How to fight an illegal traffic stop? Rhode Island

[SpawnedX]

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

I was pulled over tonight with the reason given as "I pulled you over because you don't have a bumper." This is incorrect, I do have a bumper (aka crash bar), what I don't have is the plastic bumper cover as it was damaged in an accident. However, all my lights are there and functional, I had my plate self tapped into the crash bar at the height legally required by law and it is readable and in plain sight. As a RI state vehicle inspector I KNOW you don't need a bumper cover as long as the actual bumper/crash support is present, all lights are operating properly and the plate is in the required location. So his traffic stop was in fact invalid.

How would you fight this?

Since I could not locate my insurance card at the time he gave me a ticket for that as well (I found it later it fell behind my glove box) and now I am going to have to go to court show the proof of insurance and pay a 35.00 court fee. This seems hardly legal, if the initial traffic stop was invalid, how can anything after the fact be legally held against you?

 

[CdwJava]

The way to challenge the cite is to look up the statute you were cited for and provide evidence to refute the allegation that you were in violation. If you had a bumper as required under state law, then you present a photo of that and your car. And make sure you show the court your insurance. The court may dismiss all or only one of the violations, it's impossible to say.

 

[Zigner]

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

I was pulled over tonight with the reason given as "I pulled you over because you don't have a bumper." This is incorrect, I do have a bumper (aka crash bar), what I don't have is the plastic bumper cover as it was damaged in an accident. However, all my lights are there and functional, I had my plate self tapped into the crash bar at the height legally required by law and it is readable and in plain sight. As a RI state vehicle inspector I KNOW you don't need a bumper cover as long as the actual bumper/crash support is present, all lights are operating properly and the plate is in the required location. So his traffic stop was in fact invalid.

How would you fight this?

Since I could not locate my insurance card at the time he gave me a ticket for that as well (I found it later it fell behind my glove box) and now I am going to have to go to court show the proof of insurance and pay a 35.00 court fee. This seems hardly legal, if the initial traffic stop was invalid, how can anything after the fact be legally held against you?

If it appeared that you didn't have a proper bumper, then the stop was valid. A valid traffic stop carries a very low threshold. The officer was investigating what reasonably appeared to be an improper bumper.

 

[Zigner]

The way to challenge the cite is to look up the statute you were cited for and provide evidence to refute the allegation that you were in violation. If you had a bumper as required under state law, then you present a photo of that and your car. And make sure you show the court your insurance. The court may dismiss all or only one of the violations, it's impossible to say.

OP seems confident he can beat his charges. In fact, it doesn't even appear he was cited for the bumper. The officer based the stop upon the reasonable belief (later proved wrong) that the bumper wasn't legal.

ETA: OP wants to get the whole thing thrown out based on an improper stop. The stop wasn't improper.

 

[CdwJava]

OP seems confident he can beat his charges. In fact, it doesn't even appear he was cited for the bumper. The officer based the stop upon the reasonable belief (later proved wrong) that the bumper wasn't legal.

ETA: OP wants to get the whole thing thrown out based on an improper stop. The stop wasn't improper.

I am not familiar with RI law and have not looked up what section may have been cited. I'd love for him to post the sections cited.

But, as you mentioned, a stop requires only reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was committed (i.e. the lack of a bumper). Now, if it can be shown that the stop was NOT reasonable because it should have been obvious that the law was NOT violated, then he may have an argument to be made to get both violations dismissed.

 

[SpawnedX]

OP seems confident he can beat his charges. In fact, it doesn't even appear he was cited for the bumper. The officer based the stop upon the reasonable belief (later proved wrong) that the bumper wasn't legal.

ETA: OP wants to get the whole thing thrown out based on an improper stop. The stop wasn't improper.

The bumper is visible, and easily noticeable, the officer is asserting the lack of a bumper cover was the lack of a bumper. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect that the police need to be aware of all vehicle equipment violation codes and laws if they are responsible for enforcement including detainment via a traffic stop. The lack of being versed on these laws seems to be a convenient excuse for allowing them to broad an excuse to initiate a traffic stop.

 

[SpawnedX]

I am not familiar with RI law and have not looked up what section may have been cited. I'd love for him to post the sections cited.

But, as you mentioned, a stop requires only reasonable suspicion to believe that a crime was committed (i.e. the lack of a bumper). Now, if it can be shown that the stop was NOT reasonable because it should have been obvious that the law was NOT violated, then he may have an argument to be made to get both violations dismissed.

He did not provide a section for the supposed violation of the bumper, he only provided one for proof of insurance, there is nothing else on the ticket.

 

[CdwJava]

He did not provide a section for the supposed violation of the bumper, he only provided one for proof of insurance, there is nothing else on the ticket.

But, you wrote: "he gave me a ticket for that as well" ... that implied that you received two cites.

In any event, the same advice still applies. Find the section you believe he was relying on and prove that it was painfully obvious that it was NOT violated. If the status of such law (detentions, traffic) in your state makes a stop for a mistake of law de facto unreasonable, you can probably get the insurance cite dismissed.

 

[SpawnedX]

But, you wrote: "he gave me a ticket for that as well" ... that implied that you received two cites.

In any event, the same advice still applies. Find the section you believe he was relying on and prove that it was painfully obvious that it was NOT violated. If the status of such law (detentions, traffic) in your state makes a stop for a mistake of law de facto unreasonable, you can probably get the insurance cite dismissed.

I just wrote that poorly. I meant as well as in addition to the stop, sorry.

 

[SpawnedX]

Also, hopefully someone with RI experience can tell me why this is even a mandatory court date? According to the back of the ticket mandatory court dates are for when you have three violations over a 12 mos period, but my last violation of any kind was well over 3 years ago.

 

[Zigner]

It could be argued that you have modified the OE bumper. As such, you are in violation of the law.

I only point this out to show that the traffic stop was proper. In the future, make sure you have your insurance and other required documents readily available. Pay the paltry amount and move on.

 

[SpawnedX]

It could be argued that you have modified the OE bumper. As such, you are in violation of the law.

I only point this out to show that the traffic stop was proper. In the future, make sure you have your insurance and other required documents readily available. Pay the paltry amount and move on.

You may think it is a paltry amount, but it is not necessarily so. I am going to miss at best 4 hours of work, being a flat rate technician this means I could be losing 8 hours of pay or even more, because in that opening 4 hours is when we get the largest portion of cars and I could have easily worked at 200% efficiency during that time. At my current pay rate of 23.00 an hour that could be 184.00 plus the 35.00 court fee, which is why I want to know why I HAVE to appear.

As for it being argued that I have modified the OE bumper, you realize this is actually my strength right? I am a certified RI state safety and emissions inspector for automobiles and commercial vehicles. I know and CAN prove that this was not a modification to the bumper. The bumper on a vehicle is the actual crash support beam, not the plastic molding that sits over it. The bumper is in fact still attached to my vehicle and mechanically sound. Bumper cover =/= bumper. I am confident on being able to win that facet of this situation.

 

[CdwJava]

You have no real option. You must appear to contest the cite. And while you might prevail on the bumper cite, you may not prevail on the insurance cite.

And BOTH violations are only $35???? Holy smokes! Out here they'd likely be correctable, and if not corrected they'd be hundreds of dollars! Check with the court - there may be a way that you can simply pay that amount and be done with it. If it won't effect your insurance, and it will cost you more to appear than pay it, I'd find any way I could to pay it.

 

[SpawnedX]

Also please don't say things like "make sure you have your insurance documents blah, blah..." I am a 31 year old man not some nitwit kid. I had zero reason to go through my car and pre-prepare to be pulled over this evening as I obey traffic laws and have kept my car within the legally required condition to be on the road. Therefore when something like a piece of paper falls through a crack it is not being irresponsible, it is an unfortunate accident and if I wanted to risk escalating the situation or even getting shot this day and age, I could have gotten out of the vehicle, walked around the car and removed the glove box like I did after the stop to try to figure out where my insurance card was.

I understand there are a lot of people on this forum looking for excuses to get away with breaking the law and that must get frustrating. However, I did not actually break any laws, my proof of insurance was in fact in the vehicle at the time. Since I have to show up to court, I wanted to know what my legal recourse is based on an invalid reason for a traffic stop, and it was indeed invalid, that I am sure of. If the stop was not initiated for an invalid reason the whole situation would not have occurred, and under the law any evidence obtained in this manner is illegal and should be repressed and therefore the proof of insurance violation should not be admissible in court. If you want to state that you feel under reasonable suspicion that this was a valid stop, I respect your educated answer, I understand that at the time of the stop I can tell the officer his stop is without warrant, but that ultimately the judge has to make that call based on our arguments.

I do not believe it is unreasonable to expect an officer of the law who is charged with enforcing traffic law and vehicle equipment citations should be educated in the laws and not be allowed to plead ignorance of the law as his case for reasonable suspicion. Afterall, ignorance of the law is not a valid defense for me, Joe Citizen.

I have to be at the court no matter what, I should at least know and weigh all my options.

 

[SpawnedX]

You have no real option. You must appear to contest the cite. And while you might prevail on the bumper cite, you may not prevail on the insurance cite.

And BOTH violations are only $35???? Holy smokes! Out here they'd likely be correctable, and if not corrected they'd be hundreds of dollars! Check with the court - there may be a way that you can simply pay that amount and be done with it. If it won't effect your insurance, and it will cost you more to appear than pay it, I'd find any way I could to pay it.

$35.00 is the court cost, the fine is up to $500.00 if you don't have insurance. I do have insurance, so I will be responsible for the court cost only. There's only one violation. I have my inspector's manual in the car and could show it to the cop to show him he was wrong.