By on December 13, 2013


Comedian Randy Liedtke baked himself an iPhone cookie. While this was certainly a blow struck against the police state known as the People’s Republic of California, for Mr. Liedtke himself, it didn’t work so well.

It turns out that he had a warrant out for unpaid parking tickets. Naturally, the cop took him downtown, so to speak.

While Mr. Liedtke says he is out of the cookie-iPhone business, your humble author is struck by two aspects of the situation:

  • You can be arrested for parking tickets? What kind of a country is this, exactly? Couldn’t he have pleaded “affluenza”?
  • Since the primary stop was baseless, shouldn’t he be free to go, even if he has a parking-ticket warrant? Lawyers of the Internet, I’m calling on you.

Regardless of the particulars, it would appear to Mr. Liedtke is as thoroughly broken on the wheel of governmental oppression as was Winston Smith. But how brightly the flame of revolution burned, in that brief moment when it shone!

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!


99 Comments on “So, That One Cookie Guy Got Arrested...”

  • avatar

    “•Since the primary stop was baseless, shouldn’t he be free to go, even if he has a parking-ticket warrant? Lawyers of the Internet, I’m calling on you.”

    I’ve always wondered that myself, but think the answer is that it doesn’t matter. If the police have any probably cause, then any crime they discover while legally following up on that hunch is fair game.

    I once had a friend whose apartment was burgled while he was away. He came home to find cops taking away some of…horticultural experiments. He GTFO pretty quickly and couldn’t come back. Suddenly the B&E was a lot less important to the police. Doesn’t seem fair, but that’s how it goes.

    • 0 avatar

      That’s right. Stopped for a probable cause, whether it be something that looks like a phone, or a child that didn’t seem like it was wearing a seat belt – have outstanding warrant – jail.

      Call the cops to your house because someone stole your lawn ornament, have illegal “plants” in your yard which they see – jail.

    • 0 avatar

      A person who appears to be talking on a cell phone behind the wheel in a place where that’s illegal then the officer has reasonable suspicion and can detain the person.

      First step after detaining someone is to run their ID. That will pop the open warrant. An arrest warrant is just that…a directive to arrest this person. Anything short of forcibly entering the person’s domicile is fair game, and in some extreme circumstances even forcible entry can be used.

      This means that however the officer runs into the individual is irrelevant…he/she has the power to arrest the person on sight.

      If an officer detains someone or responds to a call for service and finds probable cause of another criminal act (like an unconscious person in the back seat, marijuana plants seen through a window, etc) then he/she has the authority to search. PC is often challenged, so smart cops will get a warrant and perform the search only after they have the warrant. Roadside stops usually don’t go the warrant route, sticking mostly to PC.

      If the police are responding to a B&E call and stumble across your grow operation, yeah…it’s fair game.

      That’s not really germane to the cookie situation, though, as that guy apparently had a warrant for his arrest out already which empowers any law enforcement officer to arrest him on sight.

      • 0 avatar


        Trying to get pulled over and have your ID run *is a bad idea* if you *have an outstanding warrant*.

        Presumably he didn’t know about it, because that’s possible with infractions if you move around or the like, but …

        Arrest warrants aren’t bullshit, and cops don’t fool around with them.

  • avatar

    Well, that was fuggin’ fast.

  • avatar


    What an IDIOT.

    Trolling the police isn’t funny and he’s lucky they didn’t taze hisass.

  • avatar

    After paying $1,000 annually to park, I’m having trouble watering up my crocodile tears for this guy.

    Admittedly the cookie iPhone isn’t a bad idea. He’s still driving distracted, which is the real culprit. I read a study that claimed only about 5% of people are actually capable of the level of multi-tasking brain processing power required to talk and drive (or any X activity and drive); the rest of us are driving distracted. If the gubmint actually wanted to make the roads safer, any distraction while driving (talking, raido, texting, eating, reading billboards) should be banned.

    But Apple/Verizon/Google/ATT have too much money to be made to permit such.

    • 0 avatar

      I’d argue that even those 5% would still be better drivers if they weren’t multitasking. It’s all a matter of degrees, but if taken to the nth degree (my favorite degree!), there is no such thing as 100% effective multitasking.

      Just like a tire can’t give you max cornering and max braking at the same time.

      • 0 avatar

        I don’t care if people aren’t at their best.

        If the distraction is not causing an *immediate danger*, it’s not the government’s god-damn business to save us from ourselves.

        Distracted-driving laws boil down to yet another moral panic – see previous posts here where cops and EMTs and people using CB radios are all exempted.

        Because they’re magically impervious to “distraction” or it’s even BETTER to have a distracted ambulance driver than guy in a Kia? Or a guy in a tractor-trailer rig on the CB?

        No – because the point isn’t about “safety”, it’s about being-seen-to-be-doing-something about an irrational panic.

        (If they want to “do something”, I suggest an additional penalty for any *damage* or collision where “distraction” can be *shown* to have been a causal factor.

        This includes “talking to your passenger” or “getting the kids to settle down”.)

        • 0 avatar

          “… it’s not the government’s god-damn business to save us from ourselves.”

          how ’bout from each other?

        • 0 avatar

          There are similar arguments I understand and agree with on different occaisons but you don’t have an actual right to talk on your Galaxy Note III and plow into me at 78 miles per hour crushing my internal organs. Since my estate would sue your estate and win that is wonderful and all but could perhaps the government protect me from your complete negligence?

          It is such a simple law that says ‘don’t drive distracted because you’re substantially more inclined to kill another’ and the real kicker to all this is, you don’t need to use your phone while you’re driving. So why isn’t it the business of the government if I don’t want you to kill me through your negligence?

    • 0 avatar

      “I read a study that claimed only about 5% of people are actually capable of the level of multi-tasking brain processing power required to talk and drive”

      According to a statistic I made up for this post…

      • 0 avatar

        I’ve also read, not even kidding about this, that mothers driving with their children in the car are much more dangerous than cell phone drivers. Don’t even get me started about teens that have friends in the car. The point is, cell phones are the boogyman of our current era. Imagine what would have happened had the government decided to give tickets to people who have their stereo on while driving… because HEY, THAT DISTRACTS THEIR DRIVING. We can make a very long list of distractions and 95% of them would be things people do everyday with zero problems.

        • 0 avatar

          Is distracted driving more dangerous than driving with a BAC of .09? Lets treat texting while driving the same way as someone just over the legal limit. Throw them in jail, and impound their cars. It’s just as selfish and I encounter it a lot more than the drunks.

        • 0 avatar

          Well, some states have laws regulating the number and nature of passengers for newly minted drivers, so that’s been addressed (whether or not it is followed is the same issue as cell phone/texting laws).

          It’s unreasonable to expect that mothers (hell, fathers, too!) would not be allowed to transport their children so there’s not much to be done there. However, I run into far more technology-distracted drivers than offspring-distracted drivers here in Chicago.

          And don’t get me started on the morons on Divvy bikes. Suddenly making it easy for people who haven’t ridden bikes in a decade or more to go ahead and ride one through downtown Chicago… Great idea.

      • 0 avatar

        Here you go Detroit-Iron, you jackalope

        You won’t read the doc, but the term used to describe them are supertaskers.

        • 0 avatar

          Morbo: you cited a study for the proposition that “only about 5% of people are actually capable of the level of multi-tasking brain processing power required to talk and drive (or any X activity and drive).” I’m pretty sure about 99% of people that can drive are physically and mentally capable of driving and talking on the phone at the same time. What that study actually says is that only these “supertaskers” can talk on the phone and drive at the same time with zero noticeable impairment to their driving, which is an entirely different proposition.

          I don’t think even the most ardent opposers of driving while texting/talking legislation believe that texting/talking doesn’t impair one’s driving at all. The point is that it is just one of many many things that nearly all drivers do every day that impair their driving in some respect, that it actually can be done quite safely – just like you can actually drive quite safely while eating a hamburger, shouting at your kids, or picking your nose – and that the government should be regulating and punishing the bad driving and not the activity that may or may not lead to bad driving.

          Should we outlaw everything in the car that can be done withouth impairing one’s driving only by these supertaskers? Note this would probably include talking to your husband or wife sitting next to you in the front seat, not to mention fiddling with the radio, HVAC, etc.

          • 0 avatar

            Should we outlaw everything that impairs driving? YES! AAA did a study recently, and, yes, driving and using a cellphone is more dangerous than drinking and driving. Also, “Motorists who use cell phones while driving are more likely to engage in additional dangerous behaviors such as speeding, driving drowsy, driving without a seatbelt and sending texts or emails, according to a survey conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.”

          • 0 avatar

            All of you nanny types above who would “outlaw” this or that are going to have no problems living in the police state you want to create. At least until you mess up.

          • 0 avatar

            You do realize banning cell phones in the car while driving isn’t going to lead to a police state? I know this is the fantasy of the rugged individualist hyper-believer but the world is doing just fine avoiding the police state by stopping some dangerous activities and expanding human services.

            Why does it always devolve down to 1984 orwellian actions the second this is discussed?

  • avatar

    Deliciously ironic.

  • avatar

    “Since the primary stop was baseless, shouldn’t he be free to go, even if he has a parking-ticket warrant? Lawyers of the Internet, I’m calling on you.”

    Hey there! Happy to chip in. The problem is that the primary stop wasn’t “baseless”: the police only need to have reasonable suspicion that you’ve violated the law – including traffic laws, such as a state law against using a cell phone while driving – in order to pull you over. Once they pulled him over, they found the parking ticket issue simply by looking him up in their computer, and without any further impermissible intrusion on his Constitutional rights (e.g., a search of his car without his permission).

    Let this be a lesson, kids: if you want to prank the cops, be g$%&#mn sure that there’s nothing they can possibly cite you for. On second thought, just don’t prank the cops.

  • avatar

    That’s the way the cookie crumbles.

  • avatar


    There is a very low threshold for the police to pull a civilian over, my understanding is that basically just suspicion, which can be based on something as trivial as the officer’s “experience and intuition”, is all that is needed. Much higher threshold to search a vehicle, which wasnt necessary in this situation.

    This guy is a clown plain and simple. He thought he could get some free publicity out of screwing with the police. Not a great idea.

    I am not a fan of overzealous police or enforcement either, however, I do respect the police and the job they do until they give me a reason not to.

    • 0 avatar

      In Ohio the cop could have written him a speeding ticket with no evidence other than his “experience and intuition”

      • 0 avatar

        Pacing isn’t the same thing as “experience and intuition”.

        As for reasons to pull someone over, most people are not aware of just how many traffic laws there are. There is typically a minimal distance you are required to signal before making a turn or changing a lane which almost no one actually observes…and if an officer sees that he can pull someone over for it.

        Few driver studiously observe every rule of the road, and so if a cop watches somebody long enough sooner or later they are likely to find a reason to pull them over.

        • 0 avatar

          This. Absolutely.

          One of the most horrifying nights I’ve ever had was drinking on a bar patio listening to a group of local cops openly brag about the bullshit excuses they’ve used to make car stops for people they wanted to arrest, like “failure to stop before proceeding through a marked railroad crossing” and “failure to correctly curb your tires when parking.”

          So for all those dimwits who say “If you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about” I would counter with: “If you think you haven’t done anything wrong, you haven’t had anyone search for any excuse to say that you have.”

        • 0 avatar

          Yep, and in other words if a cop’s got a case of ass against you for whatever reason, you’re gonna get pulled.

        • 0 avatar

          “Few driver studiously observe every rule of the road…”

          Including, of course, the cops themselves.

          When’s the last time you saw a cop use his turn signal or (where required by law) turn on his headlights in conjunction with the windshield wipers?

          They’re largely a bunch of hypocrites who believe they’re above the law.

        • 0 avatar

          I don’t know what you meant but I am not talking about pacing.

      • 0 avatar

        …and in New Mexico, they could try to shoot your tires out. Zing! I’m here all week…

    • 0 avatar

      I once got pulled over because someone called the cops and claimed that they thought i was driving drunk. Got pulled over by 2 PA state troopers.

      They let me go pretty quickly when they realized the only thing I’d had to drink was coffee. I can’t really blame them for pulling me over, if they hadn’t and I actually was driving drunk and caused an accident they would look pretty bad. But it made me realize how easily one could get someone in trouble with the law if they so desired.

      • 0 avatar

        I can’t see very well at night so my night driving skills are poor, and I thank the lord every day that some cop with a chip on his shoulder hasn’t pulled me over desperate to nail someone, ANYONE, with a DUI.

        • 0 avatar

          I’m just curious. How is driving at night when you can’t see well any different from driving with any other sort of impairment, like an elevated blood alcohol content?

          • 0 avatar

            I don’t know, but I can’t just quit my job and never leave the house after nightfall, so I just try my best.

            For me, the problem is mainly glare from other light sources “blowing out” my vision.

          • 0 avatar

            NoGoYo, I think I speak for most of us when I say I REALLY hope you do get pulled over and your license suspended.

            It’s bad enough that you know you can’t see and are a bad driver; it’s worse that you are willing to hurt, maim or kill other people so that you are not inconvenienced.

            You are the epitome of selfishness.

  • avatar

    The primary stop was not baseless. The criteria for a traffic stop is that the officer has a reasonable suspicion that a crime/violation is being committed (note that “reasonable suspicion” is a lower standard than “probable cause” which is the standard to be met for an arrest, a search, or the issuance of a warrant). The officer had a reasonable suspicion that this guy was talking on a phone in violation of the law – because he baked a cookie made specifically to look like a phone and then made it appear that he was using a phone while drive. The officer then clearly had reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle and investigate further.

    Of course once the officer got the guy pulled over (this would be a brief “investigative detention” in the eyes of the law) it of course became clear that the phone was merely a cookie. Therefore no citation was issued for use of a phone.

    It’s standard practice during a traffic stop for the police to radio in your particulars (although nowadays this is all done from in-car laptops) just to make sure you don’t have any warrants out, your license is valid, your insurance is valid, etc., before sending you on your way.

    This guy had a warrant. A warrant is non-discretionary. A warrant is an order issued by a judge to any law enforcement officer that if they encounter the person, they MUST arrest. So that’s that.

    Moral of the story: if you’re gonna troll the cops into pulling you over, make damn sure beforehand that you don’t have any warrants.

  • avatar

    Spot on stig, but the reference to the way police are changing their role in the USA today needs some comment I was a peace officer for a time in my 20s I wore a simple blue uniform and carried a billy club and 38 special revolver that never left its holster in 7 years on duty except at the range for qualification and at matches where I represented my force ( a medium sized city).
    now I had the advantage that at 6’6″ I could defuse situations just with my size and the world was a different place in the 60s with more respect for the badge but I am very troubled that police forces seem to be trending into some sort of paramilitary force.
    Why does a rural county need a large dressed in black and camo swat team or teams? Why does it need to have A MRAPV Sort of vehicle. The reason in part was that to get lots of “cool stuff” for free or for 10% of its cost they had to set up such a force. The homeland security folks have great programs that let forces of all sizes and types get federal funds which look free to local taxpayers. And then once hooked on the free money they have to spend it all or they risk not having it next year as the budget gets adjusted down to fit..

    Its a vicious cycle of county budget allocates $xxxx to swat upgrades and training to qualify for federal megabuck grants but if they do not spend it all to max out the grants then it gets cut the next year.

    But to me the sight of these black or camo clad forces training a lockdown anti terror sweep at the local high school is very chilling in a storm trooper way.
    Put the police back into blue and send the military arms and vehicles off to the national guard where they belong… While a case might be made for swat forces in a few large cities I would bet dollars to doughnuts that 95% of them in this country are a waste or resources and also reduce the respect for the forces in the law abiding public

    • 0 avatar
      DC Bruce

      +1 The further point is that, as police experience in certain parts of town shows, the police cannot do their job without the cooperation and support of the local population.

      When an Army occupies another country it must be present in massive force and numbers to be effective, as was shown by the size of the occupation armies in post WWII Japan and Germany; and was shown in a negative way following the Bush Iraq war, where the force committed was sufficient to overcome the Iraqi Army but woefully inadequate to pacify the local population.

      The point being that an occupying Army should not expect cooperation from the local populace, and if the police become an “occupying army” (as they are perceived in most minority communities) they will be ineffective unless their numbers are increased greatly, which the public is unlikely to want to pay for.

      • 0 avatar

        That’s giving far too much credit to the polite lie that their job is to control crime in the hood.

        Their real job is to keep the hood in the hood and that doesn’t take any cooperation whatsoever.

    • 0 avatar

      Excellent insight, Windy.

      I too have been alarmed at the trend towards militarization in local police forces over the last decade or two. And I think the trend is not only in equipment, but also in an “us versus them” attitude I seem to see displayed. I’m a pretty quiet guy, and frankly never have run-ins with the police, but I have read and heard about enough bad behavior to make me feel that I need to be hyper-vigilant in protecting my rights in the event of any future interaction. I think asserting your rights is generally a positive thing (if done in a respectful way), but I hate that I feel pressured into it because of eroding trust in my local peace officers.

      This isn’t scientific of course, but think about the stark difference in the police officers depicted on the TV show Cops between about 1990 and 2000. In the course of a decade, the “average” police officer on the show went from looking like a normal guy (average healthy physique, fairly pleasant manners, traditional patrolman uniform) to some sort of Navy-SEAL-looking trooper (buzz cut, super-authoritative mannerisms, biceps the size of my thigh, and decked out in paramilitary gear or tactical vests). To me, that’s not a great recipe for encouraging community interaction and cooperation.

      I have cops in my family, and I know that some of it comes from projecting an image of authority. And that might work well when you have that suspect stopped and s/he is on the edge between running and cooperating. I’m sure there are studies that show that if the investigating officer acts super-authoritative, then s/he is more likely to get cooperation. But for the rest of the interactions–the ones where you might be pulling over a regular guy, I’m not sure it plays so well.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        “I too have been alarmed at the trend towards militarization in local police forces over the last decade or two.”

        In a sense I understand your comment, but ‘the police’ have been militarized since forever. Think Redcoats, possees, union busters, civil rights, DNC 1968, etc.

        Perhaps the hand has gotten a little heavier due to the huge increase in serious-ass firepower out in the community….

    • 0 avatar

      The latitude once given for stupidity and youth has also been thrown by the wayside. Things I did routinely in my teenage years would garner me lengthy jail terms, if not prison. The result? The largest per capita and probably actual prisoner population in the world. Surely we can agree this is poor public policy. The law should be an instrument of an ordered society, not an income source. Applied to all, equally, regardless of social status or wallet biopsy. J.P. Morgan is paying $2 Billion penalty for being a Madoff facilitator, yet no person is prosecuted? LIBOR is manipulated with a wink and a nudge, yet no person is charged. HSBC launders billions for dope dealers and no charges. Makes me wonder why they seize the assets of some small timer for selling a pound of pot. Who is the larger public menace – the banks or the Bloods? The perpetual war machine or Colombian coke dealers? Damn sad commentary that this is even debatable.

    • 0 avatar

      Windy, thank you for saying this.

      When I was in Columbia on business in 1984, it was jarring to me that the police all carried automatic weapons, something that one never saw back home. Post-911, that has all changed. Cops wearing flack jackets and carrying M4s don’t make me feel safer, they just make me feel like I’m living in an occupied country where an innocent false move could provoke a deadly response. My dad lived through the Nazi occupation of his home country and I can’t help but see this through his eyes.

      Last year, I was working on Wall Street and the response to the kids in Zucotti Park was truly frightening and went on long after the OWS folks had left. I hated it. Back in ’99 downtown NYC was a great place (I worked in WTC 2 at the time), open and fun with a sense of a bright future. None of that remains. It’s all grim and cordoned-off and restricted now. It’s no wonder that, walled in behind a military police presence, the banks went on the biggest thieving spree in decades.

  • avatar

    Maybe he should have made an iPhone out of lettuce. Because once he gets done tossing his cookies, he’s gonna have to toss some salads.

    /too far?
    //depends on the local jail

  • avatar

    Indeed. I am bad company in a car when I am driving, because I cannot devote my mind’s focus on those within the car. That which is outside of the car takes precedence.

  • avatar

    Look for trouble and you’re gonna find it.

    Something similar happened in St. Louis many years back. One morning there was news a drunk driver had pulled up to a call box, thinking it was a McD’s drive through, and ordered some food. He was told to pull around and pick up his order. Turns out it was the speaker box to be let in the back of the police station where they bring arrestees for processing. One local radio station thought that was hilarious and sent someone that morning to do the same thing, sober, and live on the radio. That guy got arrested also. Oops.

  • avatar

    If you’ve got a warrant out for your arrest, doesn’t matter if you’re stopped on a traffic charge that turns out to be incorrect or sitting at an In-n-Out burger having some fries. If an officer recognizes you as the subject the warrant is for, they can arrest you on the spot. No questions asked, do not pass go, do not collect 200 bucks.

    An arrest warrant is a court basically telling the police “See this guy right here? Haul his ass in ASAP.”

    As for parking tickets, yes…you can be arrested for accumulating tickets you don’t pay. Or court costs you don’t pay. Or for failing to appear at court for a ticket when you were supposed to, etc.

    This is a case of “stupid games, stupid prizes.” Attracting police attention when you have an outstanding warrant is rather dumb, because once you have attracted the attention of LE the very first thing they do is run your identification for outstanding warrants. So doing something specifically designed to get you pulled over…well…dumb.

    Someone who doesn’t have outstanding warrants, a criminal record, open containers, or a kilo of blow and a dead hooker in the back seat could probably pull off the iPhone cookie trick pretty well. Hell, offer the officer a cookie when he comes to the window. Cops love empty carbs.

  • avatar

    “Let this be a lesson, kids: if you want to prank the cops, be g$%&#mn sure that there’s nothing they can possibly cite you for.”


  • avatar

    A warrant is a warrant. People with outstanding warrants have been busted forever under dumbest situations.

    The good news is that the arrest has nothing to do with the cookies.

    The bad news is that nothing about this story is comedic. Maybe he should start a bakery.

  • avatar

    Ha ha ha…it’s kind of funny how this backfired. He should have tied up his affairs before trolling to get pulled over. I guess it was funny regardless.

    Almost anything that takes your hands off the wheel and eyes off the road is a distraction. I’ve totaled a car changing a CD…

  • avatar

    So the moral of the story is don’t f%*k with the police if you’ve got outstanding violations somewhere.

  • avatar

    The other day I watched a guy cross a road outside the crosswalk. Cop saw him, and drove up to have a chat with him. Ran his license, and all of a sudden another cop pulled up and the guy had his hands on the hood getting frisked and then put in back of the squad and hauled away.

    So yeah, don’t do stupid stuff if you have outstanding warrants.

  • avatar

    This irony stuff can be pretty ironic.

    Arrested before the second batch of iPhone cookies came out of the oven.

  • avatar

    Hell, I got pulled over for giving a friendly wave to a highway patrol officer. Two lane rural road, HP is coming towards me, as we pass, I wave. I was not speeding (by Nevada accepted standards anyway). The HP lights ’em up and does a u-turn. He asks me “What is your problem sir?” The officer thought I gave him the finger as we passed! I explained to the ‘kid officer’ that out here in rural Nevada, it’s customary for the locals to wave to the deputies. He let me go.

    Then there was the time an HP ‘kid officer’ tried to arrest me for carrying a concealed weapon while I was riding my mountain bike near the highway. Thank God the sheriff was monitoring the HP radio frequency and came out to call off the HP officer. The Sheriff told the HP officer “He’s one of the GOOD GUYS leave him alone!” That was the first time I really felt like a member of the local community. Earning the ‘good guy’ label means everything in a small town.

    • 0 avatar

      Our two local State Troopers were both older fellas, and good folks. They’d eat lunch with us in the local cafe regularly, swap stories about cars, women, whatever, and generally got along well with the community. Then one retired, and we got a newb fresh out of the academy.

      This guy was a nightmare. He’d stop empty pickup trucks and deliver a full DOT inspection on the side of the highway. He’s go off on the backroads, pull over farmers in tractors, and cite them if their SMV triangle wasn’t exactly at the prescribed height. Later on, the older Trooper intimated that he had pulled junior aside and told him that if he didn’t mellow out, his car was going turn up abandoned by the side of the road somewhere and they’d never find the body.

      Supercop, however, wasn’t to be deterred. He continued on his merry way until, one night, he managed to pull over the county sheriff (and family) on his way to a daughter’s basketball game. He lined them all up on the side of the highway and proceeded to perform a thorough drug search on the Family Truckster. His “reassignment” was swift and, so I’m told, brutal.

  • avatar

    In California, parking tickets are a civil matter, not criminal. If they aren’t paid, they will be sold off to collections and end up on a credit report.

    He couldn’t have been arrested for unpaid parking tickets. Either he was arrested for something else, or else he’s making it up. As this whole thing sounds like a viral marketing publicity stunt, I suspect that it’s the latter.

    • 0 avatar
      Dave M.

      But failure to comply with a court-ordered/ordinance civil matter becomes a criminal matter, no?

      • 0 avatar

        Q. Can I be arrested for my unpaid parking ticket?

        A. No. Parking tickets are not criminal offenses in the State of California and you will not be arrested for your unpaid parking ticket. However, there is an additional $26 fine for tickets that are not paid on time and you may be subject to a $3 DMV fee if a hold is placed on the registration of your vehicle. If a hold is placed on the registration of your vehicle you will be unable to register your vehicle until all your outstanding parking tickets have been paid in full. In addition your delinquent unpaid parking tickets may be referred to an outside collection agency for collection proceedings against you.

  • avatar

    Someone should send a cookie in the shape of a key to him in jail.

  • avatar

    Having BEEN to a REAL police state (Eastern Europe before the wall fell) I can state from personal experience that the USA is not a police state, and this guy is no Winston Smith. Reminds me of the anti fur activist who went into our local charity shop (nee thrift store) and destroyed all the fur coats– these were used coats, and the money for selling them would go to families in need, but “fur is evil”, so the coats were wrecked and went to the dump. Making a cell phone cookie and provoking a cop is a similar form of stupidity. My point is: if you think “cops are evil” and driving with a cellphone is safe, then change the law. Stop complaining on forums and get involved in your local government; work on the local police oversight committee, and make a real world effort to change things. And vote, if you want to be heard. But if you aren’t involved in politics (as I have been since 1972) then you are full of hot air.

    • 0 avatar

      Jeffzekas: I totally agree. Having worked in several police states in Asia and “religious” based countries I am amazed how Americans equate the US to oppressive regimes. We have become a country where everything has to be a profit center. From prisons and police work to driving and even using the library. My personal view is not to fear the government, but the deep reach of profiteering businesses. They control everything…banking, credit reports, health care, shopping records, spending records, travel records, internet use….you name it.

  • avatar

    If you don’t know how a person can be arrested because of parking tickets and call the initial stop baseless, then you clearly do not have any grasp of the basic aspects of law enforcement and should cease articles like this where you’re ignorance is so beautifully on display.

  • avatar

    Do chocolate chips make your cookie phone have buttons?

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Baskingshark: In the original Avengers TV series, Emma Peel (Diana Rigg) drove two Lotus Elans; a white one in her...
  • SoCalMikester: i bought a “broadway” JDM clip on convex mirror years ago and i love it. i can see out the...
  • Lorenzo: Do what I do – use the lighted mirror on the passenger side visor.
  • eyeofthetiger: I am happy that I managed to find one of the last 2017 1.0 Ecoboost Fiestas, and for a very nice...
  • CKNSLS Sierra SLT: Devilsrotary-rent a Ford Fusion, Sonata, or even a Chevy Malibu for your next road trip and come...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote


  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States