Either they're stupid, or they're stupid
In this state, if you register your car but don't yet have plates for the car, the DMV sometimes gives you temporary proof of registraion in the form of a big sticker with a number corresponding to the month through which the car is registered. (So if a car without plates is driving around with a big "5" in the back window, you know it's been registered through May.)
We've lately had a rash of clients who have been pulled over by police for not having registration tags, even though the big number sticker is clearly displayed in the back window.
In theory, cops have to have some kind of reasonable suspicion or probable cause or something to pull people over. If they have reason to believe that you're speeding or driving a getaway car, fine, but they can't just pull a person over for no reason whatsoever.
But in practice, cops pull people over all the time for being "suspicious looking" (read: dark-skinned or poor white trash-y), then come up with something after the fact to justify the stop. For example, cops often say that a defendant's tail light was out (even when it wasn't) if questioned about why they pulled that person over.
Another favorite is claiming that the defendant's car didn't have a registration sticker. But these cars have proof of registration right there in the back window. So either the cops don't know what a temporary registration looks like, or else the cops just aren't able to come up with a better after-the-fact excuse.
(By the way, this matters because if the cop doesn't have a good reason for having stopped the defendant, any evidence found as a result of that stop must be suppressed. A simple way to think of it is that allowing in evidence that cops got by doing something bogus would only serve to encourage cops to do more bogus things.)
We've lately had a rash of clients who have been pulled over by police for not having registration tags, even though the big number sticker is clearly displayed in the back window.
In theory, cops have to have some kind of reasonable suspicion or probable cause or something to pull people over. If they have reason to believe that you're speeding or driving a getaway car, fine, but they can't just pull a person over for no reason whatsoever.
But in practice, cops pull people over all the time for being "suspicious looking" (read: dark-skinned or poor white trash-y), then come up with something after the fact to justify the stop. For example, cops often say that a defendant's tail light was out (even when it wasn't) if questioned about why they pulled that person over.
Another favorite is claiming that the defendant's car didn't have a registration sticker. But these cars have proof of registration right there in the back window. So either the cops don't know what a temporary registration looks like, or else the cops just aren't able to come up with a better after-the-fact excuse.
(By the way, this matters because if the cop doesn't have a good reason for having stopped the defendant, any evidence found as a result of that stop must be suppressed. A simple way to think of it is that allowing in evidence that cops got by doing something bogus would only serve to encourage cops to do more bogus things.)
posted by P.D. Clerk at 4:54 PM
1 Comments:
Have you ever, at any time in your life, been in a car with a friend who might have been carrying some pot? If you get pulled over in this county and the cops find your buddy's pot, you'd both be in trouble. (Not strictly lawful, but it's what happens.)
I have been in cars with pot-lovers many times and we've never been pulled over for a "broken tail light" or "invalid tags." I bet the story would be different if I were a young African American male driving in a bad neighborhood.
Can you imagine? You're in a car, a cop pulls the car over for no reason, your friend has something illegal, and you get convicted?
Post a Comment
<< Home