Police Officers Running License Places Through LEADS

[CdwJava]

Ultimately, until there is case law to the contrary in CA, making a stop with articulable, reasonable suspicion based in whole or in part upon the running of a license plate that matches the ID of a driver with a suspended license will be effectively lawful. Since "reasonable suspicion" has no bright line rule, and its evaluation is based upon all of the facts and open to the subjective interpretation of the court, it will continue to be valid if the court says it is valid.

You and I are free to decide whether or not we feel comfortable with making such stops. Like you, I do not. However, if I had to, I would. Likewise, if I see a vehicle moving that is registered to a subject I know to have a warrant, I am going to be stopping that vehicle, too, and under the same theory of reasonable suspicion. There are oodles of case law decisions on registered owners having warrants and that being sufficient to justify a stop, so the same theory applies. And, since CA is required since the old Proposition 8 (1982) to hold to the federal standard for evidence, such a stop will be valid even if in violation of the state Constitution ... again, provided the court buys the reasonable suspicion for the stop.

The case is UNITED STATES v. DIAZ-CASTANEDA ... (
United States v. Diaz-Castaneda (9th Cir. Jul. 18, 2007) 494 F.3d 1146
) it is a 2007 decision from the 9th Circuit out of Portland, OR. The question was thus:

We are presented with a question this court has not yet
resolved: Does a license plate check by a law enforcement
officer that reveals information about a person's car ownership,
driver status and criminal record constitute a search
under the Fourth Amendment? We agree with all the other
courts that have considered the issue that it does not. We
therefore hold that Defendant Ismael Diaz-Castaneda's Fourth
Amendment rights were not violated when a Clackamas
County Deputy Sheriff stopped the truck in which Diaz-
Castaneda was a passenger, asked him for identification and
checked his driver's license or Oregon identification card with
radio dispatch. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's
denial of Diaz-Castaneda's motion to suppress.

And the conclusion was this ...

We hold that a license plate check does not constitute a
Fourth Amendment search. We also hold that none of
Helzer's actions after the license plate check — stopping
Diaz's truck, requesting Diaz-Castaneda's identification and
checking Diaz-Castaneda's driver's license or Oregon ID card
with radio dispatch — violated the Fourth Amendment.
Because there was no Fourth Amendment violation we do not
reach the issue of whether Diaz-Castaneda's identity should
be suppressed.

As I said previously, the stopping officer affirmed that the driver appeared to match the general description of the registered owner, but since reasonable suspicion is a subjective foundation nothing is to say that a court would be okay with something less? Or even no driver description at all?

Like I said, our opinions aside as to whether this is a good idea or meets the level of reasonable suspicion is moot as courts have already ruled that it does. Until controlling case law exists that forbids it, courts are free to evaluate reasonable suspicion on the individual merits of the circumstances and to apply their own subjective opinions to the interpretation of the law. If I were a judge I might be more inclined to accept it as a reasonable argument than you would be. If it were otherwise, then there would be no reason for judges, would there?

- Carl

 

[CdwJava]

In fact, here is the legal opinion of the San Diego County DA when applying Diaz-Castaneda:

It is not a search to randomly check license plates that are
otherwise visible to an officer, and to check law
enforcement databases for information about that vehicle.
Discovering that a vehicle's registered owner has a
suspended license, and noting that the observed driver
resembles the physical description of the registered owner,
stopping the car to check the driver's license status is
lawful. (United States v. Diaz-Castaneda (9th Cir. 2007)
494 F.3rd 1146, 1150-1152.)

Note that even the San Diego DA keys on the resemblance issue. To me, that would constitute reasonable suspicion more so than just appearing to be of the same gender or not seeing the driver at all. But, while I am not comfortable with it, I have seen courts go with RS for less than a match to the driver.

- Carl

 

[mightymoose]

There is ample case law - including one from the 9th that I linked before - that says that they ARE lawful with proper articulation pursuant to the law.

Ok... I got through that link and read a bit (US v Diaz-Casteneda). Right at the beginning in the background section it gives us the deputiy's probable cause statement:

As Helzer (the deputy) testified, "[t]he registered owner matched the description of the driver of the vehicle. And that was my probable cause."​

The deputy had more than just the computer info. He had made an observation to support his suspicion and THEN made the stop. The ruling makes note of this on page 8707.

 

[CdwJava]

Ok... I got through that link and read a bit (US v Diaz-Casteneda). Right at the beginning in the background section it gives us the deputiy's probable cause statement:

As Helzer (the deputy) testified, "[t]he registered owner matched the description of the driver of the vehicle. And that was my probable cause."​

The deputy had more than just the computer info. He had made an observation to support his suspicion and THEN made the stop. The ruling makes note of this on page 8707.

Yep.

Like I said, that's how I would feel more comfortable with it. But, as RS is subjective and based upon the totality of the circumstances, less confirmation can come into play (and has) and can still be considered RS.

Perhaps one can say that RS is sometimes little more than an educated guess.

- Carl

 

[mightymoose]

Note that even the San Diego DA keys on the resemblance issue. To me, that would constitute reasonable suspicion more so than just appearing to be of the same gender or not seeing the driver at all. But, while I am not comfortable with it, I have seen courts go with RS for less than a match to the driver.

- Carl

That is the major difference in the question asked by the original poster. In his situation there was no observation coupled with the suspension info. I find it significant that these rulings make note of the observations made prior to the stop. Without the observation it is not reasonable to assume the R/O is the driver.

Warrants are different. Making a stop to make an arrest on a warrant is not at all the same as stopping to check license status (which is specifically prohibited).

Dunno 'bout you, but I think this is pretty much beaten to death :yawn:

 

[CdwJava]

That is the major difference in the question asked by the original poster. In his situation there was no observation coupled with the suspension info. I find it significant that these rulings make note of the observations made prior to the stop. Without the observation it is not reasonable to assume the R/O is the driver.

The determination of reasonableness is one for the court, not for us. There is no bright line rule here that says that if you have A and B then C results. reasonable suspicion is based upon the totality o fthe circumstances and the subjective evaluation of the court based upon the court's biases and interpretation of the law.

Warrants are different. Making a stop to make an arrest on a warrant is not at all the same as stopping to check license status (which is specifically prohibited).

Same thing - you're fishing based upon the owner of a registered vehicle. To paraphrase your previous argument, how do you know the driver is not a friend or family member of the wanted suspect? Same thing.,

And, again, while a stop based on nothing else but to check the status of the driver is unlawful per CVC14607.6, making a detention of person you reasonably believe to be driving on a suspended license is not.

Dunno 'bout you, but I think this is pretty much beaten to death :yawn:

Pretty much.

- Carl

 

[jharris352]

Arizona v Grant? I'll have to read that. So they finally fixed the BS problems they made with NY v Belton! Thanks for the info.

 

[CdwJava]

Arizona v Grant? I'll have to read that. So they finally fixed the BS problems they made with NY v Belton! Thanks for the info.

Arizona vs. Grant really won't change much. All it does is clarify the obvious. And if a driver is arrested from a vehicle, and the vehicle is subject to impound as a result, it can still be inventoried (searched) prior to said impound.

All it will do is clarify that one cannot go on a fishing expedition and search a car for contraband or evidence if the driver is arrested for a traffic violation.

- Carl

 

[mightymoose]

The determination of reasonableness is one for the court, not for us.

Yes, the court can determine the reasonableness, but the Vehicle Code indicates the stop is not to be made. Even in the case history you've been providing, in each circumstance an observation of the driver was made that matched a description. It was not a stop of an unknown to verify license status, it was a stop of an unknown who matched a description which gave the officer reason to believe they were the person in question.

Same thing - you're fishing based upon the owner of a registered vehicle. To paraphrase your previous argument, how do you know the driver is not a friend or family member of the wanted suspect? Same thing.,

It is not the same thing. The vehicle code says that police are not to make a vehicle stop for the purpose of determining license status. It does not say that police are not to make a vehicle stop to serve an arrest warrant. Maybe the person in the car isn't the right person, but the reason for the stop was different.

And, again, while a stop based on nothing else but to check the status of the driver is unlawful per CVC14607.6, making a detention of person you reasonably believe to be driving on a suspended license is not.

True, but you could not detain a person on reasonable belief that they have a suspended license unless you actually made an observation of that person doing so.

 

[mightymoose]

Arizona v Grant? I'll have to read that. So they finally fixed the BS problems they made with NY v Belton! Thanks for the info.

Arizona v Grant has a significant loophole.

The ruling provides that police can only search a vehicle incident to arrest if the suspect has access to the vehicle, or if the vehicle contains evidence that is related to the arrest.

The practice has commonly been that once the arrest is made, whatever the violation, the car was searchable.

Under the new ruling, if a driver is arrested for a warrant, or even say DUI, the vehicle would not be searchable unless there was something in plain view such as open containers or other contraband.

Normally we might search that car simply due to the arrest and find the gun under the seat, the crack pipe between the seats, or the dead body in the trunk... but Grant now limits that.

The loophole is in the tow. If, after the arrest, the vehicle is to be towed, an inventory of the contents of the vehicle is allowed. That is where we then find the goodies.

 

[CdwJava]

Yes, the court can determine the reasonableness, but the Vehicle Code indicates the stop is not to be made. Even in the case history you've been providing, in each circumstance an observation of the driver was made that matched a description. It was not a stop of an unknown to verify license status, it was a stop of an unknown who matched a description which gave the officer reason to believe they were the person in question.

The CVC indicates that the stop is not to be made solely to check - to go fishing, without any other articulated suspicion. It does not say that an officer cannot make a stop based upon reasonable suspicion. If a court says that the officer had sufficient reasonable suspicion, then it is so. I have witnessed cases that have done this and was a witness in a homicide trial that survived this very issue upon appeal, so I know it can be done. Such stops are still being made in CA and elsewhere with some regularity. I am not arguing their propriety, only that they are being done and such stops are passing judicial scrutiny. Whether we concur with such a finding is irrelevant as it seems to be permitted ... given sufficient articulated reasonable suspicion that criminal activity was afoot.

It is not the same thing. The vehicle code says that police are not to make a vehicle stop for the purpose of determining license status. It does not say that police are not to make a vehicle stop to serve an arrest warrant. Maybe the person in the car isn't the right person, but the reason for the stop was different.

Both are based upon the same level of reasonable suspicion.

Note again the standard of "reasonable suspicion" in California:

For an investigative stop or detention to be valid, you must have "reasonable suspicion" that: (1) criminal activity may be afoot and (2) the person you are about to detain is connected with that possible criminal activity. (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119; Ornelas (1996) 517 U.S. 690, 695-696; Sokolow (1989) 490 U.S. 1, 7-8; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 386.)

To establish "reasonable suspicion," both the quality and quantity of the information you need is considerably less than the "probable cause" you need to arrest or search. (White (1990) 496 U.S. 325, 330; Bennett (1998) 17 Cal.4th 373, 387; Johnson (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 1, 11.) "'[R]easonable suspicion' is a less demanding standard than probable cause and requires a showing considerably less than preponderance of the evidence. . . ." (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123; Arvizu (2002) 534 U.S. 266, 274.)

A detention can never be based solely on a hunch, rumor, intuition, instinct, or curiosity. (Wardlow (2000) 528 U.S. 119, 123-124; Tony C. (1978) 21 Cal.3d 888; Raybourn (1990) 218 Cal.App.3d 308.) Rather, you must have specific facts justifying your suspicion and you must be able to articulate these to a court. The court will then decide if these facts--based on the "totality of circumstances" including your training and experience--were enough to make your suspicion objectively reasonable. (Wright (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1107; Lloyd (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 724, 733.)​

If this standard can be met, then the stop is lawful. If the officer can NOT sufficiently articulate this to the court then NO detention is lawful.

True, but you could not detain a person on reasonable belief that they have a suspended license unless you actually made an observation of that person doing so.

I don't know. But, while I do not agree with a stop made without at least matching the gender (though at night any such match may be difficult and one would have to rely more heavily on facts other than a match of the driver) the fact remains that these stops do happen and they are ruled as lawful.

Look, we're going in circles. You may not feel comfortable with stops based largely upon the R/O information, I may not feel comfortable with stops based largely on the R/O information, but the fact of the matter is that there are cases that DO permit it. And, until or unless there is case law to the contrary that prohibits a detention based solely upon the R/O being suspended or unlicensed, the detention will be based upon the articulated reasonable suspicion of the officer and evaluated in light of the circumstances at the time of the detention just as ANY and ALL other detentions would be. If insufficient, the detention is invalid ... if sufficient, the detention is valid. This is like arguing whether or not we agree with warrantless arrests in spite of the Bill of Rights saying that no arrest will occur without a warrant ... the fact of the matter is that the courts have ruled such arrests lawful, regardless of whether you, or I, or some loon on the fringe believes them to be unlawful. Currently, such detentions can and often are perfectly lawful even under such arguably weak suspicion.

- Carl

 

[Hideoutcabins]

Seems as though the issue is rather or not the officer had the authority to run a 28 29 check on a vehicle plate for no reason at all. Well, here in arkansas, that would technically be prohibited by statute without an associated suspect nature or other concern. However, suspect nature can be such a simple matter as it's 2:am and the bars just closed so they are checking for potential dui's......any justifiable cause can be noted on the report.

 

[CdwJava]

Unless prohibited by statute, the courts have very clearly indicated that running a 29 or 29 is not a search. But, states can establish stricter standards and require some good cause to run a plate. I seem to recall their being a couple of states that have that standard, though I cannot recall off hand which ones they might be.

This topic has come up annually on this and other sites and it has been a surpries to occasionally find some states that have what I would think are peculiar laws. Like, when I recently found that it was Rhode Island, I believe, that does not permit a non-consensual blood draw, and if I recall correctly, they cannot even seek a warrant for such a draw under most circumstances. So, it is hard to establish a universal truth in the law based upon any particular state's way of doing things.

- Carl

 

[mightymoose]

This is like arguing whether or not we agree with warrantless arrests in spite of the Bill of Rights saying that no arrest will occur without a warrant

I get your point.... but I'm pretty sure that isn't in the Bill of Rights. Not quite like that anyway.

Yes, very circular at this point. In the end, I think if the original poster argues the point he can probably get reimbursed for the tow. There was no violation, no citation, and according to him he had no knowledge of the suspension. Without a prior violation for driving unlicensed/suspended, the tow of his vehicle really was unnecessary.

 

[CdwJava]

There are people who point to the 4th Amendment and make just such an argument (about an arrest warrant being required). These tend to be the Freeman, people who believe a flag with gold fringe is an "admiralty" flag and thus proves they have no jurisdiction, and associated sorts, but they point to the 4th Amendment nonetheless.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

They grasp at the issue of the person being seized and some of the language found in isolated papers and documents - including the Federalist Papers - to support such a broad claim.

Just an illustration of how an argument can be made, and how people can disagree, but that things are done a certain way in spite of what some of us might think or want to see.

As for the tow, as I am completely unfamiliar with his state's towing laws, I cannot say what might happen if he contests the tow.

- Carl