Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 30

Thread: OC on a Motorcycle

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    As I understand, once you step into a vehicle (motorcycle included) your open carry becomes concealed carry. Therefore, to carry while on a motorcycle a CPL is required.
    My question is:
    Does a police officer have reasonable suspicion to stop someone who OCs on a motorcycle?

    OC is not a good enough reason for a "Terry stop," but I'm curious if having an exposed concealed firearm is a satisfactory reason for a "Terry stop." Since concealed carry is technically illegal (without gov permission), is it fair for an officer to stop someone under suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon?

    I think these issues relate because if suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon is a justified reason to stop, then OCing on a motorcycle could be seen as a reasonable reason to stop someone.

    P.S. I have seen the Youtube video of the guy doing this and being stopped.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    I always try to look at things that involve firearm laws from both views and I hate to say it but I think an officer would consider this RS for a terry. Someone on here may say otherwise but I think you would be running the risk of getting stopped.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    I'm worried that you might be right. Clearly once it is established that the person has a CPL he must be let go, but it seems like a stop would be expected for the officer to find out.

    This is all based on the premise that "suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon" is reasonable suspicion for a "Terry stop."

  4. #4
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    All he has to do is run my plate and he'll see that I have a CPL.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    All he has to do is run my plate and he'll see that I have a CPL.
    Very true, but I don't think that LEOs are required to run plates before they stop a suspect.

  6. #6
    Regular Member dougwg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    MOC Charter Member Westland, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    2,445

    Post imported post

    No, but they do.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    No, but they do.
    Assuming that they aren't required to:

    I'm trying to determine if the stop is justified legally. It appears that it is. I'd like someone to tell me otherwise though.

  8. #8
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    I'm worried that you might be right. Clearly once it is established that the person has a CPL he must be let go, but it seems like a stop would be expected for the officer to find out.

    This is all based on the premise that "suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon" is reasonable suspicion for a "Terry stop."
    you must actually read terry... then florida v j.l....then ublies?sp?

    carrying a gun is not RAS for a stop! their is no fire arm exception!

    even on a motor cycle with open carry is not RAS of a crime!... Ya you might get stopped, but its bogus... watch kimberguys tapes...they dont even dissarm him!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    ďIf ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.Ē

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    carrying a gun is not RAS for a stop! their is no fire arm exception!

    even on a motor cycle with open carry is not RAS of a crime!... Ya you might get stopped, but its bogus... watch kimberguys tapes...they dont even dissarm him!
    I noted in my original post that I've seen kimberguys videos.

    I understand that a Terry stop requires reasonable suspicion that a crime is in progress.

    My question is: If carrying a concealed weapon is a crime (without special permission), then isn't suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon is a legally justified stop?

  10. #10
    Regular Member EM87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    987

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    My question is: If carrying a concealed weapon is a crime (without special permission), then isn't suspicion of carrying a concealed weapon is a legally justified stop?
    No, because some people can legally carry a concealed weapon. They can't just stop you to see if you have a CPL. They have to have reasonable articulable suspicion that a crime is, has been, or will be committed. They don't know if you're legal or not, and you may be, and because you may be legal there's no RAS. If it weren't for the disclosure stipulation of having a CPL, you would not be required to give an officer your ID when stopped for possibly carrying a concealed pistol, just like OC.
    "You'll be walking along.. OC.. and you'll feel GREAT. You'll feel FREEEEE like 1776 kind of Free." -cscitney87

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Then would it also be true that if a cop catches a glimpse of someone carrying a concealed weapon he would also not have reasonable suspicion to stop that person?

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Kent Co, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    398

    Post imported post

    dougwg wrote:
    All he has to do is run my plate and he'll see that I have a CPL.
    As I have said numerous times on here...don't just assume that because an officer has run your plate that he has your CPL info.



    SOS info and CPL info are entirely different transactions within the LEIN/SOS/NCIC system. In many police departments an officer must first run your plate, see who the registered owner is, then run the registered owner for warrants/CPL/PPO info. If he thinks he saw something that would warrant a felony stop (the part with guns drawn and a bunch of cruisers coming lights and sirens) he may not take the time to fully run the vehicle or the registered owner.

  13. #13
    Regular Member 1245A Defender's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    north mason county, Washington, USA
    Posts
    4,381

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    Then would it also be true that if a cop catches a glimpse of someone carrying a concealed weapon he would also not have reasonable suspicion to stop that person?
    im sorry for writing too fast.... in the olden days..last year....we were pretty safe from illegal search and arrest...terry..J.L....ublies...and the cream of the crop of st,john valamgordo....,but just afew days ago this case came down that throws a monkey wrench into everything we hold dear...your 2nd, your 4th, and your 5th A rights got tossed, read about it here http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlan...awful-carriers

    i read this and it broke my heart.... so now im correcting myself and thinking were all in big trouble, and better watch our a$$ if we so much as venture out into the world!
    EMNofSeattle wrote: Your idea of freedom terrifies me. So you are actually right. I am perfectly happy with what you call tyranny.....

    ďIf ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.Ē

    Stand up for your Rights,, They have no authority on their own...

    All power is inherent in the people,
    it is their right and duty to be at all times ARMED!

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    625

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    dougwg wrote:
    All he has to do is run my plate and he'll see that I have a CPL.
    Very true, but I don't think that LEOs are required to run plates before they stop a suspect.
    Oh they do! Their Law Enforcement they can do what they want....(Sarcasm off)

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    1245A Defender wrote:
    but just afew days ago this case came down that throws a monkey wrench into everything we hold dear...your 2nd, your 4th, and your 5th A rights got tossed, read about it here http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers

    i read this and it broke my heart.... so now im correcting myself and thinking were all in big trouble, and better watch our a$$ if we so much as venture out into the world!
    Wow, I guess that proves that if I OC on my bike, I can expect an Officer to draw his gun on me and take mine pistol. And the courts will support him. That is not the answer I was hoping for.

    Perhaps we should set up an Open Carry Protest for him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    So according to the article, it would NOT be OK to have disarmed and confiscated his firearm if he were carrying openly?

    Unrelated note: What part of that oath and the title civil servant don't people understand....

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    BreakingTheMold wrote:
    So according to the article, it would NOT be OK to have disarmed and confiscated his firearm if he were carrying openly?
    Georgia requires a license to OC as well as CC. Perhaps the case would turn out differently in MI, since OC doesn't require permission.

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Niles & Lawton, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    I see, I suppose i got caught up in the wording of "lawful" and "concealed".



  19. #19
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    WaltherP99C wrote:
    1245A Defender wrote:
    but just afew days ago this case came down that throws a monkey wrench into everything we hold dear...your 2nd, your 4th, and your 5th A rights got tossed, read about it here http://www.examiner.com/x-5619-Atlanta-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m12d31-Court-upholds-police-pointing-gun-at-lawful-carriers

    i read this and it broke my heart.... so now im correcting myself and thinking were all in big trouble, and better watch our a$$ if we so much as venture out into the world!
    Wow, I guess that proves that if I OC on my bike, I can expect an Officer to draw his gun on me and take mine pistol. And the courts will support him. That is not the answer I was hoping for.

    Perhaps we should set up an Open Carry Protest for him.
    Don't let it get you down. The judge is a well knownanti-gun person and the decision is crap and will be overturned. It also depends on the state.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  20. #20
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    MrBfromD wrote:
    I always try to look at things that involve firearm laws from both views and I hate to say it but I think an officer would consider this RS for a terry. Someone on here may say otherwise but I think you would be running the risk of getting stopped.
    How is it RAS? Many people are allowed to conceal carry, many people are allowed to drive a car. LEO's can't stop you just to see if you have a DL why should they be allowed to stop you just because they want to see if you have a licence to conceal. Same principal in law.

    The SCOTUS has ruled that you just can't stop a person driving a car to see if they have a license, I hope the same would be true for stopping and asking for a CPL.


    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Taylor, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    75

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    The SCOTUS has ruled that you just can't stop a person driving a car to see if they have a license, I hope the same would be true for stopping and asking for a CPL.
    I like this answer the best. If that logic is upheld, then it is applicable to "exposed" concealed carry. Do you know which case that is?

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    MrBfromD wrote:
    I always try to look at things that involve firearm laws from both views and I hate to say it but I think an officer would consider this RS for a terry. Someone on here may say otherwise but I think you would be running the risk of getting stopped.
    How is it RAS?¬* Many people are allowed to conceal carry, many people are allowed to drive a car.¬* LEO's can't stop you just to see if you have a DL why should they be allowed to stop you just because they want to see if you have a licence to conceal.¬* Same principal in law.¬*

    The SCOTUS has ruled that you just can't stop a person driving a car to see if they have a license, I hope the same would be true for stopping and asking for a CPL.

    ¬*
    Perfect example of someone on here saying otherwise, lol.

    Not to play devils advocate but isn't a ccw charge a felony while driving without a dl is a misdemeanor? I wouldn't agree with him being stopped but I'm not sure if suspicion of a felony over a misdemeanor would warrant the stop or not since I don't know what SCOTUS has to say on that. Interested to see the responses.

  23. #23
    Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter Venator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lansing area, Michigan, USA
    Posts
    6,445

    Post imported post

    RAS[/b] and ID request in exempted or licensedplaces[/b]



    My argument (Opinion only)would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)





    U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

    Syllabus

    A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

    Held:

    1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

    2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

    (a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

    428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

    (c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

    (d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

    382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.
    An Amazon best seller "MY PARENTS OPEN CARRY" http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/

    *The information contained above is not meant to be legal advice, but is solely intended as a starting point for further research. These are my opinions, if you have further questions it is advisable to seek out an attorney that is well versed in firearm law.

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    129

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    RAS[/b] and ID request in exempted or licensedplaces[/b]



    My argument (Opinion only)would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity. For example driving a car is lawful. Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license. Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver’s license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.

    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place. Carrying a firearm is lawful. Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people. Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission). Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)





    U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

    Syllabus

    A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

    Held:

    1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

    2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

    (a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

    428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

    (c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

    (d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

    382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.
    I wonder then how the Police can get away with check points where all cars are stopped. I saw this done in AZ. on highway from Mexico.

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Detroit, Michigan, , USA
    Posts
    38

    Post imported post

    Venator wrote:
    RAS[/b] and ID request in exempted or licensed¬*places[/b]

    ¬*

    My argument (Opinion only)¬*would entail the unconstitutional practice of asking anyone for a license where the need for one is or is not required for that particular activity.¬* For example driving a car is lawful.¬* Certain people are allowed to drive cars if they have a valid license.¬* Police can not stop a person driving a car just to see if they have a valid driver‚Äôs license without some RAS or PC of a crime or that they may know the person not to have a license.¬*
    ¬*
    The same could be argued in regard to possessing a firearm in an exempted place.¬* Carrying a firearm is lawful.¬* Carrying a firearm in an exempted place is allowed for some people.¬* Some people have less restrictions on where they can carry a firearm than others (CPL holder, owner or employees, owners permission).¬* Therefore since firearm possession is lawful in all exempted places by some people the mere presence of a firearm in an exempted place is not RAS or PC, unless further information is known about the person (i.e. a know felon, or known to not have a CPL, or has been trespassed, etc.)

    ¬*

    ¬*

    U.S.[/b] Supreme Court Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648 (1979)[/b]
    No. 77-1571 Argued January 17, 1979 Decided March 27, 1979 440 U.S. 648
    CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF DELAWARE

    Syllabus

    A patrolman in a police cruiser stopped an automobile occupied by respondent and seized marihuana in plain view on the car floor. Respondent was subsequently indicted for illegal possession of a controlled substance. At a hearing on respondent's motion to suppress the marihuana, the patrolman testified that, prior to stopping the vehicle, he had observed neither traffic or equipment violations nor any suspicious activity, and that he made the stop only in order to check the driver's license and the car's registration. The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

    Held:

    1. This Court has jurisdiction in this case even though the Delaware Supreme Court held that the stop at issue not only violated the Federal Constitution but also was impermissible under the Delaware Constitution. That court's opinion shows that, even if the State Constitution would have provided an adequate basis for the judgment below, the court did not intend to rest its decision independently on the State Constitution, its holding instead depending upon its view of the reach of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 440 U. S. 651-653.

    2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

    (a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments, even though the purpose of the stop is limited and the resulting detention quite brief. The permissibility of a particular law enforcement practice is judged by balancing its intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against its promotion of legitimate governmental interests. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-655.

    428 U. S. 543, the marginal contribution to roadway safety possibly resulting from a system of spot checks cannot justify subjecting every occupant of every vehicle on the roads to a seizure at the unbridled discretion of law enforcement officials. Pp. 440 U. S. 655-661.

    (c) An individual operating or traveling in an automobile does not lose all reasonable expectation of privacy simply because the automobile and its use are subject to government regulation. People are not shorn of all Fourth Amendment protection when they step from their homes onto the public sidewalk; nor are they shorn of those interests when they step from the sidewalks into their automobiles. Pp. 440 U. S. 662-663.

    (d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

    382 A.2d 1359, affirmed.
    You made it easy to see that it could be fought and most likely won. The sad thing though is just because you could fight it doesn't mean the cop wouldn't stop you anyway. If you were stopped though would you have grounds for a civil suit or something similar?

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
  •