Repeater
Regular Member
How many here drive with some kind of dangly thing on your rear-view mirror?
The cops and the government wanted a per se rule allowing a traffic stop on any vehicle with any kind of object, such as fuzzy dice, dangling from the rear-view mirror.
The court, 2-1, said no. The dissenting judge went on and on and on about public safety. Of course, such a traffic stop really allows the LEO to get in your business. This opinion stops that[sup]1[/sup]. The opinion (PDF) includes a photo of the placard in question. Obstructing the driver's view? You be the judge:
Mason v. Commonwealth
1. The court remanded on the issue of applying the Exclusionary Rule. So, it's not entirely clear how protective this opinion might be to those who possess a weapon inside their vehicles.
The cops and the government wanted a per se rule allowing a traffic stop on any vehicle with any kind of object, such as fuzzy dice, dangling from the rear-view mirror.
The court, 2-1, said no. The dissenting judge went on and on and on about public safety. Of course, such a traffic stop really allows the LEO to get in your business. This opinion stops that[sup]1[/sup]. The opinion (PDF) includes a photo of the placard in question. Obstructing the driver's view? You be the judge:
Mason v. Commonwealth
Officer Richards’s observation of the parking pass attached to the rearview mirror is descriptive of wholly innocent behavior exhibited by many drivers on the road who have objects attached to their windshield or rearview mirror that do not obstruct their view of the road. We note that there is little distinction between the size of the parking pass, which when hanging would be covered in part by the rearview mirror itself, and the size of various opaque stickers and other objects that various government agencies require or authorize to be displayed on the windshield of a motor vehicle, such as a state vehicle inspection sticker, Code § 46.2-1163, or an E-ZPass toll transponder, Code § 33.1-23.03:10(C). Without any particular or individualized facts suggesting or supporting a suspicion that this parking pass was obstructing the driver’s view of the road, we conclude that the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time of the stop in this case are insufficient to support a reasonable suspicion that the driver was violating the law.
We hold that the traffic stop and seizure of Mason violated his Fourth Amendment rights because the facts and circumstances available to the officer at the time of the stop did not support a reasonable suspicion that the driver was violating or about to violate the law.
1. The court remanded on the issue of applying the Exclusionary Rule. So, it's not entirely clear how protective this opinion might be to those who possess a weapon inside their vehicles.