Looking for case law

[vadep]

I'm trying to find some case law concerning out-of-state vehicle/registration violations.

For example, Virginia is a 2 plate state; a license plate must be displayed on both the front and rear of the vehicle. Failure to display both tags is a primary offense.

Let's say an officer on patrol in North Carolina (which is a 1 plate state) observes a vehicle displaying only 1 Virginia tag, and he is aware that Virginia is a 2 plate state. Does this amount to reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle?

Anybody know of any case concerning situations like this?

Personally, I carry a list of 2 plate states in my car. I think failure to display both plates amounts to reasonable suspicion, and can articulate it any number of ways, but I haven't been able to locate any substantial case law one way or the other....

Any thoughts?

[mcsap]

I think your question may better be asked by the following...can you write an out-of-state car for that vehicles home state violation ? Sure VA is a two tag state , PA is not. There is NO provision in PA to enforce a VA law. If another state requires a stste inspection and you come into PA with it expired, we have no enforcement. Expired tags we can handle.

[vadep]

I'm not concerned about "writing it", my question is whether it amounts to reasonable suspicion to stop the vehicle....

[Norm357]

I don't know how kosher it is, but it has been done in Ga. I will try to get more info.
Norm


After a conversation with my better half, she says you can use that as PC to make the traffic stop. At least here in GA..
Norm

[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.

Of course, it would cost my client a LOT of money since those cases are practically never won at the trial level.


Personally, I run without a front plate all the time.
I don't worry though, because I don't do anything wrong enough to care if I get pulled over.
Plus, I'm a middle aged white guy driving a subaru station wagon.
In other words, invisible.

[vadep]

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.

I don't follow your logic, how exactly is this fruit of the poisonous tree? Bad stop? Then why is it a bad stop?

[gdowkpc]

Off the topic for a moment, do you mean probable cause to stop the car? In Oregon, probable cause is required to stop a car.

Oregon is a 2 plate state. Neighboring California and Washington are 2 plate states. I don't know about Idaho.

Since Oregon requires 2 plates and Washington is 2 plates, I can write a Washington vehicle in Oregon for only having 1 plate. However, if a vehicle was from a 1-state plate, I could not write them. I have seen vehicles with only a rear Kansas, Vermont, or Arkansas plate recenlty. If I stopped one and found all kinds of contraband, using the lack of a front plate as p/c, and it turns out those states are 1 plate states, I think I lose the p/c and therefore the search, even if consentaul (dissipation and beyond good faith).

Basically, we actually have a written law that allows vehicles registered in other states to have reciprocity of non-moving type violations while in Oregon. This would include window tinting, clearance, license plate covers, tire width, etc. The reciprocity does not extend to insurance laws.

This isn't so much a matter of case law, but a matter of written law. The state doesn't want to reduce commerce and tourism because the vacationign car isn't within Oregon law, but completely legal in its home state.

Example, red bug deflectors are illegal in California, but completely legal in Oregon. Is it fair that Joe Farmer gets an equipment ticket when travelling through the state?

[Lfpdlieu302]

thats a tuffy!! i think you really really really need to be up to date on the specific law you would be trying to "enforce". i would further add that i dont think that would give you any reasonable suspicion for stop. you would basically be trying to enforce a law from a different state. if the vehicle from the differnent state is on a journey thru yours, i dont think you would have reasonable suspc.

[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. I think a Def attorney could TRY the poisonous fruit excuse but I can show in black and white that it is a violation. Probable Cause is just that, I have to be able to show that a crime is PROBABLY being committed, not actually being committed.

Just because I can't write a ticket doesn't mean I can't stop them. What if the tag was stolen and they didn't know it ? I am just being a kind officer to help let them know.

I don't mind letting somebody spend their money on a defense attorney who is trying to weasle their way out of a good catch.

[Hightower]

The only thing that I would add to the conversation is...

We don't need Probable Cause to stop a vehicle. All I need to have is reasonable suspicion. All I have to show is that I suspect that something is illegal. I of course would have to be able to articulate it in court or in my report. I can always say that through may experience or through my training, I know that illegal drug couriers often have only one license plate on their vehicle.

Hightower

[gdowkpc]

This issue always messes me up. It must be that the Oregon constitution requires p/c to stop a vehicle here, because that is definately the standard.

[tcsd1236]

Originally posted by gdowkpc
This issue always messes me up. It must be that the Oregon constitution requires p/c to stop a vehicle here, because that is definately the standard.

The state constitution specifically names trafic stops as requiring PC? Did they leave anything out when they wrote it, like the ktchen sink?

[EricTheBald]

Originally posted by vadep
I don't follow your logic, how exactly is this fruit of the poisonous tree? Bad stop? Then why is it a bad stop?

Look, I don't have any doubt that traffic citations are routinely written that should never have been, based on the law.
I also have no doubt that most of those tickets lead to guilty pleas or convictions in spite of the fact that they should have been tossed on original jurisdiction.

However, state "A" does not have the legal authority to enforce the laws of state "B" unless there is a specific law that gives them that specific jurisdiction.

Something to the effect that any vehicles traveling through the state that are in violation of their home state's laws will also be considered to be in violation of the local law.

NY's V&T code, section 250 gives a good example of how a state deals with this issue.

Now, we all know as a practical matter, any cop can pretty much pull over any vehicle as long as he can come up with a plausible sounding reason why the stop was necessary.

BUT...
If the basis for your stop is something that is not actually illegal in your jurisdiction then the defense atty is going to say:

"Hey man...
My client never shoulda been stopped in the first place because the reason given by the officer isn't something that's a violation of state law.
SO, anything illegal found as a RESULT of that stop should be thrown out because it never would have been discovered if the cop hadn't made the illegal stop."

And as far as that stuff about "It's my experience that most drug runners don't use front plates.", any lawyer who can't shoot THAT down should be disbarred.
It's too big a causitive reach.


Now, on the FLIP side, there is a good way to do this. (For instance.)

"I pulled Mr Smith over because he was missing a front plate. While it is true that his vehicle is registered out of state, Mr Smith's state is a "two plate" state and it's been my experience that a car with ONE equipment violation often has several, so I decided to pull him over and do a safety check.
It was my intention to see whether or not his turn signals and brake lights worked and if they did to let him go on his way."
At this point, any of the usual "plain sight" excuses would work.
Odor of pot, driver unusually nervous, whatever.

But trying to draw a direct line from missing front plate all the way to drug runner without any intermediate steps...

Hell, even I could beat that and I'm not even a lawyer.

[gdowkpc]

Originally posted by tcsd1236
The state constitution specifically names trafic stops as requiring PC? Did they leave anything out when they wrote it, like the ktchen sink?

I doubt its specific...but Oregon likes to afford way more rights to the people than what is afforded by interpretations of the US Constitution. For instance...habeus corpus here is 48 hours instead of 72.

And maybe you remember when Portland Police wouldn't interview possible terrorists in Oregon becasue the scope of the questions to be asked were in violation of state law.

To hear that resonable suspicion is all that is required in other states is new to me...simply because I thought that everyone was the same there.

But, that would explain why we cannot cite someone for a violation if we didn't actually see the violation, unless the information is transmitted by another officer. The exception is if there has been a collision. Then a full traffic investigation with diagram and measurements must be completed before a citation before a moving violation can be issed.

Oregon is a very strange state.

[P01IC3M4N]

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...-51007-cr0.pdf