Question about hypothetical vehicle stop by LEO

[JoeSparky]

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.

It seems to be the position of photocop schemes. Photo of tag and driver with citation mailed to RO and then force to RO TO PROVE THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER!

 

[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.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1519591.html

Shirley Johnson was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance following a bench trial. Ms. Johnson appeals her conviction, alleging that the court erred by denying her motion to suppress the evidence. She contends her arrest for driving while license suspended in the third degree was a pretextual arrest that violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Ms. Johnson also challenges her conviction under Arizona v. Gant, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).

¶ 2 We affirm the conviction.


This is WA case. Dispatch tells him over the RADIO that the owner has a suspended license he pulls car over based on that. THEN confirms its her. Searches incident to arrest and finds contraband.

She appealed and it was affirmed.

Here's more..... Ive highlated relevant portions to this discussion.

"On September 6, 2007, while on routine patrol, Officer Mike Suniga noted Ms. Johnson's vehicle on the highway and ran a routine check of the vehicle license plates. Officer Suniga noticed nothing suspicious about Ms. Johnson's vehicle. Officer Suniga was preparing to turn onto another highway when dispatch advised him that the registered owner's license was suspended. Officer Suniga then initiated a traffic stop as Ms. Johnson was pulling into a gas station parking lot. Ms. Johnson exited her vehicle with her purse and confirmed her identity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Officer Suniga arrested Ms. Johnson for driving with license suspended in the third degree (DWLS), handcuffed her, and placed her in the back of his patrol car. Officer Suniga then searched her purse and vehicle incident to arrest. Ms. Johnson's purse contained a purple bag containing a glass pipe with burnt residue. The purple bag contained a blue, semi-transparent plastic container with two small baggies containing a white crystalline substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Officer Suniga then advised Ms. Johnson she was also under arrest for possession of a controlled substance."

I'm sure there's cases like this all across the states. Now if there is some obvious factor that would tell you its NOT the owner, then that would make it a bad stop. Easiest example.... car registered to FEMALE and MALE driving. Well if a cop pulls the car over knowing that Mary has a suspended license but can see clear as day it's a guy driving.... then bad stop. But if it's Mary who has suspended license and it's a woman driving then it's reasonable to believe it's her. See above case.

Also for the "we don't need no stinking license for commercial activities...." Her conviction was upheld. Good luck guys. Be safe.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Seems like a legit example. I think they're way wrong, but, it appears their decision was as you say

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Yet officer did not stop the car, she pulled into a parking lot and was exiting.

 

[OC for ME]

...

I'm sure there's cases like this all across the states. Now if there is some obvious factor that would tell you its NOT the owner, then that would make it a bad stop. Easiest example.... car registered to FEMALE and MALE driving. Well if a cop pulls the car over knowing that Mary has a suspended license but can see clear as day it's a guy driving.... then bad stop. But if it's Mary who has suspended license and it's a woman driving then it's reasonable to believe it's her. ...

Ya just can't help yourself. The stop is always legit if the tag search comes back with the "suspended license" gimmick. What is not legit is trolling tags.

Also, what does the cop do if it ain't Mary? "Opps, sorry to have pulled ya and demanded your papers." Ya didn't answer that, though I have little expectations that you would.

Female/male registered owner, ya pull-em over...I get it, it is legal. Ya walk up and see a dude/dudette...do ya turn around, get back in your cruiser and drive off without initiating contact? Some how i think moist cops are not gunna do that.

Trolling tags is thug cop behavior.

 

[Primus]

Ya just can't help yourself. The stop is always legit if the tag search comes back with the "suspended license" gimmick. What is not legit is trolling tags.

Also, what does the cop do if it ain't Mary? "Opps, sorry to have pulled ya and demanded your papers." Ya didn't answer that, though I have little expectations that you would.

Female/male registered owner, ya pull-em over...I get it, it is legal. Ya walk up and see a dude/dudette...do ya turn around, get back in your cruiser and drive off without initiating contact? Some how i think moist cops are not gunna do that.

Trolling tags is thug cop behavior.

Well two things....

First, read the case I cited. They told him over the radio that the owner (female) had a suspended license. He didn't have a photo. So if he walks up to the car and sees a female how does he know if its the owner? Does he ask and if she says no he just walks away? No. He asks for ID to confirm it is or isn't the owner. Also, some states DONT have photos. For example RI was like that a few years ago. Their cruisers computers didn't have access to a RMV photo. So you pull over Mary and she says she Susy. How do you know? The stop was legit so now you see license.

Second, once you have the car stopped you own it. So you stop the red Chevy based on Mary having suspended license. Well you walk up. Somehow magically you know its Susy and not Mary driving. You tell susy sorry and have a goodnight without checking license or papers. She drives off and kills little Timmy 5 minutes later. During the investigation they run the tag and see YOU just had that car and operator stopped. Its found that she DID have a suspended license but you didn't know that because you never checked. Guess who's subject to liability? Yup the guy who just had her stopped since you let her drive away.

Third, if you have RAS to stop the car based on tags (crime being operated with a suspended license based on the fact that its common that the owner operates the vehicle and even throw in that the operator matches gender or something of owner for more articulable facts) then you have a legal STOP. Once you have the LEGAL stop you can ID. Period. For example... You pull a guy over because you think he's drunk. His operation of the vehicle makes you think he is. You pull him over. That's a LEGAL STOP (articulate what his driving behavior was, too fast too slow swerving etc.). Well you walk up to car and immediately see that the guy is stone sober. No bloodshot eyes no glassy eyes no odor of alcohol nothing. Is it now illegal to ask his license? No. Its a legal stop so you get IDd even if the crime (drinking ,suspended license, etc) you reasonably suspected was is or about to he committed in fact wasn't committed.

And that's fine trolling tags is awful behavior.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Well two things....

You have a penchant for hyperbole.

You addressed female registered owner and a dude is driving. Not me.

Now if there is some obvious factor that would tell you its NOT the owner, then that would make it a bad stop. Easiest example.... car registered to FEMALE and MALE driving.

Amending your parameters to suit your narrative...

Look, you approve of demanding papers when you know ya got it "wrong"...the obvious factor thing you mentioned. Well, ya have them stopped, ya might as well round out the infringement of a law abiding citi...oops, sorry, based on...

She drives off and kills little Timmy 5 minutes later.

There are no law abiding citizens until you satisfy yourself that they are law abiding.

Anyway, ya nab a dude, ya check his papers, you are satisfied and let the dude go about his business and yet he somehow manages to kill little Timmy anyway.

As I have stated, ya just can't help yourself. Liberty, in MA, exercised in the state approved manner, can't hurt anyone.

 

[Primus]

You have a penchant for hyperbole.

You addressed female registered owner and a dude is driving. Not me.Amending your parameters to suit your narrative...

Look, you approve of demanding papers when you know ya got it "wrong"...the obvious factor thing you mentioned. Well, ya have them stopped, ya might as well round out the infringement of a law abiding citi...oops, sorry, based on...There are no law abiding citizens until you satisfy yourself that they are law abiding.

Anyway, ya nab a dude, ya check his papers, you are satisfied and let the dude go about his business and yet he somehow manages to kill little Timmy anyway.

As I have stated, ya just can't help yourself. Liberty, in MA, exercised in the state approved manner, can't hurt anyone.

Well your combining separate posts from separate parts of the conversation. Figures..

Its real simole... If the STOP is good then you can check papers. If the STOP is bad then you can't. Is that complicated? Now let's go a layer deeper...

What makes a stop bad? If you stop a MALE and the car belongs to a FEMALE and your only reason is based on the female then the stop is...... Bad. Therefore papercheck is bad. Tadaaaaa

If you stop a female believing that its the female owner (committing crime) and it happens to NOT be her.. Stop is still good. Papercheck is still good. Tadaaaaa...

I'll look for the MA case that sums this up. It was a case where the gender was opposite but they pulled car over anyways based on owner. Found a bunch of stuff and it was all tossed and dismissed because it was a..... Bad stop.

Its pretty straight forward and most guys get it. Now not saying anyone has to agree or like it just explaining how it is in some States.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Well your combining separate posts from separate parts of the conversation. Figures..

Reread post #18, this is where you contend that the stop is lawful based on a "operator reasonable matches description...a Rmv photo that you can display on your cruiser PC.

Then post #23, where you again indicate that dude is the owner, yet girl is the driver.

Then again in post #25, you seem to indicate that you would not stop the car for a expires license that is plainly visible. The go on to use "possible window tint violation" as the pretext to stop the car.

In post #46, you mention the computer again, but no mention of a photo of the registered owner. In fact, you only mentioned this capability once, in post #18.

If a football game was played on your ever moving goal pots the game would be a very low scoring contest.

It was a case where the gender was opposite but they pulled car over anyways based on owner.

Mindset is once again confirmed, in the same thread. Trolling plates is thug cop behavior.

 

[Primus]

Reread post #18, this is where you contend that the stop is lawful based on a "operator reasonable matches description...a Rmv photo that you can display on your cruiser PC.

Then post #23, where you again indicate that dude is the owner, yet girl is the driver.

Then again in post #25, you seem to indicate that you would not stop the car for a expires license that is plainly visible. The go on to use "possible window tint violation" as the pretext to stop the car.

In post #46, you mention the computer again, but no mention of a photo of the registered owner. In fact, you only mentioned this capability once, in post #18.

If a football game was played on your ever moving goal pots the game would be a very low scoring contest.

Mindset is once again confirmed, in the same thread. Trolling plates is thug cop behavior.

It's called a conversation. With multiple people. This isn't a multiple page thesis. You can pick any and every post you want. Unless you add all of the responses to and from the people I was talking to its useless. There are no "goal posts" or "points". I made my point and backed it up with a cite. Game set match?

The premise STILL stands.... Suspended license of owner is enough (unless something obvious that contradicts usually gender).

I was asked to cite and I backed it up with a WA appeals case that shows what I was saying. I clarified previously (multiple times) that its a state issue so some States may be different. WA is similar to MA apparently.

Not even sure what your arguing anymore. But your putting a lot of effort into it.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

It's called a conversation. With multiple people. This isn't a multiple page thesis. You can pick any and every post you want. Unless you add all of the responses to and from the people I was talking to its useless. There are no "goal posts" or "points". I made my point and backed it up with a cite. Game set match? ...

You indicated that you have access to a photo of the registered owner.

Your post #18 was in response to my post #16.
Your post #23 was in response to my post #21.
Your post number 25 was in response to my post #24.
My post #34 was in response to your post #25.
My post #37 was in response to your post #36 (you conversing with Baked on Grease).
Your post #42 is in response to my post#41 (conversing with twoskinsonemanns).
Your post #43 in response to my post #41 (op quoted as well).
My post #44 in response to your post #43 (op quoted as well).
My post #65 in response to your post #62 (case cite omitted).
Your post #66 in response to my post #65.
My post #67 in response to your post #66.
Your post #68 in response to my post #67.
My post #69 in response to your post #68.
your post #70 in response to my post #69.

It seems that we are the multiple people to which you refer in the above conversation.

 

[Primus]

You indicated that you have access to a photo of the registered owner.

Your post #18 was in response to my post #16.
Your post #23 was in response to my post #21.
Your post number 25 was in response to my post #24.
My post #34 was in response to your post #25.
My post #37 was in response to your post #36 (you conversing with Baked on Grease).
Your post #42 is in response to my post#41 (conversing with twoskinsonemanns).
Your post #43 in response to my post #41 (op quoted as well).
My post #44 in response to your post #43 (op quoted as well).
My post #65 in response to your post #62 (case cite omitted).
Your post #66 in response to my post #65.
My post #67 in response to your post #66.
Your post #68 in response to my post #67.
My post #69 in response to your post #68.
your post #70 in response to my post #69.

It seems that we are the multiple people to which you refer in the above conversation.

Correct. I do have access. But the discussion wasn't just about MA. It was a general discussion. Hence me citing WA case law to show it varies by state.

Again... Lots of effort... Not sure what for.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[OC for ME]

Correct. I do have access. But the discussion wasn't just about MA. It was a general discussion. Hence me citing WA case law to show it varies by state.

Again... Lots of effort... Not sure what for.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Yes, the discussion is for all states. Additionally, you being the only cop in this thread, I think, I thought it prudent to focus on MA because you have experience with MA.

Good conversation, thank you.

 

[Baked on Grease]

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wa-court-of-appeals/1519591.html

Shirley Johnson was convicted of one count of possession of a controlled substance following a bench trial. Ms. Johnson appeals her conviction, alleging that the court erred by denying her motion to suppress the evidence. She contends her arrest for driving while license suspended in the third degree was a pretextual arrest that violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. Ms. Johnson also challenges her conviction under Arizona v. Gant, --- U.S. ----, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).

¶ 2 We affirm the conviction.


This is WA case. Dispatch tells him over the RADIO that the owner has a suspended license he pulls car over based on that. THEN confirms its her. Searches incident to arrest and finds contraband.

She appealed and it was affirmed.

Here's more..... Ive highlated relevant portions to this discussion.

"On September 6, 2007, while on routine patrol, Officer Mike Suniga noted Ms. Johnson's vehicle on the highway and ran a routine check of the vehicle license plates. Officer Suniga noticed nothing suspicious about Ms. Johnson's vehicle. Officer Suniga was preparing to turn onto another highway when dispatch advised him that the registered owner's license was suspended. Officer Suniga then initiated a traffic stop as Ms. Johnson was pulling into a gas station parking lot. Ms. Johnson exited her vehicle with her purse and confirmed her identity as the registered owner of the vehicle. Officer Suniga arrested Ms. Johnson for driving with license suspended in the third degree (DWLS), handcuffed her, and placed her in the back of his patrol car. Officer Suniga then searched her purse and vehicle incident to arrest. Ms. Johnson's purse contained a purple bag containing a glass pipe with burnt residue. The purple bag contained a blue, semi-transparent plastic container with two small baggies containing a white crystalline substance that field-tested positive for methamphetamine. Officer Suniga then advised Ms. Johnson she was also under arrest for possession of a controlled substance."

I'm sure there's cases like this all across the states. Now if there is some obvious factor that would tell you its NOT the owner, then that would make it a bad stop. Easiest example.... car registered to FEMALE and MALE driving. Well if a cop pulls the car over knowing that Mary has a suspended license but can see clear as day it's a guy driving.... then bad stop. But if it's Mary who has suspended license and it's a woman driving then it's reasonable to believe it's her. See above case.

Also for the "we don't need no stinking license for commercial activities...." Her conviction was upheld. Good luck guys. Be safe.

Thanks for the cite Primus, but one issue... they didn't oull her over (detained) THEN determine her identity. According to your bolded sections they followed her and observed her exit the vehicle and then determined her identity before a detainment/arrest occured. They used that info to follow and observe from a distance, I have no issue with that.

What I was looking for was detained with only the knowledge that the registrant/owner was not properly licensed... meaning they pulled someone over not knowing the identity of the driver only on that suspicion that there is a chance for it to be the registrant/owner.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

It would appear that in this particular judge's opinion, the registered owner's license being suspended constituted probable cause for a stop. I think the judge is wrong, but that does appear to be his opinion from what I can tell.

"Furthermore, the stop appears objectively reasonable since Officer Suniga, lacking suspicions of erratic driving, was about to cease following Ms. Johnson's vehicle when he was informed that its registered owner's license was suspended; thus, giving him probable cause for the stop."

Edit: my question would be, if the issue wasn't raised in trial, about whether or not the registered owner's license was suspended automatically constituted probable cause, would this have even been considered by the judge, or just assumed? Perhaps if it was questioned we would have gotten different dialogue about the issue from the judge?

 

[Primus]

It would appear that in this particular judge's opinion, the registered owner's license being suspended constituted probable cause for a stop. I think the judge is wrong, but that does appear to be his opinion from what I can tell.

"Furthermore, the stop appears objectively reasonable since Officer Suniga, lacking suspicions of erratic driving, was about to cease following Ms. Johnson's vehicle when he was informed that its registered owner's license was suspended; thus, giving him probable cause for the stop."

Edit: my question would be, if the issue wasn't raised in trial, about whether or not the registered owner's license was suspended automatically constituted probable cause, would this have even been considered by the judge, or just assumed? Perhaps if it was questioned we would have gotten different dialogue about the issue from the judge?

Good catch with the quote. You answered it before I could.

I also wonder of it was raised how the judge would rule. Again its state by state usually and circumstances make a huge difference.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

Trolling plates is thug cop behavior.

Agreed. Without a reasonable suspicion there is a crime occurring accessing the vehicle owners private information should be viewed as a 4A violation.

 

[OC for ME]

Agreed. Without a reasonable suspicion there is a crime occurring accessing the vehicle owners private information should be viewed as a 4A violation.

I won't go that far. Your tag is plainly visible to all, even when parked on your driveway. It does not appear that cops are prohibited from running your tags anytime and for any reason, or for no reason at all. It is what they do with that info that is troubling.

Next time you see a cop at a 'C' store, getting a doughnut and coffee, ask him for his ID. Folks do dress-up and play cop. A badge and name tag don't cut it. Also, have him wait around while you run his info through Google, he could be a perv from outta state. He could be a wife beater, kid molester, drug dealer, who knows. Or, a cop that got fired for violating citizens and their rights. Thug cops get fired from one cop shop and are then hired by another cop shop.