• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

WSP authorized to make random traffic stops

TechnoWeenie

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
2,084
Location
, ,
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?
 

Mike

Site Co-Founder
Joined
May 13, 2006
Messages
8,706
Location
Fairfax County, Virginia, USA
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.
 

compmanio365

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2007
Messages
2,013
Location
Pierce County, Washington, USA
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......
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,
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.
 

kenshin

Regular Member
Joined
May 15, 2008
Messages
285
Location
Gig Harbor, Washington, USA
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.
 

vote_no

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2006
Messages
97
Location
Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
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.
 

amlevin

Regular Member
Joined
Feb 16, 2007
Messages
5,937
Location
North of Seattle, Washington, USA
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.
 

Misguided Child

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2007
Messages
193
Location
, Washington, USA
imported post

TechnoWeenie wrote:
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?
 

joeroket

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2006
Messages
3,339
Location
Everett, Washington, USA
imported post

Misguided Child wrote:
TechnoWeenie wrote:
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.
 

Nitrox314

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
194
Location
Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA
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.
 

uncoolperson

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2007
Messages
608
Location
Bellingham, ,

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
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.
 

Enoch Root

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
69
Location
Spokane Valley, Washington, USA
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?
 
Top