Sorry for the non-committal answer but...
Intuitively, I would tend to say that the second violation stands.
However I would wonder why the exclusionary rule would not apply...if the police officer did not have probable cause to make the stop, then could the "evidence" that he was driving be admitted in court against him?
Obviously...if the police officer had cause to believe he ran the red light, or his driving on a suspended license could be independently verified, this question is a non-issue.
2007-07-18 20:24:29
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jamie 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. The driving w/o valid license charge in your case would be more along the lines of a parole violation than an original crime (I assume it was suspended for a previous violation) and thus the discovery of your violation isn't "fruit of the poisoned tree." Also, even if you didn't run the red light, all that matters is the police had good reason to THINK you ran the red light, and checking your license is valid.
In the USA, anyhow.
2007-07-18 20:21:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by Vaughn 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
you watch to much TV or listen to too many urban legands. you have heard that if you get the red light violation thrown out they wouldnt have probably cause to check your driving status in 1st place. well they dont have to get a conviction on one for the other to be upheld.
They call it probable cause not definate cause. it means they only have to show reasonable proof that a violation might have occured. the only way it would get thrown out is if there was no light at the intersection that they cited you for. that would show an unreasonable stop thus taking away their probable cause. the poisonus fruit refrence an earlier poster talked about is semi accurate but is actually not the right term for this situation. it is used for information or evidence gained by a law being broke.
you were wrong driving without a license and you are going the way of paris hilton mate
HE DIDNT SAY HIS LICENSE WAS EXPIRED HE SAID SUSPENDED, HE CANT JUST GO HAVE IT RENEWED.
2007-07-18 20:33:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by Geoff C 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Best course of action. Go get your license renewed. Go to court and produce your license. Tell the court you got your license renewed and ask if you can plead guilty to driving without a license (lesser included offense) and have the red light thrown out. Unless you're a regular in traffic court the DA will probably go for that.
How do you intend to prove you didn't run the red light?
2007-07-18 20:33:30
·
answer #4
·
answered by El Scott 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
No.
The moving violation gave the police a valid reason to pull you over. Even if they only had a reasonable suspicion (far below the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt required for conviction) they can pull you over.
Once you were pulled over, they discovered the second violation. But since the stop was legal, anything found during the stop is admissible.
2007-07-18 20:35:34
·
answer #5
·
answered by coragryph 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
No. Whether you ran the light or not, you were obviously still driving if Police were able to make a traffic stop on you (which would be on in-car camera).
2007-07-18 20:16:18
·
answer #6
·
answered by dh1977 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
haha I think the running of the red light is a non issue here.
the fact that your driving with a suspended licence is bound to hold the courts attention more.
Why were you driving with a suspended licence?
2007-07-18 20:21:44
·
answer #7
·
answered by chloe_saiana 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
nope. you can get the running red light charge dropped tho.
2007-07-18 20:16:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sid 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
No.
They should have arrested you for driving with a suspended license.
2007-07-18 20:19:41
·
answer #9
·
answered by uhwarriorfan 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
no. you can just get the redlight charge thrown out.
2007-07-18 20:21:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by nicholas b 3
·
0⤊
0⤋