License plate bingo is what my Dad's lawyer called it. My Dad got a DUI maybe 20 years ago. His truck, my mother's suv and my sister's vehicle were all in his name. Any time there was a police behind one of those vehicles, it would be pulled over. And his lawyer had told him it was completely legal what they were doing. We lived in a small town with 3 or 4 police officers, next to another town with 3 or 4 officers. In those two towns my sister got pulled over every time an officer saw her, using the registration as the reason. My 17 year old sister... I mean surely they should have known she wasn't a 41 year old man. I will never not believe that they were intentionally harassing her and or the family. He hasn't driven since the DUI and if he were to it never would have been in a vehicle in his name.
Steve, here is an interesting hypothetical question. Suppose a police officer pulls over a car because the owner, a male in his mid 20s has had his license revoked. He walks up to the car he sees that the driver is a black female in her 50s. Clearly NOT the registered owner. Can he do anything but turn around walk back to his car? Can he ask her for her license? Can he walk close enough to see inside the car? Can he ask her to roll down the window such that he might smell alcohol or drugs? Of course, the supreme court ruling doesn't really address that. The driver WAS the owner.
Probably not the worst idea to let her know the reason. Officer could reasonably argue that NOT telling the reason could leave the driver confused and nervous over the whole matter.
I'm so surprised you missed talking about what I believe to be the elephant in the room. The clue to that elephant is as simple as the names of the parties involved: Kansas Petitioner vs Charles Glover. If the Supreme Court of Kansas had ruled against the police department in Kansas who would have standing to bring this before the US Supreme Court? Thusly, who is this "Kansas Petitioner" and how do they have standing to bring forward the case?
I’m looking through documents, and I’m fairly confident that’s just language in every Supreme Court case as a petitioner is required to petition the courts. Every single case I am looking at is “x party, petitioner v y party”. I believe the state is the petitioner in this case, just because it’s a Supreme Court case a petitioner must be noted. It’s just a formality. I don’t think this at all an “elephant in the room”. I’m pretty sure is just legal formalities we didn’t understand.
The state’s attorneys can’t testy to fact not in his personal knowledge (hearsay) so, bring one of the people who was harmed by the suspended driver with him, wouldn’t that be nice? You know the maxiums of law that state that: criminal or civil action An action is not given to one who is not injured. An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
I had similar happen. I overlooked my license expired on my birthday, 3 weeks later a cop snapped my plate and stopped me a half mile from my house. The rookie had me on the side of the road with my 2 dogs and called for a tow truck. A more seasoned trooper showed up and the rookie changed is mind. He still ticketed me for 'operating w/o license' which required a court appearance, but he followed me home to avoid the tow. I went online and 20 minutes later the license was renewed. I went to court with documentation and it was dismissed. The rookie needed better training on common sense.
It happens to me all the time in ohio. the truck is in my dads name and he has no license and I get pulled over for it I'm full time care giver for my father and guardian
@@robertgolding can't it has to be in his name because he's the one that pays for it because he is mentally disabled from an 80ft fall and as a result he is a ward of the state and all of his assets go through the state. I am his legal guardian of person the lawyer is the guardian of the estate because I needed 80k to be bonded for the guardian of the estate..... and not like I go anywhere without him or even get a job myself now because you can't find an employer that will deal with you taking umpteen phone calls to answer when ill be home or leaving in the middle of a work day to go deal with him. My situation is a unique one to say the least
@mikemitchell9157 i can attest, I feel your pain. I had been my mother's caretaker until she passed. She was legally blind, suffering end stage kidney failure, type 1 diabetic. I was there for her until financially it was impossible to not have a job. And I found one that let me call her, take lunch to drive her home from dialysis, and still do a good enough job taking care of her the state couldn't intervene. And I'd do that all again just to still have her, even if I'm more financially sound now.. you never know how much someone actually means to yoy until they're gone, and I hope you cherish every moment with your father.
@@sasukedemon888888888 good on ya bud not many people do that anymore. I quit working when I was 30 so I could take care of my mom and dad both mom had heart disease/failure copd and diabetes so I had all that to handle plus my dad. And the reason the states so involved I didn't know I needed my mom to sign over power of attorney for my dad. And by the time I figured that out she was just so bad off I was getting her to her bedside camode every 20 minutes so dragging her out the house to go to a lawyers office wasn't really feasible and thats how he became ward of the state because he was already found incompetent by the state decades ago. And now it's like the state is punishing me for being a good son and taking care of my family rather than putting my dad in a hospital and my mom in a nursing home but like you said I'd do it all over again. Because you just don't know how much time yall have together. I mean its only right they bring us into this world wipe our asses and feed us that we do the same for them going out. Those places aren't how family should go out. Morals and standards are lost nowadays for comfort and selfishness. This world honestly needs more like us
So, if children drive their parent’s car while their parent has a suspended license, it is reasonable to pull them over because, who knows, maybe they are them? That sounds very dangerous and something the Supreme Court would clearly be against as an unwarranted stop, and yet, here we are, 8 to 1 I believe you said. Considering how we share vehicles in our own household, the above could easily happen if one of us had a suspended license. The owner is not the driver. I’m hoping I just misunderstood what I thought I heard.
Sigh, okay, I just heard the statistical reasoning. It makes sense. But considering I own my daughter’s car but she is the one that drives it, I still find this ruling misguided. I imagine this is likely to detain the innocent and usually the law is supposed to err on the side on not encroaching on the innocent. It’d been nice if they talked about the statistical likelihood of pulling over non-owners too, not just the likelihood of suspended driver relapse.
I shouldn’t be commenting half-tired at 3am because I keep going on. Is it reasonable to assume the driver is the owner. No. Clearly no. But the ruling then implies an officer could pull over someone with no reasonable suspicion because the ruling said they think so. Yeah, it’s under the narrow condition that the owner has a suspended license, but police officers don’t need more excuses to detain innocent citizens. Just because good cops won’t doesn’t mean bad or even just lazy cops won’t. Ugh, I need to stop ranting and go to sleep. I’m sure this wasn’t written clearly and I’ll probably cringe if I read it in the morning.
Prosecutors should never be able to appeal a ruling in favor of defendant. Kansas takes this to SC? Diagusting use of tax dollars ill never spit in Kansas again. Imagine spending millions om top of millions to get a guy with a suspended license,
😮😮Driving a car is a privilege. I don’t want to share the road with the unlicensed or uninsured persons who are not qualified to operate a dangerous machine.
They can scan every plate on the road. Keeps illegal vehicles and drivers off the road. People that flout laws can get f*cked. I pay for the privilege to use the road and everyone else can too.
Steve, what if the driver is pulled over, but has a valid driver's license and the cop only pulled you because he thought you were not licensed? Just happened in my town.
I don't understand how the State of Kansas was able to appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court to get rights taken away from a Kansas citizen that were protected under the Kansas Constitution? Article 15 of the Kansas Constitution provides: ." Search and seizure. The right of the people to be secure in their persons and property against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall be inviolate; and no warrant shall issue but on probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or property to be seized." Isn't the Kansas constitution a document of Independent force? It is in Ohio: Arnold v. Cleveland (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 35 -- Paragraph one of the syllabus: "The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force. In the areas of individual rights and civil liberties, the United States Constitution, where applicable to the states, provides a floor below which state court decisions may not fall. As long as state courts provide at least as much protection as the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to individuals and groups." (Former Cleveland ordinance banning assault weapons upheld.) Also see pp. 41-42; Porter & Tarr, The New Judicial Federalism and the Ohio Supreme Court: Anatomy of a Failure (1984), 45 Ohio St. L. J. 143.
If you have a suspended license, you should not be operating in that capacity and should be taken off the road. Do you want a doctor with a suspended license working on your loved one? Do you want the hospital to ensure the doctor with a suspended license to continue to work? What about a pilot with a suspended license? An attorney? Any profession or activity requiring a valid license? It is not easy to get a driver's license suspended. People falling in that category are in a high risk category of driving dangerously.
Officers can make common sense judgements and inferences about human behavior until they do something wrong. Then they couldn't possibly have known it's wrong until there's an appellate ruling in their circuit about it. They're not legal technicians, after all.
Something like this happened with one of my Lyft drivers... Except she was driving her boyfriend's car, and her license was fine. At least she took it in stride.
I think it's wrong, bc an officer cannot arrest you, search your home, pull you over, etc., Based on a Hunch.. which is what this was. He assumed, had a hunch, whatever u wanna call it. It was an illegal traffic stop. If the officer had drove next to him, saw him personally driving, then pulled him over knowing such facts, then it Would be legal. An officer is allowed to "briefly" investigate anything. However, in no circumstance have I heard that an investigation is allowed to take part in illegally forcing a stop and question act. That would be keen to an officer Forcing u to stop to talk with him by walking down the street, or the FBI listening on ur phone and saying "we're not letting u make any more phone calls unless you talk to us first". All Illegal, and I'd suggest that he has a shitty attorney who has no thought of their own of how to enforce the constitution. I refer to an instance recently that an officer falsely arrested someone in a walmart for trespassing, bc they Looked a little like someone who was trespassed. This came to be untrue, and the officer did zero investigation before hand with managent.. but still stands. If the guy refused to give his name or even talk to the officer while shopping, he didnt have to. Bc its not a free person who is at fault for police failure to investigate before hand. U cannot make a call based on assumption.. thats whats bothersome. And I'd urge u to refer to that as well. Bc some people are right, we let them ingringe on some of our rights, just bc one might be right,how many others rights will be violated even more than they are now? I'll end this with: not knowing the law is no excuse for not breaking it, according to the law.. so, if a police officer doesn't know, should not be allowed in Any circumstance to infringe on our rights.. could have had a twin brother.. but he didn't know if he did r not, so made a call, is not an excuse.. and should be able to be discharged.. the first call on such shoulda been correct.
There wasn't a hunch, it said the owner has a suspended License, that was fact, not a hunch. Him pulling over the car was making sure the guy wasn't actually driving
No . Bad call. My brother has a warrant and the car I'm driving has a passenger. .. same logic . I lost my license . I switched trucks with my brother . He can't figure out why he's been pulled over 60 times . Four times late in one month now collects unemployment. . I never told him .
Licensing is too intrusive as the public safety state interest can be meet by certificates of competency instead of drivers licensing. As licensing doesn’t mean competency. Also driving or operating registered motor vehicle equipment is a privilege but administrating my property (the car) over a nonexclusive easement to access my land is my right. It’s the words people use to argue a case that determines if one prevails.
My opinion, if the information is available with a simple tag verification, it's a viable stop. Since he was driving on a suspended license he was in fact committing a crime in front of an officer, that now through the verification of the tag, knows there is a suspended license in play. If he doesn't act on it, they guy could kill someone (wreck, pedestrian etc.) and if he knew then it's on his hands
Lol a suspended license is automatically going to lead to a death? Are you sure you didn't mean intoxication????😂 I would argue a guy with a suspended license is going to drive much safer and carefully to AVOID being pulled over
@@ShreddingFinn, You should read more, I said he could do that, if he wasn't driving on a suspended license that would become an impossibility. I'm just saying he the officer knew and let him go it could happen and that potential blood could be on his hands. You really need to read more than what you want to argue, you just might get the answer you plan to argue
It could just as easily be suspended or invalid for non renewal. It could be the best driver in the world. Chances are the owner is the driver, but just barely. Family often borrow vehicles between themselves. Especially if the registrant isn't allowed to operate it. I don't think this stop was valid unless the officer can say under oath he knew this person as the owner. Allowing this to stand is allowing any officer to reasonably stop anyone in any situation in which the cop can articulate some reason. Any reason. Early am, late pm, only vehicle on road, wrong side of town, wrong side of the tracks, wealthy neighborhood, looked funny, looked guilty, looked nervous, looked disrespectful, made eye contact, made eye threats, gave me the EVIL EYE , ect...
If this was such a dangerous driver the officer only has to wait moments for this terrible operator to weave, go outside the line, fail to stop, thow empties out the window, anything that actually justifies stopping and detaining an otherwise lawfully behaving citizen.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wj, Dude, all I was implying was IT COULD HAPPEN. i NEVER ONCE SAID IT WOULD. My meaning was imagine the officer letting them go, then later comes up on an accident with DUI and it was the guy you could have stopped. Not once did I say WOULD, I said COULD happen. beginning to think with back to back posts, you got nothing else to do other than troll. Jeez nobody can read anything but what they want to read anymore huh? BTW, let's look at that Hypothetical, if you were the officer, let the suspended license go and found out later that guy killed a family (DUI or otherwise), whether you tell anyone or not, How would you feel, knowing you could have stopped it? Me personally, not sure I could live with myself, if that happened to me
It is, verbally identify when asked for a license the first time (name, dob) and after that reply with sir/mam i have already identified. They will get upset, and maybe make threats, but they will leave. If the stop is about traveling, that is, obviously this is not a good idea if you have committed a crime. Dont commit crimes, but traveling in private property is not a crime.
The Werefrog don't like it because it means police are allowed to just run your plate for no reason. That black family in Texas that was held by cops at gunpoint for nearly an hour endured that because the cops ran their plates for no reason, but entered them in the system incorrectly. When they came back as no plates, the cops went straight to pull the people over and threaten to kill them. Running plate should be something that requires some sort of suspicion first, not a regular operating procedure because the cop needs something to do.
I don't take issue with the ruling that with the information was grounds for a stop. I take issue with them just idly running plates when they didn't have much beyond a hunch that I can recall hearing. They could just as well be running them all day and be right once or thrice and then call it a hunch. If there was some reason beyond well I could to search I'd be happy with the decision.
they do run them all day and night, automatic plate readers, cop literally roams parking lots or streets and there laptop OCR's all plates visable and runs it
@@benjaminjwilson6694 They should have the capability to read any plates, but they should also find something better to do with their times than idle around waiting for something to come to them. The good they do in one place is likely much less than just driving around showing they're watching for issues. They may have missed a larger problem in the waiting for small ones and we won't know.
Plates are in public view, and any data is already within possession of a government body. So I don’t see any legal basis for preventing law enforcement from running plates at will. This isn’t to mention that plates are (may vary depending on State, but holds true in CA at least) actually the property of the state government.
is it just common action for a Police officer to randomly run plates, or do they run all plates? If its random, then the officer got lucky? In this case, it sounds like the officer runs plates on anyone he happens to be behind.
Is there any evidence that any license increases the chances of a safe interaction? Does anyone really think it is anything more than a tax on drivers? The test is so easy and you only take it once.
I think it is only reasonable if the police officer was able to also observe that the driver was not female or in some other way (apparent age?) obviously not the owner.
I'd have to say the ruling is correct, it is reasonable what the cop did. I think the main reason why folks are "outraged" with the verdict is because we have seen/heard too many stories of cops doing bad that it is no longer reasonable to believe LEOs to be doing the right thing.
The problem presented here is the officer assumed the owner was the driver, and performed the stop on that basis. While in this case, the officer was “correct”, this precedent would subject spouses, and other borrowing drivers, to unjustified and unnecessary traffic stops. The ruling made by the appeals court, establishes that the assumption of the owner being the driver, does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, that is required to enact a traffic stop.
Mr Lehto, shouldn't the stop end then, once the driver displays evidence, they're not the RO? Or can the cop "lawfully" continue to run the driver's information?
In the oral augments for this case the SCOTUS justices even made a hypothetical of if the owner is male, and the drivers is female or clearly not the owner, then the stop ends then, and the state rep agreed, reluctantly. Will cops understand this concept and not continue to demand papers in spite of this. Sure, they will suddenly get real trans conscious, or otherwise sex blind. Anything for cops to get the ID crack.
I agree - Though given the world we live in , were the subject to tell "his" attorney that the person whose DL was suspended is not who ___(fill in the blank) is today . They are in fact a new person and as such should not be held to account for what that "man" may have done. - signed not a contrarian
Then cop will conveniently never be aware of this until pulling them over and demanding papers. Cops also becomes very unsure of what male or female is. If cops ever admits he knew, before demanding papers, that the driver was not the owner, then stop is legally over. All the more reason to get clarification that the are demanding your papers, not just asking.
Well, that would open up a whole other decision tree route, which would call into question, "Is it reasonable to question this guy because he's NOT the owner..."
In terms of them stopping the truck car whatever.. they were likely itching for something to do and scanned whatever they could and if they saw it wasn't the owner driving. they'd likely stop the vehicle anyways for That instead then. They have you in a corner
Like the owner was the passenger? NOT driving with a suspended license? I would think the stop will still be allowed. Once they determine the driver has a valid license, they should be done. And allow to continue on their way. I'm not sure why they searched the vehicle after the stop, why the owner wanted that evidence thrown out. Must have had some probable cause
Yes, as explained in the video, a reasonable suspicion doesn't have to be correct to still be reasonable. For example, if an officer said "I smell marijuana in your car", then they detain you and search your car but find nothing, was that reasonable even though they didn't find anything? Yes. Reasonable suspicions are going to be wrong at least sometimes. That's why they're called suspicions, not violations.
"I suspected the owner of the car was also the driver of the car, and the driver of the car has a suspended license" is perfectly articulable. The reasonable part is what some people seem to be fighting. I think people are fidgeting over the fact that it's a series of two logical inferences instead of just one.
@@EarthsMysterieswithKenKay yeah. But he just assumed that the driver was the owner. That’s the whole point he didn’t know for sure. Reasonable articulable suspicion. You have to have articulable facts
@@tyrelldiggz the owner had a revoked DL, that's more than enough. if someone else was driving, they would be on their way, it's called great police work.
If you think cops shouldn’t have the right to run every plate they see what stops: 1. Someone attaching a bogus plate and driving around, as long as they don’t break any other law? 2. Someone stealing a car and driving around in it after attaching the plate off any other vehicle. 3. Someone stealing a plate and just driving around on it. Need more examples? As long as they aren’t racial profiling or exercising some other form of discrimination, it should be fine.
What is the reason for a drivers license? To make sure you know how to drive. It is a safety issue for the ability to know how to operate a motor vehicle and the rules of the road. A license other than that is a control measure. When a license is suspended for a forced debt such as child support. Is slavery. Steve you are a lawyer and think just because a majority say something is a law doesn’t make it moral.
Did you understand the part about the registered owner may not have been the driver? Many thousands of drivers don't own the vehicle they are operating.
License plate bingo is what my Dad's lawyer called it. My Dad got a DUI maybe 20 years ago. His truck, my mother's suv and my sister's vehicle were all in his name. Any time there was a police behind one of those vehicles, it would be pulled over. And his lawyer had told him it was completely legal what they were doing.
We lived in a small town with 3 or 4 police officers, next to another town with 3 or 4 officers. In those two towns my sister got pulled over every time an officer saw her, using the registration as the reason. My 17 year old sister... I mean surely they should have known she wasn't a 41 year old man. I will never not believe that they were intentionally harassing her and or the family.
He hasn't driven since the DUI and if he were to it never would have been in a vehicle in his name.
Of course they were harassing your family.
I think it should hinge on whether the offer recognized the driver and registant. Otherwise, there were no infractions and no cause for the stop.
Steve, here is an interesting hypothetical question. Suppose a police officer pulls over a car because the owner, a male in his mid 20s has had his license revoked. He walks up to the car he sees that the driver is a black female in her 50s. Clearly NOT the registered owner. Can he do anything but turn around walk back to his car? Can he ask her for her license? Can he walk close enough to see inside the car? Can he ask her to roll down the window such that he might smell alcohol or drugs?
Of course, the supreme court ruling doesn't really address that. The driver WAS the owner.
Probably not the worst idea to let her know the reason. Officer could reasonably argue that NOT telling the reason could leave the driver confused and nervous over the whole matter.
@@chrisschack9716But the officer has to register (via computer or by radio) what the stop is for before getting out of cruiser.
I'm so surprised you missed talking about what I believe to be the elephant in the room. The clue to that elephant is as simple as the names of the parties involved: Kansas Petitioner vs Charles Glover. If the Supreme Court of Kansas had ruled against the police department in Kansas who would have standing to bring this before the US Supreme Court? Thusly, who is this "Kansas Petitioner" and how do they have standing to bring forward the case?
Yes, id like to meet this mr. State of [insert state].
Sounds like the officer himself took it personally, except i have no idea how he or she'd actually pursue this beyond the state of level
I’m looking through documents, and I’m fairly confident that’s just language in every Supreme Court case as a petitioner is required to petition the courts. Every single case I am looking at is “x party, petitioner v y party”. I believe the state is the petitioner in this case, just because it’s a Supreme Court case a petitioner must be noted. It’s just a formality.
I don’t think this at all an “elephant in the room”. I’m pretty sure is just legal formalities we didn’t understand.
So how does an organization "claimant" have first hand knowledge?
The state’s attorneys can’t testy to fact not in his personal knowledge (hearsay) so, bring one of the people who was harmed by the suspended driver with him, wouldn’t that be nice?
You know the maxiums of law that state that: criminal or civil action
An action is not given to one who is not injured.
An action is not given to him who has received no damages.
I had similar happen. I overlooked my license expired on my birthday, 3 weeks later a cop snapped my plate and stopped me a half mile from my house. The rookie had me on the side of the road with my 2 dogs and called for a tow truck. A more seasoned trooper showed up and the rookie changed is mind. He still ticketed me for 'operating w/o license' which required a court appearance, but he followed me home to avoid the tow. I went online and 20 minutes later the license was renewed. I went to court with documentation and it was dismissed. The rookie needed better training on common sense.
The way cops screw up these days on the regular, that's a very minor lapse of judgment.
@@SKBottom I agree but still a lot of inconvenience for me and a waste of taxpayer money processing it through court.
@@mrchrislatino I'm sure it was. I'm sorry you had to deal with that
It happens to me all the time in ohio. the truck is in my dads name and he has no license and I get pulled over for it
I'm full time care giver for my father and guardian
Easy, just change the registered name. Like most places the registered name is not necessarily the owner.
@@robertgolding can't it has to be in his name because he's the one that pays for it because he is mentally disabled from an 80ft fall and as a result he is a ward of the state and all of his assets go through the state. I am his legal guardian of person the lawyer is the guardian of the estate because I needed 80k to be bonded for the guardian of the estate..... and not like I go anywhere without him or even get a job myself now because you can't find an employer that will deal with you taking umpteen phone calls to answer when ill be home or leaving in the middle of a work day to go deal with him. My situation is a unique one to say the least
@mikemitchell9157 i can attest, I feel your pain. I had been my mother's caretaker until she passed. She was legally blind, suffering end stage kidney failure, type 1 diabetic. I was there for her until financially it was impossible to not have a job. And I found one that let me call her, take lunch to drive her home from dialysis, and still do a good enough job taking care of her the state couldn't intervene.
And I'd do that all again just to still have her, even if I'm more financially sound now.. you never know how much someone actually means to yoy until they're gone, and I hope you cherish every moment with your father.
@@sasukedemon888888888 good on ya bud not many people do that anymore. I quit working when I was 30 so I could take care of my mom and dad both mom had heart disease/failure copd and diabetes so I had all that to handle plus my dad. And the reason the states so involved I didn't know I needed my mom to sign over power of attorney for my dad. And by the time I figured that out she was just so bad off I was getting her to her bedside camode every 20 minutes so dragging her out the house to go to a lawyers office wasn't really feasible and thats how he became ward of the state because he was already found incompetent by the state decades ago. And now it's like the state is punishing me for being a good son and taking care of my family rather than putting my dad in a hospital and my mom in a nursing home but like you said I'd do it all over again. Because you just don't know how much time yall have together. I mean its only right they bring us into this world wipe our asses and feed us that we do the same for them going out. Those places aren't how family should go out. Morals and standards are lost nowadays for comfort and selfishness. This world honestly needs more like us
What did the driver do to have LEO run the plates???? Sounds like the LEO was fishing for an excuse to harass a citizen.
Now a assumptions and not facts are needed to lose the 4th 4:50 4:50
Behind the blue placard (?), your left my right.
Driver here was guilty. He should not have been driving. He should have owned up to it and taken it on the chin
Just be glad he wasn't driving a Hertz rental, and it was falsely reported stolen.
You may be referring to a former co-worker of mine, just prior to him speaking at the sheriff's department about the license plate scanner donation.
I always wait to hear the "robot lady" at the end ....
Qualified driver = having enough money to pay for your right to drive
Aren’t a magistrate’s directives given to the jury in a court of record advisory?
So, if children drive their parent’s car while their parent has a suspended license, it is reasonable to pull them over because, who knows, maybe they are them? That sounds very dangerous and something the Supreme Court would clearly be against as an unwarranted stop, and yet, here we are, 8 to 1 I believe you said. Considering how we share vehicles in our own household, the above could easily happen if one of us had a suspended license. The owner is not the driver. I’m hoping I just misunderstood what I thought I heard.
Sigh, okay, I just heard the statistical reasoning. It makes sense. But considering I own my daughter’s car but she is the one that drives it, I still find this ruling misguided. I imagine this is likely to detain the innocent and usually the law is supposed to err on the side on not encroaching on the innocent. It’d been nice if they talked about the statistical likelihood of pulling over non-owners too, not just the likelihood of suspended driver relapse.
I shouldn’t be commenting half-tired at 3am because I keep going on. Is it reasonable to assume the driver is the owner. No. Clearly no. But the ruling then implies an officer could pull over someone with no reasonable suspicion because the ruling said they think so. Yeah, it’s under the narrow condition that the owner has a suspended license, but police officers don’t need more excuses to detain innocent citizens. Just because good cops won’t doesn’t mean bad or even just lazy cops won’t. Ugh, I need to stop ranting and go to sleep. I’m sure this wasn’t written clearly and I’ll probably cringe if I read it in the morning.
Prosecutors should never be able to appeal a ruling in favor of defendant. Kansas takes this to SC? Diagusting use of tax dollars ill never spit in Kansas again. Imagine spending millions om top of millions to get a guy with a suspended license,
😮😮Driving a car is a privilege. I don’t want to share the road with the unlicensed or uninsured persons who are not qualified to operate a dangerous machine.
This is one SC decision I actually agree with.
I think we all have a suspicion that Thomas is a corrupt man.
Why did run his tag? He was not accused of driving badly. That bothers me.
Damned right!
Cops in Kentucky do that all the time. They'll get bored and run plates as they are driving down the interstate.
that's their job to run all the tag numbers, thank goodness they did.....
and removed a revoked driver from the road.
A lot of troopers have automatic computers that can read license plates as you drive by
They can scan every plate on the road. Keeps illegal vehicles and drivers off the road. People that flout laws can get f*cked. I pay for the privilege to use the road and everyone else can too.
Steve, what if the driver is pulled over, but has a valid driver's license and the cop only pulled you because he thought you were not licensed? Just happened in my town.
I don't understand how the State of Kansas was able to appeal this case to the United States Supreme Court to get rights taken away from a Kansas citizen that were protected under the Kansas Constitution?
Article 15 of the Kansas Constitution provides:
." Search and seizure. The right of the
people to be secure in their persons and property
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall
be inviolate; and no warrant shall issue but on
probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation,
particularly describing the place to be searched
and the persons or property to be seized."
Isn't the Kansas constitution a document of Independent force?
It is in Ohio:
Arnold v. Cleveland (1993), 67 Ohio St. 3d 35 -- Paragraph one of the syllabus: "The Ohio Constitution is a document of independent force. In the areas of individual rights and civil liberties, the United States Constitution, where applicable to the states, provides a floor below which state court decisions may not fall. As long as state courts provide at least as much protection as the United States Supreme Court has provided in its interpretation of the federal Bill of Rights, state courts are unrestricted in according greater civil liberties and protections to individuals and groups." (Former Cleveland ordinance banning assault weapons upheld.) Also see pp. 41-42; Porter & Tarr, The New Judicial Federalism and the Ohio Supreme Court: Anatomy of a Failure (1984), 45 Ohio St. L. J. 143.
If you have a suspended license, you should not be operating in that capacity and should be taken off the road.
Do you want a doctor with a suspended license working on your loved one? Do you want the hospital to ensure the doctor with a suspended license to continue to work?
What about a pilot with a suspended license? An attorney? Any profession or activity requiring a valid license?
It is not easy to get a driver's license suspended. People falling in that category are in a high risk category of driving dangerously.
Officers can make common sense judgements and inferences about human behavior until they do something wrong. Then they couldn't possibly have known it's wrong until there's an appellate ruling in their circuit about it. They're not legal technicians, after all.
Something like this happened with one of my Lyft drivers... Except she was driving her boyfriend's car, and her license was fine. At least she took it in stride.
Thanks. 😁
I think it's wrong, bc an officer cannot arrest you, search your home, pull you over, etc., Based on a Hunch.. which is what this was. He assumed, had a hunch, whatever u wanna call it. It was an illegal traffic stop. If the officer had drove next to him, saw him personally driving, then pulled him over knowing such facts, then it Would be legal. An officer is allowed to "briefly" investigate anything. However, in no circumstance have I heard that an investigation is allowed to take part in illegally forcing a stop and question act. That would be keen to an officer Forcing u to stop to talk with him by walking down the street, or the FBI listening on ur phone and saying "we're not letting u make any more phone calls unless you talk to us first". All Illegal, and I'd suggest that he has a shitty attorney who has no thought of their own of how to enforce the constitution. I refer to an instance recently that an officer falsely arrested someone in a walmart for trespassing, bc they Looked a little like someone who was trespassed. This came to be untrue, and the officer did zero investigation before hand with managent.. but still stands. If the guy refused to give his name or even talk to the officer while shopping, he didnt have to. Bc its not a free person who is at fault for police failure to investigate before hand. U cannot make a call based on assumption.. thats whats bothersome. And I'd urge u to refer to that as well. Bc some people are right, we let them ingringe on some of our rights, just bc one might be right,how many others rights will be violated even more than they are now? I'll end this with: not knowing the law is no excuse for not breaking it, according to the law.. so, if a police officer doesn't know, should not be allowed in Any circumstance to infringe on our rights.. could have had a twin brother.. but he didn't know if he did r not, so made a call, is not an excuse.. and should be able to be discharged.. the first call on such shoulda been correct.
There wasn't a hunch, it said the owner has a suspended License, that was fact, not a hunch. Him pulling over the car was making sure the guy wasn't actually driving
No . Bad call. My brother has a warrant and the car I'm driving has a passenger. .. same logic . I lost my license . I switched trucks with my brother . He can't figure out why he's been pulled over 60 times . Four times late in one month now collects unemployment. . I never told him .
Thiis happened to me.
There are a lot of people ready to exaggerate what SCOTUS rules when certain justices author the opinion. Especially when that Justice is Thomas.
To bad Glover can´t be held responsible for all of the courts costs generated in this case.
Licensing is too intrusive as the public safety state interest can be meet by certificates of competency instead of drivers licensing. As licensing doesn’t mean competency.
Also driving or operating registered motor vehicle equipment is a privilege but administrating my property (the car) over a nonexclusive easement to access my land is my right.
It’s the words people use to argue a case that determines if one prevails.
Ben's sticking out from behind blue/white enhanced Lehto sign.
Maybe they could see inside the vehicle. Couldn't they just pull the car over and the cop say "are you *name*?" "No? Okay, thanks bye"
My opinion, if the information is available with a simple tag verification, it's a viable stop. Since he was driving on a suspended license he was in fact committing a crime in front of an officer, that now through the verification of the tag, knows there is a suspended license in play. If he doesn't act on it, they guy could kill someone (wreck, pedestrian etc.) and if he knew then it's on his hands
Lol a suspended license is automatically going to lead to a death? Are you sure you didn't mean intoxication????😂 I would argue a guy with a suspended license is going to drive much safer and carefully to AVOID being pulled over
@@ShreddingFinn, You should read more, I said he could do that, if he wasn't driving on a suspended license that would become an impossibility. I'm just saying he the officer knew and let him go it could happen and that potential blood could be on his hands. You really need to read more than what you want to argue, you just might get the answer you plan to argue
It could just as easily be suspended or invalid for non renewal. It could be the best driver in the world. Chances are the owner is the driver, but just barely. Family often borrow vehicles between themselves. Especially if the registrant isn't allowed to operate it. I don't think this stop was valid unless the officer can say under oath he knew this person as the owner. Allowing this to stand is allowing any officer to reasonably stop anyone in any situation in which the cop can articulate some reason. Any reason. Early am, late pm, only vehicle on road, wrong side of town, wrong side of the tracks, wealthy neighborhood, looked funny, looked guilty, looked nervous, looked disrespectful, made eye contact, made eye threats, gave me the EVIL EYE , ect...
If this was such a dangerous driver the officer only has to wait moments for this terrible operator to weave, go outside the line, fail to stop, thow empties out the window, anything that actually justifies stopping and detaining an otherwise lawfully behaving citizen.
@@JoeSmith-cy9wj, Dude, all I was implying was IT COULD HAPPEN. i NEVER ONCE SAID IT WOULD. My meaning was imagine the officer letting them go, then later comes up on an accident with DUI and it was the guy you could have stopped. Not once did I say WOULD, I said COULD happen. beginning to think with back to back posts, you got nothing else to do other than troll. Jeez nobody can read anything but what they want to read anymore huh?
BTW, let's look at that Hypothetical, if you were the officer, let the suspended license go and found out later that guy killed a family (DUI or otherwise), whether you tell anyone or not, How would you feel, knowing you could have stopped it? Me personally, not sure I could live with myself, if that happened to me
I'd like to begin with the idea that being able to drive should be a right because there is absolutely NO other way to get around.
It is, verbally identify when asked for a license the first time (name, dob) and after that reply with sir/mam i have already identified. They will get upset, and maybe make threats, but they will leave.
If the stop is about traveling, that is, obviously this is not a good idea if you have committed a crime. Dont commit crimes, but traveling in private property is not a crime.
The license is a contract dont admit to having one but dont deny it either.
The Werefrog don't like it because it means police are allowed to just run your plate for no reason. That black family in Texas that was held by cops at gunpoint for nearly an hour endured that because the cops ran their plates for no reason, but entered them in the system incorrectly. When they came back as no plates, the cops went straight to pull the people over and threaten to kill them.
Running plate should be something that requires some sort of suspicion first, not a regular operating procedure because the cop needs something to do.
Why?
Why would something in plain view require suspicion?
How TF are they supposed to find stolen cars?
No, illegal search, shouldn’t have run the plates without a warrant? Why did the officer run the plates in the first place?
I don't take issue with the ruling that with the information was grounds for a stop. I take issue with them just idly running plates when they didn't have much beyond a hunch that I can recall hearing. They could just as well be running them all day and be right once or thrice and then call it a hunch. If there was some reason beyond well I could to search I'd be happy with the decision.
they do run them all day and night, automatic plate readers, cop literally roams parking lots or streets and there laptop OCR's all plates visable and runs it
I feel an officer should be able to run every plate on the road.
Every single last plate.
Even the ones not in operation.
@@benjaminjwilson6694 They should have the capability to read any plates, but they should also find something better to do with their times than idle around waiting for something to come to them. The good they do in one place is likely much less than just driving around showing they're watching for issues. They may have missed a larger problem in the waiting for small ones and we won't know.
Plates are in public view, and any data is already within possession of a government body. So I don’t see any legal basis for preventing law enforcement from running plates at will.
This isn’t to mention that plates are (may vary depending on State, but holds true in CA at least) actually the property of the state government.
@@Lauren_C Once more missing the point of them sitting around running it makes them less likely to see stuff around their areas of responsibility
is it just common action for a Police officer to randomly run plates, or do they run all plates? If its random, then the officer got lucky? In this case, it sounds like the officer runs plates on anyone he happens to be behind.
Is there any evidence that any license increases the chances of a safe interaction? Does anyone really think it is anything more than a tax on drivers? The test is so easy and you only take it once.
This appears to be an old video that got re-posted today.
I think it is only reasonable if the police officer was able to also observe that the driver was not female or in some other way (apparent age?) obviously not the owner.
BS ... more fascism... Why did he run the plates ????
I'd have to say the ruling is correct, it is reasonable what the cop did. I think the main reason why folks are "outraged" with the verdict is because we have seen/heard too many stories of cops doing bad that it is no longer reasonable to believe LEOs to be doing the right thing.
I never give them the benefit of the doubt anymore.
The problem presented here is the officer assumed the owner was the driver, and performed the stop on that basis.
While in this case, the officer was “correct”, this precedent would subject spouses, and other borrowing drivers, to unjustified and unnecessary traffic stops.
The ruling made by the appeals court, establishes that the assumption of the owner being the driver, does not rise to the level of reasonable suspicion, that is required to enact a traffic stop.
@@Lauren_CSo, exactly how things already are in the real world?
Thomas is a corrupt of a judge as you can get
Mr Lehto, shouldn't the stop end then, once the driver displays evidence, they're not the RO? Or can the cop "lawfully" continue to run the driver's information?
In the oral augments for this case the SCOTUS justices even made a hypothetical of if the owner is male, and the drivers is female or clearly not the owner, then the stop ends then, and the state rep agreed, reluctantly. Will cops understand this concept and not continue to demand papers in spite of this. Sure, they will suddenly get real trans conscious, or otherwise sex blind. Anything for cops to get the ID crack.
I agree - Though given the world we live in , were the subject to tell "his" attorney that the person whose DL was suspended is not who ___(fill in the blank) is today . They are in fact a new person and as such should not be held to account for what that "man" may have done. - signed not a contrarian
What the heck are you talking about?
sorry i guess I did not make it understandable@@christopherg2347
What if his wife was driving
Then cop will conveniently never be aware of this until pulling them over and demanding papers. Cops also becomes very unsure of what male or female is. If cops ever admits he knew, before demanding papers, that the driver was not the owner, then stop is legally over. All the more reason to get clarification that the are demanding your papers, not just asking.
@@enderfal tits dont count?
Would it be reasonable if the driver was not the owner?
Well, that would open up a whole other decision tree route, which would call into question, "Is it reasonable to question this guy because he's NOT the owner..."
In terms of them stopping the truck car whatever.. they were likely itching for something to do and scanned whatever they could and if they saw it wasn't the owner driving. they'd likely stop the vehicle anyways for That instead then. They have you in a corner
Like the owner was the passenger? NOT driving with a suspended license? I would think the stop will still be allowed.
Once they determine the driver has a valid license, they should be done. And allow to continue on their way.
I'm not sure why they searched the vehicle after the stop, why the owner wanted that evidence thrown out. Must have had some probable cause
Yes, as explained in the video, a reasonable suspicion doesn't have to be correct to still be reasonable. For example, if an officer said "I smell marijuana in your car", then they detain you and search your car but find nothing, was that reasonable even though they didn't find anything? Yes. Reasonable suspicions are going to be wrong at least sometimes. That's why they're called suspicions, not violations.
But isn’t it reasonable articulable suspicion?
the owner had a revoked DL, that's more than enough.
"I suspected the owner of the car was also the driver of the car, and the driver of the car has a suspended license" is perfectly articulable. The reasonable part is what some people seem to be fighting. I think people are fidgeting over the fact that it's a series of two logical inferences instead of just one.
@@EarthsMysterieswithKenKay yeah. But he just assumed that the driver was the owner. That’s the whole point he didn’t know for sure. Reasonable articulable suspicion. You have to have articulable facts
@@tyrelldiggz the owner had a revoked DL, that's more than enough.
if someone else was driving, they would be on their way, it's called great police work.
I get no sound
How old is this video? Breyer & Ginsberg
If you think cops shouldn’t have the right to run every plate they see what stops:
1. Someone attaching a bogus plate and driving around, as long as they don’t break any other law?
2. Someone stealing a car and driving around in it after attaching the plate off any other vehicle.
3. Someone stealing a plate and just driving around on it.
Need more examples? As long as they aren’t racial profiling or exercising some other form of discrimination, it should be fine.
What is the reason for a drivers license? To make sure you know how to drive. It is a safety issue for the ability to know how to operate a motor vehicle and the rules of the road. A license other than that is a control measure. When a license is suspended for a forced debt such as child support. Is slavery. Steve you are a lawyer and think just because a majority say something is a law doesn’t make it moral.
the only reason cars have license plates is so that police can read them.
excellent policing!
if you don't enforce the law, then there isn't any law.
I agree with the supreme court here.
I CANNOT understand the confusion. If a policeman cannot pull you over for a suspended license, then license suspension MEANS NOTHING!
Did you understand the part about the registered owner may not have been the driver?
Many thousands of drivers don't own the vehicle they are operating.
You're kidding, right? All that's required is the driver to show a VALID DRIVER'S LICENSE! Then they go on there way.
Don’t break the law and you will be fine even if stopped by a goofy cop operating on hunches.
No no no. No guarantee you will be fine. No no no.
thats a great reason to pull someone over. are you supposed to assume the car was stolen? the odds of someone else was driving was real low.
I used to let friends and family drive one of my vehicles anytime. I knew others to do this.