Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 43

Thread: WSP authorized to make random traffic stops

  1. #1
    Regular Member TechnoWeenie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    2,086

    Post imported post

    RCW 46.64.060
    Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Purpose.


    The purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 is to provide for the exercise of the police power of this state to protect the health and safety of its citizens by assuring that only qualified drivers and vehicles which meet minimum equipment standards shall operate upon the highways of this state.







    RCW 46.64.070
    Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Authorized — Powers additional.


    To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

    The powers conferred by RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 are in addition to all other powers conferred by law upon such officers, including but not limited to powers conferred upon them as police officers pursuant to RCW 46.20.349 and powers conferred by chapter 46.32 RCW.




    WTF?!



    What happened to presumption of innocence? Why not just search people to make sure they're not carrying drugs....?? Or make sure everyone is a legal resident of the USA?
    Evangelical lessons are provided upon request. Anyone wishing to meet Jesus can just kick in my door.

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This probably wouldn't pass muster under Article 1, Section 7 of the State Constitution.

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member - Moderator Gray Peterson's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,238

    Post imported post

    This probably wouldn't pass muster under Article 1, Section 7 of the State Constitution.

  4. #4
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Driving on publicly-maintained roads is not a right. It is a state-regulated privilege (hence then requirement for a license).
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  5. #5
    Moderator / Administrator
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    8,711

    Post imported post

    The statute is still subject to constitutonal safeguards against random stops - pretty sure they must comply with standard practice for administrative inspections and inspect all vehicles/drivers or make stops using apre-set interval.

  6. #6
    Regular Member compmanio365's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pierce County, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,013

    Post imported post

    Would this be related to the "emphasis checkpoints" you see in places like University Place and such, where they set up basically a roadblock and stop every car coming and going to check for DUI and such. I have heard of several times over in that area of this happening in the last several years. Part of why I have avoided UP/Fircrest whenever possible......

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    Metalhead47 wrote:
    Driving on publicly-maintained roads is not a right. It is a state-regulated privilege (hence then requirement for a license).
    yup, says so right there in the constitution.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
    Posts
    286

    Post imported post

    I would think that this would be unenforceable as it is unconstitutional according to SCOTUS. Think Terry v. Ohio.

    By stopping you to check for a drivers license, they are detaining you and seizing your person under the 4th amendment. According to Terry v. Ohio, in order to seize you they must have reasonable articulate suspicion. Not just a gut feeling or "randomly".

    That being said, if stopped "randomly", I would show my license (under protest) as I'm not sure about the requirements for displaying a license after being stopped even if the stop itself was illegal.
    DISCLAIMER: This post may contain libertarian ideas and language that are consistent with the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including a belief in liberty, rule of law, and natural rights. It may also contain opinions critical of government and the tyrannies being committed by such. If you are an authoritarian, statist, or other freedom hater, side effects of reading this post may include high blood pressure, loose stool, severe genital itching, and diarrhea of the mouth.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
    Posts
    97

    Post imported post

    compmanio365 wrote:
    Would this be related to the "emphasis checkpoints" you see in places like University Place and such, where they set up basically a roadblock and stop every car coming and going to check for DUI and such. I have heard of several times over in that area of this happening in the last several years. Part of why I have avoided UP/Fircrest whenever possible......
    I'm pretty sure checkpoints are also unconstitutional in this State.

  10. #10
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    This argument has been going on for years. Read carefully. The Statute is NARROWLY written. It specifiys "Daylight Hours" for the purpose of checking the Driver's License, checking the condition of the vehicle to determine whether it meets the Motor Vehicle Standards, and that no criminal citations are to be issued until 10 days after a correction notice (warning) has been issued.

    Unless something is is plain view the officers are not going to be arresting for drugs, illegal weapons, etc. If one is dumb enough to drive while $h!tfaced or has his stash in plain view these stops are only going to snag those without valid licenses and/or insurance, as well as some vehicles that are less than safe for the roads.

    The "Drunk Driver Checkpoints" have been challenged because they occur most often at night (a violation of the above) and involve more than just a license check and vehicle safety check.

    Driving has been repeatedly held as a privilege rather than right and thus these stops are not a violation of State Constitutional Rights (so say the courts).



    Perhaps those LEO's that visit here (from WA State) could elaborate more.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766

    Post imported post

    There is federal case law (court opinions) on this subject.

    Google or wiki "checkpoint", "roadblock", and "administrative checks." Use Google and wiki as a starting point to get the names of the court opinions. Then go to a federal court opinion website and look up the cases. Or just use the search function on the court opinion websites.

    Just from the phrasing of the statute, I'm guessing the legislature was referring to administrative checks, rather than routine crime detection.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  12. #12
    Regular Member amlevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    North of Seattle, Washington, USA
    Posts
    5,953

    Post imported post

    Citizen wrote:
    There is federal case law (court opinions) on this subject.

    Google or wiki "checkpoint", "roadblock", and "administrative checks." Use Google and wiki as a starting point to get the names of the court opinions. Then go to a federal court opinion website and look up the cases. Or just use the search function on the court opinion websites.

    Just from the phrasing of the statute, I'm guessing the legislature was referring to administrative checks, rather than routine crime detection.
    That's why the narrowly worded purpose. Other states, such as Colorado (where I lived for about 8 years) have been running "Sobriety Checkpoints" and they have been getting lots of flack. They are more broad purposed. Licenses, Insurance, Vehicle Safety, Drugs, Alcohol (both inside and outside the driver), Record Checks, etc. Very broad purpose and thus the challenges.


    "If I shoot all the ammo I am carrying I either won't need anymore or more won't help"

    "If you refuse to stand up for others now, who will stand up for you when your time comes?"

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    , Washington, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    [quote][quote]RCW 46.64.060
    Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Purpose.


    The purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.07


    RCW 46.64.070
    To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070,

    The powers conferred by RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 are in addition to all other powers conferred by law upon such officers, including but not limited to powers conferred upon them as police officers pursuant to RCW 46.20.349 and powers conferred by chapter 46.32 RCW.




    WTF?!

    Techno, you must have hit the wrong tab. What board were you planning on posting this 10 year old, OT, irrelevant issue on?

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Everett, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,339

    Post imported post

    Misguided Child wrote:
    [quote]TechnoWeenie wrote:
    [quote]
    RCW 46.64.060
    Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test — Purpose.


    The purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.07


    RCW 46.64.070
    To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070,

    The powers conferred by RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 are in addition to all other powers conferred by law upon such officers, including but not limited to powers conferred upon them as police officers pursuant to RCW 46.20.349 and powers conferred by chapter 46.32 RCW.




    WTF?!

    Techno, you must have hit the wrong tab. What board were you planning on posting this 10 year old, OT, irrelevant issue on?
    +1. This RCW has been posted and talked about a few times over the last two years.
    "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

    "though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death, I fear no evil, for I know that you are by my side" Glock 23:40

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    Enoch Root wrote: From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
    Posts
    194

    Post imported post

    TechnoWeenie wrote:
    "...officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours..."
    This cannot be used to enforce the"Drunk Driving Checkpoints" since this only allows for daytime stops. Start driving at night.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Enoch Root wrote: From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.
    Isn't harming someone still illegal?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Enoch Root wrote: From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.
    Isn't harming someone still illegal?
    Is it? What are you going to do about it from your grave? You are pointing out the falacy of the idea that there shouldn't be any laws. If you harm someone then what law have your broken? A 5 year old steals a car and drives over your wife. What are you going to do about it since there was no law aginst him doing that.

    Just harming someone is not illegal under any circumstance, however harming someone while violating some law is.

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
    Posts
    69

    Post imported post

    uncoolperson wrote:
    PT111 wrote:
    Enoch Root wrote:

    From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.
    Isn't harming someone still illegal?
    Is it? What are you going to do about it from your grave? You are pointing out the falacy of the idea that there shouldn't be any laws. If you harm someone then what law have your broken? A 5 year old steals a car and drives over your wife. What are you going to do about it since there was no law aginst him doing that.

    Just harming someone is not illegal under any circumstance, however harming someone while violating some law is.
    PT111,

    The point of those discussions was that there is a law, it's called the U.S. Constitution. That supreme law of this nation would suggest it is unlawful to make laws which arrogate an individual's right to freely travel. Of course, these checkpoints are a gross violation of the FourthAmendment. That's the law we need to uphold.

    Your other suggestion;

    Just harming someone is not illegal under any circumstance, however harming someone while violating some law is.


    is a confused,mistaken or disingenuous claim. Natural and civic laws all agree, harming another person is never a valid act, except as an act of self-defense.

    The constitution guarantees us our unalienable rights, it doesn't grant them, is not the source of them. We the people are the source of our own rights, not any governmental agency, at any level.

    Of course, once all our public roads are toll roads, owned and operated for profit by private corporations, this will all be irrelevant. But until then, it would seem all state laws regarding licensing are in violation offederal law.

    Perhaps a member of law enforcement can correct me. Where do state laws trump federal laws? How does this allsquare with the Tenth Amendment?



  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    , South Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,247

    Post imported post

    is a confused,mistaken or disingenuous claim. Natural and civic laws all agree, harming another person is never a valid act, except as an act of self-defense.
    Right there you just pointed out that harming someone may not be a crime or a wrongful act. How do you determine what is a wrongful act if there are no laws. You come to an intersection at the same time as someone else, they don't stop, neither do you, you collide in the middle of the intersection, you and the other driver are harmed. Just tough luck I guess and no one is at fault.

    Now to the free travel idea. There is no law, either State or Federal that requires that you have a permit, license or any other type permission to travel on the public highways of America. The portrayal of this is pure BS. However there are laws about operating a vehicle on the public highway and that is something totally different. You can by a bus ticket, taxi cab or get your friend to carry you anywhere in the US you want to on any public highway without a crivers license, car tag or any thing else. Only the actual operator of the vehicle is required to have one. I have never been asked for "papers" while riding in a vehicle.


    According to your philosophy there should be no regulations on flying airplanes, driving trucks or even smuggling as "free travel" includes whatever is in your possesion. I wrecked my first car at age 18 months by getting in, cranking it up and driving it into the woodpile. I wrecked a tractor at age 7 when I put it into the wrong gear and ran it into a tree after it threw me off and ran over my foot. I got my drivers license the day after I turned 14 and had been driving cars and trucks foryears around the farm. I have also been a professional truck driver in addition to my personal driving.

    I have had too many friends and realitives to lose their lives and health due to drunk or plain stupid drivers to ever go along with this no law at all until you harm someone BS. You can travel all you want just don't drive when you are so drunk you can't even see out the windshield to know if you have killed someone or not. I want you stopped before you kill me or my family.

  22. #22
    Regular Member Washintonian_For_Liberty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Mercer Island, Washington, USA
    Posts
    922

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    is a confused,mistaken or disingenuous claim. Natural and civic laws all agree, harming another person is never a valid act, except as an act of self-defense.
    Right there you just pointed out that harming someone may not be a crime or a wrongful act. How do you determine what is a wrongful act if there are no laws. You come to an intersection at the same time as someone else, they don't stop, neither do you, you collide in the middle of the intersection, you and the other driver are harmed. Just tough luck I guess and no one is at fault.
    You're both at fault. Learn to drive better or suffer. Liberty has the pitfall that if you mess up, you suffer the consequences.

    PT111 wrote:
    Now to the free travel idea. There is no law, either State or Federal that requires that you have a permit, license or any other type permission to travel on the public highways of America. The portrayal of this is pure BS. However there are laws about operating a vehicle on the public highway and that is something totally different. You can by a bus ticket, taxi cab or get your friend to carry you anywhere in the US you want to on any public highway without a crivers license, car tag or any thing else. Only the actual operator of the vehicle is required to have one. I have never been asked for "papers" while riding in a vehicle.
    That isn't free movement. You or someone must pay for it. Plus the fact that the Constitution actually prohibits these kind of arbitrary laws...



    PT111 wrote:
    According to your philosophy there should be no regulations on flying airplanes, driving trucks or even smuggling as "free travel" includes whatever is in your possesion.
    No government regulations. That is correct. People and industries self regulate... and the Constitution provides the way to get people who harm others through their actions.

    As an aside... you can build and fly an 'experimental' aircraft without a license or permit. You don't even need to get it 'officially' inspected.

    PT111 wrote:
    I wrecked my first car at age 18 months by getting in, cranking it up and driving it into the woodpile. I wrecked a tractor at age 7 when I put it into the wrong gear and ran it into a tree after it threw me off and ran over my foot. I got my drivers license the day after I turned 14 and had been driving cars and trucks foryears around the farm. I have also been a professional truck driver in addition to my personal driving.
    And what is your point? You had a license and you STILL managed to wreck your car... the license nor the tags on the car prevented you from crashing.

    PT111 wrote:
    I have had too many friends and realitives to lose their lives and health due to drunk or plain stupid drivers to ever go along with this no law at all until you harm someone BS.
    Um, that actually makes no sense whatsoever. The people who were drunk or stupid or reckless had licenses. They were legal drivers. I bet those who had their licenses taken from them still drove. No laws or licenses or statutes or tags for the car stopped these people from getting in their vehicle and turning it into a weapon and killing people with it. No law ever will. The whole idea of 'preventive' laws is bogus.

    PT111 wrote:
    You can travel all you want just don't drive when you are so drunk you can't even see out the windshield to know if you have killed someone or not. I want you stopped before you kill me or my family.
    Sorry, but a drivers license or the lack thereof will not stop a determined drunk or idiot. You cannot stop these people unless the instant they drive drunk and get caught... you execute them or put them in jail for life.... other than that... they'll drive license or not. Restricting everyone else's freedom just because you THINK you can control these people is not only bad law, it's unconstitutional.
    Associate with men of good quality if you esteem your own reputation; for it is better to be alone than in bad company. ~ George Washington

  23. #23
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    PT111 wrote:
    Enoch Root wrote: From the Driver or Traveler link I take it that all laws regarding the use of the roadways are unconstitutional and that anyone should be able to drive on the highways any way they want to. I think I just may have to stay home from now on.
    That's not what the courts have ruled at all. They have merely pointed out that requiring a license to travel freely is unconstitutional. Nowhere did the courts ever rule that reasonable restrictions, such as speed limits or safety equipment, could not be required.

    Much like you can not be required to have a license to exercise your right to freedom of speech, you should not also be required to have a license to travel freely throughout the country. This is one where the average person would assume, because the government is constantly telling us, that traveling on the highway system was, in fact, a privilege. The courts have been quite clear on this issue, however, that it is a right, so long as you are transporting your self and your belongings. Commerce is a different issue.

    From a Second Amendment perspective, this would be like requiring a license to own a firearm. The courts have ruled that there can be reasonable restrictions (although most people differ on the definition of "reasonable"). One would hope that we will eventually get back to the point of a license being an "unreasonable" restriction, but that is another issue only tangentially related to the current discussion.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Metalhead47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    South Whidbey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,812

    Post imported post

    Washintonian_For_Liberty wrote:
    That isn't free movement. You or someone must pay for it.
    Um, dude? Even without a license you have to pay to drive a car too (gas, maintenance, cost of vehicle, etc.) The only true form of free movement is the same today as it was in the founder's day: You can walk. You can walk all the way across the country with no license or any kind of restriction. People actually still do it from time to time. But even then you're paying (shoes, food, blahblahblah...). As someone else said, you can take the bus, train, airplane, horse, etc etc. When you choose to do the driving on the roads provided by the gov't, you have to accept their regulation on the matter. Sorry, but I just don't think that's unreasonable or an infringement of liberty. No, the licensing system isn't perfect. Yes, it's abused all the time. So is the legal system. Should that be scrapped too?

    The founding fathers were not trying to create a community with no gov't regulation. They were trying to create one with minimal regulation. That's why they created the amendment process for the Constitution, AND made it so difficult to do so. Incidentally, driving regulations & licensing is regulated by the individual states, so isn't this more a matter of state's rights? Wouldn't state driving regulations fall under the 10th ammendment (powers belonging to the states...)?
    It is very wise to not take a watermelon lightly.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tacoma, Washington, USA
    Posts
    539

    Post imported post

    ya its a privlage to drive on the roads your taxes pay for no matter if u drive on them or not u still get to pay for them... Isnt democracy great? i say if u pay taxes and they use your tax dollars for the roads then u should be allowed to use them lic or not.

    If people were inoccent till proven guilty then we wouldnt need as may jails because no one would get arrested on suspition and detained. I mean if you really think about it, what is an arrest really? its the cops violating your civil rights and your freedom because they think u have committed a crime and weather you have or not your still guilty till proven innocent.

    I find it ironic that the constitution dosnt mention anything that i have ever seen about being taken into custody against your will does it?



    ok thats my rant for now more to come later.....

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •