Probable cause for a traffic stop?

Question

While on patrol, if a vehicle is run through the secretary of state (or DMV), and the registered owner comes back with a suspended license, or even a warrant, and the description matches that of the current driver, is this not probable cause to initiate a traffic stop? (With no other traffic violations) I could have sworn that this was legal from my academy days, but all of the old dogs are telling me that it is not a legal stop in Michigan. Either way, does anyone have any case law saying one way or the other?

Answer 1

Acutally, you only need a reasonable, articuable suspicion to stop. This is a good stop. If you need some case law. . .hang on. . .

Okay, had to check Lexis (I'm a prosecutor in Ohio)

Here are a couple of cases from Michigan showing your recollection of your academy lessons is correct; the old dogs need to learn new tricks. . .

The question before us is whether the police officer effectuating the investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was committing a crime based on the officer's personal knowledge that defendant was operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license. We conclude that under the facts of this case, when the officer had personal knowledge that defendant was driving without a driver's license and had independently confirmed or verified the accuracy of this personal knowledge before effectuating the stop, the officer had a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was committing the misdemeanor offense of operating a motor vehicle without a driver's license. Therefore, the officer's investigatory stop of defendant's vehicle was reasonable. People v. Drew, 2007 Mich. App. LEXIS 193

See also,People v Ward, 73 Mich. App. 555; 252 N.W.2d 514 (1977), where the Court upheld a police officer's investigatory stop of the defendant's vehicle when a police officer saw the defendant driving an automobile and suspected that the defendant was driving without a driver's license; however, the officer was unable to take any action because he was responding to another call. Id. at 557. At the end of his shift that day, the police officer checked with authorities in Lansing who confirmed that the defendant's license was suspended. Id. at 557-558. A little more than a week later, the officer again observed the defendant driving an automobile on a public street. Id. at 558. Except for the fact that he was operating the automobile without a license, the defendant was operating the vehicle in a lawful manner. Id. Because he believed that the defendant's license was suspended, the officer stopped the defendant's vehicle. Id. This Court upheld the investigatory stop of the defendant's automobile, stating that "[t]he officer in this case had information which understandably led him to conclude that a misdemeanor was being committed in his presence." Id. at 559.

Multiple courts have held that an officer may run any license plate it chooses and when that plate comes back as being registered to a person who is not permitted to drive, the officer can reasonably infer that the owner is driving the vehicle. This is especially true when the driver's race and gender match that given in the physical description of the registered owner. See, e.g., Rocky River v. Saleh (2000), 139 Ohio App.3d 313, 327, 743 N.E.2d 944 (Eighth District); State v. Marker (1998), 130 Ohio App.3d 200, 202, 719 N.E.2d 1010 (Sixth District); State v. Epling (1995), 105 Ohio App.3d 663, 665, 664 N.E.2d 1299 (Ninth District), citing State v. Kavalec (Dec. 22, 1993), 9th Dist. No. 2246-M, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 6230; State v. Owens (1991), 75 Ohio App.3d 523, 525, 599 N.E.2d 859 (Second District).

Answer 2

All you need is RS.

For example, you run a tag and the registered owner comes back with a warrant. The warrant is for a 5'1 white male and a short white male is driving a car. I certainly think that is
enough to contact a traffic stop.

To the person above, in Missouri, you don't need a reason to run a plate or a party. So if the car looks funny, I may run the tag, then have dispatch run the registered owner. I have never once seen a supreme court ruling to the contrary. So if it is out there, can you edit your post and put the at least the case number in. Running a party is neither a search nor a seizure. Same with a tag.

That is why they put warrant information and such on license plates.

As for case law, have taken many people to jail based off of car stops from information on license plates. Haven't had one thrown out yet.



Added: Well Sarge I read three of your links. None of them even addressed the issue of a license plate check and running a party before the stop. So of course, none of the prevented it. I suggest you go back and do some more research and find these numerous supreme court rulings you have mentioned.

You say that you can't do a traffic stop with RS or PC. And that is very true, but if you learn something about the driver from a license plate check (warrants, suspended license, ect), that gives you plenty of reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop.

Answer 3

You only need reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle which is a very low threshold. If there is an active warrant on the owner (or the driver is suspended) I would say you have met the reasonable suspicion need to pull the car over. The problem you "might" run into is justifying why you ran the owner's license before stopping the car. Unless you're familiar with the owner.

I don't have my case law cheat sheet with me but will try to remember to edit my answer with one later.

Thanks Mein OH. I plan to look those cases up tonight when I get into my office. I new there was some out there. Don't be so hard on the others. Don't forget how court goes sometimes. The judges often don't know the law so we are sometimes subject to the whims of the court not the law of the land. I will check out those cases because my shift and I have been discussing this question about randomly running tags.

Answer 4

There is plenty of case law with the supreme court ruling this being a legal stop. Of course this is probable cause! if you have articulable facts that this person has or might be comitting a crime you don't need to wait for a violation. The supreme court has many rulings on this... the Old schoolers must have worked nothing but traffic before and forget that there is more to policing that just waiting for a cheap traffic violation. That just shows that they are not confident in what they are supposed to be doing.

Answer 5

Probable cause is a tool that an officer can use to stop you if they suspect you of doing something illegal, for example, if you're suspected of carrying stolen goods, the officer can ride behind you until you commit a minor infraction ex: don't use the blinker for the required 100ft. in TX.......Of course, if you are suspected of carrying stolen goods, depending on how credible a source you have, you may be stopped on that alone, and yes, most agencies don't settle for the verbal express consent, now they ask that you sign a form, and even then you can stop the search at any time......

Answer 6

It works in Texas!!!

I have made several "Investigative stops" based on what you just explained. I do not know about Michigan Law though. I would think it's close to the same when it comes to probable cause to stop a vehicle though.

Answer 7

No case law, but everyone knows that you need reasonable suspicion to effect a traffic stop. The Old Timers are correct! The supreme court has ruled that you can not pick a vehicle at random, do a DMV search (AKA "28' or "28L") on a vehicle and the R/O without some reason (AKA Reasonable Suspicion) no more than you can stop a vehicle at random without R/S to see if the driver is DUI. (UNLESS you stop ALL drivers to see if they are DUI, otherwise known as a DUI checkpoint". If the Driver contests this in court, you may lose this case. YOU have to have a CAUSE to run the tag! No cause, NO CASE!!

Answer 8

I worked in Arizona and I never heard it called a "right to pull over state" LMAO.

I was taught that running plates was valid if you had any articulable reason. In my little experience, the scenario you gave is a good stop.

Answer 9

Well, I don't know about Michigan law but it is legal in Florida where I work. We do it routinely. It is a valid PC stop and holds up in court.

Answer 10

In Pennsylvania,they're having routine sobriety checks, and you'd be surprised what they're finding!!!
I've been caught in a couple. You are waved over, a trooper comes up and says,"good morning, sir. Have you been drinking." I reply, " No,sir. I have not." then, it's usually, "Thank you., You may go. Have a nice day" and I'm gone. But I have seen some people being invited to get out of the car and be searched.