# SCOTUS: Car owned by person with a suspended license enough for a stop. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [April 7, 2020, 2:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244 "2020-04-07T02:16:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![JRDelirious](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jrdelirious/32/9531_2.png) [@JRDelirious](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JRDelirious)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/41 "2020-04-08T14:25:33Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > — “Driving is not a right” Well, before 1900, people had the right to move their person/goods by conveyance on public roadways. What constitutional amendment changed that? Like any right, it can be restricted if justified, but it’s still a right. It is \*not \*a license/permit _to move about_. You can still hire a driver to take you around. It is a license/permit to _operate a complex and potentially dangerous piece of machinery_ known as a motor vehicle, when out among the public. Which piece of machinery BTW is itself required to comply with a certain set of specifications and regulations to be able to be used in public thoroughfares. It is well established law that the state has the faculty to establish safety regulations for operations of potentially risky devices where the public may be affected. ---
**Author:** ![Bear\_Nenno](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bear_nenno/32/3358_2.png) [@Bear\_Nenno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bear_Nenno)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/42 "2020-04-08T15:09:29Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > - “It’s a public safety issue.” No, an unlicensed driver is likely to be the most cautious and attentive driver on the road, with the most to lose by attracting police attention for a trivial infraction. I’d love to see that stats or research that backs up this nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/43 "2020-04-08T15:33:12Z")
> [@Bear\_Nenno](#): > > I’d love to see that stats or research that backs up this nonsense. I quoted a 2003 report in an earlier post. Here’s what it has to say about that: > [@](#): > > First, there is a small number of drivers who appear immune to countermeasures that have proved effective for most highway users. These “hard-core offenders” continue to drive even after losing a license and are overrepresented in subsequent violations and crashes. It is estimated that as many as three-fourths of suspended and revoked (S/R) drivers continue to drive, although they apparently drive less often and more carefully (van Oldenbeek and Coppin, 1965; Hagen et al., 1980; Ross and Gonzales, 1988; DeYoung, 1990). Even so, they are overrepresented in subsequent violations and crashes and, based on estimated exposure, are greatly overrepresented in fatal crashes (DeYoung et al., 1997). In California, based on an analysis of two-vehicle fatal crashes in which only one driver was judged to be at fault, compared with validly licensed drivers, S/R drivers were found to be overinvolved by a factor of 3.7:1. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 3:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/44 "2020-04-08T15:43:51Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But the standard is “reasonable articulable suspicion”, not “certainty”. All the officer is being asked for is a statement of probability. I don’t see much daylight between “the driver is probably someone with a suspended license” and “I can articulate a reasonable suspicion that the driver is someone with a suspended license”. > > If people shouldn’t be pulled over in this circumstance, that sounds to me like an argument that the law should be changed such that a “reasonable and articulable suspicion” isn’t enough grounds for a stop. Suspicion and probability are no quite the same thing. Probability doesn’t care about who is acting, but suspicion does. The issue UV seems to have is that the driver is not suspected of committing a crime, but that the car is being suspected of being driven by the wrong person. He objects to being able to pull over the driver without suspicion that said driver is commuting a crime. I appreciate the logic, and think that, at the very least, this should be minimized, as pulling over people unnecessarily is a great inconvenience, and I do worry about fishing expeditions and ulterior motives. I would would think the stops could be minimzed by using this feature of cars called windows, and looking to see if the driver at least appears to match the owner’s driver’s license photo, which should be shown with the owner information and license status. Only at night when you can’t see the driver at all due to reflextions should you ever need to even consider suspecting the wrong driver. And, even then, minimze the stop by having the driver’s image on hand. If necessary, identify the driver with their license. Then, if no crime was committed, immediately end the stop. I get that sometimes, you need intrusions like this to reasonably enforce the law, but they should be minimal. Give people power, and it will be abused by at least some. Thus we should give the minimal power necessary to accomplish the goal. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 3:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/45 "2020-04-08T15:48:39Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > — “It’s a public safety issue.” No, an unlicensed driver is likely to be the most cautious and attentive driver on the road, with the most to lose by attracting police attention for a trivial infraction. This might be true of a certain, small number of unlicensed drivers- those who have a license and didn’t renew it on time. But the other unlicensed drivers ( the ones who don’t have a license because it’s been suspended/revoked on multiple occasions for traffic infractions or the failure to answer tickets for traffic infractions) in my experience continue to drive just like they did before the suspension/revocation even when they face far more serious consequences than a traffic ticket. ( You wouldn’t believe how many people with warrants of all sorts are found when they get pulled over for speeding or running a red light.) ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2020, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/46 "2020-04-08T15:58:36Z")
I know a number of people who have had their DL suspended for various reasons. Every last one of those people drove while their license was suspended. I love the 4th amendment to the constitution, but I have no problem with the SCOTUS decision here. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/47 "2020-04-10T12:34:59Z")
> [@nelliebly](#): > > I have no argument to make either way. It just seemed to me it’d be a good idea for someone to find out how many people with suspended licenses continue to drive. According to the [National Council of State Courts](https://www.ncsc.org/~/media/Microsites/Files/Trends%202017/Rethinking-Drivers-License-Suspensions-Trends-2017.ashx), it’s 75%. > > Carry on. The brief I cited address this manipulation of statistics: > [@](#): > > All three briefs rely on the statistic that “as many as 75% of suspended drivers continue to drive.” Pet. Br. 14 (citation omitted); U.S. Br. 14; see also Okla. Br. 15. Even if that statistic is accurate, it says nothing about how likely it is that a suspended driver is driving his car at any particular moment. Consider the following stylized (but realistic) example. Suppose a woman’s license was suspended for six months. During that time, her husband drove her car twice each day—to and from work on weekdays and to and from the grocery store and religious services on weekends. > > If the woman drove her car twice in that period (say, to take her husband to the doctor and home again), then 100 percent of the suspended drivers in that > household drove the car registered to her in spite of her suspension—and, if asked, she would report that she “continued to drive” in spite of her suspension. But > during the six-month period of suspension, the suspended driver was the driver only .56 percent of the times the car was driven. Even if she drove the car > twice per month, she was the driver only 3 percent of the times the car was driven. > > The fact that “as many as 75% of suspended drivers” may “continue to drive” > does not establish—as a matter of statistics or common sense—that suspended drivers as a group continue to drive approximately 75 percent as much as > they did before their suspensions. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/48 "2020-04-10T12:44:53Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > Suspicion and probability are no quite the same thing. Probability doesn’t care about who is acting, but suspicion does. > > The issue UV seems to have is that the driver is not suspected of committing a crime, but that the car is being suspected of being driven by the wrong person. He objects to being able to pull over the driver without suspicion that said driver is commuting a crime. > > I appreciate the logic, and think that, at the very least, this should be minimized, as pulling over people unnecessarily is a great inconvenience, and I do worry about fishing expeditions and ulterior motives. > > I would would think the stops could be minimzed by using this feature of cars called windows, and looking to see if the driver at least appears to match the owner’s driver’s license photo, which should be shown with the owner information and license status. > > Only at night when you can’t see the driver at all due to reflextions should you ever need to even consider suspecting the wrong driver. And, even then, minimze the stop by having the driver’s image on hand. If necessary, identify the driver with their license. Then, if no crime was committed, immediately end the stop. > > I get that sometimes, you need intrusions like this to reasonably enforce the law, but they should be minimal. Give people power, and it will be abused by at least some. Thus we should give the minimal power necessary to accomplish the goal. This is exactly it and why it is such a wild and monumental break from prior precedent. There is no reasonable articulable suspicion of that individual. It is a probability analysis which does not bode well for minorities or the poor. I further agree with you. If the officer actually investigated the individual (which prior to this case was a requirement), say pulled up beside the car and observed that the driver reasonably matched the age, gender, build of the registered owner, then I would have no problem with the stop. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 1:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/49 "2020-04-10T13:26:19Z")
Oh, but I do disagree with your “at night” exception. I don’t see why this case should subject a free person to being detained simply because the darkness of night prevents the police from gathering a particularized suspicion of that individual. I’ve never read a case where a Terry stop was allowed at night because darkness made the individualized suspicion more impracticable. And your whole new “once they see that the driver is not the suspended registered owner so they must end the stop” creates a whole new traffic stop jurisprudence. The general rule is that once suspicion for a stop exists, then the stop can continue as any other stop. If we make an exception here, what is to prevent the next guy from saying, “Yeah, he saw me speeding, checked my license, and issued me a citation. Why can he detain me to see if I had outstanding warrants? That had nothing to do with why he stopped me.”? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 1:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/50 "2020-04-10T13:34:01Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Oh, but I do disagree with your “at night” exception. I don’t see why this case should subject a free person to being detained simply because the darkness of night prevents the police from gathering a particularized suspicion of that individual. I’ve never read a case where a Terry stop was allowed at night because darkness made the individualized suspicion more impracticable. > > And your whole new “once they see that the driver is not the suspended registered owner so they must end the stop” creates a whole new traffic stop jurisprudence. The general rule is that once suspicion for a stop exists, then the stop can continue as any other stop. If we make an exception here, what is to prevent the next guy from saying, “Yeah, he saw me speeding, checked my license, and issued me a citation. Why can he detain me to see if I had outstanding warrants? That had nothing to do with why he stopped me.”? This is suspicion of driving with a suspended license. There’s no need to stop the car at all, follow it to it’s destination. When the driver gets out of the car ask to see their license if they resemble the driver known to have a suspended license. If they go home and pull into their attached garage go up to the door and knock and question them. If they don’t cooperate go to a judge and get a warrant surveil their car. We don’t need this ruling because we already have the means to deal with this without violating anyone’s rights. Never-the-less, I don’t care about people driving with suspended licenses. It’s illegal, it’s dangerous, and driving is not a right. I just care about bad SCOTUS rulings and the collateral damage they cause. If it’s constitutional and people driving with suspended licenses suffer than TFB. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/51 "2020-04-10T13:50:21Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **BigT** : > > Suspicion and probability are no quite the same thing. Probability doesn’t care about who is acting, but suspicion does. > > The issue UV seems to have is that the driver is not suspected of committing a crime, but that the car is being suspected of being driven by the wrong person. He objects to being able to pull over the driver without suspicion that said driver is commuting a crime. But the driver is suspected of committing a crime. He’s suspected of committing the crime of driving without a valid license. He’s suspected of that for a reason, because he’s driving a car for which the most likely driver would be a person committing that crime. And I just articulated that reason. So the suspicion is both reasonable and articulable. Bottom like, “reasonable and articulable suspicion” is not a very difficult bar to clear. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/52 "2020-04-10T14:20:59Z")
It’s not dangerous. How does a guy who drives after failing to pay civil fines or because he got a DUI two months ago “dangerous”? These are simply punitive regulations to make people not do the bad things. They are no more or less qualified to drive than you or me. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/53 "2020-04-10T14:26:04Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But the driver is suspected of committing a crime. He’s suspected of committing the crime of driving without a valid license. He’s suspected of that for a reason, because he’s driving a car for which the most likely driver would be a person committing that crime. And I just articulated that reason. So the suspicion is both reasonable and articulable. Bottom like, “reasonable and articulable suspicion” is not a very difficult bar to clear. What action did the driver take that makes you think that the driver is committing a crime? The driver, not the car. The driver. You were doing well until you delved into probability and statistics. After a home invasion when police see seven people walking from the scene, six males, one female, six whites, and one black (also male) can he do a Terry stop of the black male because of probability and statistics? I assume the answer is no. Why not after this case? Remember, it doesn’t have to be certain, just reasonable and articulable. So why not stop the black dude? ETA: And the police have no description at all of the home invader (as in this case, the driver) ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/54 "2020-04-10T14:32:57Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > It’s not dangerous. How does a guy who drives after failing to pay civil fines or because he got a DUI two months ago “dangerous”? These are simply punitive regulations to make people not do the bad things. They are no more or less qualified to drive than you or me. Yeah, sorry, but despite the fact that I’ve agreed with your overall position in this thread, you’re drawing a false equivalence here. The guy who got a DUI was a danger to the public, and he was specifically a danger when behind the wheel of a car. Taking away the driving privileges (or, if you prefer, rights) of a person who has shown himself to be a danger on the road might be a “punitive regulation to make people not do the bad things,” but it is also a reasonable penalty in the case of someone who drives under the influence. We want that person not to do the bad thing anymore, because it endangers other road users. That’s quite different from taking a license away from someone who is late paying his tickets, or is too poor to pay them on time. Suspending the license of a DUI or a reckless driver protects other road users, and is a punishment that has a direct and rational connection to the type of crime. Suspending the license of a poor person because they can’t pay their tickets is not only punitive, but it is also bad policy, because it deprives them of the very thing that is often necessary for them to earn money and pay the fine. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/55 "2020-04-10T14:42:07Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Yeah, sorry, but despite the fact that I’ve agreed with your overall position in this thread, you’re drawing a false equivalence here. > > The guy who got a DUI was a danger to the public, and he was specifically a danger when behind the wheel of a car. Taking away the driving privileges (or, if you prefer, rights) of a person who has shown himself to be a danger on the road might be a “punitive regulation to make people not do the bad things,” but it is also a reasonable penalty in the case of someone who drives under the influence. We want that person not to do the bad thing anymore, because it endangers other road users. That’s quite different from taking a license away from someone who is late paying his tickets, or is too poor to pay them on time. > > Suspending the license of a DUI or a reckless driver protects other road users, and is a punishment that has a direct and rational connection to the type of crime. Suspending the license of a poor person because they can’t pay their tickets is not only punitive, but it is also bad policy, because it deprives them of the very thing that is often necessary for them to earn money and pay the fine. But you would agree that a guy who was busted for DUI on Friday night coming home from the bar is not a danger when driving sober to work on Tuesday morning? Even with a suspended license. The sanction was punitive, even if as I agree, a reasonable penalty. But his violation of the sanction does not endanger me when I am driving to work on Tuesday. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/56 "2020-04-10T14:49:21Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > He’s suspected of that for a reason, because he’s driving a car for which the most likely driver would be a person committing that crime. But, by definition, he’s not the most likely driver, because his license is suspended. As Justice Sotomayor points out in her dissent, reasonable suspicion is supposed to be particularized, and courts are also supposed to look at the reasons given by the officer. > [@](#): > > For starters, the majority flips the burden of proof. It > permits Kansas police officers to effectuate roadside stops > whenever they lack “information negating an inference” > that a vehicle’s unlicensed owner is its driver. Ante, at 1. > This has it backwards: The State shoulders the burden to > supply the key inference that tethers observation to suspi- > cion. The majority repeatedly attributes such an inference > to Deputy Mehrer. Ante, at 4, 6, 9. But that is an after-the- > fact gloss on a seven-paragraph stipulation. Nowhere in his > terse submission did Deputy Mehrer indicate that he had > any informed belief about the propensity of unlicensed driv- > ers to operate motor vehicles in the area—let alone that he > relied on such a belief in seizing Glover. Ante, at 1–2. > > The consequence of the majority’s approach is to absolve > officers from any responsibility to investigate the identity > of a driver where feasible. But that is precisely what offic- > ers ought to do—and are more than capable of doing. Of > course, some circumstances may not warrant an officer ap- > proaching a car to take a closer look at its occupants. But > there are countless other instances where officers have > been able to ascertain the identity of a driver from a dis- > tance and make out their approximate age and gender. In- > deed, our cases are rife with examples of officers who have > perceived more than just basic driver demographics. I don’t think this is the worst 4th Amendment decision ever, not by a long shot. But it’s just another chip away at the right against government search and seizure, something that has been happening for a long time under judges and justices of all political persuasions, and that has rendered the automobile in America effectively a 4th Amendment-free zone. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/57 "2020-04-10T14:53:33Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > I don’t think this is the worst 4th Amendment decision ever, not by a long shot. But it’s just another chip away at the right against government search and seizure, something that has been happening for a long time under judges and justices of all political persuasions, and that has rendered the automobile in America effectively a 4th Amendment-free zone. I’ll return the disagreement. 🙂 It is the worst because it absolves the government of any individualized suspicion. This will uphold racial profiling. It will allow the harassment of young people or those who drive shitty cars or wear unkempt clothing or have tattoos or non mainstream piercings. Because we can use probability and statistics, based upon “officer training and experience” (already a bullshit and overused phrase) to harass people based upon these probabilities because no individualized suspicion is required. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 2:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/58 "2020-04-10T14:54:45Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **UltraVires** : > > What action did the driver take that makes you think that the driver is committing a crime? The driver, not the car. The driver. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Cars don’t commit crimes, and nobody is claiming that they do. The action that the driver took that makes me suspect he’s committing a crime is that he drove that particular vehicle. And yes, of course someone who’s gotten a DUI should be considered to be dangerous. He’s known to have a history of making poor decisions that result in unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. I don’t know if he’s drunk on his way to work on Tuesday morning. Maybe he is. When someone’s caught driving drunk, we don’t just tell them “OK, you’re not allowed to drive after drinking now”. They already weren’t allowed to do that. We tell them “You’re not allowed to drive at all, because we don’t know when you’re drinking”. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/59 "2020-04-10T15:09:36Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > I don’t know what point you’re trying to make. Cars don’t commit crimes, and nobody is claiming that they do. > > The action that the driver took that makes me suspect he’s committing a crime is that he drove that particular vehicle. > > And yes, of course someone who’s gotten a DUI should be considered to be dangerous. He’s known to have a history of making poor decisions that result in unsafe operation of a motor vehicle. I don’t know if he’s drunk on his way to work on Tuesday morning. Maybe he is. When someone’s caught driving drunk, we don’t just tell them “OK, you’re not allowed to drive after drinking now”. They already weren’t allowed to do that. We tell them “You’re not allowed to drive at all, because we don’t know when you’re drinking”. 1. See how you are turning law on its head? If I drive a vehicle owned by someone with a suspended license, I am not doing anything to bring suspicion. I am driving an legally registered vehicle. Completely legal and non-suspicious. I have done it today. In fact, the total is now 3 vehicles in the last 6 days I have driven when I was not the registered owner. Neighbor lady got a flat tire, I put the spare on and drove it down to the tire shop for her. I know it is anecdotal, but the driver of the vehicle could be any number of people besides the named owner on the pink slip. The nexus is weak. 1. But you agree that he’s not dangerous on Tuesday unless he is drinking? Not merely because of the regulatory infraction that he is committing? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2020, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/60 "2020-04-10T15:14:06Z")
How about this? As the presumption that the registered owner is driving the vehicle is so strong, could there be reasonable articulable suspicion that if someone who does not fit the description of the registered owner is driving that the vehicle is stolen? Would a felony stop with guns drawn be in order when I drove the neighbor lady’s car? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244.md?page=4)