Aurora seeks to curb 'puffing' - cars left running, unattended
April M. Washington
Published January 30, 2008 at 12:30 a.m.
Updated January 30, 2008 at 2:53 p.m.
Adrian Rascon-Almada left his Dodge Neon wide open and idling in a 7-Eleven parking lot Tuesday morning as he ran inside and grabbed a cup of coffee.
He was gone only a few minutes.
But it was long enough for police to spot him and issue him a ticket for "puffing" - leaving a car running and unattended.
"It takes just a split second for someone lurking outside a 7-Eleven or day- care to take off with your car and then use it to commit another crime," Aurora police Sgt. Dan Mark said.
"Puffer" thefts have become such a problem that Aurora police conducted a citywide operation targeting them Tuesday.
Rascon-Almada was among 60 drivers issued tickets during the four-hour operation. His fine will be between $75 and $105, and he isn't too happy about it.
"I live in the neighborhood; I left my car running before," said Rascon-Almada, 36. "People are nice out here. They wouldn't steal my car."
Just before Rascon-Almada received his ticket, Mark issued one to a driver at a nearby day-care center who left her Ford Taurus unlocked and running, with her purse sitting in plain view on the front seat.
"That's just an invitation for a thief," Mark said.
"People aren't too happy we're giving out tickets," he said. "We're doing this to try to make an impact on car theft."
The sting was conducted from 6 a.m. to 10 a.m., when dozens of officers fanned out across the city looking for violators in their driveways and at convenience stores, day-care centers and coffee shops - all hot spots for car thieves.
In the past two years, Aurora saw auto thefts plummet by 46 percent. But among cars that were stolen, about 200 were puffers.
To combat the problem, Aurora enacted a puffer ordinance in December 2006. Denver has a similar ordinance, and the fine is $25.
To help explain why the fine is higher in Aurora, police referred to an incident in February in which a stolen 2005 Dodge pickup truck was used to commit a robbery.
The culprits, who remain at large, plowed into the back of a store on East Mississippi Avenue, tore a hole in the wall and robbed employees at gunpoint.
"We didn't solve that crime because the truck was worthless to us, because we couldn't trace (it) to anyone involved in the robbery," Aurora police spokesman Robert Friel said.
"Cars left running are easy prey for crooks because they know it makes it challenging for police," he said.
The Rocky Mountain Insurance Information Association could not say how much puffing costs the state's insurance industry annually, but it said that car theft rates have dropped since the passage of the Aurora and Denver ordinances.
"Auto theft is one of the biggest impacts on insurance rates," said Carole Walker, spokeswoman for the association. "We're seeing auto theft rates come down through effective enforcement."
washingtonam@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5086
Cars stolen most often in Colorado
1. Honda Accord, 1996
2. Honda Civic, 2000
3. Jeep Grand Cherokee, 1993
4. Toyota Camry, 1989
5. Saturn SL, 1995
6. Dodge Neon, 1995
7. Acura Integra, 1995
8. Chevrolet C/K 1500 Pickup, 1994
9. Dodge Ram Pickup, 2001
10. Ford Explorer, 1996
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
January 30, 2008
6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
stareach writes:
OK, this has been a thorn in my side. Not because I've ever been on the receiving end of the ticket, but simply because what's right is not being addressed. Why should we, the tax paying public, be penalized because someone else did something stupid? If I leave my car running and it's considered an invitation, then let's lock up banks, grocery stores, our children and wives, because obviously, being open and having a commodity is an "invitation", or walking down the street is an "invitation". It's time that we made punishment for crime what it is supposed to be and punish those guilty of a crime not the victims. But since that is to simplistic, APD and DPD need to define the "puffer" law to include vehicles that are running but locked, and vehicles running due to the remote starter installed. Are these subject to the fine due to the fact that the "criminal" has to actively break and enter to steal the car? If the vehicle is in a driveway, which is NOT public access, are they not guilty of criminal trespass?
January 30, 2008
6:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
CHunter writes:
The remote starters and cars locked but running are addressed. In Aurora, motor vehicle theft is handled in municipal court because they get more jail time than by sending it to County Court, not sure how Denver handles it. The vehicle trespass is not addressed because that is a lesser charge of MVT (like criminal trespass vs. Burglary). What is important is the number of people that leave informaiton in thier car, like purses and wallets that contain info used for ID Theft. Plus the victim is now missing thier house keys, garage door openers, etc.
January 30, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
ladida writes:
I wrote a comment last night that isn't here anymore. My question - is it OK for the cops to leave their patrol cars running unattended? Because a couple of weeks ago, I saw two Aurora patrol cars at the Starbucks on Alameda near Havana running in the parking lot and the cops were inside, sitting down & having a nice little coffee break. Why is it OK for them to do and not us? Couldn't someone break a window into the patrol car and steal it?
The crashing the car into the building story is ridiculous - how many times does that happen?
They also say that of stolen cars in the last two years, 200 were "puffers"...out of how many? If there were 2000 cars stolen, I'd say there were probably other reasons the cars were stolen than leaving the car running.
Sounds like a revenue grab by Aurora to me...$75? Let's compare that to the fines for other non-moving traffic offenses.
So the insurance company can say that car thefts have dropped since 12/06? That's only a year....and apparently no normal people know about this law anyway, so how could it have any impact when no one knows about it until they get a ticket?
January 30, 2008
9:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
aeb1barfo writes:
Do as I say, not as I do. That appears to be the behavior of ALL law enforcement people.
Lets start ticketing for ALL vehicle infractions, like the delivery drivers that double park and use handicapped spaces for " just a minute ".
How many cops have to TRESPASS on private property to write these tickets anyway?
January 30, 2008
9:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Think of it this way guys: You ARE encouraging crime. It's as though you are encouraging the crime of "grand theft auto" by letting your car run unlocked and unattended. You are also wasting gas, polluting the air and gumming up your engine! Choose your reason for shutting off your engine. I think that they are ALL pretty good.
January 30, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
ladida writes:
I agree that it's stupid to leave your car running. But should you get a $75-$105 ticket for it? I'd like a comparison of what other transgressions have that range of fine attached?
January 30, 2008
10:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
monkeydog writes:
I think this is a wonderful law, and way overdue. I look forward to the arrests of victims of robbery because, let's face it, their stuff was an attractive nuisance. If they didn't have such nice stuff, the robbery simply wouldn't have taken place.
And while we're at it, can we please arrest attractive women who get raped? After all, they basically solicited it, didn't they? (Hey, it works in Saudi Arabia, why not here?)
I'm sure somewhere there are statistics indicating that APD and DPD conviction rates have increased thanks largely to the fact that they are now ticketing victims who self-report. Way to go, guys!
January 30, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
OK, I can understand giving tickets for leaving your vehicle running and unattended in a public area, even though I don't like the idea. However, how can they ticket you in your own driveway? That is your own property, both the land and vehicle...
January 30, 2008
12:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
aeb1barfo has a valid point in regards to the private property issue- the police are trespassing themselves. There is no immediate harm to anyone to justify this.
January 30, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
fishtanksamurai writes:
Next they will post police in schools to ticket kids for running in the halls. Two words...Natural Selection. I'm all for protecting the vulnerable but not the stupid. No wonder we have a quagmire for a gene pool. No more "nanny" laws! We don't need to be protected from ourselves, just the government.
January 30, 2008
3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Hang on,
OK, I'm back. I just ran outside and started my car. It's now running as I type this. I guess I'm now a criminal.
This is idiotic! It's my car, my gas, and my choice. If I want to let it run all day long, why can't I choose to do so? There aren't more pressing concerns for police than when I start my car? What a really dumb idea--what's next, the police telling me when I can turn on the lights in my house?
January 30, 2008
4 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
If the cops have enough time on their hands to hang around watching for "puffers", then shouldn't they also be catching the criminals that are supposedly around every corner waiting to pounce on the victims?
Mostly I see this as a revenue-raising ploy and not really crime prevention.
January 30, 2008
4:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
Xerius writes:
I'm not a fan of this, but I have an idea of where it is coming from. It probably has nothing to due with your car getting stolen or pollution. It most likely stems from diesel trucks and vehicles with a loud exhaust system. Not everyone in the city works a day job. Some folks would rather not wake up every morning to someone's vehicle running for 15 minutes. I wish the cops would just come out and say that.
January 30, 2008
4:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Shaupeen: It addresses a specific problem that they are having with criminals, namely that they are stealing cars that are running to use in crimes so that they aren't trackable. They probably are only enforcing this at areas where thefts of running cars are common (usually gas stations). I doubt that they are enforcing it at private residences.
There's a similar law in Lafayette. I still warm up my car every day in my driveway and have yet to get a ticket for it. I agree with Dan2 that it would be stupid to get a ticket if you're able to warm up the car while it's locked and can't be driven without the key but I think that's an unusual circumstance. I have a slightly faulty ignition key slot that lets me remove the key after starting it so that I can then step out and lock the car. But someone could theoretically smash the driver or passenger window and drive off with it.
January 30, 2008
6:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradoorbust writes:
I dont agree with the amount imposed for this violation but there should be some fine and no this is not a crime it is a citable incident, like traffic infractions. The point is dont leave your car running and unattended. If I was a criminal wanting to steal something out of your car or even your car I would be against this violation as well, it would make my thievery much harder. Being a police officer, I have heard time and time again...."officer someone stole my car" "How did they steal your car?" "I left it running while I ran inside to buy some cheetos, a coke, cigarettes, etc." You might be surprised how many knuckle heads do this and leave children in the car also. Point is dont be an invitation to the criminal element.
January 30, 2008
6:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradoorbust writes:
I do agree that you should not be cited for a locked running vehicle on your own property.
January 30, 2008
6:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
coloradoorbust writes:
Fresh
Why do you think this?
January 30, 2008
10:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
MissSio writes:
I wrote a comment last night too that's gone now... Basically, I can see this, on one hand, as leaving your car unlocked and running is stupid. But then, don't our officers have better things to do than to troll parking lots and neighborhoods looking to ticket idiots? Is an ounce of protection really worth a pound of cure here? (or some other mixed up thing)
I also wondered about locked running cars and auto-starters, though I see that's been covered.
January 31, 2008
7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
The premise behind this is rehensible- you're inviting theft, a "blame the victim" mentality. So, what's next? My son plays outside in our yard and leaves his baseball bat, someone steals it and possibly uses it for assault. So we should get a ticket for inviting theft, and the property used to commit a crime??
Unlike the indoor smoking act, this is truly a "nanny state" law. The law is supposed to be about protecting our rights; this law doesn't qualify. Further, the basis for the law is deplorable. Given the size of the fine, we can only conclude it's all about the money!
January 31, 2008
8:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Yeah, OK, I've read all the arguments here, and it hasn't changed my mind one little bit. It's my damn car! I will run it whenever I feel like it. Not only is the name dumb as hell--Puffer?! Really? That's the best you can come up with??--but the concept of some authority telling me when I can turn on a car I own on my property is moronic. And a little scary.
Go find some real criminals.
January 31, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
"My son plays outside in our yard and leaves his baseball bat, someone steals it and possibly uses it for assault."
I think that's a bad analogy. Bats aren't nearly as dangerous as a car. There are no specific laws for use of bats against someone, just for that category of weapon. However, there are laws specifically for cars, such as vehicular homicide. I think a better analogy would be:
"My son shoots his gun at the firing range. If he leaves the gun laying around in the parking lot and someone steals it and uses it for a crime how is this his fault?" or something like that. Obviously people are more careful with their guns--although they are still stolen and used for crimes for the same reason cars are stolen, makes it harder to track the criminal (and the criminal may have no legal way of getting a gun anyway).
If you leave a car running at a gas station with the keys in the ignition, unlocked, to me that's much like just leaving a gun laying there just waiting for a criminal to come by to pick it up. Also, remember cops are doing this in Aurora in response to what criminals have been doing (stealing cars that are running). If people keep their cars locked then this will obviously make it harder for these criminals to steal them for use in other crimes.
January 31, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Even the police officer thought that the fines are too high and that you shouldn't get fined if it's locked and running on your own property (I agree with him). But the principle of trying to slap people on the wrist for leaving their car running, unlocked in an area where cars have previously been stolen still makes sense.
"First of all, if I took a bat upside your head , it would inflict as much damage as a car could."
Of course you can theoretically kill someone with a bat, but you have to get close enough to them and actually hit them. A car is much harder to avoid and you can kill several people instantly with a car, unlike a bat (or a gun for that matter). Also, bats are cheap so there's no reason for a criminal to steal one when he can buy one in cash anywhere. Bats also don't carry criminals to a store which they then proceed to rob and then help them get away. A bit of a difference, no? From the article:
"The culprits, who remain at large, plowed into the back of a store on East Mississippi Avenue, tore a hole in the wall and robbed employees at gunpoint."
How the heck is a bat going to help the criminals as much as that car did?
January 31, 2008
1:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
monkeydog writes:
What if you get carjacked? Shouldn't you get a ticket then too? You obviously turned your car over to a criminal, and I don't think he's going to drive it to church.
Bottom line: No crime has been committed until the car gets stolen. Period.
Seriously, how many of your freedoms are you people willing to give up? One more? Two?
January 31, 2008
2:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Just like monkeydog said, a crime hasn't been committed yet. You're penalizing innocent citizens for the crimes of others, and doing so in a questionable way. That's wrong.
January 31, 2008
2:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Who said it's a crime? It's considered a traffic violation which is a whole different ball of wax.
January 31, 2008
2:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
THANK YOU monkeydog! (There's a sentence I never thought I'd type in my life!) And fiesty. You just put into words my exact sentiments. And no, joggle, it's not a traffic violation either. It's government (police) butting into the lives of law-abiding citizens.
I can't put it any better:
"Seriously, how many of your freedoms are you people willing to give up?"
January 31, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
Technically, no one has the unalienable right to drive on the roads. Rather, it's considered a privilege (as can be seen by the ability of the police/courts to suspend your license and not allowing people with certain health conditions to drive).
Also, let me get this straight. You want to protect your right to be stupid, correct? Leaving a car running at a gas station in Aurora unlocked is nothing short of being stupid. Fortunately there are many laws to protect people from their own stupidity and this is just another.
January 31, 2008
3:34 p.m.
Suggest removal
Shaupeen writes:
Wait, joggle, earlier you said it "addresses a specific problem that they are having with criminals," but now you say it's about law-abiding citizens being stupid. Make up your mind!
If it's about criminals, then punish them.
If it's about stupidity, then that's easy--you cannot legislate it away. And we certainly shouldn't give up freedoms to try and get rid of stupidity--that'd be, um, stupid. It's stupid to ride a motorcycle with out a helmet, but a person ought to have the freedom to choose to do so. It's stupid to smoke, but the freedom to do so needs to exist. It's not a good idea to eat fast food or drink excessively, but people can choose to do that. The bigger question is why do feel the need to have the government regulate your freedoms? Aren't you an adult? Don't you take responsibility for your actions and choices? Then why would you need or want the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?
My car, my driveway, my choice, my responsibility. Why is that any business of yours, or the police?
You think it's fortunate that laws exist to protect people from their own stupidity? Careful. There might soon be a law forbidding that, too.
January 31, 2008
4:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
When I said criminals earlier I was referring to the actual criminals (the ones stealing cars).
"Then why would you need or want the government telling you what you can and can't do with your own property?"
When the results of your stupidity directly effect or endanger me is when I start to care. I don't have any problem with someone warming up their car on their drive way (I think I've said that two or three times already). If you leave a loaded gun on the sidewalk I would care. If you leave a running car at a gas station where criminals are known to steal them I care. This isn't rocket science here folks.
BTW, cops are normal people too. There's jerks and then there's ones that aren't. The cop that posted earlier probably wouldn't hand out tickets to guys with cars running in their driveways. They're allowed discretion after all, although it would be better to modify their policy officially.
January 31, 2008
4:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Francesca writes:
coloradoorbust, there is something you wrote which absolutely makes no sense to me. And since you say you're a cop, then you probably won't like what I have to say. "Don't be an invitation to the criminal element." That's what you wrote.
I'd say a better choice of words would be that we shouldn't depend on police to protect us. A wiser choice would be to start advocating and protecting ourselves then.
Now I know you were referring to those that leave their vehicles running in public areas... but where does it end, and what is next? Anyone (that is unarmed) at any time, in almost all situations is an invitation to the criminal element. What about taking a pleasant hike in the woods that turns into a beating and decapitation? Guess Meredith Emerson was an invitation to the criminal element, may she rest in peace.
Two words. Concealed carry. I am already there, thank you very much.
Because writing tickets to offset people's inability to think for themselves and use common sense doesn't fix the problem. Just read the posts here. People are really fed up with the nanny crap. It just pisses off the majority of us that are aware of our situational awareness. Those of us that can clearly see that this is just ONE MORE revenue-grabbing ploy as well as additional removal of our freedoms. It has nothing to do with protection because the protection isn't forthcoming, nor will it be in the future. So stick that in your service weapon and smoke it.
January 31, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
joggle writes:
My point is that you are not the only one to suffer from your mistake in some situations. Nobody has addressed this, but what about my analogy to leaving a loaded gun laying around? Guns are purposefully made difficult to acquire for criminals and to leave one where it could be easily stolen seems reckless by the owner. Similarly, if the owner of the car makes it ridiculously easy for the car to be stolen in an area where it's likely to be stolen it seems like a reckless thing to do. Sure he loses the car, but what about the guy who got robbed and the police can't track the criminals because the car they left behind doesn't belong to them?
February 1, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
mrNiceGuy writes:
The saddest part of all this is all laws are supposed to be reflective of the opinion of the people the laws serve. That's why we "vote" our lawmakers into office. Obviously here the best interest of the people has not been represented. What we need to do is find out who the heck came up with such an ubsurd law and who voted it through. Then we need to address these people via phone, email, letters, visits and let them know. Finally, we need to make sure that come next election, we don't let these people stay in office and continue to create laws that violate our rights. But, that's alot of work, so I'll just continue whining to my fellow sufferers.