Some advice on my case before pre-trial begins

Wrongful Pullover? Run plate, make stop to make sure registered owner is driving.

First: as these may be most important details is that the traffic stop happened in Scottsdale, Arizona

The details of what happened:
I was driving to a denny's in Scottsdale at approximately 3:00AM. A police officer saw a stop light and stopped behind me in the lane to the right of me and decided to run my license plate. At which point he proceeded to follow me to the denny's parking lot. Only after I had exited my vehicle and started walking towards the door did he say anything to me which was an order to return to my vehicle.

I was driving on a suspended license and had no insurance. When turning over my documents (suspended and expired as they were) I asked the police officer what I had done and he replied nothing. I then asked what the stop was about, he replied that the license plate run came back as owner having suspended license/no insurance (DMV reports that in state of AZ). I asked him what I had done to attract his attention to run my plate. The officer replied "Nothing. I just run plates from time to time to make sure vehicles are not stolen"

Now, due to the fact that I had been out of work, and a previous non-moving violation fine left unpaid is what caused the suspension and I'm looking to avoid another hefty fine, I'm planning on fighting this based on case research I read, which states that a traffic stop is a 4th amendment search and seizure. In Wren v US, it was cited that an observation of traffic or equipment violation must be observed before a stop can take place.

Now for the question (sorry for long windedness). Now, according to Wren v US, wouldn't the police officer running my plates and acting solely on grounds of that report violate 4th ammendment rules?

Specifically, I'm trying to fight on those grounds due to the fact that at the officer's own admission on the citation and verbally, I broke no traffic laws. I abided by speed limit, lights were working, I signal out of habit, he simply ran the plates and the registered owner (who may or may not be driving) came back with suspended license and no insurance.

*edit* I broke no laws short of simply being behind the wheel with a suspended license
**

Would the officer have to wait and witness a violation in order to issue the citations for Suspended Licens and No Proof of Insurance?

Thanks for any advice you may give.
-Tim

The officer can run your plates and license whenever he wishes. However, depending on the status of case law in AZ it might be harder to justify a detention based solely upon the R/O information without having personal knowledge that the driver was the person driving on a suspended license.

Also, Wren doesn't apply here because you were not detained as part of a traffic stop - te detention took place when he instructed you to return to your vehicle ... IF that is what he did. If he asked you your name and you replied that you were the registered owner (the person with the suspended license) then you were done and the detention was good.

Ultimately, the officer will have to argue justification for the detention in the lot. But keep in mind that in many courts, the registered owner being suspended IS sufficient cause for a detention for the limited purpose of determing the identity of the driver for public safety ... after all, it is not a good idea to allow unlicensed drivers to wander about on the roads.

Speak with an attorney.

- Carl

Thanks for the info.

Cant afford an attorney, otherwise that would've been my first move after the stop.

I guess a new question would be, the detention in the lot, doesn't that cross other barriers considering before the police car pulled behind my vehicle, I was already away from the vehicle and on private property?

Thanks again

timwilde said:

Thanks for the info.

Cant afford an attorney, otherwise that would've been my first move after the stop.

I guess a new question would be, the detention in the lot, doesn't that cross other barriers considering before the police car pulled behind my vehicle, I was already away from the vehicle and on private property?

Thanks again

Click to expand...

You do not have to be in a vehicle to be detained. You CAN be detained on foot. The question would ultimately be if he had cause to detain you. But, an officer can ALWAYS make a consensual encounter. Asking to talk to you, or asking your name are not detentions. Yelling and telling you to get your tail end back to your car WOULD be a detention.

- Carl

Akk! that makes for a rather difficult interperetation then.

And, that makes for an awkward suggestion about consentual detention. I've been told that it's illegal for any reason to ignore or disobey a police officer. So if the police officer walks up to you and asks to speak to you, aknowledgment would result in consent at that point or you break a law. Very sticky stuff.

Anyway; I know that police can run plates at any time for any reason. The problem I have is what they do with that information, or how they choose to interperet that information. Because, since I've been notified (by the stop) that my license was suspended, I've loaned my vehicle out to others that have thier own insurance, and I feel that it would be an extreme violation of thier rights to be pulled over simply because I own the vehicle they're driving.

The part of cases cited basically summed up to the fact that an officer should require probable cause or articulable suspicion,otherwise individuals would be subject to "unfettered governmental intrusion" each time they entered an automobile.

Thank you again for your time and discussion. It reaffirms that I've kinda been doing right work, but on the wrong track. Much appreciated.

-Tim

timwilde said:

So if the police officer walks up to you and asks to speak to you, aknowledgment would result in consent at that point or you break a law. Very sticky stuff.

Click to expand...

Yep. But, it is often seen as consent even if you would never consider denying the benign request. But, your state could be different.

Because, since I've been notified (by the stop) that my license was suspended, I've loaned my vehicle out to others that have thier own insurance, and I feel that it would be an extreme violation of thier rights to be pulled over simply because I own the vehicle they're driving.

Click to expand...

But, depending on the status of case law in your state, this may be appropriate for the simple and limited purpose to ascertain if you were the person driving. Courts in your state may see this as a reaonable and limited intrusion ... thus lawful.

The part of cases cited basically summed up to the fact that an officer should require probable cause or articulable suspicion,otherwise individuals would be subject to "unfettered governmental intrusion" each time they entered an automobile.

Click to expand...

Not if the driver/registered owner were licensed.

Thank you again for your time and discussion. It reaffirms that I've kinda been doing right work, but on the wrong track. Much appreciated.

Click to expand...

It would be better to have an attorney deal with it.

- Carl

Thank you for all your help. Just had to comment and this last thing.

Not if the driver/registered owner were licensed.

Click to expand...

A vehicle is property. Much like any other, regulated by the state, but property none the less. I do not require a driver's license to purchase or register a car. My first car was owned and registered and insured to my blind grandmother, and I was a driver.

Hence, where I have the problem with how that information is interpereted and what the officer decides to do with that information.

I mean, in a similar situation, it would be easy to deter illegal immigration to have a cop on every corner and demand to see your state id to everyone he sees on the sidewalk. But that type of thing is very illegal (not to mention very hard to run...just think of the man power required ) This isn't all THAT much different, in the way that an officer has no idea, and due to the high market item a car is, has no reasonable assumption that the registered owner of the vehicle is, in fact, the licenced driver of the vehicle.

Specifically, due to sticky legal manuvering that happened over the past year in AZ,now a Lien Holder is now the registered owner, and in a lot of cases the owner's name never touches title/registration untill the vehicle is paid off, rental cars, and loaners and such. It really becomes a matter of what information should an officer react to and what should he follow along and wait for a genuine offence to find out about the other information he "knows".

[edit] I forgot, now because of all that, for lienholders, they're registered owner of vehicle, but plates go with owner, illegal to transfer ownership and leave the license plate on the vehicle, and you keep them now and put it on your new vehicle when you get one [/edit]

But again, Thanks for all the info, been great talking with you. I will try to find out about a lawyer, most likely not in time for my pre-trial conference though.

-Tim

timwilde said:

A vehicle is property. Much like any other, regulated by the state, but property none the less. I do not require a driver's license to purchase or register a car.

Click to expand...

I believe that in some states, you do. So this is not universally true.

Hence, where I have the problem with how that information is interpereted and what the officer decides to do with that information.

Click to expand...

Your interpretation is not controlling - the court's is. And the courts permit the police to query vehicle information with little or no cause. So long as the purpose is related to law enforcement (i.e. not trying to obtain a name and address for a date), then it is lawful.

And a detention may be made with reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion being a very low standard and essentially being only enough information to make the officer believe that a crime is or has been committed, or that circumstances warrant a detention. (I have a technical definition here somewhere, but I haven't had my first cup of coffee yet ... too early to look for it ...)

I mean, in a similar situation, it would be easy to deter illegal immigration to have a cop on every corner and demand to see your state id to everyone he sees on the sidewalk.

Click to expand...

Except that local law enforcement cannot enforce federal immigration law.

This isn't all THAT much different, in the way that an officer has no idea, and due to the high market item a car is, has no reasonable assumption that the registered owner of the vehicle is, in fact, the licenced driver of the vehicle.

Click to expand...

No, but the likelihood of the registered owner driving the vehicle is relatively high.

It really becomes a matter of what information should an officer react to and what should he follow along and wait for a genuine offence to find out about the other information he "knows".

Click to expand...

That's where the court interpretation comes in. Not knowing what AZ case law is on the subject of such detentions, I couldn't say. I know it is not crystal clear even in CA.

But again, Thanks for all the info, been great talking with you. I will try to find out about a lawyer, most likely not in time for my pre-trial conference though.

Click to expand...

That's usually best. He'll know what the local court attitude might be on the subject as well.

- Carl