^ It is.
I can’t seem to read it without a subscription. What’s the gist?
Meat of the article:
Sure. I believe it’s happened fairly regularly (especially if you allow specific portions of a law/regulation for which there’s no way to check compliance).
For major things, it’s usually a lack of thinking things through by the legislature (or regulation-writing agency), but sometimes a way for the legislature to pretend to address something while not actually inconveniencing anyone important.
For smaller parts, lots and lots of permits and regulations have some section or another that’s practically unenforceable (“you must check X every week, but don’t have to document that you’ve done it”); often the permit writer didn’t realize it, or they’re OK with some aspirational language even knowing that it can’t be enforced.
PoppaSan got the relevant part. I’ll add a little more. It’s an article written by a Research Professor at The George Washington University Law School.
Exactly; if you’re fishing, an LEO can detain you and demand you produce a fishing license, even when there’s no evidence you’re breaking a law. But an LEO can’t pull you over in your car just to see if you have a driver license.
So far, the only (sort of) answer to the discrepancy has been provided by Bricker:
I am a member of a couple Ohio-based message boards on concealed carry. And there are quite a few stories of LEOs demanding to see a CHL if they see someone “printing.” (Printing is when you can see the outline of the handgun under a person’s shirt. There is no law against printing, BTW.) The legal folks on these boards say it is within an LEO’s authority to do this. When I bring up the discrepancy with driving a car (i.e., an LEO can’t pull you over just to see if you have a driver license), they can’t provide a good explanation.
Then there’s the boat police. In PA the Fish&Boat Commission can “pull you over” and inspect your boat. In reality it’s a rarity, though. Last summer a our pontoon boat was approached for a safety check.
Our registration (like a license plate on a car) was current. As they approached, our three dogs began going bonkers, though I’m not sure why. Other boats have approached before to swap beers and such, maybe it was the uniforms? My gf attempted to calm our dogs, I dropped an anchor and raised two life-jackets in the air to show we were in compliance. They waved from 20 feet away and motored off.
The first response in this thread contains a snippet from a ruling by the Supreme Court that explains it pretty well.
Asking, yes, but I’m not so sure about “demanding.” Some snippets from an article mostly regarding open carry in TX:
I don’t know if the quote by the senator was taken out of context, but of course you can be arrested for failing to produce your license, but the officer must have a good reason why things have escalated to that level first.
The article above contains info and links to rulings. Here’s info on one from the article:
In the above, “reasonable suspicion” was determined by the court to exist. That that was a determining factor shows that possession of the gun alone would not have been a satisfactory reason for detainment.
Indiana Court of Appeals rules that “possession of a firearm, which is legal, cannot produce reasonable suspicion to justify a Terry stop.”
How they get away with it is that no one has complained. Maybe they do just hand over the gift and ignore the drugs in plain view - after all, they know they didn't have any reason to pull the driver over, so they know an arrest is going nowhere. Maybe they confiscate the drugs and don't arrest the driver- again the arrest is going nowhere, and no one is going to make a complaint that " Officer Soandso confiscated my weed but didn't arrest me"
There's not going to be a court precedent until someone complains - which is probably not going to happen until some cop somewhere pulls someone over to give them an ice cream cone and sees evidence of something far more serious than a possible DWI or a relatively small amount of drugs. Something that can't be ignored even if everyone knows the arrest is going to go nowhere.
On another related tangent; what about cops breaking a law to enforce other ones. There’s one intersection (that I go across) where the cop tucks in on the side street to catch people running the red light. The problem is that to hide better & be close to the intersection he
- Parks against traffic
- Close to the intersection, closer than the min 20’ requirement.
Both of which are parking infractions. Could one request his supervisor to have him cited or could one use that as a defense in court?
I’ll also semi-frequently see them sitting in the middle/center turn lane only, either observing traffic or, on at least one occasion, with an A-frame board stating it was a seatbelt check. He he had one or two cones, he didn’t have any other officers with him, just one guy sitting there, in his vehicle. Presumably, if he found someone driving w/o a seatbelt, he’d have to chase after them, leaving his sign sitting in the road as I doubt he could see someone not wearing a seatbelt, get out of his car fast enough & have them realize they are being stopped all while they are driving at 35-40 mph.
Sitting in the middle lane creates a road obstruction preventing other drivers from slightly going into the otherwise-unoccupied center lane if they are passing a cyclist or pedestrian. Most states have a 3’ (or 4’) ‘safety buffer’ law when passing a cyclist, meaning the motorist must cross into the center lane to pass. His sitting there means a motorist must slow down from 35-40 mph to 10-15 until they can pass him & then pass the cyclist. How is this not obstructing the flow of traffic?
If I were in charge of a patrol division, I might try this out:
During December, we’re going to run the Santa Cop program. If you spot a minor infraction that you’d usually let go, go ahead and make the traffic stop, but instead of a citation, give them this gift card, and wish them a Merry Christmas. Obviously if you get up to the door and something more serious comes to light, then forget the Santa Cop and proceed with an ordinary traffic enforcement stop.
Is this true? I mean if you have a CCW, and somehow your weapon can be seen, are you somehow violating the law? That just doesnt make sense.
Another cite same issue:
I think the answer is already in the thread -
Pulling over a car is a major inconvenience, and opens up the driver to assorted assaults on his fourth amendment rights. Therefore, police need a good reason to do so. There are special exceptions for vehicles (i.e. no need for search warrant with probably cause) which means the inconvenience of a stop should only be applied with good reason.
Asking someone standing there fishing (or carrying fish or fishing tackle) for their fishing license is far less invasive. they simply have to reach into their pocket, they don’t have to try to park in the middle of a stream of possibly heavy traffic, potentially get out into busy traffic, wait for several minutes or longer, etc. The law requires them to have the fishing license readily available already. (I assume the law requires some reasonable evidence the person is or will engage in fishing so there is evidence that you are in fact doing an activity subject to license by the state. (Does it cover things like “he does the fishing, I just suntan and take pictures”? Some people just boat, don’t fish, also. )
Again, if you are carrying a weapon, and the state requires a license to do so, presumably the inconvenience of producing the paper is minimal if you are just walking down the street. But then, the police would need some reason other than “randomly felt like doing this” to stop people at random and check. Presumably “printing” might be some such caus.
And in all cases, I assume “reasonable” becomes the word of the day. Having a different person go by checking every ten minutes (or even stupider, the same person) will stretch the bounds of reasonable.
Thank you. I see not only the legal problems with such stops, but others as well. It is a danger for civilians and police alike to pull over to the side of the road in a non-emergency. Police have been hit, and sometimes killed while trying to cite drivers. What if the mother doesn’t want her kids to have ice cream for any number of reasons-how is she supposed to say no when he starts handing it out to her kids? I wonder about the videos that aren’t shown involving the businesswoman who is supposed to get to work on time, and instead is pissed about having to spend ten to fifteen minutes for the cop’s “Ain’t I a nice guy!” You Tube viddy.
That wasn’t my claim (see the post I was responding to for context). The following is from a firearms instructor and not a legal expert:
I guess I am invisible. My post (#2) answered this.
A mentioned already many of them probably are… but so what? Thousands of unlawful acts occur daily, and only a handful of the most serious ones or ones that are noticed/complained about have anything done about them since the system can’t automatically spot and respond to every unlawful act committed.
Those responsible for organizing and allowing such campaigns know they are skating over the line of legality (and obviously plenty of departments are more strict and won’t do these things), but are relying on the good people feel from it to keep any complaints from being made. I’ll bet if they did get complaints the programs would end very fast.
Another possibility is that in these news stories and videos the officer simply tells the interviewer or driver what they want to hear (and isn’t 100% truthful)… we don’t know if he really did spot a burnt out license plate bulb but not mentioned it to keep the story or experience positive. OR, if such a stop to give out a gift card were to start going sour with the driver demanding a lawful reason for the stop why couldn’t the officer just fabricate a standard my-word-against-yours excuse? " I saw you swerving, you seemed to be driving aggressively, my computer says your plate belongs to a different vehicle, etc".