reasonable suspicion

[arod]

Jurisdiction

Minnesota

I was pulled over for no license.. the vehicle I was driving is registered to my father in law.. my name is not on the title period.. I didn't commit any crimes while driving and the officer pursued me for about 7 blocks making several turns, then pulls me over at my destination, after I've already turned off and exited the vehicle, for no license.. the reason he he was suspicious of me not having a license was due to other encounters with that officer.. does our previous encounters of him checking my I.D. constitute reasonable suspicion?

 

[army judge]

I was pulled over for no license.. the vehicle I was driving is registered to my father in law.. my name is not on the title period.. I didn't commit any crimes while driving and the officer pursued me for about 7 blocks making several turns, then pulls me over at my destination, after I've already turned off and exited the vehicle, for no license.. the reason he he was suspicious of me not having a license was due to other encounters with that officer.. does our previous encounters of him checking my I.D. constitute reasonable suspicion?

Past encounters with the officer absolutely does allow him or her to stop you, especially if he or she knows something is amiss about you.

That said, an officer doesn't need to have a reason to stop you, contrary to popular myth and misconception.

 

[arod]

Past encounters with the officer absolutely does allow him or her to stop you, especially if he or she knows something is amiss about you.

That said, an officer doesn't need to have a reason to stop you, contrary to popular myth and misconception.

Thats quite contrary to evrything ive researched on the subject.. and what exactly is amiss about someone driving.. close to a year since our last encounter i very well could have gotten my license since our last encounter.. where's the reasonable suspicion... other than a whim that possibly I didn't get my license, which obviously doesn't fit the definition of reasonable suspicion.. I smell bs

 

[army judge]

Thats quite contrary to evrything ive researched on the subject.. and what exactly is amiss about someone driving.. close to a year since our last encounter i very well could have gotten my license since our last encounter.. where's the reasonable suspicion... other than a whim that possibly I didn't get my license, which obviously doesn't fit the definition of reasonable suspicion.. I smell bs

If that's the argument you plan to make before the court, good luck.

 

[Highwayman]

If you wish to pursue that then I would say that it is not a do-it-yourself matter. You need an attorney.

 

[ElleMD]

But you were breaking the law. And it sounds like this isn't the first time. Driving without a license is illegal and if this officer had knowledge that you have previously driven without one, that is a valid and legal reason to pull you over and check. Had you actually done what you seem to think the officer should have assumed you would have done, there would be no problem.

 

[adjusterjack]

and what exactly is amiss about someone driving.. close to a year since our last encounter i very well could have gotten my license since our last encounter.. where's the reasonable suspicion... other than a whim that possibly I didn't get my license, which obviously doesn't fit the definition of reasonable suspicion.

According to you it doesn't. But not according to the MN Supreme Court in the following explanation:

A limited investigative stop is lawful if the state can show the officer to have had a "particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." U.S. v. Cortez, 449 U.S. 411, 417-18, 101 S. Ct. 690, 695, 66 L. Ed. 621 (1981). A brief investigatory stop requires only reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, rather than probable cause. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 1880, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). An actual violation of the vehicle and traffic laws need not be detectable. The police must only show that the stop was not the product of mere whim, caprice or idle curiosity, but was based upon "specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion." Terry, 392 U.S. at 21, 88 S. Ct. at 1880.

State of Minnesota, petitioner, Appellant, vs. John Keith Pike, Respondent.

The case is not similar to yours but the explanation is what counts.

Police officer: "I recognized Arod when he drove by me. I remembered him from previous occasions when he did not have a driver license. I pulled him over to determine if he currently had a driver license."

Certainly a set of "articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion."

I don't think you have any 4th amendment defense.