Question about hypothetical vehicle stop by LEO

[OC for ME]

Yes. It is RAS/PC to a stop. As long as the operator reasonably matches description. Male owner with a suspended license and you see a female driver then no go. Male owner and male driving then can stop and check because its reasonable to believe that the owner of said vehicle is driving the vehicle that he.... Well.... Owns.

I'm assuming it varies state by state as to whether or not you can then check operator for license/papers.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

How do you know what the drive looks like?

This is a interesting conversation, and I am learning. Yes, states may be/are different. This will prompt me to conduct research on my state laws regarding this specific topic.

Thanks

 

[OC for ME]

How do you know what the owner looks like?

This is a interesting conversation, and I am learning. Yes, states may be/are different. This will prompt me to conduct research on my state laws regarding this specific topic.

Thanks

Sorry

 

[Primus]

How do you know what the drive looks like?

This is a interesting conversation, and I am learning. Yes, states may be/are different. This will prompt me to conduct research on my state laws regarding this specific topic.

Thanks

Rmv photo. This is where some states vary. For example MA does provide RMV photo when plate is entered along with basic info of registered owner. So I click a tab and a color photo pops up. So how Snuffy has suspended license and 2 warrants (all info provided from plate). Pull up photo see yup snuffy is driving. Pull car over. Snuffy has suspended license and 2 warrants but i can see that its a 5'4 (can barely see over steering wheel) slender built young girl. Probably Joe snuffies daughter. If no motor vehicle offenses then no stopping car. Straight forward.

Now sure this isn't fair to guys with suspended licenses and warrants I agree.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

You driving behind a car with tinted windows that sports a plate indicating the registered owner has a issue. Can't see the driver from your position. Drive up next to them a take a look?

 

[Primus]

You driving behind a car with tinted windows that sports a plate indicating the registered owner has a issue. Can't see the driver from your position. Drive up next to them a take a look?

Depends what the issue is. Expired license? No. Warrants? Yes. Or the other option is just to pull the car over for having obscured/ tinted windows. Find its not the person I'm looking for then verbal warning about the tint since its a very steep fine per window.

Highly depends on the what the issue at hand is.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Maverick9]

Get a vanity plate like; 88B8BB8

http://www.hilariousheadlines.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/funny-license-plate-9.jpg

Are you suggesting that such a plate is resistant to plate readers?? Any evidence in that regard?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

There is only legal RS or PC seem very lawful to me.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Yes. It is RAS/PC to a stop. As long as the operator reasonably matches description. Male owner with a suspended license and you see a female driver then no go. Male owner and male driving then can stop and check because its reasonable to believe that the owner of said vehicle is driving the vehicle that he.... Well.... Owns.

I'm assuming it varies state by state as to whether or not you can then check operator for license/papers.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

lol. When has gender alone ever been sufficient description for the purpose of police detention? It should never be, ever ever.

I once saw a video where a guy was stopped because he "matched a description" that even had type of clothes included. Might have been posted on these forums. During the duration of the detention (ie. harassment) he pointed out to the officers, like, 3 or 4 people in the immediate vicinity that also perfectly matched the description, IIRC.

But gender alone? Come on.

I do not know if it'd be considered RAS in Texas but I certainly hope not. The question, IMO, is simply, is it reasonable to assume that the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered owner of the vehicle, based on the registration info alone? Of course not. Throwing in gender doesn't help. Is it reasonable to assume based on registration info and the observation that the driver is the same gender as the registered owner? Still no.

Don't know about other communities, but here, people drive other people's vehicles all the time. Sometimes, they're even the same gender (and ethnicity, height, weight, same haircut, etc..) as the owner *gasp*

 

[Primus]

lol. When has gender alone ever been sufficient description for the purpose of police detention? It should never be, ever ever.

I once saw a video where a guy was stopped because he "matched a description" that even had type of clothes included. Might have been posted on these forums. During the duration of the detention (ie. harassment) he pointed out to the officers, like, 3 or 4 people in the immediate vicinity that also perfectly matched the description, IIRC.

But gender alone? Come on.

I do not know if it'd be considered RAS in Texas but I certainly hope not. The question, IMO, is simply, is it reasonable to assume that the driver of a motor vehicle is the registered owner of the vehicle, based on the registration info alone? Of course not. Throwing in gender doesn't help. Is it reasonable to assume based on registration info and the observation that the driver is the same gender as the registered owner? Still no.

Don't know about other communities, but here, people drive other people's vehicles all the time. Sometimes, they're even the same gender (and ethnicity, height, weight, same haircut, etc..) as the owner *gasp*

I'm just passing the info along. You may want to check Texas since it does vary. You can dislike the answers found but only way to go around it is not drive. Or maybe drive but not have a suspended license and warrants...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

I'm just passing the info along. You may want to check Texas since it does vary. You can dislike the answers found but only way to go around it is not drive. Or maybe drive but not have a suspended license and warrants...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Good thing that driving is a commercial activity.

 

[Primus]

Good thing that driving is a commercial activity.

Good thing.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'm just passing the info along. You may want to check Texas since it does vary. You can dislike the answers found but only way to go around it is not drive. Or maybe drive but not have a suspended license and warrants...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

lol well I guess you do have a point there... But to complete your last statement about the license and warrants, it would actually take not driving any vehicles that are registered to anyone with suspended license or warrants as opposed to simply not having any yourself. That's the point of this thread, if I read right. So if your friend had their license suspended, and asked you to drive them some place in their car as a result, in order to "be legal," you'd have to say no or face the potential detainment as in such a state where it is considered RAS, you'd be committing an articulable, suspicious activity just by driving around your friend in order for them to avoid being in violation of law

Silly, no?

And who can really know if their friends have any warrants? I had a friend that went so many years with an unknown warrant, that when he finally got stopped for some minuscule traffic violation many, many years later they no longer even had the records to tell him what he was summoned for, only that a bench warrant was issued for not showing up. Drove his vehicle on several occasions.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Too bad they just don't simply observe this.....

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

 

[OC for ME]

Depends what the issue is. Expired license? No. Warrants? Yes. Or the other option is just to pull the car over for having obscured/ tinted windows. Find its not the person I'm looking for then verbal warning about the tint since its a very steep fine per window.

Highly depends on the what the issue at hand is.

Again, the mindset is confirmed...

 

[Baked on Grease]

Again, the mindset is confirmed...

Yup, confirmed that he would lie and manufacture RAS to pull someone over and seize them to satisfy a hunch.

I tell ya, I never had too much issue with Primus's posts like you guys always seemed to. He does seem to support personal firearm ownership and carry to some degree... but that post showed him to be no friend to Liberty at all and worse... that is the exact mentality that has been destroying freedoms in the country.

 

[Primus]

Depends what the issue is. Expired license? No. Warrants? Yes. Or the other option is just to pull the car over for having obscured/ tinted windows. Find its not the person I'm looking for then verbal warning about the tint since its a very steep fine per window.

Highly depends on the what the issue at hand is.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yup, confirmed that he would lie and manufacture RAS to pull someone over and seize them to satisfy a hunch.

I tell ya, I never had too much issue with Primus's posts like you guys always seemed to. He does seem to support personal firearm ownership and carry to some degree... but that post showed him to be no friend to Liberty at all and worse... that is the exact mentality that has been destroying freedoms in the country.

What?

Please show where i said I would lie or manufacture anything?

I even reposted the post in question.

If you read and understand what I wrote, I said that I could/would find some OTHER legal reason to stop the car. The first thing that came to mind was window tint because it's so common around here. Also note the part where I said I would NOT cite them because its a big money ticket (250.00 per window).

So I give an example of finding a VALID LEGAL reason to stop someone, explain I would NOT cite them for it because its big money..... Yet somehow that equates being "no friend of liberty or worse"…... Wow.

My point was, is, and always has been that if you have a "hunch" someone (operator in this case) has a warrant or w/e there are million valid legal reasons to stop a car that you DONT need to "manufacture" a reason. And guess what.... If they don't give you that valid/legal reason to stop them.... Oh well. Leave them the f**** alone.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

What?

Please show where i said I would lie or manufacture anything?

I even reposted the post in question.

If you read and understand what I wrote, I said that I could/would find some OTHER legal reason to stop the car. The first thing that came to mind was window tint because it's so common around here. Also note the part where I said I would NOT cite them because its a big money ticket (250.00 per window).

So I give an example of finding a VALID LEGAL reason to stop someone, explain I would NOT cite them for it because its big money..... Yet somehow that equates being "no friend of liberty or worse"…... Wow.

My point was, is, and always has been that if you have a "hunch" someone (operator in this case) has a warrant or w/e there are million valid legal reasons to stop a car that you DONT need to "manufacture" a reason. And guess what.... If they don't give you that valid/legal reason to stop them.... Oh well. Leave them the f**** alone.

Tinting on windows are dark from the OEM on many models these days. Some states have no tint restrictions. You as a cop should know this. Again, you should know this and understand MA tint laws are, at this point nothing but a revenue mechanism. A "legal" means for you to act on a hunch...

 

[stealthyeliminator]

What?

Please show where i said I would lie or manufacture anything?

I even reposted the post in question.

If you read and understand what I wrote, I said that I could/would find some OTHER legal reason to stop the car. The first thing that came to mind was window tint because it's so common around here. Also note the part where I said I would NOT cite them because its a big money ticket (250.00 per window).

So I give an example of finding a VALID LEGAL reason to stop someone, explain I would NOT cite them for it because its big money..... Yet somehow that equates being "no friend of liberty or worse"…... Wow.

My point was, is, and always has been that if you have a "hunch" someone (operator in this case) has a warrant or w/e there are million valid legal reasons to stop a car that you DONT need to "manufacture" a reason. And guess what.... If they don't give you that valid/legal reason to stop them.... Oh well. Leave them the f**** alone.



Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

You're charged with being anti-liberty, not anti-legal. Laws can always be modified to protect anti-liberty actions, but liberty can't be modified. Liberty should be the standard.

Also, I'd actually argue that when you search for a legal justification to stop somebody for the sole purpose of satisfying curiosity on a hunch for which there is no RAS, you are manufacturing. CJ Grisham's case comes to mind... He was booked for a crime which doesn't even exist, and then when the egregious case was put in the spotlight, "walking on the wrong side of the road" was manufactured as RAS long after the fact just to cover the cop's ass. Was it technically valid RAS? Possibly. Does that mean it wasn't manufactured? Absolutely not. The mentality was only confirmed to exist yet again as I inquired about LGOC to an officer in my home town. He said it's technically legal, but not a good idea, because if they want to stop/detain/harass/arrest, they will find a reason, and that you'd probably violate some obscure traffic law just by walking down the street. Ironic that an obscure traffic law is precisely what we just saw used to manufacture RAS in Grisham's case as he was walking down the street while LGOCing...

The simple fact of the matter is that too many of these laws and ordinances are passed on good faith that they won't be abused by law enforcement. How blind can we be, when we have officers telling us unabashed that they will and do purposefully use such laws and ordinances to make stops for which they'd otherwise have no legal justification... And then they have the audacity to imply that they're in the right because their "suspect" "technically" broke some obscure law while harming absolutely no one.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yup, confirmed that he would lie and manufacture RAS to pull someone over and seize them to satisfy a hunch.

I tell ya, I never had too much issue with Primus's posts like you guys always seemed to. He does seem to support personal firearm ownership and carry to some degree... but that post showed him to be no friend to Liberty at all and worse... that is the exact mentality that has been destroying freedoms in the country.

+1

He is anti liberty. Anti constitutional. Anyone who tells you they fought your freedom and then tries to tell you if you don't like the anti liberty "laws" get out, has serious issues.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Tinting on windows are dark from the OEM on many models these days. Some states have no tint restrictions. You as a cop should know this. Again, you should know this and understand MA tint laws are, at this point nothing but a revenue mechanism. A "legal" means for you to act on a hunch...

Don't mean to thread-jack but I remember when I was a youngster being told too dark a window tint was illegal I honestly though I was being told a joke. I'm surprise window shades in homes haven't been banned yet. Or banning clothing with pockets. lol