Pulled over for "secondary only" offense

[rpm213]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Maryland

Recently, I was pulled over for not having my headlights on while using my windshield wipers. (I have daytime running lights...)

After being pulled over for this offense, it came to light that the car was uninsured.

Here is the windshield wiper/headlight law for my state. The first paragraph does not state that daytime running lights are not satisfactory. There are other states that include this in their law, so I would assume this means they are. Especially considering the provision is "the driver shall light the vehicles headlamps..."

The second paragraph is the one I am interested in though.This one shows that it is only allowed as a secondary offense, therefore I could not be pulled over for only having my headlights off regardless, if I understand that correctly.

"Notwithstanding any other provision of this subtitle, if a driver of a vehicle on a highway operates the vehicle's windshield wipers for a continuous period of time because of impaired visibility resulting from unfavorable atmospheric conditions, the driver shall light the vehicle's headlamps or fog lights"

"(e) A police officer may enforce the provisions of this section only as a secondary action when the police officer detains a driver of a motor vehicle for a suspected violation of another provision of the Code."

Does this work the same way as criminal court? Is the rest of the information thrown out because it was obtained under false pretense?

I know if a search is deemed unconstitutional, any evidence found by the search is thrown out. Does it work the same way in this case?

Since I was pulled over for something that was not illegal, and then something illegal was found, can I fight this?

Thanks in advance to anyone with a moment.

 

[army judge]

Your reasoning is off base. Traffic offenses are not as detrimental to a defendant as criminal offenses. However, your fixation with the use if the word "may" won't fly.

May implies the enforcement is discretionary. It isn't. It often rises to the level of shall. The headlight issue might get kicked. But, you have insurance, or you don't. You had none. Get ready to pay the piper. Lessen the blow by getting insurance before your court date!!!

 

[bluemann33]

Get insurance asap, dmv may also fine you for not having the car insured. Good luck.

 

[mightymoose]

Regarding the wipers, as I read the code it seems you are correct. Maryland only allows for police to cite for the wiper violation as a secondary offense, specifically stating that another primary offense must justify the stop. Assuming there was no other violation you could probably make a decent argument on this point. Also, the code allows for headlights OR fog lights. It does not specifically require headlights. The intent of the law is obviously to have some sort of lighting turned on, which you did, and you could likely still beat that charge.

However, even though the wiper violation requires the other primary offense, you will be on the hook for the insurance violation. This was not an unlawful search as you suggest. As a driver of a vehicle you are required to provide certain information to police upon demand. You can likely get the one offense dismissed, but not the other.

 

[rpm213]

Your reasoning is off base. Traffic offenses are not as detrimental to a defendant as criminal offenses. However, your fixation with the use if the word "may" won't fly.

May implies the enforcement is discretionary. It isn't. It often rises to the level of shall. The headlight issue might get kicked. But, you have insurance, or you don't. You had none. Get ready to pay the piper. Lessen the blow by getting insurance before your court date!!!

It wasn't me using the word 'may, but the state of MD. That is a direct quote from MD law.

So what are you are saying is that, even though the officer stopped me illegally, he has does nothing wrong?

Note: I was only unable to provide proof of insurance. My car was towed because of this. Does it really not matter if the entire traffic stop had no legal basis? I thought that was the point of the law.

 

[mightymoose]

The officer did not stop you illegally.

The officer saw a violation that justified the stop. The officer could have stopped you for the same reason simply to give a warning and tell you to turn your lights on- at which time he could still have lawfully demanded your license and insurance info and issued the insurance citation. The language of the law may help you beat that citation regarding the wipers, but not the insurance. If you do have current insurance and were only lacking the proof, then you can easily get your citation dismissed by providing proof of insurance (at the time of the citation) to the court and pay a small court fee.

Sucks about the tow- we can't tow for lack of insurance here.

 

[rpm213]

Thank you for your response mightymoose, I am just trying to understand how this works and appreciate your time.

So essentially, an officer can pull you over for anything?

If I have daytime running lights, which more then satisfies the 'light the vehicle's headlamps' statement in the law, then the officer did not have any reason to pull me over, even if it was just for a warning.

Could an officer stop a car just to verify the driver had a valid license, even if he had no reason to suspect it? I thought there had to be some basis for a traffic stop.

 

[mightymoose]

A police officer can't stop you for anything. A police officer needs a reason to stop you- in this case it was the wiper violation. The law indicates that the officer can't enforce this (issue a citation) without having another primary offense- but this does not mean that you can't be stopped and advised to turn your lights on for safety reasons and advised of the law.

Again, you have a good argument to make against the wiper issue since you were not initially detained for another violation, but no, you are not going to have the insurance matter tossed so easily. This sounds like it was a lawful stop, and as such you were required to provide license, registration and proof of insurance.

No, an officer can not make a stop just to check the status of license or insurance.

Again- the basis for your stop was the belief that you were in violation of the headlight/wiper requirement.The officer may ultimately be found wrong on that matter, but it won't effect your insurance citation.

I suspect your only chance of avoiding the consequence of the insurance citation is to fight the citation and hope the officer doesn't show up... which is possible, but not likely.