Cause & Effect

Tritium · Dec 23, 2006

What is the name of your state? Washington State

I asked a friend of mine to drive my car from Seattle to Portland to bring me clothes. On the way down, he was pulled over for allegedly going 35 in a 25. (I believe the sign reducing the speed had just appeared as he was clocked). Anyhow... During the traffic citation, he found that his license was suspended, Third Degree for unpaid traffic tickets. The Sherriff placed him under arrest for DWLS 3. He searched the vehicle and on the key ring was a small zippable canvas pouch, which contained a small metal container with his name on it. Inside of that there was a small plastic baggy with a tiny meth crystal. He was charged with Possesion in violation of RCW 69.50.4013(1) and unlawful use of drug paraphernalia, violating 69.50.412(1). The latter apparently for the metal container not specifically designed for storing anything specific that I am aware of.

Now, let's say there was an error in his license being reported as Suspended. Washington has a website to look up court cases by name. Only 1 shows up for him, and it's the one he was recently arrested for. Nothing else shows up. I am wondering if there was a mistake made somewhere. He never received anything to go to court for any traffic violation. He only went in recently for Jay Walking. Nor prior record. etc... if the suspended license was done in error, or found that proper notification was never given... Can the arrest charges also be dropped in lieu of the license never being suspended? Any suggestions on what else we can do?

Thanks in Advance!What is the name of your state?

garrula lingua · Dec 23, 2006

The stop was good (speeding)

The cop acted on info that DL was suspended. ...
As long as that info came from motor vehicles dept & was not erroneous info within the police dept, then arrest was legit & search was legit as an inventory search pre-tow/incident to arrest.

It doesn't matter whether your friend had notice of suspension. If suspension (or erroneous info of suspension) came from motor vehicles, then it's legit.

...possibly your friend can check into whether a diversion program is available. Pleading and getting diversion/rehab may be the best outcome for him.

Tritium · Dec 24, 2006

I don't necessarily know if he's a normal user... A program would be a good start... counseling as well. After the Army, things have kinda been going downhill for him.

So if I am reading you correctly, if his license was suspended erroneously, then he's still in it deep, because the police acted on Erroneous information, but because it was provided by Motor Vehicles.

Also, I went to the area he was pulled over at... the speed limit sign saying "Reduced Speed Ahead" was near or around where he pulled overthen a sign that says 25. I just have to verify with him where exactly he turned onto that road. I mostly don't want him to have a record. It was a stupid mistake on his part. Hopefully, we can come to some sort of probation or something at the very least.

Funny enough, as I was driving that very same street... I was right behind a Sherriff, and he was speeding. (not pulling anyone over.. just driving.) Unfortunately, it cost me $415 to get my car out of impound. Fun times!

Tritium · Dec 24, 2006

Also... My friend claims that he was never told why he was being pulled over. He was just asked for license and registration, and when came back suspended... the officer asked him to get out of the car, and a search was done. He was then read his rights, and told he was under arrest.

All of this was made possible because of the 35mph in a 25mph zone. (Supposedly) I am wondering... Why didn't they charge him with the DWLS 3? Isn't that a key piece that lead to the other charges, and he would need to be charged with that as well?

The Occultist · Dec 26, 2006

No, he does not need to be charged with that. Consider it a break.

CdwJava · Dec 26, 2006

Tritium said:
So if I am reading you correctly, if his license was suspended erroneously, then he's still in it deep, because the police acted on Erroneous information, but because it was provided by Motor Vehicles.

Yep. That's correct. If the info they had was believed to be reliable (and info from the DMV IS considered such absent evidence to the contrary), then the detention for the DWLS was good.

Also, I went to the area he was pulled over at... the speed limit sign saying "Reduced Speed Ahead" was near or around where he pulled overthen a sign that says 25. I just have to verify with him where exactly he turned onto that road. I mostly don't want him to have a record. It was a stupid mistake on his part. Hopefully, we can come to some sort of probation or something at the very least.

Actually, the WORST thing you can do is talk to him about the incident. Anything he tells you can come out at trial because YOU can be compelled to testify against him! Let him deal with his attorney on any possible defense.

Unless he has priors for dope and has used up his "get out of jail" card, he can likely get some form of diversion and probation for the drugs. It might not save his license, but at least he might be able to stay out of jail.

Funny enough, as I was driving that very same street... I was right behind a Sherriff, and he was speeding. (not pulling anyone over.. just driving.)

Then report him to his superiors if you don't like it. The difference is that the law often allows law enforcement some leeway with regards to the traffic laws for a host of reasons.

- Carl

CdwJava · Dec 26, 2006

Tritium said:
Also... My friend claims that he was never told why he was being pulled over.

It will be in the arrest report. The officer does not necessarily have to tell the driver that when they are contacted.

He was just asked for license and registration, and when came back suspended... the officer asked him to get out of the car, and a search was done. He was then read his rights, and told he was under arrest.

Search was lawful incident to arrest or as part of an inventory prior to impound.

All of this was made possible because of the 35mph in a 25mph zone. (Supposedly)

Yeah ... they're making it up because no one else was speeding that day.

I am wondering... Why didn't they charge him with the DWLS 3? Isn't that a key piece that lead to the other charges, and he would need to be charged with that as well?

It's good cause for the detention. As you were advised previously, they do not have to charge it.

- Carl

jazzminderas · Dec 26, 2006

Basically everything is allowed...

You know, it's actually quite simple. Unless you are white and have enough money to waste on the judicial system you can be f#kt upside down and sideways by cops. A cop can pull you over for being black or driving an import, they can come up with false information and never have to furnish proof. The legal system will continually side with their law enforcement because it saves face and there is a much larger agenda in play. Stay home or buy a lot of land and know the right people... it's your only ticket to freedom.

The Occultist · Dec 27, 2006

jazzminderas said:
You know, it's actually quite simple. Unless you are white and have enough money to waste on the judicial system you can be f#kt upside down and sideways by cops. A cop can pull you over for being black or driving an import, they can come up with false information and never have to furnish proof. The legal system will continually side with their law enforcement because it saves face and there is a much larger agenda in play. Stay home or buy a lot of land and know the right people... it's your only ticket to freedom.

Go away, please.

Shay-Pari'e · Dec 27, 2006

jazzminderas said:
You know, it's actually quite simple. Unless you are white and have enough money to waste on the judicial system you can be f#kt upside down and sideways by cops. A cop can pull you over for being black or driving an import, they can come up with false information and never have to furnish proof. The legal system will continually side with their law enforcement because it saves face and there is a much larger agenda in play. Stay home or buy a lot of land and know the right people... it's your only ticket to freedom.

Your agenda is clear, and this forum is not for your stupidity. Take it somewhere else, as you help no one with your rants.

trieroffact · Dec 27, 2006

jazzminderas said:
You know, it's actually quite simple. Unless you are white and have enough money to waste on the judicial system you can be f#kt upside down and sideways by cops. A cop can pull you over for being black or driving an import, they can come up with false information and never have to furnish proof. The legal system will continually side with their law enforcement because it saves face and there is a much larger agenda in play. Stay home or buy a lot of land and know the right people... it's your only ticket to freedom.

You are correct in general - the police and their associated friends in the prosecutor's office and judiciary are effectively their own little mafia like organization. They get caught now and then but since they control who is charged themselves it is a rarity. And yes you do need $$$$ to fight a corrupt system as they fleece the pockets of the taxpayers to fund their exploits. All of that is a given. And some police officer's, prosecutors, and judges do act within the confines of US constituional law.

In this case there are a few issues:

The license can not be suspended without due process. see Bell v Burson (1971) A liberty such as travel can not be licensed, taxed and treated as a priviledge within the confines of US constitutional law.

A driver license may not constitutionally be summarily administratively suspended.

"The freedom to make use of one's own property as a means of getting about from place to place, whether in pursuit of business or pleasure, is a liberty which under the 14th amendment cannot be curtailed by a state without due process of law. U.S. v Guest 383 US 745, 16 L Ed 2d 239; Wall v King 206 F2d 878; Passenger Cases, 7 How 283, 12 L Ed 702." - Brief of prevailing party in Bell v Burson (May 1971) 402 US 535, 29 L Ed 2d 90, 91 S Ct 1586.

It matter not if the police or DMV were the government agency that was negligent. They can and will try to blame someone else but the fact remains. You need to check if the license was suspended and if due process was followed in that suspension.

I think you are overlooking the very real possiblity that the LEO's "invented" the suspension in order to conduct a bogus "look beyond the stop" search, and bypass constituional law protections.

The officer's do not appear to have merit to conduct even a Terry search in this case. They lacked probable cause.

If the suspension did not exist then the evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree and has to be excluded.

The paraphanelia charge is a joke and I presume is without merit or basis in law.

And LEO's are NOT exempt from ANY traffic laws...unless they are in active pursuit...They think they are above the law but in the confines of US constituional law they have no basis for that belief. I agree that the denial of equal protection of the traffic laws by the refusal of prosecutors to prosecute citizen complaints of driving infractions committed by police officers is steering us toward a horrific feudal ownership system of the highways....

WindyAruba · Dec 27, 2006

Tritium said:
Unfortunately, it cost me $415 to get my car out of impound. Fun times!

You do have civil remedy for that against the officer, the DMV and the police organization, namley, a section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint for the unconstituional seizure and propably conspiracy to deprive civil rights, but it will cost you some $$$$ and time to file the briefs. The officer/agency knows you will have to deplete your own treasury do do so while he/she is using taxpayer $$$$. Note: The officer is not immune when acting in neglect of his/her duties...

CdwJava · Dec 27, 2006

trieroffact said:
I think you are overlooking the very real possiblity that the LEO's "invented" the suspension in order to conduct a bogus "look beyond the stop" search, and bypass constituional law protections.

Of course. And he called his dispatcher ahead of time to tell him or her to advise over the radio that the license was suspended! Of course!

The officer's do not appear to have merit to conduct even a Terry search in this case. They lacked probable cause.

Huh ... how odd. Silly me. I would have thought that the search incident to arrest and an impound inventory would have covered it. But, who cares about the USSC anyway?

If the suspension did not exist then the evidence is fruit of the poisoned tree and has to be excluded.

Not necessarily. Look up "good faith". If the officer was relying on the information provided by his dispatcher as it was provided by the DMV then the search will almost certainly be good. If the dispatcher screwed up, then there might be an issue.

The paraphanelia charge is a joke and I presume is without merit or basis in law.

How do you know that? What exactly IS the definition of "parahernalia" under WA law?

And LEO's are NOT exempt from ANY traffic laws...unless they are in active pursuit...They think they are above the law but in the confines of US constituional law they have no basis for that belief.

You are correct - we are not exempt from traffic laws ... even when in pursuit we are still required to operate safely. However, from a practical standpoint, if local law enforcement followed all the traffic laws, then the public would be up in arms when the officer's respoonse time skyrockets because he or she was following the letter of the law. In my county a deputy could be 20 miles from a call of a fight - something that does NOT generally allow for a code 3 (lights and sirens) run. So, they can dawdle along and get there in time to call an ambulance for the loser and pursue a complaint against the long departed attacker, or, they can step on it - assume the potential liability if they foul up - and get there hopefully in time to do something about the problem.

I agree that the denial of equal protection of the traffic laws by the refusal of prosecutors to prosecute citizen complaints of driving infractions committed by police officers is steering us toward a horrific feudal ownership system of the highways....

Of course it is.

- Carl

CdwJava · Dec 27, 2006

WindyAruba said:
You do have civil remedy for that against the officer, the DMV and the police organization, namley, a section 1983 Civil Rights Complaint for the unconstituional seizure and propably conspiracy to deprive civil rights, but it will cost you some $$$$ and time to file the briefs. The officer/agency knows you will have to deplete your own treasury do do so while he/she is using taxpayer $$$$. Note: The officer is not immune when acting in neglect of his/her duties...

Uh ... the poster was not the aggrieved party - someone else was. Additionally, to show that a federal violation here the person arrested would have to go a long way to prove that this was an intentional act ... provided his license was NOT suspended and the DMV never had it listed as suspended.

- Carl

cepe10 · Dec 28, 2006

CdwJava said:
Of course. And he called his dispatcher ahead of time to tell him or her to advise over the radio that the license was suspended! Of course!

We are all taking the peace officer's word for it that he did anything and it was not simply a pretextual stop and he made up the pretext...

You are correct - we are not exempt from traffic laws ... even when in pursuit we are still required to operate safely. However, from a practical standpoint, if local law enforcement followed all the traffic laws, then the public would be up in arms when the officer's respoonse time skyrockets because he or she was following the letter of the law. In my county a deputy could be 20 miles from a call of a fight - something that does NOT generally allow for a code 3 (lights and sirens) run. So, they can dawdle along and get there in time to call an ambulance for the loser and pursue a complaint against the long departed attacker, or, they can step on it - assume the potential liability if they foul up - and get there hopefully in time to do something about the problem.
Of course it is.

Nothing personal against you on this (and you have my respect for a number of reasons), but there are a couple of flaws in your argument. I have no problem with peace officer's violating the traffic laws within the context of the law. That means when responding to an emergency (which can be checked on through dispatch), or when in active pursuit. In both cases the peace office according to state law (in each and every state) has to have his emergency beacons activated (and usually his siren). Beyond that it is extremely dangerous to be speeding well beyond the flow of traffic, running red lights, etc. without beacons and siren.

There is no law than I know of that allows peace officer's to violate the traffic laws they enforce so over-zealously for their own convenience when simply commuting or conducting non-emergency business. If you can pull one that is not an overbroad generality please let me know.

And in all fairness I have no problem with peace officer's driving within the constraints of their own speed enforcement policies (for those selct few that have a speed enforcement policy based on traffic engineering) - thus if they allow a 10 mph buffer then they should be allowed the same. However they do need to be consistent on that and not arbitrary and capricious.

Cause & Effect

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

Tritium

Member

garrula lingua

Senior Member

Tritium

Member

Tritium

Member

The Occultist

Senior Member

CdwJava

Senior Member

CdwJava

Senior Member

jazzminderas

Junior Member

The Occultist

Senior Member

Shay-Pari'e

Senior Member

trieroffact

Member

WindyAruba

Guest

CdwJava

Senior Member

CdwJava

Senior Member

cepe10

Member

Find the Right Lawyer for Your Legal Issue!

Fast, Free, and Confidential