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

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?

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

Quote:

---

Quoting 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

---

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

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. :eek: 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. ^_^

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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*

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

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting jk

---

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.

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??

Quote:

---

Quoting 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.]

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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)

Quote:

---

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. ^_^

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

"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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

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

---

That's the only way I see this as having been successful. Prouse referred back to the fact the officer had no statute to fall back on in supporting a detention without cause, so that would seem to infer that had there been a statute similar to the Washington one, that the matter may not have been an issue.

Quote:

---

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!!

---

But, there are other issues at play there ... public health and an immediate threat to health (thus exempting warrant requirements), as well as the conditions of a business license and, in some cases, a conditional use permit.

Quote:

---

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

---

Again, other exceptions. Not to mention the fact that everyone has the option NOT to fly and there are plenty of signs warning that you can and will be searched. There is no expectation of privacy when passing through airport security ... but, it's not a seizure in the same sense as driving down the road would be.

- carl

I know that NC does it. They simply refer to it as a "license check" and it is completely legal there. They are allowed to stop cars at random. ANything found in the process is revelant. I would guess that the verbage in the Statute will be the deciding factor.

Quote:

---

Quoting licensegrl

---

I know that NC does it. They simply refer to it as a "license check" and it is completely legal there. They are allowed to stop cars at random. ANything found in the process is revelant. I would guess that the verbage in the Statute will be the deciding factor.

---

Again, I do not see how it is Constitutional, in and of itself, in any state, as we see in Prouse:


2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.




http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html

Sure, Prouse was not based on a statutory law, as WA's supposedly is, but the SC articulates no difference.

Controlled checkpoints, okay, random stops, no!!


Have any specific case law for NC??

How do they get away with it? I was often stopped leaving work for lunch. They would have the ramp to the interstate blocked off. As a driver license examiner for NC, of course, I looked up in my law book at work and low and behold there it was in plain English.. It has nothing to do with checking for DUI's. It is a random check of your license....then your vehicle...then any aroma eminating from said vehicle, etc. I, being from the most democratic and citizen's rights part of the Northeast, was horrified. Hey, I have one hour for lunch...my vehicle is properly registered and inspected, I ABSOLUTELY have a valid driver's license because of what I do for work, and I just want to go get an ice coffee and a sandwich. I'm being detained by you, why?????/

Can't quote chapter and section. Had to leave my Law book behind when I moved to Colorado and worked for the DMV there. See my previous response though. It is in there. I looked it up about 3 years back but, not being an attorney, had no idea that there was a constitutional issue involed. Interesting..............

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.




http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html

Sure, Prouse was not based on a statutory law, as WA's supposedly is, but the SC articulates no difference.

Controlled checkpoints, okay, random stops, no!!


Have any specific case law for NC??[/QUOTE]

There has to be some other entwined reason for the stop, otherwise Prouse is violated. I am not aware it has ever been overturned by the high court itself.

I am going to make it a point this weekend to go to the law library and check the annotations on the WA statute ashman cites once and for all on this to see what gives??

As far as I could see, the reaon is in the law. There is no method to the stopping of cars. Not every third car or every other car. They block the road, you stop, they check your license and anything else that they find is gravy. If you try to turn around to avoid the inconvenice of waiting in the line of cars to be searched, spoken to, peered into; you are chased, pulled over and further cited for evading a license check. All in the middle of the day. Seemed a bit too "big brother" for my Massachusetts mind but hey, I figured "State Sovereignty...gotta love it"

Quote:

---

Quoting licensegrl

---

As far as I could see, the reaon is in the law. There is no method to the stopping of cars. Not every third car or every other car. They block the road, you stop, they check your license and anything else that they find is gravy. If you try to turn around to avoid the inconvenice of waiting in the line of cars to be searched, spoken to, peered into; you are chased, pulled over and further cited for evading a license check. All in the middle of the day. Seemed a bit too "big brother" for my Massachusetts mind but hey, I figured "State Sovereignty...gotta love it"

---

What you describe is a "controlled" DL checkpoint, not random, and is permissable under Prouse:

Syllabus:


(d) The holding in this case does not preclude Delaware or other States from developing methods for spot checks that involve less intrusion or that do not involve the unconstrained exercise of discretion. Questioning of all oncoming traffic at roadblock-type stops is one possible alternative. P. 440 U. S. 663.

As a direct example, controlled DUI checkpoints/roadblocks are permissable without individualized suspicion, but random non individualized seizures of motor vehicles are not, without cause that is.

The federal constitution also permits a checkpoint to stop motorists, even with no individualized suspicion, to ask if they have any information concerning a major felony that happened in that immediate area.

Drug inderdiction controlled checkpoints are NOT permissable though.

Quote:

---

Quoting licensegrl

---

Can't quote chapter and section. Had to leave my Law book behind when I moved to Colorado and worked for the DMV there. See my previous response though. It is in there. I looked it up about 3 years back but, not being an attorney, had no idea that there was a constitutional issue involed. Interesting..............

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.






http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html

Sure, Prouse was not based on a statutory law, as WA's supposedly is, but the SC articulates no difference.

Controlled checkpoints, okay, random stops, no!!


Have any specific case law for NC??

---

They didn't need to as the facts in the Prouse case are materially different from this Washington State law. Much was made of the fact the officer had no authority of law whereas in Washington all State Troopers in marked patrol cars do have authority of law.

What do you mean supposedly? It actually is a codified statute in Washington. There's no supposition to it; it's black letter law.

BOR, I knew you'd look it up eventually! ^_^

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

They didn't need to as the facts in the Prouse case are materially different from this Washington State law. Much was made of the fact the officer had no authority of law whereas in Washington all State Troopers in marked patrol cars do have authority of law.

What do you mean supposedly? It actually is a codified statute in Washington. There's no supposition to it; it's black letter law.

BOR, I knew you'd look it up eventually! ^_^

---

As I stated, the law in WA is entwined with another:


...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,

License girl claims no such law in NC, she only describes a controlled DL checkpoint.

IF the WA law is challenged on the DL aspect, the officer only has to articulate he has stopped the vehicle for a safety check, as according to Whren, the subjective intentions of an officer play no role 4th AM analysis, as long as the stop was constitutional in the first place.

OR could it be one of those laws still on the books that was declared unconstitutional or severable!

YES, I am definitely going to check the annotations on this, as to satisfy my legal curiousity.

Bill of Rights

Quote:

---

Quoting licensegrl

---

Can't quote chapter and section. Had to leave my Law book behind when I moved to Colorado and worked for the DMV there. See my previous response though. It is in there.

---

Read this case, it cites NC authority for DL checkpoints, to wit:

A number of federal and state courts have upheld the seizure of motorists at driver’s license checkpoints. See, e.g., United States v. McFayden (C.A.D.C.1989), 865 F.2d 1306; United States v. Prichard (C.A.10, 1981), 645 F.2d 854; LaFontaine v. State (1998), 269 Ga. 251, 497 S.E.2d 367; State v. Cloukey (Me.1985), 486 A.2d 143; State v. Grooms (1997), 126 N.C.App. 88, 483 S.E.2d 445


I will also look up this case NC when down at the law library.


http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/do...01-ohio-50.pdf

Quote:

---

I looked it up about 3 years back but, not being an attorney, had no idea that there was a constitutional issue involed. Interesting..............

---

Oh yes, quite, this is a seizure under the 4th AM, as outlined in Prouse. The only determination is, is it a reasonable seizure under that state's constitution, or on a federal district/circuit basis, per Prouse.

Again, we read in the Ohio case, citing the reasoning behind Prouse:


"Police officers on roving patrol cannot pull over a vehicle for the sole purpose of checking the driver’s license and registration. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660".

As I stated before, if it is for the SOLE purpose statutorily authorized or not, it is federally unconstitutional. The WA law in question is a mixed bag of elements, not for the SOLE determination to check a DL.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

As I stated, the law in WA is entwined with another:


...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,

License girl claims no such law in NC, she only describes a controlled DL checkpoint.

IF the WA law is challenged on the DL aspect, the officer only has to articulate he has stopped the vehicle for a safety check, as according to Whren, the subjective intentions of an officer play no role 4th AM analysis, as long as the stop was constitutional in the first place.

OR could it be one of those laws still on the books that was declared unconstitutional or severable!

YES, I am definitely going to check the annotations on this, as to satisfy my legal curiousity.

Bill of Rights

---

It was freely admitted by all concerned in the origins of this post that there were certain stipulations to the law: namely that one can't be arrested or cited for anything defects found during the stop. Since there's no liability for anything found as the object of the stop, it seems reasonable. Now, if you have a warrant or something, well, you're SOL and going to the big house. Well, assuming the ORI will extradite on the warrant, which isn't highly likely around here.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

It was freely admitted by all concerned in the origins of this post that there were certain stipulations to the law: namely that one can't be arrested or cited for anything defects found during the stop. Since there's no liability for anything found as the object of the stop, it seems reasonable.

---

Non material.

A NO arrest clause has no bearing on an unconstitutional seizure, they don't cancel out each other.

LG, here is the NC case, I found it online:


http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/publi...7/960609-1.htm

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Non material.

A NO arrest clause has no bearing on an unconstitutional seizure, they don't cancel out each other.

---

The entirety of what I said, and what the statute says, can't be reduced to saying it's merely a no arrest clause. That reads out of what both have said [I]at least/I] half of the relevant factors.

Quote:

---

Quoting 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?

---

RCW annotation cited; State v. Marchand 104 Wn. 2nd 434, 706 P. 2d 225

(1985)

From the syllabus:

BOTH RCW 46.64.60 and 46.64.070 declared UNconstitutional.

For the record, it was a controlled roadblock in question, not a random stop. So if a controlled roadblock is UNconstitutional there is ABSOLUTELY no authority for a random stop, as I have argued Prouse forbids.

Conclusion:

It seems to us from this record that the State Highway Patrol procedeural policy offers exactly the kind of unconstrained and unfettered discretion that Prouse codemns. We believe that neither these procedures nor 46.64.070 meet Fourth Amendment standards. Being bound by the Prouse standards, we do not reach Const. art. 1 sec.7 arguments.

We reverse the conviction of the defendant for possession of cocaine.

I must have left some pages at the library, but it seems the defendant was caught with cocaine after he was stopped at the roadblock, moved to suppress it, and won!

I also looked up an ALR article, very well written:


American Law Reports: 116 ALR 5th 479


Validity of routine roadblocks by state or local police for purpose of discovery of driver's license, Registartion and saftey violations:

by


George L. Blum, J.D.


Lists states that permit and do not permit controlled DL roadblocks.

Carl here is one, as I am sure you know:

People v. Delatorre 275 CA app 2nd 1624 (1967); Upholding constitutionality of mechancial inspection checkpoint, CHP, signs giving notice to incoming traffic.

People v. Alvaraz (1996) CA VC 2814: 14 CAL 4th 155, upholding constitutionality of driver's license checkpoint.

Oh, by the way ashman, although ruled UNconstitutional, it is still on the books, yes. I have noticed this before in research of other jurisdictions.


They just have not repealed it in 20 + years, no time I guess??? :) It has NO force of law!!

Yes, we do operate DL and inspection checkpoints on occasion (not where I am now, but in San Diego County we did so with some frequency).

- Carl

The issue in Washington is akin to what you posted. It isn't a State Police procedural policy; it's a state law which hasn't been overruled by a court yet such that I know.

Invoking Prouse seems a bit off the topic because there is a law on the books.

Moreover, controled stops to check people seem to be legal. We used to do them a couple of times a month with no issue at all in terms of convictions in court as a result of doing that.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

The issue in Washington is akin to what you posted. It isn't a State Police procedural policy; it's a state law which hasn't been overruled by a court yet such that I know.

---

You surely did not miss this in my post:



BOTH RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 declared UNconstitutional.

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

You surely did not miss this in my post:



BOTH RCW 46.64.060 and 46.64.070 declared UNconstitutional.

---

No, but I did read it. Did you?

It starts off as follows:

Although the precise contours of the phrase "without authority of law" in Const. art. 1, 7 have yet to be determined by this court, I agree with the majority that the Seattle police were acting "without authority of law" as required by Const. art. 1, 7. However, the majority's remaining arguments need to be examined.

This is distinguishable because it involves the Seattle Police Department . . . a department to which neither RCW extends. This doesn't seem to be at all relevant.

Nothing that you've cited specifically says the RCWs are unconstitutional. The Washington State Patrol is mentioned in the statute, not the Seattle Police.

Quote:

---

Quoting ashman165

---

No, but I did read it. Did you?

It starts off as follows:

Although the precise contours of the phrase "without authority of law" in Const. art. 1, 7 have yet to be determined by this court, I agree with the majority that the Seattle police were acting "without authority of law" as required by Const. art. 1, 7. However, the majority's remaining arguments need to be examined.

This is distinguishable because it involves the Seattle Police Department . . . a department to which neither RCW extends. This doesn't seem to be at all relevant.

---

What do you mean you read it? Did you find it online?

If it is UNconstitutional as far as the state police are concerned, citing Prouse, it can NOT be constitutional for local police under a local law do you?

Where do you read seattle police anyway, I did not see it in the case I cited??

Quote:

---

Nothing that you've cited specifically says the RCWs are unconstitutional.

---

Say what? If you read the case the syllabus it said BOTH sections are unconstitutional? Why do you not see it?

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

What do you mean you read it? Did you find it online?

If it is UNconstitutional as far as the state police are concerned, citing Prouse, it can NOT be constitutional for local police under a local law do you?

Where do you read seattle police anyway, I did not see it in the case I cited??





Say what? If you read the case the syllabus it said BOTH sections are unconstitutional? Why do you not see it?

---

Yeah, I googled the case and read it online. The case is about the Seattle PD doing dui checkpoints; it had nothing to do with the WSP, which is the agency listed in the RCW.

Essentially, it went on to cite Prouse in that the CITY OF SEATTLE lacked authority of law. Nowhere did I see word one in the actual opinion about the WSP.

The CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT could not cite either of those as its source of authority inasmuch as the CITY OF SEATTLE POLICE DEPARMENT isn't listed in either RCW.

Again, the opinion goes on to make a big deal about the city itself lacking proper authority based on the fact that it was merely a policy of the SEATTLE POLICE DEPARTMENT bring to bear its considerable experience. But considerable experience doesn't a law make.

Also, the RCW specifically cites the times during which the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL may randomly pull someone over; it does not say that the WASHINGTON STATE PATROL may effect roadblocks to check for dui. Moreover, those are generally done in the nighttime hours, which wouldn't fall under the relevant laws.

All of the cases you keep citing are factually and legally different what we're talking about considering it involves: something in the hours of darkness, the fact there is no law granting such prerogative. The issue we're discussing is in such a form that it would be in the daytime hours with color of law inasmuch as there is an actual codified statute on the books.

Edit note: I have admittedly not looked this up in any canonical source; it's merely what I was able to find at 3am on the web . . .

The case I cited: State v. Marchand 104 Wn. 2nd 434, 706 P. 2d 225; does NOT mention the Seattle police, if it does, post it?

This case ruled BOTH the sections you posted in your initial post unconstitutional!! Was this not the purpose of the thead?


Post this case YOU reference, please!

I went straight to the opinion without reading the title which came up. What came up is actually state v mesiani. Good thing I put that edit note up!

I guess I'll have to actually go to the library to read this, or do you have something you can post?

So does this dubious law mean there has to be planned coordinated check point or did it give every cop in the state license to pull over anyone they want without cause? I find this just bizarre.

Quote:

---

Quoting kist

---

So does this dubious law mean there has to be planned coordinated check point or did it give every cop in the state license to pull over anyone they want without cause? I find this just bizarre.

---

The decision I posted WAS a controlled DL checkpoint, NOT a random pull over by a roving patrol. I saw no case law to indicate that 1985 decision was overruled by the high court itself at a later time.

As I posted earlier in the thread, some states DO permit DL checkpoints, per Prouse, WA is one that does not.

I am an officer, I am driving down the road, without any reasonable belief that the driver is unlicensed, I can NOT seize them, pull them over, to check the validity of thier DL, per Prouse.

Delaware v. Prouse; Decided this day, March 27, 1979.


I would have concurred with the majority if I were a Justice.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html

Quote:

---

Quoting BOR

---

Delaware v. Prouse; Decided this day, March 27, 1979.


I would have concurred with the majority if I were a Justice.


http://supreme.justia.com/us/440/648/case.html

---

I think you're still missing the key differences:

Prouse was: in the nighttime, random and without any legal authority;

Washington: in the daytime, random, and with legal authority.

/beat dead horse