Court: Cops can't stop drivers based on the color of their cars [FL]

Yahoo! Autos ^ | 7/9/14 | Justin Hyde

[Slings and Arrows]

"Probable cause" has long been one of those terms that made the jump from legal jargon to household term, especially with regards to drivers who get pulled over. The struggle over what that allows on American roads — and what it doesn't — took a new turn last week with a Florida ruling that threw out a conviction stemming from a police officer who found something wrong with the color of a car.

In 2010, a deputy in Florida's Escambia County saw one Kendrick Van Teamer drive by in a bright green Chevrolet. The deputy ran his plates, and found the registration matched a blue Chevrolet. There were no warrants out for Teamer, no reports of stolen vehicles and no pending crimes that involved either a blue or green Chevy. Teamer also wasn't violating any traffic laws.

But the deputy pulled Teamer over anyway, simply because of the mismatch of the car's color. Teamer said the car had been recently painted, which was true. It also contained small amounts of cocaine, marijuana and $1,100 in cash. Teamer was charged with drug trafficking and possession, convicted and sentenced to six years in prison.

Teamer appealed, and last week as noted by The Newspaper, the Florida Supreme Court ordered him freed on a 5-2 decision, upholding a lower appeals court ruling that the deputy was wrong to stop Teamer simply becuase the color of his car didn't match its registration. The court noted that in numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, justices have found police can't pull someone over for everday behavior that's not linked to a crime, saying Teamer's stop was not different from those triggered by the race of the driver:

[ImNotLying]

You must have missed my clarification post #21. I DO NOT want cops to make up reasons to stop and search people on just a hunch or feeling. I was saying it is so easy for a cop to stop anyone by just following for a few minutes and say he was weaving, failed to signal, equipment fault, and a myriad of other reasons to make the initial stop. I also want to clarify that I am not anti-law enforcement. There are bad apples in every profession.

[Lurker]

“Better that 12 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned.” Thomas Jefferson.

[Beagle8U]

The only real question in this case is if the stop was legal in the first place.

The determining factor in that is was randomly running the plate legal?

I think the courts have ruled it is, otherwise traffic cameras would be illegal.

Second...Was stopping the vehicle for a non matching plate legal? If a plate doesn’t need to match a vehicle description it would be useless to even require license plates.

I think everyone would agree that a stop is justified in that case.

I can’t see how the state lost this case based on the legality of the stop.

[bike800]

Mmmm...have to chew on that one for awhile. You are right about automatic tag checks by camera, but they are only compared to a very specific hot list of stolen tags or vehicles or wanted persons associated with the vehicle. But something to chew on...

[LevinFan]

” Just running a plate doesn’t effect a
driver in any way, you never even know it
happened unless they find something
wrong.”

And when they keep data on where and when they checked you? This is going on now. Now they are generating a record of your activity. This practice is a violation of basic privacy concepts that my comings and goings are not their business.

Not knowing a wrong was done to you, doesn’t erase that wrong.

Cops care nothing for people’s privacy any more. But let the public want to know about the disciplinary and complaint record of a cop who has the power to affect our lives, and that is PRIVATE!

[Justa]

“He was stopped because the plate didn’t match the vehicle description.”

Just as if your driver’s license doesn’t match your physical description (weight, hair color, etc.). You wouldn’t want to be detained or investigated for that would you?

Neither is probable cause for anything. Not to pull a driver over to verify their tag or to haul them the station to verify their identity.

[Beagle8U]

Improper plates is a crime, most people wouldn’t even know if their plate was switched, they don’t know the number without checking.

Weeks could pass before they ever knew.

[NorthMountain]

If that is legal, and I think the courts have ruled it is

The courts have ruled that 0bamacare is legal ... among other atrocities.

[redgolum]

Just about every cop car has software that will run the plates of cars near by. Many highways also have cameras to record your passing, and note you license plate number.

In short, unless you are in a very rural area, they have an electronic record of where you go every day.

[Beagle8U]

I can agree that the traffic cameras should be illegal, but for now they are.

That is a separate issue from this case.

[NorthMountain]

In short, unless you are in a very rural area, they have an electronic record of where you go every day.

Wonderful. "Land of the Free, and Home of the Brave".

Or not. In other lands, at other times, the "Committee for State Security" and the "Secret State Police" would have given their collective left nut for that capability.

[nathanbedford]

… every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice (emphasis supplied to my own words)

You are quite correct, a successful motion to suppress does not automatically result in a dismissal or acquittal which is exactly why I did not write "… every time a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is [therefore] acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice" but inserted the word "therefore" as is emphasized above indicating that the reason for the acquittal, the "therefore," was because the only incriminating evidence was the wrongly seized evidence, it was the reason there for.

I did not intend to say that all successful motions to suppress result in automatic acquittal that would imply a sentence such as, "… whenever a criminal defendant wins a motion to suppress and is therefore acquitted, a guilty man escapes justice…"

Sorry for the confusion.

[IronJack]

You aren’t being inconvenienced in any way if the government eavesdrops on your phone calls or monitors your internet usage either. Does that make those okay too?

[Beagle8U]

“Just as if your driver’s license doesn’t match your physical description (weight, hair color, etc.). You wouldn’t want to be detained or investigated for that would you?”

Drivers licenses aren’t checked for a match unless you are stopped for cause. That is unrelated to this issue and case.

[Beagle8U]

He wasn’t arrested for not having health insurance.

[NorthMountain]

Congratulations!

You missed the point.

Try again.

[Beagle8U]

Those actions are illegal, running the plate wasn’t illegal.

That is unrelated to this case.

[Beagle8U]

It’s your strawman, you knock it down.

You didn’t have a point related to the issue.

[redgolum]

But remember, data is a double edged sword.

Someone still has to mine it.

[Cboldt]

No problem, and I assumed you knew the gig. I was just clarifying the ambiguity inherent in “win a motion and therefore acquitted,” in case other readers might jump to the wrong conclusion.