Stopping People in the Daytime to Check Driver's License Status

[ashman165]

This issue comes up per another thread in which a Washington State law was mentioned.

RCW 46.64.070
Stopping motor vehicles for driver's license check, vehicle inspection and test -- Authorized -- Powers additional.
To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070, officers of the Washington state patrol are hereby empowered during daylight hours and while using plainly marked state patrol vehicles to require the driver of any motor vehicle being operated on any highway of this state to stop and display his or her driver's license and/or to submit the motor vehicle being driven by such person to an inspection and test to ascertain whether such vehicle complies with the minimum equipment requirements prescribed by chapter 46.37 RCW, as now or hereafter amended. No criminal citation shall be issued for a period of ten days after giving a warning ticket pointing out the defect.

Now, I am aware of and have read Delaware v. Prouse. So, I guess, is this statute unconstitutional as its written, or is it materially or legally distinguishable?

[cdwjava]

Prouse would not appear to be similar as the officer in that case "... was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General." Washington state apparently HAS such a guideline (in the form of the statute) permitting this ... disturbing as the idea is.

The fact that this statute appears to have survived thus far unchallenged (at least successfully) while within the influence of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would appear to speak volumes as to its being Constitutionally acceptable.

Or, as is possible, no one has yet been able to bring a good case forward to the federal appellate courts.

- Carl

[ashman165]

Prouse would not appear to be similar as the officer in that case "... was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General." Washington state apparently HAS such a guideline (in the form of the statute) permitting this ... disturbing as the idea is.

The fact that this statute appears to have survived thus far unchallenged (at least successfully) while within the influence of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals would appear to speak volumes as to its being Constitutionally acceptable.

Or, as is possible, no one has yet been able to bring a good case forward to the federal appellate courts.

- Carl

Hey, um, didn't I just see . . . are you following me?

Also relevant I think that no criminal summons may issue based on a defect found. But I read that to mean something other than the cop would have to turn away if there's a bludgeoned dead body in the backseat. But then again, it would be ridiculous for criminal to appear that since our traffic laws aren't criminal.

I doubt seriously if they'll wait ten days then go check up on you to see if you're as drunk now as you were then when they pulled you to check your license. Of course, then you'd have a great defense because it's been more than 2 hours since being stopped so the charge can't file. Also, I think it'd be easy to prove that the driver had consumed something alcoholic in the 10 days since the stop.

Maybe Barry will be on sometime soon to chime in. ^_^

[cdwjava]

Hey, um, didn't I just see . . . are you following me?

You're the one that posted the direction to here.

Also relevant I think that no criminal summons may issue based on a defect found. But I read that to mean something other than the cop would have to turn away if there's a bludgeoned dead body in the backseat.

It just seems so contrary to 4th Amendment law to permit a stop for an administrative purpose that could so readily be used for other enforcement. Effectively, an officer could stop ANY vehicle moving under the guise of checking license and inspecting the vehicle just as an excuse to identify the driver and search some part of the vehicle. This would be a great tool for a narcotics task force! Just assign a properly marked unit to stop anyone that leaves a target house, and wow!

I suppose it is Constitutional, it just seems so ... wrong.

- Carl

[ashman165]

You're the one that posted the direction to here.


It just seems so contrary to 4th Amendment law to permit a stop for an administrative purpose that could so readily be used for other enforcement. Effectively, an officer could stop ANY vehicle moving under the guise of checking license and inspecting the vehicle just as an excuse to identify the driver and search some part of the vehicle. This would be a great tool for a narcotics task force! Just assign a properly marked unit to stop anyone that leaves a target house, and wow!

I suppose it is Constitutional, it just seems so ... wrong.

- Carl

I am slowly milling through state court decisions to see if there's any case law on it. But my hunch is that any court would exclude evidence from a search resulting from using this statute. It's not the friendliest system to go through.

Nor are the opinions well written. :*(

But I'm also concerned, the more I think about it, about that 10 day thing. No charges can be filed for 10 days without giving someone a chance to fix it.

Say the license is suspended. They let you go to have time to "fix" it. After 10 days, they can come arrest you for DWLS in the 3rd degree (or second of first if you're a particularly incompetent criminal) because 1.) it's been at least 10 days since the stop, 2.) you had a chance to get your license unsuspended, 3.) the statute of limitations hasn't run, and 4.) they know you did it on that date 10 days prior!

I do know that a lot of officers around here are completely unaware of its existence. It isn't taught at that academy such as I know. (But I never went through the State Patrol Academy because I wanted to be a cop, not triple a with a badge.) *hides*

[cdwjava]

I noted that local agencies have also adopted it into local ordinances referencing the RCW in the language of their local ordinances granting the same authority to their officers. So, while it might not be taught outside the state police academy, it does seem to have larger understanding.

In my state, the statutes specifically prohibit a stop in the field solely to inspect license and registration, etc. on non-commercial vehicles. There are exceptions for certain commercial vehicles, checkpoints and the like, but an officer can't just pull someone over, walk up and ask for a license and to inspect the engine, lights, and/or brakes!

I am still stuck on ... wow!

- Carl

[jk]

It just seems so contrary to 4th Amendment law to permit a stop for an administrative purpose that could so readily be used for other enforcement. Effectively, an officer could stop ANY vehicle moving under the guise of checking license and inspecting the vehicle just as an excuse to identify the driver and search some part of the vehicle. This would be a great tool for a narcotics task force! Just assign a properly marked unit to stop anyone that leaves a target house, and wow!



- Carl

I'm not great at looking up SCOTUS cases but I seem to recall hearing of a case quite a few years ago that provided opinion that a "random" stop to check registration and license of the driver was unconstitutional. Some state do incorporate a "safety check" or "vehicle inspection" within their statutes but not sure who allows the stop just for that purpose.

[ashman165]

I'm not great at looking up SCOTUS cases but I seem to recall hearing of a case quite a few years ago that provided opinion that a "random" stop to check registration and license of the driver was unconstitutional. Some state do incorporate a "safety check" or "vehicle inspection" within their statutes but not sure who allows the stop just for that purpose.

Scroll up to my OP, jk. There's a link to the decision.

Carl, you're very correct that many municipalities adopt state laws into their ordinances. Some of the bigger area do it more simply than some of the smaller areas. Some places just use XXXX city ordinace adopting RCW YY.YY.YYY(y).

Some of the ones I've seen though don't seem to be done by individual RCW. Maybe that's why I've seen in some local area laws granting to the state patrol the power and duty to investigate crashes on limited access highways facilities and other state roads. Or maybe it's a small city with illusions of grandeur?

I'm sorry to hear that you're high centered on wow. I'll be sending the Washington State AAA to get you off.

[BOR]

Let's look at .070 as cited:

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070:

Notice the severability clause of .060, PRE Prouse:

Notes:
Severability -- 1967 c 144: "If any provision, clause or word of this act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act which can be given effect without the invalid provision of application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable." [1967 c 144 § 3.]


http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=46.64.060


As Carl stated, as to date, if it has not been challenged as an UNreasonable seizure and upheld, it stands.

The SC if you read in Prouse states in the syllabus:

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Could be it has never been challenged??

Prouse states if an officer for the SOLE (emphasis added) purpose of stopping, aka, seizing a motor vehicle, is to check a DL, that violates the federal constitution, period.

Here the DL check is intertwined/entangled with a safety inspection, also, as I noted, PRE Prouse. The legal Q being, is such safety inspection an unreasonable seizure under the fourth amendment? Until the case law is read, I can form no opinion on that.

I can't fathom an officer being permitted to just pull a driver over with no reasonable suspicion they are not in compliance with the code, such as witnessing bald tires etc.??

In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the SC ruled, on the progeny of Prouse, that drug interdiction checkpoints were UNconstitutional.

"Random" stops, as in Prouse, are NOT equivalent to a controlled checkpoints, such as a DUI checkpoint and DL checkpoints, which Prouse permits states to have.


It appears the law provides that an officer have no reasonable or articulable suspicion a driver is violating the law to pull them over?? Interesting??

Carl, is it possible this seizure has been ruled to be some type of an "administrative" search where no reasonable suspicion is required??

I don't see how though??

I know government code inspectors can enter the premises of a business to check and enforce food safety laws, such as proper cooler/freezer temperatures, and NO individual suspicion a violation has occured is needed!!

As we know, many airport screeners are now government employees. It would hardly seem practical for secure a search warrant for every passenger??

[ashman165]

Let's look at .070 as cited:

To carry out the purpose of RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070:

Notice the severability clause of .060, PRE Prouse:

Notes:
Severability -- 1967 c 144: "If any provision, clause or word of this act or application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this act which can be given effect without the invalid provision of application, and to this end the provisions of this act are declared to be severable." [1967 c 144 § 3.]

This is pretty standard language used in many statutes across the country and with the federal government to preserve part of a statute not specifically overruled. The SC has said time and again that they work to correct as little of a statute as is necessary to make it constitutional. If it can be salvaged, they attempt to do so - at least they say they do.

As Carl stated, as to date, if it has not been challenged as an UNreasonable seizure and upheld, it stands.

The SC if you read in Prouse states in the syllabus:

(a) Stopping an automobile and detaining its occupants constitute a "seizure" within the meaning of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Carl also posted as to how this is materially and legally different than the decision you cite. I also made some comments on that.

Could be it has never been challenged??

Prouse states if an officer for the SOLE (emphasis added) purpose of stopping, aka, seizing a motor vehicle, is to check a DL, that violates the federal constitution, period.

The decision says much more than that. (See Carl's earlier post on that)

I can't fathom an officer being permitted to just pull a driver over with no reasonable suspicion they are not in compliance with the code, such as witnessing bald tires etc.??

Here, they clearly are permitted to under statute. Hence why Carl is still stuck on wow. ^_^

In City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, the SC ruled, on the progeny of Prouse, that drug interdiction checkpoints were UNconstitutional.

This isn't a statute involving that.

"Random" stops, as in Prouse, are NOT equivalent to a controlled checkpoints, such as a DUI checkpoint and DL checkpoints, which Prouse permits states to have.

Again, this case is distinguishable, in my view, from Prouse.

It appears the law provides that an officer have no reasonable or articulable suspicion a driver is violating the law to pull them over?? Interesting??

But not for enforcement purposes. Note they can't be summonsed or charged for anything discovered, but rather are given an opportunity to correct any defects. This is in the plain and ordinary reading of the statute.

Carl, is it possible this seizure has been ruled to be some type of an "administrative" search where no reasonable suspicion is required??

I don't see how though??

Again, it's because it's not an enforcement action. So, no fundamental rights are at risk of being taken away. Nor is it capricious based solely on an officer's whim without color of law because there is a law which permits it.

I know government code inspectors can enter the premises of a business to check and enforce food safety laws, such as proper cooler/freezer temperatures, and NO individual suspicion a violation has occured is needed!!

As we know, many airport screeners are now government employees. It would hardly seem practical for secure a search warrant for every passenger??

That would seem to be one of the static checkpoints which you earlier said the SC says is okay. Don't want to be searched there? Well, everyone knows they're going to be. To avoid it, drive or take the train. No one forces people to choose an particular travel arrangement, and the right to fly on an airplane isn't a constitutional right. Nor is the right to drive.

I have still not found in Washington State any case law involving this particular statute.