SCOTUS gets one right

[calamity]

I'm like, "Duh!"

The Supreme Court on Monday held that Kansas law enforcement was justified in pulling over a Kansas man for a traffic stop after learning that the registered owner of the vehicle had his license revoked by the state, even though the officers did not know who was driving.

The opinion was 8-1 and it reversed a lower court opinion.

Kansas law enforcement was justified in stopping vehicle after learning the owner's license was revoked, Supreme Court says - CNNPolitics

Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

 

[Linc]

As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.

 

[calamity]

As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.

That would be correct

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm like, "Duh!"



Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

Maybe, but this was a very narrow ruling. Suppose that vehicle had been towing a trailer registered to someone without a DL or who had a suspended/revoked DL - is that still "reasonable suspicion"? So long as LEO database check 'possibilities' in general (house is listed as the address of a convicted felon) are not used to allow police to 'check out what is going on inside it', I'm fine with the ruling.

 

[calamity]

Maybe, but this was a very narrow ruling. Suppose that vehicle had been towing a trailer registered to someone without a DL or who had a suspended/revoked DL - is that still "reasonable suspicion"? So long as LEO database check 'possibilities' in general (house is listed as the address of a convicted felon) are not used to allow police to 'check out what is going on inside it', I'm fine with the ruling.

Yes, the ruling is narrow, and limits stops to licenses of vehicle's owner being revoked or suspended. However, I am sure, some cops will push that boundary. They always do.

 

[aociswundumho]

I just looked it up, there are over 7 million people with suspended licenses for unpaid traffic tickets and court debts and now any car registered in their name can be pulled over for no reason whatsoever regardless of who is driving.

For once I agree with La Raza:

In fact, it is the majority’s approach that makes scant policy sense. If the State need not set forth all the information its officers considered before forming suspicion, what conceivable evidence could be used to mount an effective challenge to a vehicle stop, as the concurrence imagines? Who could meaningfully interrogate an officer’s action when all the officer has to say is that the vehicle was registered to an unlicensed driver?

...

The majority today has paved the road to finding reasonable suspicion based on nothing more than a demographic profile. Its logic has thus made the State's task all but automatic. That has never been the law, and it never should be.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf

The main purpose of police today is to extract revenue from the populace and to harass minorities. This decision will definitely help the police, and it makes the country less free. Gun owners should take notice how the state will use any kind of licensing as a weapon against you.

 

[jotathought]

I'm like, "Duh!"



Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

This is good news .. thanks for sharing.

 

[jotathought]

As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.

The executive branch attempted to change the voting date and doesn't have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court was only confirming this..

 

[swing_voter]

I'm like, "Duh!"



Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

The only justice who opposed it was Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She's a real piece of work.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I just looked it up, there are over 7 million people with suspended licenses for unpaid traffic tickets and court debts and now any car registered in their name can be pulled over for no reason whatsoever regardless of who is driving.

For once I agree with La Raza:



The main purpose of police today is to extract revenue from the populace and to harass minorities. This decision will definitely help the police, and it makes the country less free. Gun owners should take notice how the state will use any kind of licensing as a weapon against you.

I fail to see a problem with LEO's stopping suspected unlicensed drivers who were operating vehicles on public roadways. Had the resulting arrest/ticket been for some unrelated matter (like illegal gun possession or failure to pay child support) the court may well have ruled differently.

 

[ecofarm]

I just looked it up, there are over 7 million people with suspended licenses for unpaid traffic tickets and court debts and now any car registered in their name can be pulled over for no reason whatsoever regardless of who is driving.

The owner's license was revoked, not suspended, "AOC is one dumb whore".

OP citation:

"Given that revocations in Kansas nearly always stem from serious or repeated driving violations, I agree with the Court about the reasonableness of the officer's inference," she wrote. "A person with a revoked license has already shown an willingness to flout driving restrictions." She noted that Kansas and many other states suspend licenses for matters having nothing to do with road safety, such as failing to pay parking tickets, court fees or child support.

 

[Crovax]

I'm like, "Duh!"



Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

The SCOTUS usually does get it right

 

[Crovax]

I'm like, "Duh!"



Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.

The SCOTUS usually does get it right

 

[aociswundumho]

I fail to see a problem with LEO's stopping suspected unlicensed drivers who were operating vehicles on public roadways.

Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.

 

[calamity]

The SCOTUS usually does get it right

hardly ever, IMO.

 

[calamity]

Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.

That's what they aim to find out by stopping it.

Duh

 

[aociswundumho]

The owner's license was revoked, not suspended, "AOC is one dumb whore".

Doesn't matter. You either have a valid license or you don't, and if you don't any car registered to you can be pulled over for that reason alone.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.

True, in which case they would not get charged with driving while revoked. Driving on pubic roadways is a state issued privilege thus no right had been violated in making that traffic stop or subsequent arrest.

This is no different than a game warden asking someone who is seen fishing to show them their fishing license.

 

[aociswundumho]

That's what they aim to find out by stopping it.

Duh

If the person driving has a valid license, then he did absolutely nothing wrong, and pulling him over violates his fourth amendment rights.

 

[ludin]

As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.

No they got that right as well.

 

[ecofarm]

Doesn't matter.

That's dumb, "AOC is one dumb whore".

 

[Linc]

The executive branch attempted to change the voting date and doesn't have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court was only confirming this..

How did other states change their voting dates?

 

[aociswundumho]

True, in which case they would not get charged with driving while revoked. Driving on pubic roadways is a state issued privilege thus no right had been violated in making that traffic stop or subsequent arrest.

The rights violation is being pulled over for doing absolutely nothing wrong.

Driving on pubic roadways is a state issued privilege

Well, that's the problem. It's a case where a right is being treated like a privilege. If you support idea that using a public road is a state-granted privilege, then you should have no problem with licensing bicycle riders who wish to use public roads as well.

 

[ludin]

Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.

In which they will be let go or given a warning for the violation that caused them to stop in the first place.
if you are driving someone else's car then whatever they have done you can be pulled over for if police
happen to be looking for that car.

just as you can be held responsible for whatever they have in that car.

 

[aociswundumho]

In which they will be let go or given a warning for the violation that caused them to stop in the first place.

That's the problem - there is no other violation.