Question about hypothetical vehicle stop by LEO

[OC for ME]

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

Window coverings. I get your point though.

Primus has again admitted that he will use the law(s) to his advantage to satisfy his curiosity. There have been documented encounters, here on OCDO, where OCers have been detained for excessively long times while the cops scoured their "manual" in the hopes of finding something to charge the gun nut with. Primus is yet another cop "scouring the manual" when he has a itch that needs scratching.

 

[Primus]

Window coverings. I get your point though.

Primus has again admitted that he will use the law(s) to his advantage to satisfy his curiosity. There have been documented encounters, here on OCDO, where OCers have been detained for excessively long times while the cops scoured their "manual" in the hopes of finding something to charge the gun nut with. Primus is yet another cop "scouring the manual" when he has a itch that needs scratching.

Context. Look it up. Because its seriously lacking as usual with this thread/these statements

The conversation started with talking about someone you think had a warrant or suspended license. It was NEVER about "fishing" randomly. But so be it. All roads led the same place when dealing with the same guys. It's too easy to try and shove round peg in round hole instead of opening eyes and ears and actually understanding whats being said.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Primus]

Suppose your license was rendered invalid (revoked, suspended, expired etc etc) so that you are no longer allowed to operate a motor vehicle on public roads... During this time you let a friend borrow your car registered in your name. Cop pulls them over and releases them after finding out they are not the person registered to the vehicle...

Is the fact that a car is registered/owned by a person who is not allowed to drive enough RAS/PC to pull over the vehicle lawfully, or does the cop need particularized suspicion concerning the person actually driving? Would that stop have been unlawful, simply the cop hoping to catch someone even though they don't have a reason to believe the prohibited driver is the actual driver at that moment other than they own the vehicle?

Window coverings. I get your point though.

Primus has again admitted that he will use the law(s) to his advantage to satisfy his curiosity. There have been documented encounters, here on OCDO, where OCers have been detained for excessively long times while the cops scoured their "manual" in the hopes of finding something to charge the gun nut with. Primus is yet another cop "scouring the manual" when he has a itch that needs scratching.

Context. Look it up. Because its seriously lacking as usual with this thread/these statements

The conversation started with talking about someone you think had a warrant or suspended license. It was NEVER about "fishing" randomly. But so be it. All roads led the same place when dealing with the same guys. It's too easy to try and shove round peg in round hole instead of opening eyes and ears and actually understanding whats being said.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

For the record I'll even repost the original post.

The OP was talking about if the officer had a "hunch" that the person has a suspended license.

First, its actually RAS at the very least and reason to stop car. So there goes the "hunch" or "itch" part

Second, the conversation led to other ways to LEGALLY stop vehicle for that same reason.

Context my friend.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Context. Look it up. Because its seriously lacking as usual with this thread/these statements

The conversation started with talking about someone you think had a warrant or suspended license. It was NEVER about "fishing" randomly. But so be it. All roads led the same place when dealing with the same guys. It's too easy to try and shove round peg in round hole instead of opening eyes and ears and actually understanding whats being said.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

How about you address the post regarding your claim that you will use tinting to stop a car that has a warrant on the registered owner to see if it is in fact the registered owner simply because you are not able to see the operator due to tinting. Why bring up tinting as justification if a warrant is out for a registered driver?

You are correct, context is everything, so is continuity of thought.

...

Is the fact that a car is registered/owned by a person who is not allowed to drive enough RAS/PC to pull over the vehicle lawfully, or does the cop need particularized suspicion concerning the person actually driving? Would that stop have been unlawful, simply the cop hoping to catch someone even though they don't have a reason to believe the prohibited driver is the actual driver at that moment other than they own the vehicle?

The question posed is simplicity itself. All you have is a car + registered owner. What you do not have is it actually the owner driving. You have stated that the "revoked, suspended, expired etc etc" license for the registered owner is RAS/PC. Good enough if that is what the law states. If you have a photo and you walk up to the window and you do not match citizen to photo do you apologize, give permission for the driver to leave, then go on about your day? You have state that you would check if the driver is reasonably close. You ask for license and insurance. Driver asks "why did I get pulled over." What say you? "Are you Mr. Such and Such?" The driver says no. What next? You did not pull the driver over for a observed traffic violation.

I suspect that you would likely say "sorry for the delay, have a good day Sir."

 

[notalawyer]

For the record I'll even repost the original post.

The OP was talking about if the officer had a "hunch" that the person has a suspended license.

First, its actually RAS at the very least and reason to stop car. So there goes the "hunch" or "itch" part

Second, the conversation led to other ways to LEGALLY stop vehicle for that same reason.

Context my friend.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

In what part of the country does an officer's 'hunch' equal RAS? Nowhere, that's where.

 

[Primus]

In what part of the country does an officer's 'hunch' equal RAS? Nowhere, that's where.

It does when your computer says that the registered owner of vehicle has suspended license and you pull said car over thinking the operator is the owner.... But ok.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

It does when your computer says that the registered owner of vehicle has suspended license and you pull said car over thinking the operator is the owner.... But ok.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Too bad that the state really owns the car.

That is why you have to say 'registered owner.' You also use the term 'vehicle' which is a commercial term.

What would you do to a motorist riding around their automobile without proof that the state own their car?

 

[notalawyer]

It does when your computer says that the registered owner of vehicle has suspended license and you pull said car over thinking the operator is the owner.... But ok.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

NO RAS there.

You and everyone else knows that you must have facts that support a reasonable suspicion the the individual you are looking for (photo or physicals description - although I'm note sure how must a physical description is going to help when you only see the back of a head in the car in front of you) is driving the car in violation of his suspension.

 

[Primus]

Too bad that the state really owns the car.

That is why you have to say 'registered owner.' You also use the term 'vehicle' which is a commercial term.

What would you do to a motorist riding around their automobile without proof that the state own their car?

What?

I say registered owner because that's the person that went to the registry and "registered" it. In MA to do that you need the title to the vehicle and it has to be signed to you. So your the owner per title.... Then you register vehicle that you OWN because you signed title and have new title with your name on it.... Hence registered owner.... Lol

Sure you can have someone else title and register the vehicle that YOU paid for and YOU drive. But by law if they wanted to sell it for 1.00 or give away or charity or junk yard you'd have no legal standing... Since the title (ownership) is in their name.

Not sure where you "the state owns it" can is coming from. Are doing the excise tax thing again? Or the fact you need to register it at all thingy?

Add: not sure what you even mean by"proof the state owns the car". Are you referring to a registration?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[Freedom1Man]

What?

I say registered owner because that's the person that went to the registry and "registered" it. In MA to do that you need the title to the vehicle and it has to be signed to you. So your the owner per title.... Then you register vehicle that you OWN because you signed title and have new title with your name on it.... Hence registered owner.... Lol

Sure you can have someone else title and register the vehicle that YOU paid for and YOU drive. But by law if they wanted to sell it for 1.00 or give away or charity or junk yard you'd have no legal standing... Since the title (ownership) is in their name.

Not sure where you "the state owns it" can is coming from. Are doing the excise tax thing again? Or the fact you need to register it at all thingy?

Add: not sure what you even mean by"proof the state owns the car". Are you referring to a registration?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

The following that was stated under oath.

On February 10, 1987, Tennessee Department of Revenue Operations Supervisor Denise Rottero told Judge Geer how Tennessee's auto registration works.

The process begins with the "surrender" of the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin (MSO) by the auto dealer to the Department of Revenue in exchange for Certificate of Title. Asked if a MSO is proof of ownership -Legal title -to the automobile. Ms. Rottero said, "Yes"

"Are you telling me that the ownership of an automobile is NOT title; it's merely evidence that title exists. Your car's legal TITLE is the MSO, which the dealer surrendered to the state. Ms. Rottero said the MSO is put on microfilm for permanent keeping, the original destroyed.

After the trial, spectators expressed shock that their personal automobiles were actually owned by the state. "No wonder state law officers stop people for no reason!" said a housewife. "If your car's got a Tennessee plate, it's theirs, and they can do anything they like to you." That's the law, but it's volutary, No one but Judge Greer has dared say that if you don't surrender your car to the state in exchange for plates, you go to jail.

 

[Primus]

The following that was stated under oath.

Cool story. Heard it before. Along with crop circles.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[davidmcbeth]

You trade in your title for a certificate of registration. This certificate is prima facia evidence of ownership (who is on the registration can be found to not be the owner though...but its an exception rather than the rule).

I guess one could tell the dealer that you have no intention of operating the vehicle on a highway ... so just give me the title for the $$$.

Some things you make the title for, like trailers you make...and you trade that title in for a certificate (if you want).

For new vehicle above ^^^ for the above info---- for one in which a cert. of reg. is already issued, the title has been previously traded.

You can build your own car if you like ... I'm guessing that state law requires dealers to force the trade (just a guess though)

 

[Primus]

You trade in your title for a certificate of registration. This certificate is prima facia evidence of ownership (who is on the registration can be found to not be the owner though...but its an exception rather than the rule).

I guess one could tell the dealer that you have no intention of operating the vehicle on a highway ... so just give me the title for the $$$.

Some things you make the title for, like trailers you make...and you trade that title in for a certificate (if you want).

For new vehicle above ^^^ for the above info---- for one in which a cert. of reg. is already issued, the title has been previously traded.

You can build your own car if you like ... I'm guessing that state law requires dealers to force the trade (just a guess though)

In MA we keep the title.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It does when your computer says that the registered owner of vehicle has suspended license and you pull said car over thinking the operator is the owner.... But ok.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

No, because it isn't reasonable to [strike]assume[/strike] conclude (if it's an assumption being made, it's pretty much automatically disqualified, IMO) that the driver of the vehicle is the registered owner. It's that simple. Remember, the "articulable suspicion" must be reasonable. It's not RAS just because the BS you made up is articulable.

 

[Primus]

No, because it isn't reasonable to [strike]assume[/strike] conclude (if it's an assumption being made, it's pretty much automatically disqualified, IMO) that the driver of the vehicle is the registered owner. It's that simple. Remember, the "articulable suspicion" must be reasonable. It's not RAS just because the BS you made up is articulable.

Hey to say it but courts and juries say otherwise.

Sorry...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Hey to say it but courts and juries say otherwise.

Sorry...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

In what cases has it been ruled reasonable to conclude that the driver of a vehicle is the registered owner based only on the registration information? I'm pretty sure I asked about this earlier.

 

[Primus]

In what cases has it been ruled reasonable to conclude that the driver of a vehicle is the registered owner based only on the registration information? I'm pretty sure I asked about this earlier.

Wait one... I'll look some up.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Hey to say it but courts and juries say otherwise.

Sorry...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

This is a good point to remember. The cops aren't really the problem any more than the Schutzstaffel was the problem with the Third Reich.
The problem is all the laws, the prosecuting branch that prefer to ignore LEO abusive of citizens, and the courts that hold the protection of the government as a higher priority than the protection of the people.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

In what part of the country does an officer's 'hunch' equal RAS? Nowhere, that's where.

NO RAS there.

You and everyone else knows that you must have facts that support a reasonable suspicion the the individual you are looking for (photo or physicals description - although I'm note sure how must a physical description is going to help when you only see the back of a head in the car in front of you) is driving the car in violation of his suspension.

+1 When it happened to me they (sheriff deputies) told me they had to physically see if my description fit before making the stop even though the plates ran as my license was suspended.

I started riding my bike a lot more after that, (helmet laws help conceal you).

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Hey to say it but courts and juries say otherwise.

Sorry...

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Was it a true jury? One the prosecutor didn't help pick? Could the defender hire competent representation?

Courts say all kind of ridiculous stuff, doesn 't make it right or even lawful, just what you can get away with.