Dui in Aptos

[Zigner]

The cars plates were perfectly visible to anyone and were not obstructed.

What plates?

 

[tranquility]

The cars plates were perfectly visible to anyone and were not obstructed.

You'll have to wait for the officer's report. You should get an attorney now for the defense.

 

[MrMcfeely23]

But, you said they were PAPER plates ... as in, "Bob's Cars" and not a license plate issued by the state of CA. Correct?

Correct. They were paper plates as in "Bob's Car's"

 

[Zigner]

For the record, California doesn't issue "temporary license plates." The dealer will generate a small piece of paper that's taped to the window. It is NOT easily visible and it's perfectly reasonable for the officer to initiate the stop in order to verify that the car is not being driven beyond the scope of said permit.

 

[Zigner]

Correct. They were paper plates as in "Bob's Car's"

Right - you had no license plates. You had small advertisements.

 

[CdwJava]

The officer STOPPED the vehicle. He needed a reasonable suspicion a crime has been or is being committed by the driver to do so. If the sole reason was that there were paper plates on the vehicle, then, what crime would the officer reasonably believe was being committed?

VC 5200 and/or 5201. No evidence of registration and no temporary operating permit can be sufficient to justify a stop.

 

[tranquility]

By paper plates I though he meant the registration on the window (the red with the number inside) or the taped temporary registration. Inspection merely for that is not reasonable suspicion. Facts could rise to make it so, however.

But, by the OPs description of what he meant by paper plates, the vehicle was clearly able to be stopped.

Cross-posting edit:
I agree with Carl's post with the information provided with the OP. I was basing my previous answer with the assumption the OP was legally posted with temporary registration.

 

[CdwJava]

Correct. They were paper plates as in "Bob's Car's"

Thus there was no evidence of registration as required pursuant to VC 5200 and/or 5201. The stop is likely valid.

However, without knowing specifically what the officer used as reasonable suspicion, it is impossible to say for sure how a court might rule.

And if you dd not get blood drawn at a hospital, why did you go to the hospital? Were you involved in an accident? Did you appear sick or injured? Why?

And if you took the mandated breath test, as I mentioned it would include at least TWO blows - three if one was more than .02 different than the other. If mouth alcohol was detected, or if the blows were off by greater than .02 than the test would be aborted. Plus the officer has to assert that he observed you for 15 minutes and saw no indication f burping.

And, as mentioned, if you intend to argue the burp as a defense, be prepared to pay a lot of money for experts on a defense that rarely ever prevails. A lot depends on the breath machine used, but most the machines in circulation today in CA are not susceptible to the mouth alcohol and "GERD" issue you mention.

 

[CdwJava]

By paper plates I though he meant the registration on the window (the red with the number inside) or the taped temporary registration. Inspection merely for that is not reasonable suspicion. Facts could rise to make it so, however.

But, by the OPs description of what he meant by paper plates, the vehicle was clearly able to be stopped.

Agreed. Had there been a temporary reg that was visible and no other suspicion to justify the top, then the stop would likely be bad.

 

[MrMcfeely23]

Thus there was no evidence of registration as required pursuant to VC 5200 and/or 5201. The stop is likely valid.

However, without knowing specifically what the officer used as reasonable suspicion, it is impossible to say for sure how a court might rule.

And if you dd not get blood drawn at a hospital, why did you go to the hospital? Were you involved in an accident? Did you appear sick or injured? Why?

And if you took the mandated breath test, as I mentioned it would include at least TWO blows - three if one was more than .02 different than the other. If mouth alcohol was detected, or if the blows were off by greater than .02 than the test would be aborted. Plus the officer has to assert that he observed you for 15 minutes and saw no indication f burping.

And, as mentioned, if you intend to argue the burp as a defense, be prepared to pay a lot of money for experts on a defense that rarely ever prevails. A lot depends on the breath machine used, but most the machines in circulation today in CA are not susceptible to the mouth alcohol and "GERD" issue you mention.

I was taken to the hospital to get another breath test, I have no clue why. I did hear that the numbers were changing though.

the cop walked right up and say "reason why I stopped you because you had no plates" (just had the dealer ads)

the officers did not watch me for 15min he was always looking down at his notepad.

 

[CdwJava]

I was taken to the hospital to get another breath test, I have no clue why. I did hear that the numbers were changing though.

the cop walked right up and say "reason why I stopped you because you had no plates" (just had the dealer ads)

the officers did not watch me for 15min he was always looking down at his notepad.

You can bring that up to your attorney, but you still have the problem of that completed test. You had to complete at least two blows that were within .02 of each other, and had you burped and this GERD was a factor, the first test would be spiked, but the second should not have been.

As I mentioned, this sort of defense rarely works and costs many thousands of dollars to try and mount because it will be a battle of the experts, and they can be expensive.

 

[tranquility]

While no longer relevant in this thread, a case was just published from the Eighth Circuit court of Appeals that discusses paper tags and reasonable suspicion in some detail.

http://www.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/12/09/113055P.pdf

 

[CdwJava]

Nice case. But, in contrast, CA law does not allow us to stop people with temporary operating permits on the SOLE basis that they are often forged (Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 297.). It was interesting to read the 8th's reasoning, however.

 

[betachains]

I was taken to the hospital to get another breath test, I have no clue why. I did hear that the numbers were changing though.

the cop walked right up and say "reason why I stopped you because you had no plates" (just had the dealer ads)

the officers did not watch me for 15min he was always looking down at his notepad.

This sounds strange. Most hospitals don't have breath-analyzers. They only take you to the hospital for medical reasons or to have your blood drawn. Which was it?

 

[tranquility]

Nice case. But, in contrast, CA law does not allow us to stop people with temporary operating permits on the SOLE basis that they are often forged (Hernandez (2008) 45 Cal.4th 295, 297.). It was interesting to read the 8th's reasoning, however.

I agree. I only wanted to suggest the varied nature of the issue.