The Supreme Court on Monday held that Kansas law enforcement was justified in pulling over a Kansas man for a traffic stop after learning that the registered owner of the vehicle had his license revoked by the state, even though the officers did not know who was driving.
The opinion was 8-1 and it reversed a lower court opinion.
Kansas law enforcement was justified in stopping vehicle after learning the owner's license was revoked, Supreme Court says - CNNPolitics
That would be correctAs compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.
I'm like, "Duh!"
Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.
Maybe, but this was a very narrow ruling. Suppose that vehicle had been towing a trailer registered to someone without a DL or who had a suspended/revoked DL - is that still "reasonable suspicion"? So long as LEO database check 'possibilities' in general (house is listed as the address of a convicted felon) are not used to allow police to 'check out what is going on inside it', I'm fine with the ruling.
In fact, it is the majority’s approach that makes scant policy sense. If the State need not set forth all the information its officers considered before forming suspicion, what conceivable evidence could be used to mount an effective challenge to a vehicle stop, as the concurrence imagines? Who could meaningfully interrogate an officer’s action when all the officer has to say is that the vehicle was registered to an unlicensed driver?
...
The majority today has paved the road to finding reasonable suspicion based on nothing more than a demographic profile. Its logic has thus made the State's task all but automatic. That has never been the law, and it never should be.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/18-556_e1pf.pdf
I'm like, "Duh!"
Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.
As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.
I'm like, "Duh!"
Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.
I just looked it up, there are over 7 million people with suspended licenses for unpaid traffic tickets and court debts and now any car registered in their name can be pulled over for no reason whatsoever regardless of who is driving.
For once I agree with La Raza:
The main purpose of police today is to extract revenue from the populace and to harass minorities. This decision will definitely help the police, and it makes the country less free. Gun owners should take notice how the state will use any kind of licensing as a weapon against you.
I just looked it up, there are over 7 million people with suspended licenses for unpaid traffic tickets and court debts and now any car registered in their name can be pulled over for no reason whatsoever regardless of who is driving.
"Given that revocations in Kansas nearly always stem from serious or repeated driving violations, I agree with the Court about the reasonableness of the officer's inference," she wrote. "A person with a revoked license has already shown an willingness to flout driving restrictions." She noted that Kansas and many other states suspend licenses for matters having nothing to do with road safety, such as failing to pay parking tickets, court fees or child support.
I'm like, "Duh!"
Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.
I'm like, "Duh!"
Of course this is a justified stop. Good to see 8-1 of the high court is in agreement.
I fail to see a problem with LEO's stopping suspected unlicensed drivers who were operating vehicles on public roadways.
The SCOTUS usually does get it right
Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.
The owner's license was revoked, not suspended, "AOC is one dumb whore".
Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.
That's what they aim to find out by stopping it.
Duh
As compared to the scRotus not getting it right on putting the lives of Wisconsin voters on the line.
Doesn't matter.
How did other states change their voting dates?The executive branch attempted to change the voting date and doesn't have the authority to do so. The Supreme Court was only confirming this..
True, in which case they would not get charged with driving while revoked. Driving on pubic roadways is a state issued privilege thus no right had been violated in making that traffic stop or subsequent arrest.
Driving on pubic roadways is a state issued privilege
Because the unlicensed driver may not be the one driving the car.
In which they will be let go or given a warning for the violation that caused them to stop in the first place.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?