Questions about potential illegal traffic stop

[bfipa]

Hello.

I was recently pulled over. The officer conducting the traffic stop informed me his reason for stopping me was that I had snow covering my rear window (Which is completely unavoidable, since the aerodynamics of my car constantly deposit snow and ice on the rear window). The relevant law (Idaho statute 49-943 (1)) reads exactly: "No
person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, or other
nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings, or side or rear
windows of the vehicle which obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway
or any intersecting highway."

Now, my layman's interpretation is that the qualifying phrase in this statute is "...which obstructs the driver's clear view..." My vehicle has side mirrors which give a view of the front corners of a passenger vehicle only 2-3 feet from the rear bumper and the reflection extends straight back to the horizon. In fact, the view from the side mirrors is more thorough than the view from the center rear-view mirror. Therefore, I do not believe the officer was legally allowed to stop me, since I had committed no other traffic violation. Does this constitute an illegal stop?

In addition, I was charged with 2 marijuana-related misdemeanors as a result of the officer's search of my person (which I did not consent to) while I was still inside the vehicle following this potentially illegal traffic stop. Am I correct in thinking these will be dismissed if the stop is found to be illegal?

I was not intoxicated, and I was placed under arrest (without being informed of my miranda rights) after successfully passing a field sobriety test. When I got in the back of the car, I noticed the display for the dash-mounted camera stated that the hard drive was full and the camera was not recording. What impact, if any, would this have on the judicial proceedings? There were no witnesses for the search except for the officer and myself, and the officer called another unit after he had already conducted the (illegal?) search. So it seems as if it's his word against mine, since the car's camera was not recording. I will be consulting a public defender, but I understand they more often than not encourage defendants to enter a guilty plea for a reduced penalty so I need to become fully informed of the relevant laws. Pleading guilty is not an option, since a drug-related conviction would put my entire career in jeopardy, as I have not finished school and will be relying on financial aid, which would become unavailable with a drug-related charge.

My court date for the misdemeanor charges was set before standard business hours on the first business day following my arrest. I am not clear on when I have the right to have an attorney present. I will, of course, appear in court, but due to the scheduling, I forsee a chance of being unable to speak with a public defender before/during the proceeding. If this ends up happening, will the court date be rescheduled? Will I be legally required to enter a plea or say anything before having an attorney appointed for me?

Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated. Please respond as soon as possible, as my court date is in the immediate future and I am struggling to prepare myself.

-bfipaWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

[FlyingRon]

Do NOT post multiple threads.
The stop was legal. You need a lawyer.

[AHA]

Originally Posted by bfipa

Hello.

I was recently pulled over. The officer conducting the traffic stop informed me his reason for stopping me was that I had snow covering my rear window (Which is completely unavoidable, since the aerodynamics of my car constantly deposit snow and ice on the rear window). The relevant law (Idaho statute 49-943 (1)) reads exactly: "No
person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, or other
nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings, or side or rear
windows of the vehicle which obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway
or any intersecting highway."

Now, my layman's interpretation is that the qualifying phrase in this statute is "...which obstructs the driver's clear view..." My vehicle has side mirrors which give a view of the front corners of a passenger vehicle only 2-3 feet from the rear bumper and the reflection extends straight back to the horizon. In fact, the view from the side mirrors is more thorough than the view from the center rear-view mirror. Therefore, I do not believe the officer was legally allowed to stop me, since I had committed no other traffic violation. Does this constitute an illegal stop?

In addition, I was charged with 2 marijuana-related misdemeanors as a result of the officer's search of my person (which I did not consent to) while I was still inside the vehicle following this potentially illegal traffic stop. Am I correct in thinking these will be dismissed if the stop is found to be illegal?

I was not intoxicated, and I was placed under arrest (without being informed of my miranda rights) after successfully passing a field sobriety test. When I got in the back of the car, I noticed the display for the dash-mounted camera stated that the hard drive was full and the camera was not recording. What impact, if any, would this have on the judicial proceedings? There were no witnesses for the search except for the officer and myself, and the officer called another unit after he had already conducted the (illegal?) search. So it seems as if it's his word against mine, since the car's camera was not recording. I will be consulting a public defender, but I understand they more often than not encourage defendants to enter a guilty plea for a reduced penalty so I need to become fully informed of the relevant laws. Pleading guilty is not an option, since a drug-related conviction would put my entire career in jeopardy, as I have not finished school and will be relying on financial aid, which would become unavailable with a drug-related charge.

My court date for the misdemeanor charges was set before standard business hours on the first business day following my arrest. I am not clear on when I have the right to have an attorney present. I will, of course, appear in court, but due to the scheduling, I forsee a chance of being unable to speak with a public defender before/during the proceeding. If this ends up happening, will the court date be rescheduled? Will I be legally required to enter a plea or say anything before having an attorney appointed for me?

Any input/advice would be greatly appreciated. Please respond as soon as possible, as my court date is in the immediate future and I am struggling to prepare myself.

-bfipaWhat is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Wipe the snow off your car before you take it out on the road because 1. it's lazy not to (exercise won't kill you), and 2. the snow blowing off your car while in motion can cause drivers behind you to not see anything.

[I_Got_Banned]

Originally Posted by bfipa

The relevant law (Idaho statute 49-943 (1)) reads exactly: "No
person shall drive any motor vehicle with any sign, poster, or other
nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings, or side or rear
windows of the vehicle which obstructs the driver's clear view of the highway
or any intersecting highway."

Now, my layman's interpretation is that the qualifying phrase in this statute is "...which obstructs the driver's clear view..." My vehicle has side mirrors which give a view of the front corners of a passenger vehicle only 2-3 feet from the rear bumper and the reflection extends straight back to the horizon. In fact, the view from the side mirrors is more thorough than the view from the center rear-view mirror. Therefore, I do not believe the officer was legally allowed to stop me, since I had committed no other traffic violation. Does this constitute an illegal stop?

I disagree with what you've identified as the qualifying phrase in that statute. I would identify the following as the key phrase: "any nontransparent material upon the front windshield, side wings, or side or rear windows of the vehicle".
Additionally, the statute does not include a statement that removes the requirement (that the windshield has to be clear of any material) if the vehicle is equiped with side view mirrors. So your argument that it was an "illegal stop" is invalid.

Originally Posted by bfipa

Therefore, I do not believe the officer was legally allowed to stop me, since I had committed no other traffic violation.

By approaching it the way I did, the officer did in fact have a valid reason for the stop. In fact, its not just probable cause; it is an actual violation of the vehicle code. So the stop was legal.

Originally Posted by bfipa

In addition, I was charged with 2 marijuana-related misdemeanors as a result of the officer's search of my person (which I did not consent to) while I was still inside the vehicle following this potentially illegal traffic stop. Am I correct in thinking these will be dismissed if the stop is found to be illegal?

You didn't provide enough information regarding this part so its difficult to say if the officer did in fact have reason to search your person/car. My guess is, you did in fact give him a reason but you're grasping on the "I didn't give consent" as your defense against the possession charge. Truth is, he does not have to ask for your consent for every search he makes; for example, if he feared for his own safety and wanted to ensure that you didn't have any weapons, he does have plenty of reason to pull you out and search you. And if he happens to come across anything else that is illegal, it is his duty and part of his job description to include that as one of the violations and then he leaves it up to the prosecutor to decide whether or not you will be formally charged and tried for those additional offenses.

Originally Posted by bfipa

I was not intoxicated, and I was placed under arrest (without being informed of my miranda rights) after successfully passing a field sobriety test.

1st: You and I know that you do not have to act intoxicated to be under the influence.
2nd: very time you get pulled over, technically and by definition, you are under arrest. If the officer feels that your signature is deemed sufficient for you to fulfill your promise to appear in court to answer the charges against you, then he/she will have you sign the citation (the summons) and then he/she releases you on your own recognizance. In this case, he had every right to take you in, in light of the misdemeanor violations he was charging you with.
3rd: Real life is a bit more leniant when it comes to your Miranda rights. Unlike what we see on TV, your Miranda rights are read to you pre the questioning phase. They do not necessarily apply to everyone who is placed under arrest. Apparently, in this case, you did not give him any need for him to have to question you... He was sure that you should be arrested.
4th: You may have successfully passed the sobriety test... Good for you... But you apparently failed the possession test... Bad for you...

Originally Posted by bfipa

When I got in the back of the car, I noticed the display for the dash-mounted camera stated that the hard drive was full and the camera was not recording. What impact, if any, would this have on the judicial proceedings?

Wow... I wonder what law enforcement did before the invention of the video camera?
Furthermore, what part of the Idaho statute does it say that a judicial proceeding can not proceed in a fair and impartial manner without having a video tape showing each and every detail of the stop, the subsequent investigation and the arrest?

Originally Posted by bfipa

There were no witnesses for the search except for the officer and myself, and the officer called another unit after he had already conducted the (illegal?) search.

And????? He didn't even have to call another unit. That's assuming he did in fact call for one. The other officer may have just been driving by, and decided to stop just to pay his fellow officer a visit. The arresting officer is NOT required to call for another unit during any phase of his doing what he did.

Originally Posted by bfipa

So it seems as if it's his word against mine, since the car's camera was not recording.

If you can't see how you would lose that "his word against mine" 99 times out of a 100, then I think you're smoking too much weed.

Originally Posted by bfipa

I will be consulting a public defender, but I understand they more often than not encourage defendants to enter a guilty plea for a reduced penalty

Is that a study that you did on your own or did you read about it somewhere?
Also, pleading guilty to a reduced charge might only be your second choice (aside from pleading guilty to the charges that are intially brought against you) and if that's what's in your best interest then that's what you'll have to choose from. But then again, you have not provided any details or given any reason as to why you would even qualify for a reduced charge. You do have the option of hiring a private attorney but my guess is that you cannot afford one. Right? Of course, that is assuming that a private attorneys are unlike public defenders in that they usually have aces up their sleeves...

Originally Posted by bfipa

Pleading guilty is not an option

I can only assume that you knew that before you got in your car that day while in possession of however much marijuana so as to constitute a midemeanor charge.
I know, I know... you never really thought about it!

Originally Posted by bfipa

Will I be legally required to enter a plea or say anything before having an attorney appointed for me?

Assuming that you dont get a chance to speak to a public defender before the court proceedings start, then when your case is called, you can ask the court for an opportunity to do so... Your file will be set aside and your case will be called back later on that day.

You might want to contact the Public Defender's office at the court where your proceedings are being held prior to the day of your appearance but keep in mind that they are usually pretty busy trying to convince innocent people of taking a lesser charge than what they have been unfairly accused of...
In answer to your question, "no", you do not have to enter a plea prior to speaking with an attorney.

Good luck...