Court: Cops can't stop drivers based on the color of their cars [FL]

Yahoo! Autos ^ | 7/9/14 | Justin Hyde

[Slings and Arrows]

"Probable cause" has long been one of those terms that made the jump from legal jargon to household term, especially with regards to drivers who get pulled over. The struggle over what that allows on American roads — and what it doesn't — took a new turn last week with a Florida ruling that threw out a conviction stemming from a police officer who found something wrong with the color of a car.

In 2010, a deputy in Florida's Escambia County saw one Kendrick Van Teamer drive by in a bright green Chevrolet. The deputy ran his plates, and found the registration matched a blue Chevrolet. There were no warrants out for Teamer, no reports of stolen vehicles and no pending crimes that involved either a blue or green Chevy. Teamer also wasn't violating any traffic laws.

But the deputy pulled Teamer over anyway, simply because of the mismatch of the car's color. Teamer said the car had been recently painted, which was true. It also contained small amounts of cocaine, marijuana and $1,100 in cash. Teamer was charged with drug trafficking and possession, convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.

Teamer appealed, and last week as noted by The Newspaper, the Florida Supreme Court ordered him freed on a 5-2 decision, upholding a lower appeals court ruling that the deputy was wrong to stop Teamer simply becuase the color of his car didn't match its registration. The court noted that in numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, justices have found police can't pull someone over for everday behavior that's not linked to a crime, saying Teamer's stop was not different from those triggered by the race of the driver:

[Beagle8U]

Stolen plates are crimes against others. A non matching plate would point that direction.

[MortMan]

I’m sorry, but I find your justification for disregarding the presumption of innocence rather absurd.

The coin you speak of is the presumption of innocence or guilt.

[KEVLAR]

Presumption of innocence?

Or is that just for the court?

What would be the likelihood of stolen vehicle vs painted vehicle?

And what is the reason for this upside down attitude?
The desire to return someones stolen property or to rack up a “bust” for your record?

[Beagle8U]

OK, non matching plates should be presumed as fine. A car thief now switches plates and is free to drive without fear of being stopped.

When he robs a liquor store and kills the clerk and the camera shows your plate...

No problem when the swat team kicks down your door, kills your dog and perhaps you.

That is much better than a stop to check a plate/sarc.

[Beagle8U]

I’m not a cop and never have been.

I just see why the stop was made.

[JimRed]

So if the driver hadn’t been a drug dealer, would the search still be justified? \

If the driver had not been a drug dealer, no drugs or drug money would have been found, and he could have posted his complaint about the stop like many of us would.

[JimRed]

I just don’t understand how they could have ruled the stop unjustified based on the facts of the case.

Apparently the court decided that there was no reason for the plate check in the first place.

[KEVLAR]

What are the primary purposes for the plates?

Would it not also point to evasion of the tax involved in getting a new vehicle if the owner simply puts his plates on his new vehicle without notifying the state?

Which is more common?

[LevinFan]

” I would look closer
at it, maybe find another reason to stop
the car. My 2cents”

Do you have any idea what you just said about yourself? You just said you consider digging for an EXCUSE for stopping someone.

This is why people have zero regard for LE integrity.

[MortMan]

I get it - you support the militarization of the police, and abrogate the 4th and 5th amendments.

I disagree, and you construct a strawman designed to frighten anyone that disagrees.

It’s not worth my time trying to discuss this with you. Have fun with your strawman, and your chains.

[reed13k]

A very good analysis.

I would argue perhaps on one point which I think also may have influenced the discussion. You state: “In the case at point we indisputably have a valid arrest.”

My thoughts are that they are taking a step back and saying that there is no valid reason for the initial arrest to have been made if it were based solely upon the color of the car since there was no probable cause to conduct such an arrest or even a detainment. Without the validity of the arrest or detention, there can be no valid search that would then follow it. Otherwise they could make any arguement to conduct arrests at any time without validity and the follow on searches would potentially be valid. Such as - well he wasn’t dressed appropriately for the area of town he was in, or the car was too new for his haircut, etc.

appreciate your thoughts.

[LevinFan]

” Agreed. But, it makes me wonder:
whatever happened to “search incident to
arrest”?
Let’s say the guy was pulled over for an
amber tag light instead of a clear one.
The cop notices some flakes of pot on the
front seat. He orders the driver out, finds
a joint in the ashtray,and,upon searching
further, finds a pound of reefer,a wad of
cash,a scale and some baggies.So....this
person can’t be charged with possession
with intent to distribute? That’s insane!”

The problem is, cops who have a hunch are well known to look for ANYTHING to justify stopping someone. I’ve had it happen to me. Cop thought possible drunk on a Thanksgiving night. Pulled meover claiming 17 over the 50 limit. I knew how fast i was going, and it was 50. I was watching my driving very carefully, as i knew cops were out.
He just needed an excuse to pull me over and see if i was drunk. Since I didn’t give him one, he made it up.

[Hulka]

“This is why people have zero regard for LE integrity”

All people? Some people? Most people? A number of people?

What is your metric for establishing that statement as fact?

‘Some people’ or a ‘number of people’ would be most accurate, in my opinion.

[Beagle8U]

I know that, I just see it as an error on their part.

[Beagle8U]

Either way it would be a violation of the law.

[LevinFan]

” All people? Some people? Most people? A
number of people?

What is your metric for establishing that
statement as fact?

‘Some people’ or a ‘number of people’
would be most accurate, in my opinion.”

More people than used to be. It has been noted here at FR, the change from supportive of LE to critical of LE. When the collective views of a group change so much, there is usually a reason.

A cop at another site said it best. When people activly rooted for that Dorner nut, cops need to ask themselves why.

[Beagle8U]

“I disagree, and you construct a strawman designed to frighten anyone that disagrees.”

That wasn’t really a strawman, it nearly happened to me once.

I got a call at work explaining that I was about to be charged for robbing a gas station. The investigating officer called before she got the warrant.

It seems that someone with a truck just like mine, same color nearly not quite, same model and year, and the first three numbers of the plate matched mine. They only got the first three.

The guy filled his gas tank and got a 12 pack of beer. He got irate and left without paying because they couldn’t break a $100 bill. He was drunk.

If that got had shot the clerk I never would have got that call first.

It was in a town 150 miles away that I have never been to, and I was working at the time in happened.

I still had to go home and check to see if someone had stolen my plate. I hadn’t driven that old truck in months, and I had no idea what the plate number was.

My secretary also had to explain to them that I was at work all day. It was a major hassle and got straightened out a few days later when they caught the guy.

I’m sure my only notice would have come from SWAT if the guy had shot someone or robbed a bank.

I’m much rather be stopped for a plate check than have someone drive with my plate.

[MortMan]

It is most certainly a strawman. Your situation was due to a similar vehicle with a similar plate - not a plate stolen from your truck for a similar one.

If the response to a partial plate reference - even with agreeing details on vehicle type - is a SWAT raid, then the issue is still far removed from whether or not we, the people have to justify our existence to police officers over what color is reflected on a record we neither have direct access to or control over.

I’m sorry, but I again have to say I do not see benefit to continuing this discussion, as there are a number of points in your position I find incredible.

Have a good day, FRiend.

[GeronL]

Oh I agree. The judge was correct in judging the cop.

But the guy was still guilty of trafficking drugs, I don’t think 2 wrongs make a right.

Why cannot they both be punished?

[nathanbedford]

I think my reference to the arrest as being indisputably valid had to do with the Supreme Court case, Maryland vs. King (2013).

I agree with your analysis about the necessity for an initial valid arrest and the obvious conclusion that color of auto does not qualify.

So in the Supreme Court case the important issue for me as a conservative is whether the court will permit the accumulation of a databank on individuals arrested (the majority limits it to "serious crimes") which exists somewhere, probably unsecured from further government intrusion, and certainly available for use in other crimes and probably for Obamacare etc.

I think this is a far more dangerous potential than the case-by-case basis of cops finding the fruits or means of a crime "in plain sight" somewhere in an auto because there is a review in every case. There is no review in the databank unless the DNA is used in the crime for which he is arrested. Evidently, DNA can be taken routinely at least from "serious criminals" now.