Should police be able to pull over a vehicle if the owner's license is suspended/revoked?

[Chris0nllyn]

SCOTUS will soon determine that.
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kansas-v-glover/

Last year, Kansas' Supreme Court ruled that, no, cops can;t pull them over because they don't have reasonable suspicion that the driver actually committed a crime. In this case, the driver was the owner, but the officer did not know that when he pulled him over. The justification for the stop is solely because he ran the license and it came back with a suspended owner.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/Opinions/SupCt/2018/20180727/116446.pdf

It should be interesting to see how much leeway the court gives the govt. Kansas argues that the likelihood of the owner driving is high enough to provide the reasonable suspicion required. The data they provided, however, does not seem to say that.

They suggest that there are two to three drivers for every registered automobile in Kansas. That means the likelihood that the registered owner of a vehicle in Kansas is driving his or her vehicle is no less than 33%, and probably much higher because “common sense and ordinary experience suggest that a vehicle’s owner is . . . very often the driver of his or her own car.” That is far greater than what is necessary to support reasonable suspicion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-556/103160/20190617142436302_18-556 ts.pdf

Quite the stretch.

The defendants beautifully argue:

Consider the following stylized (but realistic) example. Suppose a woman’s license was suspended for six months. During that time, her husband drove her car twice each day—to and from work on weekdays and to and from the grocery store and religious services on weekends. If the woman drove her car twice in that period (say, to take her husband to the doctor and home again), then 100 percent of the suspended drivers in that household drove the car registered to her in spite of her suspension—and, if asked, she would report that she “continued to drive” in spite of her suspension. But during the six-month period of suspension, the suspended driver was the driver only .56 percent of the times the car was driven. Even if she drove the car twice per month, she was the driver only 3 percent of the times the car was driven. The fact that “as many as 75% of suspended drivers” may “continue[] to drive” does not establish—as a matter of statistics or common sense—that suspended drivers as a group continue to drive approximately 75 percent as much as they did before their suspensions. Such a statistic also fails to take account of variations in driving patterns in and among different jurisdictions—a missing fact that an experienced law-enforcement officer might be able to fill in if the State were willing to offer his testimony.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-556/114211/20190830104136115_18-556 bs.pdf

Another interesting aspect is public safety. Kansas argues they need to pull over any car that has an owner with a suspended/revoked license for public safety, but that ignores the fact that Kansas revokes and suspends licenses all the time that have no relation to public safety reasons. Child support, drug possession, unpaid parking tickets, etc.

Factor in license plate readers for a trifecta of reasoning for giving cops another excuse, in addition to the boatload of other means at their disposal, to hassle drivers.

 

[Hijinx]

Should police be able to pull over a vehicle if the owner's license is suspended/revoked?


Yes

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Should police be able to pull over a vehicle if the owner's license is suspended/revoked?


Yes

Care to expand on that? With the understanding that police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, how would an officer know the driver is the owner?

 

[black dog]

Should police be able to pull over a vehicle if the owner's license is suspended/revoked?


Yes

Be careful what you wish for....

 

[buddscreek]

joe the ragman is driving suspended/revoked and officer b.a. see's him.
yes

 

[TPD]

I have been against tag readers from day one. This is another reason to nuke them all. Police state.

 

[Monello]

Pull the car over, No. Notice the driver as he's operating the vehicle, Yes.

I haven't been stopped by the cops in years. I mostly follow the traffic laws and stay close to the speed limit. What surprised me about SOMD is the number of traffic stops where the driver has a vehicle issue(busted taillight) or moving violation(crossed the line, tailgating, etc) and it turns out there is dope and or guns in the car. I have to believe that the popo know who the local shitbags are and spend their time with them instead of bothering the law abiding citizens. I see these local news stories and think that the bad guys can't be that stupid to always have drugs and guns in plain sight but that is what is reported in the news.

 

[Hijinx]

Care to expand on that? With the understanding that police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, how would an officer know the driver is the owner?

How would he not know until he stops him.

 

[General Lee]

Care to expand on that? With the understanding that police need reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed, how would an officer know the driver is the owner?

Registration info gives race, male or female, height/weight and date of birth. If the description matches the driver, there is your reasonable suspicion. If registered owner info is a male and a female is driving ..... then no reasonable suspicion. If Registered owner is a 60 year old male and a 20 something year old male is driving...no reasonable suspicion.

 

[black dog]

Registration info gives race, male or female, height/weight and date of birth. If the description matches the driver, there is your reasonable suspicion. If registered owner info is a male and a female is driving ..... then no reasonable suspicion. If Registered owner is a 60 year old male and a 20 something year old male is driving...no reasonable suspicion.

Why was the Tag run to begin with? What reason does LE have to run you plate.




This is a problem with Our Freedom of Travel....

 

[baxter]

Seems like most Law abiding citizens don't have an issue with this. I don't. When a law officer tells you to stop as you run away, you get shot,,,,,,,,duh,,,nothing like accountability! Think about it, all these thugs that run from the cops, had they not run, they would still be here today, not dead, Tough SH&^ I say. On the other hand, when a law officer is wrong, that's a different story,,,,If you don't want to get pulled over, than don't be a dumbass and loose your license!

 

[General Lee]

Why was the Tag run to begin with? What reason does LE have to run you plate.




This is a problem with Our Freedom of Travel....

I was referring to the tag reader, But LE can run your tag just because It's in plain view. The tag reader reads plates in plain view, just a fast fast rate. A LEO can do it manually is he/she feels like it. I'm not saying I agree with it all, but that is just the way it is.

 

[Ken King]

Should police be able to pull over a vehicle if the owner's license is suspended/revoked? Only if the breaking of law is currently being observed or there is an active want for that vehicle.

 

[LightRoasted]

If I may ...

Seems like most Law abiding citizens don't have an issue with this. I don't. When a law officer tells you to stop as you run away, you get shot,,,,,,,,duh,,,nothing like accountability! Think about it, all these thugs that run from the cops, had they not run, they would still be here today, not dead, Tough SH&^ I say. On the other hand, when a law officer is wrong, that's a different story,,,,If you don't want to get pulled over, than don't be a dumbass and loose your license!

And here's the old fallback BS fallacy. 'But I'm a good person. I always follow that law'. I never cause problems'. 'I pay my taxes'. 'I support, unequivocally, the police'. The majority of people have been so brainwashed, so filled with propaganda, they have no idea when, or how to, stand up to these "enforcers". If a cop, shoots in suspect, say a 16 year old in the back of the head, while running away. That cop is a coward, should be fired, and hung for outright murder. Only cowards shoot someone in the back. Most "law abiding citizens" are of a different type of cowardliness. They are submissive and cower to the "authori-tah" so as to not rile them up in fear of being mistaken for a law breaker. Boot licker.

 

[black dog]

If I may ...


And here's the old fallback BS fallacy. 'But I'm a good person. I always follow that law'. I never cause problems'. 'I pay my taxes'. 'I support, unequivocally, the police'. The majority of people have been so brainwashed, so filled with propaganda, they have no idea when, or how to, stand up to these "enforcers". If a cop, shoots in suspect, say a 16 year old in the back of the head, while running away. That cop is a coward, should be fired, and hung for outright murder. Only cowards shoot someone in the back. Most "law abiding citizens" are of a different type of cowardliness. They are submissive and cower to the "authori-tah" so as to not rile them up in fear of being mistaken for a law breaker. Boot licker.

Yep, I have a huge problem shooting an unarmed citizen....It's mind boggling that so many are okay with that happening in America.

 

[BernieP]

joe the ragman is driving suspended/revoked and officer b.a. see's him.
yes

strawman, that assumes to facts not in evidence, officer BA recognizes the driver and knows that his license is revoked / suspended.
Which doesn't exactly address the question at hand, the "plates", i.e. the vehicle is registered to, and individual who's license is suspended / revoked.
There is no evidence that the officer recognized the driver.

The other problem in all this is the reliance on information systems we all know have a certain amount of latency.
For example, turn in you plates and cancel vehicle registration because the car was totaled.
The advice from insurance companies (and the tag and title places) is to week a week to ten days to cancel insurance because if you don't you will get a fine. The two systems don't communicate with each other and there is a lag, a latency.
The court / MVA may say your license is restored, but the database may take days to catch up to reality.
Which is why most cops don't pull a vehicle over because they suspect the driver may be without a license, they wait for an infraction.
In which case they know one ticket is valid and if the DB is incorrect on status of the license, it will be sorted out in court.
But at least nobody goes to court over a foul up in the system.

 

[PrchJrkr]

My agent will cancel my policy on a vehicle as soon as I show then a tag return receipt. They scan it and add it to my portfolio. I may be playing with fire, but at least I have solid proof of the return. This is one of the many reasons that I use a local agency. The piece of mind is worth whatever markup they may add. That reminds me, I need to drop by and pick up a calendar.

 

[black dog]

joe the ragman is driving suspended/revoked and officer b.a. see's him.
yes

Damn agents of the government.....



Wait... What.... Officer Bad Ass?

 

[Hijinx]

strawman, that assumes to facts not in evidence, officer BA recognizes the driver and knows that his license is revoked / suspended.
Which doesn't exactly address the question at hand, the "plates", i.e. the vehicle is registered to, and individual who's license is suspended / revoked.
There is no evidence that the officer recognized the driver.

The other problem in all this is the reliance on information systems we all know have a certain amount of latency.
For example, turn in you plates and cancel vehicle registration because the car was totaled.
The advice from insurance companies (and the tag and title places) is to week a week to ten days to cancel insurance because if you don't you will get a fine. The two systems don't communicate with each other and there is a lag, a latency.
The court / MVA may say your license is restored, but the database may take days to catch up to reality.
Which is why most cops don't pull a vehicle over because they suspect the driver may be without a license, they wait for an infraction.
In which case they know one ticket is valid and if the DB is incorrect on status of the license, it will be sorted out in court.
But at least nobody goes to court over a foul up in the system.

You don't have to turn in the tags because your license is suspended so your explanation of the tags and the insurance having a lag, though correct is not relevant. At least in Maryland they don't. If they did just spotting the tags would be a violation, and a just reason to stop you.

I would be in favor of anyone driving on tags of a vehicle without insurance being stopped and the vehicle towed.The law in Maryland requires insurance on a vehicle.

Fact is I would be in favor of anyone driving on a suspended or revoked permit because of DUI or DWI having the car impounded.

 

[BOP]

Yep, I have a huge problem shooting an unarmed citizen....It's mind boggling that so many are okay with that happening in America.

The problem is that so many people need killing.