• 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.

Reasonable Suspicion From Driver to Car: A Few Thoughts on Kansas v. Glover. Orin Kerr at Volokh Conspiracy

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
But you'd reach the answer guided by the rough sense, the feel, of the likelihood.
...reads like a effing "gut feeling" to me.

Also, if the person operating the vehicle, from visual observation, is not the person registered (photo on file due to a DL) then the stop was "lawful" but must end without a word from the cop other than a "sorry...my bad, have a nice day."

No DL check, no name provided...not a single thing, the faces don't match, the cop screwed the pooch and needs to move on to another rights violating opportunity.

In other words, screw the cop, you aint breaking the law, do not cooperate, get him to get all uppity and then stick it to him and his boss. I have done this twice in the past several years and not a lawyer was anywhere to be seen. Though, in MO, a cop falsifying a criminal charge, ticket/ride downtown, is a couple of misdemeanor violations of state statute.
 

Doug_Nightmare

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2018
Messages
375
There are gut feelings and there are gut feelings; yours and Orin Kerr’s, and they ain’t equal.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
You'd be correct if I were referring to gut feelings. Clearly I was referring to direct observation by the cop after the stop...then again you are certainly free to choose your own facts...such as they are.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,171
Location
here nc
Simple logic...quote
Glover raises a simple question: When an officer spots a car driving on a public road, and a license check reveals that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license, does the fact that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license create reasonable suspicion that the driver of the car has a suspended license that then justifies a Terry stop of the car? unquote

Truly didn’t know the USSC have taken over as the grammar court...

OR as the scotus blog concisely states the issue...
1. “Whether, for purposes of an investigative stop under the Fourth Amendment, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the registered owner of a vehicle is the one driving the vehicle absent any information to the contrary.” https://www.scouts blog.com/case-files/cases/kansas-v-glover/

2. “Argument preview: Can the police stop a vehicle because its registered owner’s license has been suspended or revoked?” https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/10/argument-preview-can-the-police-stop-a-vehicle-because-its-registered-owners-license-has-been-suspended-or-revoked/

so for a “simple question” your article chases the question around and around in one sentence hoping to make gheeee
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
...reads like a effing "gut feeling" to me.

Also, if the person operating the vehicle, from visual observation, is not the person registered (photo on file due to a DL) then the stop was "lawful" but must end without a word from the cop other than a "sorry...my bad, have a nice day."

No DL check, no name provided...not a single thing, the faces don't match, the cop screwed the pooch and needs to move on to another rights violating opportunity.

In other words, screw the cop, you aint breaking the law, do not cooperate, get him to get all uppity and then stick it to him and his boss. I have done this twice in the past several years and not a lawyer was anywhere to be seen. Though, in MO, a cop falsifying a criminal charge, ticket/ride downtown, is a couple of misdemeanor violations of state statute.
In Ohio once the cop's suspicion is disproven the stop is over.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
For many years the car I drove, on a daily basis, was registered to a trust. If cops ran the tag it showed the same like any car owned by a corp. or gov. entity. The car cannot be impounded because it does not belong to the driver. And unlike the case going before the USSC, there is no connection between the driver and the owner.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
As the USSC has consistently opined in their tortured logic regrading "reasonable suspicion"...paraphrasing..."we must take each case based on its own specific facts."

When the facts change the cop must change...sadly cops are allergic to changing facts. They routinely continue a "citizen contact" where there is no reasonable basis to continue the citizen contact...that's what cops do.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
Unless a vehicle matching the description of the car is reported stolen, involved in a crime etc , or the vehicle violates a traffic law the officer has NO REASON TO RUN THE TAG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
Unless a vehicle matching the description of the car is reported stolen, involved in a crime etc , or the vehicle violates a traffic law the officer has NO REASON TO RUN THE TAG IN THE FIRST PLACE.
All of the above are possible reasons to run tags, but the referenced article doesn't say why the car was stopped. I'm guessing that'll be described in the appeal. If there was no reason to run the tags, finding for the plaintiff? If so, we may not get an analysis of the posted question.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
No expectation of privacy for a LP, therefore a cop can run a LP without any reason. After running the LP the cop is shown that the citizen attached to the LP has a suspended DL, thus there is now a "reasonable suspicion" that the current driver of the LP is the citizen attached to the LP.

If it ends up that it is not the citizen with the suspended DL who is driving the LP, after visual observation, then that cop needs to get his back-side back in his car and move along...immediately...a "sorry...my bad" would be nice but is not mandated under any state law that I am aware of.

The last two times, as I referenced above, each cop posed the same question "Sir, do you know why I stopped you?" I replied "Please, officer, state your authority under RSMo 544.180 for arresting me."

That got both of them really ticked off since they both had to go look up RSMo 544.180. They tried to state that a traffic stop is not an arrest per USSC...nope, we have state statute that defines what an arrest is...try again and while you're at it review that part about what the cop must do.

"

Both times I received a "you are free to go"..."not until I get your name and badge number, officer...and yes, this interaction was recorded..."

Sent the recordings and a nice note to the chief, requesting a informal meeting to discuss these two incidents...never heard a thing. Called the mayor and let him listen to the recordings. I got a call from the chief requesting a meeting a couple of days later..."No chief, you had your chance at a low level informal meeting...I'll be watching and recording...chief, have a good day a stay safe out there."
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
All of the above are possible reasons to run tags, but the referenced article doesn't say why the car was stopped. I'm guessing that'll be described in the appeal. If there was no reason to run the tags, finding for the plaintiff? If so, we may not get an analysis of the posted question.
I believe it does. The article says "a license check reveals that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license".
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,171
Location
here nc
Oh of course the unmanned vehicle LP scanners scattered about communities feeding into the big puter in the sky relaying realtime violation data to the nice constable in their technologically connected vehicle means the reporting officer didn’t initiate the check personally...hummmm...
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,107
Location
White Oak Plantation
Only a violation by the vehicle...see "red light cameras" in Missouri and how they were nixed. In Missouri, a felony can be reported and a cop may act on that information without personally witnessing the reported crime, misdemeanors and infractions must be witnessed by a cop.
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,171
Location
here nc
Only a violation by the vehicle...see "red light cameras" in Missouri and how they were nixed. In Missouri, a felony can be reported and a cop may act on that information without personally witnessing the reported crime, misdemeanors and infractions must be witnessed by a cop.
alas DL infractions are misdemeanors to assist with LE agency revenue generation.
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
4,859
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Only a violation by the vehicle...see "red light cameras" in Missouri and how they were nixed. In Missouri, a felony can be reported and a cop may act on that information without personally witnessing the reported crime, misdemeanors and infractions must be witnessed by a cop.
That is the same in Ohio. But getting the courts to follow their own dictates is impossible.
 

Ghost1958

Regular Member
Joined
Nov 5, 2015
Messages
946
Location
Kentucky
No expectation of privacy for a LP, therefore a cop can run a LP without any reason. After running the LP the cop is shown that the citizen attached to the LP has a suspended DL, thus there is now a "reasonable suspicion" that the current driver of the LP is the citizen attached to the LP.

If it ends up that it is not the citizen with the suspended DL who is driving the LP, after visual observation, then that cop needs to get his back-side back in his car and move along...immediately...a "sorry...my bad" would be nice but is not mandated under any state law that I am aware of.

The last two times, as I referenced above, each cop posed the same question "Sir, do you know why I stopped you?" I replied "Please, officer, state your authority under RSMo 544.180 for arresting me."

That got both of them really ticked off since they both had to go look up RSMo 544.180. They tried to state that a traffic stop is not an arrest per USSC...nope, we have state statute that defines what an arrest is...try again and while you're at it review that part about what the cop must do.

"

Both times I received a "you are free to go"..."not until I get your name and badge number, officer...and yes, this interaction was recorded..."

Sent the recordings and a nice note to the chief, requesting a informal meeting to discuss these two incidents...never heard a thing. Called the mayor and let him listen to the recordings. I got a call from the chief requesting a meeting a couple of days later..."No chief, you had your chance at a low level informal meeting...I'll be watching and recording...chief, have a good day a stay safe out there."
Yes sir he can run the plates when ever he wants. However it takes a pretty knot head officer to go around running plates for no reason.

Here run to many plates randomly and you'll get a dressing down , plus an explanation that dispatchers have enough to do with real calls without you running random plates because your bored.
 

2a4all

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,790
Location
Newport News, Virginia, USA
I believe it does. The article says "a license check reveals that the registered owner of the car has a suspended license".
I meant to say that the reason for running the plate wasn't given. But, as has been pointed out, the plate could have been automatically scanned from a patrol vehicle equipped with tag reader cameras. Local LEAs here use them to identify individuals who are in arrears for traffic fines among other issues. The driver/registered owner mismatch is still possible.
 
Top