Driver Permit Restrictions

[derpa]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? KY

My 'technical' step brother is 16, he has a drivers permit. He was driving the other day when we were going somewhere. Sitting beside him was my bio-brother (driver's technical stepbro) who is 21. I (17) was in the back along with one of driver's friends, also 16, and my other 'technical' stepbro (so, the driver's bio-brother), who's 14.

A cop pulled us over, wanted to see the driver's permit/the 21 year old's license/etc. He never mentioned any traffic violations, the driver asked and the cop basically ignored the question. He never stated why he had pulled us over. He gave driver a citation and made 21 take over driving.

KRS 186.450

(6) Except when accompanied by a driver training instructor affiliated with a driver training school licensed under KRS Chapter 332 or a public or nonpublic secondary school, a person with an instruction permit who is under the age of eighteen (18) years shall not operate a motor vehicle at any time when accompanied by more than one (1) unrelated person who is under the age of twenty (20) years. A peace officer shall not stop or seize a person nor issue a uniform citation for a violation of this subsection if the officer has no other cause to stop or seize the person other than a violation of this subsection. This subsection shall not apply to any operator of a vehicle registered under the provisions of KRS 186.050(4) who is engaged in agricultural activities.

It seems like the cop had no reason to stop us or cite driver other than.....maybe stopping a car full of people with a young driver? He made no mention of the driver doing anything wrong/no mention of anything wrong with the car/no other citations. So already it seems like he can't give a citation on these grounds...?

Now, in the eyes of the law are stepbrothers actually considered to be 'related persons'?
If we are all considered related, that would mean that he only had 1 unrelated person under the age of 20 in the car. Driver told the cop, we're all brothers except for the friend. The cop said, "well there ya go, you can't do that" (which would seem incorrect anyway if he understood that to mean blood-brothers).

He said "we're all brothers" not to be misleading but because that's exactly what we consider ourselves and our family hasn't even thought about the words "unrelated person" before because.....we're brothers. So what does the law say about steps?

 

[Zigner]

Why the word "technical"?

 

[stealth2]

Legally, no - you are not all related.

 

[Ohiogal]

Legally, no - you are not all related.

actually that may not be true. They are related by consanguity rather than blood. But they are related. And I am not finding anything in the statute that defines "related" so therefore it defaults to the dictionary definition.

related
adjective

: connected in some way

: in the same family

: belonging to the same group because of shared characteristics, qualities, etc.

1

: connected by reason of an established or discoverable relation

2

: connected by common ancestry or sometimes by marriage


3

: having close harmonic connection —used of tones, chords, or tonalities

So it is possible if he fights the ticket, he can win. well his stepbrother could win. His stepbrother should talk to a lawyer.

 

[single317dad]

Since the statute doesn't define an "unrelated person", it's up to the court's judgment to determine whether you and your "technical" brothers are related. This may have already been decided by a higher court (aka "case law"), or might still be open to interpretation.

Regarding the stop, you need to know what the officer is going to say regarding why he pulled you over. Just because he didn't write a ticket doesn't mean there wasn't probable cause for the stop. He could say, for example, that it appeared that one occupant didn't have a seatbelt on, and upon inspection he determined that all occupants were properly restrained. You (the driver) can depose the officer, pro se or with an attorney, and let the judge decide if the officer is credible (hint: he probably is) and if he pulled you over in violation of the statute.

Why the word "technical"?

However, this is important. Are you stepbrothers or not?

 

[TheGeekess]

Why the word "technical"?

I have a feeling their parents are shacked up together.

 

[Zigner]

I have a feeling their parents are shacked up together.

If they are not married, then they are not step-brothers, thus not related.

 

[TheGeekess]

If they are not married, then they are not step-brothers, thus not related.

Which is where the 'technically' comes in.

 

[derpa]

Oh I said technical because I never call them stepbrothers. Just brothers. Yes, our parents are married.

Legally, no - you are not all related.

Do you have a source for that statement?

Regarding the stop, you need to know what the officer is going to say regarding why he pulled you over. Just because he didn't write a ticket doesn't mean there wasn't probable cause for the stop. He could say, for example, that it appeared that one occupant didn't have a seatbelt on, and upon inspection he determined that all occupants were properly restrained. You (the driver) can depose the officer, pro se or with an attorney, and let the judge decide if the officer is credible (hint: he probably is) and if he pulled you over in violation of the statute.

Hmm. I guess he could say that. How convenient for him.

Cops can pull you over whenever they like and not actually ever tell you why? I thought they had to have an actual reason to make a traffic stop.

 

[single317dad]

Cops can pull you over whenever they like and not actually ever tell you why? I thought they had to have an actual reason to make a traffic stop.

He could have run the license plate and found out the driver was probationary, and saw how many people were in the car. This case may not apply to KY (not sure which district is which) but there will be one for your jurisdiction, count on it.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-9th-circuit/1468527.html

Running plates is not covered by the 4th amendment. The police need a "reasonable suspicion" that a crime has been committed, not probable cause, to pull you over. One of you could have matched the description of a person they were looking for. The only way to know is to ask the officer. Best to do that in a deposition than to wait until you're in court and look foolish in front of the judge.

The case that reduced the standard from "probable cause" to "reasonable suspicion" was Terry v. Ohio, 392 US 1.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0392_0001_ZS.html

Since that case, the police have had a lot more leeway in stopping people, whether driving or otherwise, and performing a basic search. If the officer claims credibly that he had a good reason to pull the car over, driver's case gets pretty weak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6UdpUrB5Sc