Thread: Good/Bad PC for car stop

Don't know if this is a California specific question but here it goes. Car has a DMV red number affixed to the vehicle where the rear license plate should be. Good PC for the stop? I can't find it anywhere and i've gotten 50/50 good and bad PC.

I'm not sure what the official name of the number is, but it's normally used when a car fails smog and the owner is given an extention.

Good stop... Those tags are often used well beyond their expiration date as well as taken from one car and used on a totally different one. The number on the tag is supposed to correspond with the month it is valid through. So right now you're probably seeing a lot of "9" tags showing the temp registration is good through Sept.

Now if you run the license plate through CLETS you'll find it still shows it is expired. It may show "Registration in Progress" or some other information, but you have no way of knowing the tag is for that vehicle unless you can get up close to it and examine it.

I have stopped many cars that showed a valid temp tag only to find out they were issued *1 or MORE years prior*. In some other instances I have seen cars with a small white "temp reg" taped to the front window or rear window... Stopped the car only to find what looked like a temp reg was actually a blank piece of paper.

I'm sure some will argue saying a this logic would say you had the right to stop ANY vehicle to check on a current reg sticker actually affixed to the license plate. My response to that would be... When you run a license plate with a current tag displayed and it comes back expired... Wouldn't you stop it then as well? No difference between that and a temp tag in the window... Speaking of that.... I have stopped several cars with current registration tabs affixed to the license plate. Sometimes it takes DMV several days to update the CLETS database and it still shows expired even though it is not. That's when someone shows you their newly printed registration and goes on their way.

Kahuna

I liked your question and it made me think of another one. I was under the impression you needed reasonable suspicion to detain someone or to stop a vehicle, not PC. The investigative detention would allow an LEO to develop the PC, which, as we all know, is the standard for an arrest. So which is it, PC or RS? If the standard is PC, then perhaps a vocabulary change, when talking about T-stops, should be considered.

Stanimal is correct, the standard is reasonable suspicion; not probable cause for a vehicle stop.

we need PC to stop a person or a vehicle..........the violation of a motorvehicle state statute (i.e. registration like violations) is pc for a stop........totality of circumstances + PC+ carrol doctrine= may give you enough to search the vehicle.............stoping a vehicle for a traffic violation and then searching it without consent, totality of circumstances + PC+ carrol doctrine or a search warrant will result in a bad search............

I know this doesn't answer your question but it should be clarified. Reasonable suspicion is all you need for a stop or getting out with someone walking down the road. You can’t stop them because “I had a hunch” but you can stop for suspicious activity. It needs to be articulated. Furthermore, you cannot arrest solely on RS, you'll need PC.

just a side note, "PC" is used as jargon when discussing this kind of stuff. "Develop your own PC for the stop" etc etc

when I am on the PD Radio talking to a marked unit, as my target leaves a stash house, it is easier to tell him "Unit 101, develop your own PC for the stop on that vehicle" which 99% of the officers know what it means. It is harder for me to say "Develp your own Reasonable Suspicison" on the radio. We might have briefed to "don't just stop it" but "observe a traffic violation." This is usually coming from the prosecutor on the case, not a bunch of agents.

legally most of us know that RS is all we need, for a "stop", which legally defined is a temporary detention caused by law enforcement action (overhead light bars, etc).

If a traffic violation is observed, then that satisfies all legal criteria for a stop and it can be made, even if it is a pretext stop and the officer wants to search for drugs since the vehicle was leaving a stash house. He observes a expired license plate, then he is fully authorized to stop the vehicle. The STOP was legal. Any consensual activity from that point on is good to go. If the K-9 makes a good STOP, then the dog hits on the car immediately following the stop, then all the better. But the original STOP was legal.

He COULD stop it based on RS since it "left a possible stash house" and is suspicious, but the stop COULD be thrown out (bye bye case) in the 9th district or some liberal court room.

If he waits for one (or multiple) traffic violations to occur, in his presence and the presence of other officers (seals the case even better), then the stop is 100% good to go.

some departments/agencies may have higher thresholds due to internal regulations, but as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Reasonable Suspicion is all you need.

hope this muddies the waters completely!

PC definition:
"PC exist when the facts and circumstances known to the officer will warrant a prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect committed the crime" there is a fine line between RS and PC, however, whenever you're operating under the scope of your authority and you can articulate your actions, it will be safe to assume that the said actions were valid in accordance with the law and agency policy..........

Originally Posted by g6445v

PC definition:
"PC exist when the facts and circumstances known to the officer will warrant a prudent man to believe that a crime has been committed and that the suspect committed the crime" there is a fine line between RS and PC, however, whenever you're operating under the scope of your authority and you can articulate your actions, it will be safe to assume that the said actions were valid in accordance with the law and agency policy..........

good points...which is why, in my experience, the prosecutors all want bona-fide traffic violations/etc to occur prior to the stop. All the articulating RS in front of the jury/criminal defense team/judge is no longer needed

Originally Posted by satpak77

All the articulating RS in front of the jury/criminal defense team/judge is no longer needed

Can you expand on this????......

Originally Posted by satpak77

just a side note, "PC" is used as jargon when discussing this kind of stuff. "Develop your own PC for the stop" etc etc

when I am on the PD Radio talking to a marked unit, as my target leaves a stash house, it is easier to tell him "Unit 101, develop your own PC for the stop on that vehicle" which 99% of the officers know what it means. It is harder for me to say "Develp your own Reasonable Suspicison" on the radio. We might have briefed to "don't just stop it" but "observe a traffic violation." This is usually coming from the prosecutor on the case, not a bunch of agents.

legally most of us know that RS is all we need, for a "stop", which legally defined is a temporary detention caused by law enforcement action (overhead light bars, etc).

If a traffic violation is observed, then that satisfies all legal criteria for a stop and it can be made, even if it is a pretext stop and the officer wants to search for drugs since the vehicle was leaving a stash house. He observes a expired license plate, then he is fully authorized to stop the vehicle. The STOP was legal. Any consensual activity from that point on is good to go. If the K-9 makes a good STOP, then the dog hits on the car immediately following the stop, then all the better. But the original STOP was legal.

He COULD stop it based on RS since it "left a possible stash house" and is suspicious, but the stop COULD be thrown out (bye bye case) in the 9th district or some liberal court room.

If he waits for one (or multiple) traffic violations to occur, in his presence and the presence of other officers (seals the case even better), then the stop is 100% good to go.

some departments/agencies may have higher thresholds due to internal regulations, but as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, Reasonable Suspicion is all you need.

hope this muddies the waters completely!

another point to consider is that state laws some states would not allow pretext stops..........side note: having worked in the 9th circus, sorry 9th circuit PC,PC,PC,PC,PC,PC and PC was rule of thumb

Originally Posted by g6445v

Can you expand on this????......

Personal story (try not to yawn)

Defense asked me and also patrol officer to "articulate why this vehicle was suspicious" and defense offered some semi-credible reasons why the vehicle was not suspicious to the jury (regular citizens, non law enforcement).

Defense claimed vehicle was looking for an address and "knocked on the door" of what magically was a stash house to ask for directions. Never mind he went inside the magical stash house to "ask for directions" and came out 10 minutes later. Did we see the driver physically handle drugs? (no). etc etc defense attorney stuff ad naesuem.

NOTE: "Semi credible" to us but possible fully credible to the jury. Law degrees aside, whoever "sells" the best case to the jury wins the case, defense or prosecutor. It boils down to that.

Defense team claimed that the stop was bad and case should be tossed.

Never happened, but my BP was elevated during the trial. No BP problems on my part nor the prosecutor had the stop been made on bona-fide traffic violations.

ALSO, you can read this when your Cable TV goes out and need something to do

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/nov965.txt

G6445v,

The Alameda District Attorneys Office is a wealth of information for LEOs operating in as you refer to it as "the ninth circus". They do a quarterly news letter and and have a website called Point of View that takes recent court decisions and complex legal doctrines, especially those with pertinence to California, and explain them in an easy to digest manner complete with all the reference info. The do a great job of explaining reasonable suspicion and traffic stops in California at the following link. I highly recommend their site to anyone with questions concerning a legal topic from an officer's/agent's perspective.

Ken

http://www.acgov.org/da/pov/documents/traffic_stops.pdf

[QUOTE=satpak77]just a side note, "PC" is used as jargon when discussing this kind of stuff. "Develop your own PC for the stop" etc etcQUOTE]

What he said.

Thanks for the 1 response that attempted to answer the question and not analyze how it was written. Let me rephrase the question. Is it a GOOD stop? Has anyone lost a case because of a stop for this violation?

[QUOTE=USAF]

Originally Posted by satpak77

just a side note, "PC" is used as jargon when discussing this kind of stuff. "Develop your own PC for the stop" etc etcQUOTE]

What he said.

Thanks for the 1 response that attempted to answer the question and not analyze how it was written. Let me rephrase the question. Is it a GOOD stop? Has anyone lost a case because of a stop for this violation?

if under California DMV/DOT laws, it provides legal basis for a traffic stop by a police officer, then it is a GOOD stop.