There is no question that stopping a car is a 4th Amendment seizure.
"Temporary detention of individuals during the stop of an automobile by the police, even if only for a brief period and for a limited purpose, constitutes a "seizure" of "persons" within the meaning of [the 4th Amendment]. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 653 (1979); United States v. Martinez Fuerte, 428 U.S. 543, 556 (1976); United States v. Brignoni Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975). An automobile stop is thus subject to the constitutional imperative that it not be "unreasonable" under the circumstances. As a general matter, the decision to stop an automobile is reasonable where the police have probable cause to believe that a traffic violation has occurred. See Prouse, supra, at 659; Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 109 (1977) (per curiam)." WHREN ET AL. V. UNITED STATES, 517 U.S. 806 (1996).
Cops have no Constitutional authority to stop a vehicle to hand out a "good driver" certificate. That doesn't mean they can't do it, or that a sheriff cannot adopt a policy to do it - they have the practical authority but not the legal authority to do so. The distinction is that, IF the stop leads to an arrest (say the cop sees drugs in the car after the stop), all evidence (the drugs) will be suppressed at trial and the state will not be able to convict. Ergo, the prosecutor will never indict on such a case.
In any event, we're discussing "facts not in evidence" (as those lawyer slime like to say :^). The reporter in the article repeatedly used the term, "pull over" a car, but the sheriff said they would follow the driver home or to a store. If a cop approaches an individual leaving a parked car and offers her a citation for good driving, no seizure has occured. I strongly suspect the reporter -- not the sheriff -- is the source of the "pulling over" language (hey, it makes for a catchy headline, no?). I find it hard to believe any competent sheriff wouldn't run this by the county attorney, and even harder to believe any competent attorney would approve such a plan.
Most likely, this story is much ado about nothing. If there is anything to it, it should be addressed (somebody call the ACLU!), but it does NOT pose any significant threat of prosecution resulting from a fishing expedition.
.
Very interesting piece of law. Thanks for having the patience to post that.