that he wasnt wearing a hat, im sorry for that, i will try and forget next time!!

[supasta1]

and also the responsibility is surely on them to prove he did have his correct uniform and not the other way round??
if there are no loop holes how do famous people like footballers etc get off with these things?? surely by little known silly secrets like this?? but they pay lawyers a fortune for the knowledge!!

[keithlbw]

It is unusual to have to go to court for a "MINOR " traffic offence.
If you don't have to go then don't -- just plead guilty it will be cheaper in the long run.--(if you are guilty)

[Yorkie580]

It's absolute rubbish, but a well known misconception.

Footballers etc get off by paying a fortune to solicitors who look for legal loopholes in legislation, not for loopholes in dress codes.

Sorry.

[Loosehead]

The Hat situation was once used by some smart arse lawyer in the 60's to claim that the officer was not in uniform and hence managed to get the case thrown out on a technicality. The guidelines have long since changed, the officer must be in uniform but that means that a certain minumim amount of the uniform must be recognisable. Ie on a hot day if he was in the correct trousers and shirt he would be ok, if however he was in burmuda shorts and his police shirt open to the waist then there may be a case for "not in uniform". Hope that helps

[Green Howard]

By law you are right they must wear a hat, however the today Police are a law unto themselves and if you mention this whilst in court you will have half the Police force stating he was wearing his hat. It's a no win situation you will be classed as a liar and he will get away scott free..

[supasta1]

i dont want to seem repetative but the thing about if its a hot day im just not too sure about.. if you see a bobby on the beat NO matter what temperature they must wear a hat, no questions, this i know. i just didnt know wether it apllied to traffic police aswell, im probs just going to plead guilty by post but would like to find the truth behind this mystery now!! sorry all for going on..

[Emz26]

EXACTLY what law is that then Green Howard?!

[supasta1]

the only thing ive found is in the road/traffic law it says that an officer has to be in FULL uniform to be able to pull someone over legally, and it also states that plain clothed officers cannot pull you over they must get an officer with FULL uniform to assist them!! people keep telling me that this has been changed but there is nothing writtn any where about that being changed! so does that mean im right??

[almcd007]

Plain clothes officers can pull you over - they have to get a uniformed officer to transport you to the police station if arrested. They'd only pull you over for a serious offence.

Remembering a previous episode of Traffic Cops set in Sheffield, a uniformed RT officer pulled a motorcyclist, forgot his hat in the car and went back for it - it has some significance - it makes things easier if it does go to court - but not essential. A hat may be part of a uniformed officer but if an offence has been committed, where is a plain clothes officer going to get a hat from?

[Green Howard]

Hi Emz26 its the

Persons
Of
Little
Intelligece
Creating
Enemies

Law

[supasta1]

sorry i think a plain clothed officer can try to pull you over but LEGALLY you dont have to stop, unless they have UNIFORMED officers with them!! im not sure why people disagree with this as ive read it about 5000 times this week!! thats what the LAW actually states, is there a place with NEW laws that only certain people can see, if so can someone let me know where it actually says these things please.. thankyou!!

[almcd007]

Try telling that to the stolen car squad in Manchester - there is no doubt they are police officers as they have two tones and blue lights and drive umarked Subarus.

[Griselda]

The "he wasn't wearing his cap" defence was tried in the late 1960's, by an offender who had failed a breath test. The Road Safety Act 1967 which covered breath tests required the officer requesting the breath test to be in uniform. It didn't stipulate anything about head gear, & the ploy was unsuccessful. It was later totally negated by a change in law, which stipulated that "a constable could require a specimen of breath" with no mention whatsoever of being in uniform. Now covered by Section 6 of the RTA 1988. Any suggestion that a successful prosecution requires the officer to be wearing a cap is a nonsense. If in doubt take proper legal advice, but a Guilty plea is usually your cheapest option if you are indeed guilty of the offence.