While waiting in line at Jack-in-the-Box tonight, the police were making an arrest in the parking lot. It was about 2:30 a.m. and only the drive-through is open. The police had this kid pulled over right in the path of the drive-through.
We saw the police pour out a can of beer and when they searched the kid, the cops pulled out a bag of weed. The handcuffed him, put him in the car and drove off.
My wife and I thought it was a strange place to pull someone over. One scenario is that the police car was behind the kid’s truck and just for the hell of it, ran his plates. The police saw the kid had a warrant or two out against him and threw on the blue lights. This is just one of our theories.
My question is … can the police run your plates at anytime or do they need a reason to do so?
p.s. I work at the newspaper and tomorrow, I am going to ask our cops reporter to get me a copy of the arrest report, so I can see what really happened.
Yes, and the police are in fact trained to run plates as much as is reasonably possible. They do not need probable cause or reasonable suspicion to run license plates. I think this is because the courts have ruled that there is a reduced expectation of privacy in public (and the plates are displayed on the outside of your vehicle). In addition, you are giving implied consent to have your plates run when you get them from the BMV. Furthermore, I think that even if there was an infringement upon privacy that the state would have a “rational basis” for any such infringement (I don’t think they would be held to the higher standard of having a compelling interest which strict scrutiny requires, but even if they were this standard could probably also be met) Also, the police can pull you over in most jurisdictions with the lower standard of “reasonable suspicion”. Unfortunately, I’m not real clear on what exactly the differences are between grounds for probable cause and this lower standard. However, I believe that the police do need to meet the higher standard of “probable cause” in order to actually search your person, and or vehicle (unless you give permission).
Could it be that they nabbed him for a traffic violation, and this is where he stopped?
IANAL, but I believe that the need for Probable Cause applies when the police seek to search, detain or arrest you. Things like checking your plates, monitoring your speed via radar or comparing your appearance to the photo on a wanted poster don’t require it.
[Footnote to RD: no need to quote the previous post in full.]
I heard my plates run one evening while returning from a July 4 fireworks display. I am an amateur radio operator and Minnesota permits hams to monitor police communications while in a motor vehicle. Cop behind me called in my plate, I have no idea why. I turned off the highway onto my street before he got the response from the dispatcher. He did not follow me when I turned onto my street.
Was the kid’s car in the path of the drive-through or across it? I mean, could he have gone through the drive-through lane and been pulled over when he got his food?
I remember one or two occasions when I was working at a drive-up window for a fast-food chain. When I saw an open beer container in the driver’s hand I would get the license number and call it in. Could the Jack-in-the-Box people have done this?
This exact scenario happened to a friend of mine in college. A police officer behind him in the drive through ran his plates, saw that he had a warrant, and arrested him. It’s perfectly legal. Since you aren’t being arrested, searched, or detained, the police don’t need probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion.
The kid was in the path of the drive-through, maybe 20 feet behind the menu sign.
If he was nabbed for a traffic violation, this Jack-in-the-Box parking lot would be a strange place to stop. From the main road, you have to turn down a side street and take a left into the parking lot and take another left to where the car was stopped. There are a few easier places to turn into too.
I am at work now, and our cops reporter is going to pick up the arrest report for me.
An officer can run plates randomly for any reason. But that information cannot tell the officer that the driver or occupant of the vehicle has a warrant. It only says that the OWNER of the vehicle has a warrant. The works the same way for owners without a driver’s license.
The officer has a pretty good idea that the owner is possibly in the vehicle and possibly driving, but he still needs a reason to pull over the vehicle. But that’s the easy part. Have you ever skimmed through the traffic laws and ordanances in your area??? It’s not hard for a decent cop to quickly get a reason to pull you over.
Once you are pulled over, he can make anyone get out of the car (Mimms v Pennsylvania I believe). He can’t just start searching them, though. Without consent, he needs a reason to search those people. The generic “officer safety” is not a viable reason. It has to be more viable, like the suspect was making “furtive movements” (Terry v Ohio I think). Apon patting or frisking (still not “searching”) the suspect, he may immediately recognize the feel of a baggy containing marijuana. He can now go into that pocket and remove the baggy. If it is indeed marijuana, the suspect is placed under arrest and now he can be searched. Also, the passenger compartment of his vehicle can now be searched. (Carol Doctrine and/or maybe something else)
YMMV. IANAL…
Carol Doctrine could possibly not be a federal thing. But I know it applies to Florida and has to do with searching a vehicle when an officer has probable cause to believe there is contraband in it. It gets tricky, because if you are looking for a firearm you cannot open the ash tray because a firearm cannot be located in an ash tray. So if a cop was looking for a gun and opened up the ash tray, revealing some cocaine or drug residue, he can’t do anything with that in court. Because he had no right to go in the ash tray…
The 18-year-old man was in the drive-through lane in Jack-in-the-Box. A policeman pulled up behind him in line. The 18-year old’s truck had an expired license plate, so the cop put on his blue lights in line and walked up to the truck.
The policeman saw an open beer can and three empty beer cans on the passenger side. He asked the kid to step out of the car. The policeman patted him down and found a small bag of pot.
The kid was arrested and charged with having an open container, underage drinking, DUI, simple possession of pot and having an expired license.
At the point the officer noticed the open beer cans, the kid was under arrest. Whether he knew it or not. The officer was able to “search” his person incident to that arrest. That wasn’t a pat down, it was a search.
Well, no. He CAN search them, without Probable cause. But IF the kid has a half-decent lawyer (doubtful) and the DA then allows it to go to trial (even more doubtful) then the Search will be thrown out as evidence. Still- the "perp’ has spent a day in jail, dropped a thou on bail (and quite possibly 5 times that on a lawyer), and the "goods’ are confiscated.
But a lot of cops do searchs of very doubtful legality. They still get the arrest, the “stuff” is still confiscated, and the perp may pleade out or just pay a fine rather than hire an expensive attorney (Yes, a decent Public Defender could help him, too- once it gets that far…). If you ever watch Cops you see dozens of very doubtful arrests- and those Cops know they are on camera!
I am very aware of my rights on the side of the road:
I have the right to shutup, I have the right to bleed, I have the right to fall down the stairs several times.
Remember, you might be able to beat the rap but you can’t beat the ride.
Unclviny
I went on a ride-along with a Minneapolis Police Office.
I swear, that guy could watch both sides of the street, drive one-handed, and with the other hand run license plates of other cars on the street, all while carrying on a conversation.
And he seemed to have a pretty high percentage of ‘hits’ on the license plates. Finally I asked him about that, and he said “well, I only run the plates that look likely to hit.” And he had a hard time describing what he meant by “look likely”. Mainly things like ‘the driver doesn’t match that car’, the ‘way he was driving’, or the ‘way his driving changed when he saw my patrol car’, etc. Almost seemed like with 20 years of experience he could just pick 'em out.
I don’t know the law in your jurisdiction but I can tell you that in Illinois if the owner of the vehicle has a warrant out for them or has a suspended license, the police officer can pull over the vehicle. The police officer does not have to wait for a traffic violation or any other probable cause.
I’d imagine police in most jurisdictions can and do run plates “at random” - although as t-bonham@scc.net mentioned, some plates may get run more randomly than others.
Some police departments here in Texas actually encourage the practice when officers have “nothing better to do” when stopped with other vehicles at a red light.
Furthermore, you don’t have to be a police officer here to determine who owns a vehicle based on the license plate. That’s a matter of public record, and the information is available (online, even!) for what is usually a nominal fee.
In my very small hometown, the cop on duty (who was patrolling the highway for speeders) saw my mom pull off the highway and head into town. He didn’t recognize the car (it was new) so he pulled her. As soon as she rolled down the window he said “Oh, hi, Jurph’s Mom. New car?”
“Yeah. Drives pretty nice.”
“Alright. I didn’t recognize it is all. You staying safe?”
“Absolutely.”
“Okay. You have a nice night. Sorry to bother you.”
“It’s all right. See you around, Tim.”
In a beach town with lots of expensive empty houses, a winter population of 200, and a handful of police who know every driver and every car, the boundaries of “probable cause” get really fuzzy. :dubious:
They have that luxury, the cops in your town probably spend their time dealing with lots of crimials. I always thought it would be great to be a cop in a town with little crime.