0
Anonymous Posted 12 years ago
Grammar
Lists and prepositional phrases question
This is a law statute. It is about the requirements of police vehicles having markings that show they are police vehicles (unmarked cars vs marked cars).
The question is, are "sheriffs offices" and "police departments" exempted from the law separately, or are they included with "vehicles used by peace offers" for special undercover purposes"? In other words, do the sheriffs cars and police department cars ALSO have to be used for undercover purposes to be exempted from markings?
The "or" after the comma is creating the confusion. Here is the sentence:
"This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."
The question is, are "sheriffs offices" and "police departments" exempted from the law separately, or are they included with "vehicles used by peace offers" for special undercover purposes"? In other words, do the sheriffs cars and police department cars ALSO have to be used for undercover purposes to be exempted from markings?
The "or" after the comma is creating the confusion. Here is the sentence:
"This section shall not apply to vehicles of a sheriff's office, local police department, or any vehicles used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover or confidential investigative purposes."
Top answer
I am not a lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice. If all vehicles belonging to the local police department were exempted, then what would be left of "the requirements of police vehicles having markings that show they are police vehicles"? What police vehicles could it apply to?
- I am not a lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice.
- If all vehicles belonging to the local police department were exempted, then what would be left of "the requirements of police vehicles having markings that show they are police vehicles"?
- What police vehicles could it apply to?
- On this basis, I would guess that, yes, "the sheriff's cars and police department cars ALSO have to be used for undercover purposes".
- However, if that's what it does mean, it is quite poorly and confusingly written, in my opinion.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
9 Answers
0
I am not a lawyer, and this is not intended as legal advice.
If all vehicles belonging to the local police department were exempted, then what would be left of "the requirements of police vehicles having markings that show they are police vehicles"? What police vehicles could it apply to?
On this basis, I would guess that, yes, "the sheriff's cars and police department cars ALSO
If all vehicles belonging to the local police department were exempted, then what would be left of "the requirements of police vehicles having markings that show they are police vehicles"? What police vehicles could it apply to?
On this basis, I would guess that, yes, "the sheriff's cars and police department cars ALSO
00
I read it as following vehicles are exempt:
- the vehicles belonging to a sheriff's office (OR)
- the vehicles belonging to a local police department (OR)
- the vehicles being used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover ...
It would have been clearer if another "or" were written in the ordinance. But, if there is a list, then the operator jo
- the vehicles belonging to a sheriff's office (OR)
- the vehicles belonging to a local police department (OR)
- the vehicles being used by local peace officers under public authority for special undercover ...
It would have been clearer if another "or" were written in the ordinance. But, if there is a list, then the operator jo
00
I think the statute is trying to say that (that sheriffs cars and police department cars are exempt), but my question here is specifically asking about the actual grammar and structure, and what it implies.
Are you saying that since it doesn't have a "or a" after sheriff's office, that grammatically it is implying that the prepositional phrase "for special undercover..." applies t
Are you saying that since it doesn't have a "or a" after sheriff's office, that grammatically it is implying that the prepositional phrase "for special undercover..." applies t
00
AnonymousAre you saying that since it doesn't have a "or a" after sheriff's office, that grammatically it is implying that the prepositional phrase "for special undercover..." applies to all 3 types of vehicles?I think that the sentence is faulty and that the intended meaning is uncertain. It could be an attempt at saying:
This section shal
00
GPYHowever, my question remains, if local police department cars are always exempt then what is the point of the regulation at all?Here is the reason - you have to read the preceding sentences:
It is unlawful for any public officer having charge of any vehicle owned or controlled by any county, city, town, or public body in this state other than the s
00
I see. I was under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the law was to specify requirements for police vehicles to be marked as such.
00
GPYI see. I was under the mistaken impression that the purpose of the law was to specify requirements for police vehicles to be marked as such.Perhaps anonymous hoped that a certain unmarked vehicle was in violation of the statute.
00
The WA Court of Appeals has found in a prior case that unmarked patrol cars ars in violation of the statute.
I'm just trying to figure out the ambiguous meaning. What the original intent was.
I'm just trying to figure out the ambiguous meaning. What the original intent was.
00
AnonymousThe WA Court of Appeals has found in a prior case that unmarked patrol cars ars in violation of the statute.Well, then I would advise that you go to the case records and read what the logic of the winning argument was.
0
Related Questions