Posted on 05/12/2014 12:11:35 PM PDT by TurboZamboni
To the trial judge, the case of Daniel Garcia-Mendoza seemed to be a police stop based on "driving while Latino."
Plymouth police officer Ryan Peterson said he was suspicious because "the driver had both hands on the steering wheel and was looking straight ahead." What's more, neither driver nor passenger "were looking at me."
Checking the license plate, Peterson learned there was no driver's license listed for the car's owner. Peterson pulled over the 2003 Chevy Tahoe on Interstate 94 in Minneapolis on March 19, 2012. "Luckily for Peterson, perhaps," neither Garcia-Mendoza nor his passenger had a driver's license, the judge said.
In a search of the car before it was towed, officers found 8 ounces of methamphetamine in a Pringles can. What followed is going to the Minnesota Supreme Court, which hears arguments Monday on the question: If a judge in a civil forfeiture case finds a bad bust, can he keep the state from seizing the defendant's property, even if the guy pleaded guilty in a criminal case?
Hennepin County District Judge Thomas Sipkins said the stop and search were unlawful -- the cop had no "reasonable suspicion" to stop the car. At that point, he could have suppressed the drug evidence, using the "exclusionary rule," and freed Garcia-Mendoza -- if he were hearing the criminal case. The rule applies the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.
(Excerpt) Read more at twincities.com ...
It’s not clear at all to me why he was pulled over. The only suggestion in the article that something was wrong was the mention of the owner not having a driver’s license. But if that’s why this guy was pulled over, it follows that the cop ran the plate while the guy was still driving along. That’s a fishing expedition, whether he did it “by hand” or an automatic license plate reader did the work and rang a bell.
As to whether it’s “probable” that the guy behind the wheel is the owner, that’s another matter — but one for after the stop not before IMO.
>> Checking the license plate, Peterson learned there was no driver’s license listed for the car’s owner
Don’t agree that’s adequate cause unless the vehicle was reported stolen.
Imagine all the licensed drivers driving their own vehicles down the freeway along with all their various illegal paraphernalia that go... unmanaged.
the other issue is the 'search' of the database simply because a driver is operating the vehicle in a safe manner: both hands on wheel as taught in driver's training and looking at the road not what's on the side of the road (the cop)
IOW, this officer took an official action by searching the database for no legitimate reason other than operating the vehicle as taught in driver's ed training
is that that world you want to live in?
I didn’t ignore it. It is the operative issue. Why do LEOs run plates when they have no reasonable, articulable suspicion or probable cause? That is the issue.
Can a Cop run my plates because I have an NRA or faith based sticker on it? Because I part my hair down the middle and men who so do use drugs? Because only hillbillies ( who all have illegal guns and untaxed moonshine) drive older PUs?
Because I hold the steering wheel with both hands and look ahead when I pass a cop?
Soon, technology will be in place to record plates and run them automatically as you pass cameras along the road. Then, if the plate has no licensed driver attached, a cop will visit the car registration address? Huh? Big leap of logic there, but the courts will allow it “ for public safety and the children etc”...
The death of liberty by a thousand tiny cuts.
"Freedom is the sure possession of those alone
who have the courage to defend it."~Pericles
I have a problem with the police doing the search of their database in order to come up with their initial reason for stopping the car. The police could not cite an observed behavior that was probable cause to investigate the driver, to my understanding. Therefore, a fishing trip into the database gave them an excuse.
Essentially, they did a search to justify doing a search.
Yes. Arrest no; detaining, yes.
What's the legal basis for the random DUI checkpoints some places (like Los Angeles) do?
As far as I can tell, there isn't one. SCOTUS disagrees with me, although I'm sure that doesn't cause them too many sleepless nights.
If you’re assuming for the purpose of shooting the breeze, yet it is. If you’re assuming for the purposes of evaluating PC, then I’m going to say, no it’s not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.