Citizen
Founder's Club Member
Below is a comment from Fourth Amendment dot com a very good legal blog by a criminal defense attorney.
The link in the comment begins downloading the court opinion.
This opinion would seem to partially remove a police pretext for a fishing expedition to traffic stop cars.
Here's the comment:
"Where two of three bulbs in a taillight were working, it was “in good working order” and the stop was unjustified. Post-conviction relief granted. State v. Brown, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 36 (January 15, 2013).*"
I've seen in another state where a single bulb burned out was enough to justify a [STRIKE]fishing expedition[/STRIKE] traffic stop. Although, that one may not have been one bulb of three in one taillight assembly; it might have been one of three brake lights.
To see the original comment and check out a great website that historians will be able to use to document the steady erosion of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) see here: www.fourthamendment.com
The comment is under the posts dated 1/20/13.
The link in the comment begins downloading the court opinion.
This opinion would seem to partially remove a police pretext for a fishing expedition to traffic stop cars.
Here's the comment:
"Where two of three bulbs in a taillight were working, it was “in good working order” and the stop was unjustified. Post-conviction relief granted. State v. Brown, 2013 Wisc. App. LEXIS 36 (January 15, 2013).*"
I've seen in another state where a single bulb burned out was enough to justify a [STRIKE]fishing expedition[/STRIKE] traffic stop. Although, that one may not have been one bulb of three in one taillight assembly; it might have been one of three brake lights.
To see the original comment and check out a great website that historians will be able to use to document the steady erosion of the Fourth Amendment (search and seizure) see here: www.fourthamendment.com
The comment is under the posts dated 1/20/13.
Last edited: