Posted on 07/10/2014 1:22:14 AM PDT by 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:
(Excerpt) Read more at autos.yahoo.com ...
“we are not supposed to be running tags for no reason...”
Now that may very well be true, but if that is the case there is really no reason for plates to be required at all.
You've never heard of a race car???
Ehh...they serve a purpose for sure. Ties the vehicle to someone...and to a specific vehicle and its vin number, thus showing whether the tag or the car is stolen. But all the traffic conducted over the system is subject to audit...so you need a legitimate reason to run a tag.
There be a lot more black men driving white Cadillacs than white men driving black Cadillacs..
I’m not a lawyer and have never played one on TV but....
Were the drug traces discovered not fruit of the poisoned tree?
“Ehh...they serve a purpose for sure. Ties the vehicle to someone...and to a specific vehicle and its vin number, thus showing whether the tag or the car is stolen.”
And if the plate is automatically run and comes back as not matching the vehicle? Which was the case in this instance.
Wouldn’t the stop then be justified? That was my entire point in this debate, the plate came back as not matching.
Good point.
Good question. The answer is "yes" as a practical matter. What are you going to do, sue the cops over being stopped? No arrest, no trial, no conviction, etc.; then probably the case wouldn't see a trial court, let alone an appellate court.
The "therefore acquitted" doesn't follow every successful motion to suppress. That outcome depends on the contents of the motion to suppress, and what the appellate judge had for breakfast. Most successful motions to suppress do NOT result in acquittal at trial or reversal of a guilty verdict on appeal.
” Amazing. He actually caught a drug
trafficker and the judge lets him go.”
No, he ignored the constitution and got lucky. Should he be allowed to do that?
These days, cops see everything as suspicios. Tea leaves in the trash, buy growing supplies because you like tomatoes. When everything is now suspicious, it is called fishing. Do it enough, and you get lucky a few times. But only if you don’t care about bothering the innocent. Fishing is not a legitimate police practice.
We had created our rights because the British behaved like this. You questioning the founders’ wisdom?
The judge didn’t let a drug dealer go. Your hero cop let a drug dealer go, by taking shortcuts he KNEW were wrong.
I think the court erred in this case, either that or the state’s attorney was a total dumba$$ and didn’t present his case very well.
Agreed. But why was the tag run in the first place? I don’t run plates unless I am going to stop it for some other reason. I would have to have SOMETHING amiss about the vehicle to just run the tag. Common sense should be the rule here. If the vehicle is older, kinda ratty...it wouldn’t be unusual to have it painted a different color. A newer vehicle usually isn’t painted a totally different color, but it is possible. My point? I would look closer at it, maybe find another reason to stop the car. My 2cents
Do you really want cops inventing reasons to stop people? By definition, this kind of activity is based on ‘a feeling’. If they had any facts in the first place, they would have their reasonable cause.
This is not legitimate policing.
YES, it would be. The car didnt match the description on the registration.
What if it had been a different kind of car, but the right color, would that be reason enough to stop him?
If the car dont match the description, hell yes that is good reason to pull it over.
Plates are run automatically now with cameras. If that is legal, and I think the courts have ruled it is, the stop was legal and justified for the non match on the plate.
” By definition, this kind of activity is based on ‘a feeling’.”
No, the plate didn’t match the vehicle.
That’s not “justified” - that’s “got away with it.”
” It is illegal to drive with improper plates,
and since there is no way to check VIN
numbers while a car is going down the
road, it was reasonable to assume the
plate didn’t match the wrong colored
vehicle.
Had the car’s body been changed to
make it appear to an entirely different
vehicle it would be the same thing, a
reasonable stop to make sure the plate
wasn’t stolen.”
Bad logic. If the car or tag were stolen long enough to repaint, it would be reported. A lot of people repaint and forget to update the registration. The cop knew this.
Those cameras are further evidence of the creeping police state ... Big Brother is watching you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.