• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

SCOTUS gets one right

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



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.
Click to expand...

That (first bolded above) assertion does not apply to this case at all. Your desperation is getting rather ridiculous.

There is no right to drive motor vehicles on public roadways (second bolded above). Trying to assert otherwise is also ridiculous.
 
aociswundumho said:
Only if the owner is driving. The owner of a car isn't always the driver.
Click to expand...

And verifying that is why the cop stopped him. What is so hard to understand?
 
aociswundumho said:
That's the problem - there is no other violation.
Click to expand...

So from what i understand something caught the officers attention and he ran the license plate of the car.
The plate came back that the owner of the car had their drivers licenses revoked or suspended.

The Court ruled that was enough to raise reasonable suspicion to pull the car over and i agree.
however this is based soley on Kansas law. so it was a very narrow ruling.
 
ttwtt78640 said:
That (first bolded above) assertion does not apply to this case at all.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. That's what the case is about. The issue is whether the cops can pull over a car that is registered to someone who does not have a valid license:

A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, discovering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover’s driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy pulled the truck over because he assumed that Glover was driving. Glover was in fact driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. He moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, claiming that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion. The District Court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Kansas Supreme Court in turn reversed, holding that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

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

The Kansas Supreme Court got it right.

There is no right to drive motor vehicles on public roadways (second bolded above). Trying to assert otherwise is also ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Why?
 
calamity said:
And verifying that is why the cop stopped him. What is so hard to understand?
Click to expand...

Again, because you are subjecting a person to a police stop even though they did nothing wrong. The fourth amendment is suppose to prevent that.
 
ludin said:
So from what i understand something caught the officers attention and he ran the license plate of the car.
The plate came back that the owner of the car had their drivers licenses revoked or suspended.
Click to expand...

Apparently they just ran the plate:

A Kansas deputy sheriff ran a license plate check on a pickup truck, discovering that the truck belonged to respondent Glover and that Glover’s driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy pulled the truck over because he assumed that Glover was driving. Glover was in fact driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. He moved to suppress all evidence from the stop, claiming that the deputy lacked reasonable suspicion. The District Court granted the motion, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Kansas Supreme Court in turn reversed, holding that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...8-556_e1pf.pdf
Click to expand...

Note the bold part

The Court ruled that was enough to raise reasonable suspicion to pull the car over and i agree.
Click to expand...

Then you support further weakening of the fourth amendment.
 
aociswundumho said:
Apparently they just ran the plate:



Note the bold part



Then you support further weakening of the fourth amendment.
Click to expand...

Yes, when a car is registered to someone with a revoked license, it should be pulled over.

Why is this so hard to understand?
 
aociswundumho said:
Again, because you are subjecting a person to a police stop even though they did nothing wrong. The fourth amendment is suppose to prevent that.
Click to expand...

They are driving a car registered to an unlawful driver. Game, set, match.

That car should not even have a valid plate, IMO.
 
calamity said:
I'm like, "Duh!"



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

I think I'm with you on this.

So long as the stop was immediately terminated if the driver wasn't the owner, had legal access to the vehicle and had a valid license.
 
Rich2018 said:
I think I'm with you on this.

So long as the stop was immediately terminated if the driver wasn't the owner, had legal access to the vehicle and had a valid license.
Click to expand...

Yes, that is the question. What if the driver had been legally licensed but smoking pot or drunk or otherwise breaking a law discovered only after the stop?

I say too bad. Why?

The car itself was not legal. If the license of the owner was revoked, there was no legal reason for the car's plate to still be registered in his name. Maybe, the law should be changed to include terminating the state vehicle registration of all vehicles held by a person no longer having driving privileges.

In my state, a person without a license cannot register a car or get their plates renewed. So, why does that not apply retroactively?
 
calamity said:
Yes, that is the question. What if the driver had been legally licensed but smoking pot or drunk or otherwise breaking a law discovered only after the stop? I say too bad.
Click to expand...

Then just let the cops pull anyone over for any reason they see fit. I can guarantee they will occasionally catch a drunk driver or something else illegal that they otherwise wouldn't have, and if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
 
aociswundumho said:
Then just let the cops pull anyone over for any reason they see fit. I can guarantee they will occasionally catch a drunk driver or something else illegal that they otherwise wouldn't have, and if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
Click to expand...

No, just cars that should not be on the road. If someone else wants to drive the car, let them register it legally.

Simple stuff.
 
calamity said:
I prefer not to share the road with those driving without a license.
Click to expand...

Then you should support allowing the police to pull anyone over for any reason so they can check and make sure the driver of the vehicle has his papers in order.

There's no downside to this, don't you trust the police? It says "to serve and protect" right on their cars.
 
aociswundumho said:
Then you should support allowing the police to pull anyone over for any reason so they can check and make sure the driver of the vehicle has his papers in order.

There's no downside to this, don't you trust the police? It says "to serve and protect" right on their cars.
Click to expand...

I see you missed the key to the stop. I suggest reading the article in the OP.
 
I just skimmed the article but failed to see what was the reason for running the plates in the first place.

What was the reason for the stop?
 
calamity said:
Yes, that is the question. What if the driver had been legally licensed but smoking pot or drunk or otherwise breaking a law discovered only after the stop?

I say too bad. Why?

The car itself was not legal. If the license of the owner was revoked, there was no legal reason for the car's plate to still be registered in his name. Maybe, the law should be changed to include terminating the state vehicle registration of all vehicles held by a person no longer having driving privileges.

In my state, a person without a license cannot register a car or get their plates renewed. So, why does that not apply retroactively?
Click to expand...

?

So if you own a car with the title in your name exclusively (which could be for a myriad of reasons) and your license is revoked your wife shouldn't be driving it?

C'mon use your head.
 
ChezC3 said:
?

So if you own a car with the title in your name exclusively (which could be for a myriad of reasons) and your license is revoked your wife shouldn't be driving it?

C'mon use your head.
Click to expand...

She should re-register it in her name. Yes. But, this was clearly not the case.

If the cop had pulled over a female when the owner with the revoked license was male, the SCOTUS decision on this case would probably have turned out differently. No?
 
aociswundumho said:
Then just let the cops pull anyone over for any reason they see fit. I can guarantee they will occasionally catch a drunk driver or something else illegal that they otherwise wouldn't have, and if it saves just one life, isn't it worth it?
Click to expand...

They do

Have you ever been stopped by the Border patrol, while driving in the USA ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom