Looking for case law

[gdowkpc]

So if I read that decision correctly, p/c IS requireds to make a stop, and dissipation of the p/c requires the stop to end immediately. Any benefit received after the stop is 'fruit of the poisonous tree' and is supressable.

This is also how I understand our training by local DA's here.

This requirement may not be derived out of Oregon law, but out of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution.

[P01IC3M4N]

pc is not required to make a stop. pc is required to take action as in a citation or arrest.

the trooper had suspicion to stop because he did not know which state the plate was from and he believed it to be a violation of the two plate requirement. once he satisfied that suspicion, he said the frame was illegal and it was not. when he satisfied the suspicion on state law violation, he had no more reason to be there and should have at least made the suspect aware that he was free to go. instead, he used the frame as a means to hold him there while he conducted an investigation. he still would have been within a lawful scope checking the validity of the driver license and the insurance. beyond that, it is now a violation of civil rights.

[gdowkpc]

OK...trying to apply this to what we have been taught here, I think it depends on when he knew the plate was illegal.

It is my belief, from all the times I have been to traffic court here (many times), that, at least here in Oregon, an officer would have to have p/c to take any enforcement action. So, if he stopped a car for an illegal license plate, then during the course of the stop discovered that the operator of the car had no valid driving privileges and cited him, he would lose the no op ticket because the p/c for the stop did not exist.

I am going to have to do some research in the Oregon law and see if I can determine why this is the case here. I am reading here in some states it is ok to stop a vehicle on reasonable suspicion of a traffic offense, but they just don't allow it here.

Before anyone jumps my case with cites from federal law, let me delve into Oregon law and see if there is a higher requirement in there.

[jeff92k7]

My thoughts are this: If you spent more time studying your own state's laws, you could find something else to pull them over for without worrying about what other states laws say.

[mcsap]

Whoa Eric, you will pull someone over beause they are a 2 plate state and have only one tag adding the reasoning that since they have one violation , they must have more ? Sounds like a fishing expedition to me. That would be unlawful search and seizure.

If it is a 2 plate state ( like our neighbor Maryland) and they only have one tag , I'll stop and ask where the other tag is. Perhaps it was stolen and they don't know it, perhaps it fell off and they didn't know it , perhaps they have it in the trunk, perhaps they dont have one. I at least can demonstrate that their home state requires 2 tags and although I may not be able to issue a citation , it still is a violation. I will gladly let them pay an attorney to attempt to get them off. Defense attorneys love us for all of the business we give them.

[zander_zye]

Originally posted by EricTheBald
If I was a defense atty, in ANY state, and I had a client that was charged with a serious crime which was discovered during a stop that was based upon a violation of equipment law in a DIFFERENT state, I would fight very hard to have the evidence thrown out as "Fruit of the Poison Tree".

I'd most likely succeed too.


Personally, I run without a front plate all the time.

Time to retake the law class again - you missed something. Although you cannot generally ticket someone for a violation of another states crime, you can use it as PC for a stop. Your defense attorney would tell you that too. The " Fruit of a Poisonous Tree" doctrine would not apply in any manner to the scenerio that you described.

Ahh - the no front license plate deal. Although minor, the 5202CVC violation makes for a good PC stop (I can't count how many car dealers tell their customers in error that they don't need front license plats in CA) --

[barneyfife]

Originally posted by mcsap
I would have NO problem stopping an out of state car that I KNOW requires 2 plates when it only shows one. I may not be able to write a citation but I do have probable cause that a crime is/was being committed.

Since when is a traffic infraction considered a "crime"?

[P01IC3M4N]

Originally posted by barneyfife
Since when is a traffic infraction considered a "crime"?

since they invented cars and put it in the law book. dayum dude, get a clue.