Replies

These stupid cocaine transporters were apparently determined to break into jail, by not simply accepting the warning and declining to answer further prying interrogation, by lying to the Sheriff's Deputy, by acting suspiciously, and by vigorously refusing to voluntarily permit an uninvited search of their vehicle without a warrant. They surrendered their basic rights, and exposed their nefarious criminal activity to a legitimate code-enforcer, who thereafter had no other options except to detain them.

And they expected to be released from their possession of incriminating dope because of a broken tail light??!! After the fact of practically telling the arresting officer of their guilt? B. S. !! Red meat here for the ACLU ambulance-chasers and other law-scorners.

Does the law enforcement officer have to know, to the most minute scrutiny, every letter of the Federal law, State Code, county statutes, village regulations, etc before hindering a citizen's progress for further interrogation? Of course not.

Where is the line drawn? One would expect that a highway patrol officer would be well-informed as to the condition standards to be met for vehicle operation on the public highways under his purview. And that is probably true. It appears that the officer was detaining the vehicle for failure in an area which would have legally and logically caused it to fail the Vehicle Inspection requirements:

The question is whether or not the officer correctly judged the vehicle able to pass the minimum vehicle safety specifications according to state code. Was it equipped with safety equipment operating so as to pass the yearly Vehicle Inspection?

The answer seems to be "No."

Here is the North Carolina standards, which the officer must have been well-acquainted, in this respect:

**********

https://connect.ncdot.gov/business/dmv/dmv%20documents/safety%20and%20emissions%20inspection%20regulations%20manual.pdf

North Carolina Administrative Code 19A 03D Section .0500

19A NCAC 03D .0533 LIGHTS

. . .

(b) Rear Lights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(d). Taillights shall not be approved if:

(1) All original equipped rear lamps or the equivalent are not in working order.
(2) The lens is cracked, discolored, or of a color other than red.
(3) They do not operate properly and project white light on the license plate.
(4) They are not securely mounted.

(c) Stoplights shall conform to the requirements of G.S. 20-129(g). A stoplight shall not be approved if:

(1) The lens is cracked, discolored or of a color other than red or amber. Minor cracks on lenses shall not lead
to disapproval unless water is likely to short out the bulb.
(2) It does not come on when pressure is applied to foot brake.
(3) It is not securely mounted so as to project a light to the rear.

. . .

(etc.)

*********

All these fools had to do was to thank the officer for bringing the taillight failure to their attention, and respectfully decline any further delays with their journey, clam up, and leave.

Jerks.

Coorection:<> ". . . and by not vigorously refusing to voluntarily permit an uninvited search of their vehicle . . . "

Sorry --

If, like CA something like this is an Infraction and not a Crime, then merely being stopped and arrested/detained for it in the first place is enough to make the subsequent search fruit of the poison tree...