# 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:** 10\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Joey\_P](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/919ad9/32.png) [@Joey\_P](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joey_P)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/81 "2020-04-11T19:44:21Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > 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. By that logic, isn’t pretty much everything punitive. If my neighbor is sick of his wife so he kills her, does he really need to go to jail? Isn’t that just punitive at this point? He had a problem with her, not anyone else. He’s not a danger to me or the other neighbor or his kids or his boss. The person who got the DUI on Friday has proven they’re not responsible enough to be driving. If a cop sees him out on the road Tuesday morning, how could they possibly know that this person, who the cops knows beyond a shadow of a doubt is willing to get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, is sober? Just because it’s Tuesday or it’s morning or they’re on their way to work doesn’t have anything to do with their sobriety, or lack thereof. Hell, I know plenty of 3rd shift bars that are open and full of patrons at 8am. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/82 "2020-04-11T20:41:47Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > This would be great. The problem is that your position is completely rejected by American constitutional law and federal court decisions. > > Once the officer has the reasonable suspicion necessary for a traffic stop, he or she then has the right to investigate any other offenses that are either immediately apparent upon the stop (e.g., seatbelt not worn; smell of alcohol, unroadworthy car, lack of insurance, etc. etc. etc.), and to engage in all sorts of fishing expeditions regarding other unseen but possible or suspected offenses. > > This decision is a part of the broader leeway allowed to police, and is the thin end of a wedge that adds element after element to the myriad options that the police have for pulling over and investigating motorists. Of course, the fact that it’s part of such a big set of reasons is partly why I opined, a few posts ago, that this isn’t the worst decision ever. > > The fact is that, if a cop wants to pull you over, and he follows you for long enough, he can find a reason to pull you over, no matter how carefully you drive. If the cop in this case had wanted to, he could, after noting that the car was registered to an owner with a suspended license, have simply followed until the driver did something like make an unsignalled lane change, or exceeded the speed limit by 2 miles per hour, or accidentally allowed his wheels to cross the lane divider for a second, or rolled through a right on red at 2 miles per hour, or any one of the dozens of other minute infractions (or alleged infractions claimed by the officer) that allow for a traffic stop. Then, when he had the car pulled over and asked for license and registration, he could have miraculously discovered that the guy’s license was suspended, even though he knew that all along. > > And, in fact, if the Supreme Court had found for the plaintiff here, I’ll bet that’s exactly what police would have done in response. To address this: 1. Yes, I agree with you. There is simply no way to “limit the stop” to identifying the driver. If John Smith is the registered owner and has a suspended license, so you pull over the car and find that Jim Smith, his son, is legally driving the car, but you also see a decapitated corpse in the back seat, do the police have to ignore that and let Jim go on his way? What if there is the smell of marijuana in the vehicle and Jim appears intoxicated? Off he goes? Of course not, but once you agree with this point, then it is just like any other traffic stop; there is no limit to it. 1. I agree that pretextual stops are bad and they are very much a part of restricting our freedoms. The problem is that there is no good way to stop them. Let’s say that a police officer sees a suspicious looking character driving around and has a hunch that he is up to no good and would like to question him. However he has no reason for a stop. But, aha, look he isn’t wearing his seatbelt so the cop will pull him over for that. I don’t like that anymore than you do, but what is the remedy for it? Cops cannot issue seatbelt tickets anymore? Do we turn every criminal trial into a “you didn’t really pull him over for that” exercise? Is everyone else subject to getting a seatbelt ticket but you can get out of it by acting shady? What if the motive is mixed? What if the cop truthfully testifies that yes, he wanted to speak with the guy because he looked suspicious but he equally wanted to enforce the seat belt law? What if it was 90-10 or 80-20? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2020, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/83 "2020-04-11T20:50:23Z")
> [@Joey\_P](#): > > By that logic, isn’t pretty much everything punitive. If my neighbor is sick of his wife so he kills her, does he really need to go to jail? Isn’t that just punitive at this point? He had a problem with her, not anyone else. He’s not a danger to me or the other neighbor or his kids or his boss. > > The person who got the DUI on Friday has proven they’re not responsible enough to be driving. If a cop sees him out on the road Tuesday morning, how could they possibly know that this person, who the cops knows beyond a shadow of a doubt is willing to get behind the wheel of a car while intoxicated, is sober? Just because it’s Tuesday or it’s morning or they’re on their way to work doesn’t have anything to do with their sobriety, or lack thereof. > Hell, I know plenty of 3rd shift bars that are open and full of patrons at 8am. I am not saying that a person driving on a suspended license should not be pulled over and should not further be punished for driving on a suspended license. I am not saying that being punitive towards someone by suspending their license for a DUI is a bad thing. I am disputing the idea that a person who does nothing more than drive on a suspended license is “dangerous.” That person is not dangerous unless he additionally violates traffic laws, but you can say the same thing about anybody who violates traffic laws. The lack of a government permit does not add more danger. A person driving drunk to work on Tuesday morning is equally dangerous whether his license is active or suspended. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/84 "2020-04-12T02:22:24Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I’m not claiming that it is a right, I am claiming that it should be. Food should be free too. Darn. > [@](#): > > It seems silly to have a right to travel in the United States and to freely go from state to state when the government strictly regulates the only real meaningful way that most people can exercise the right. Sure, I could walk or ride a horse or hire a chauffeur but the cheapest and most meaningful way I can exercise the right is heavily regulated. Please visualize a nation with no driving or vehicle regulations. Have fun. Right-of-way belongs to the biggest. Pistols are turn signals. Vehicles may freely spew thick toxins. Spoiler: Regulations exist because people die otherwise. But don’t let me stop you from riding a moped in the fast lane of I-95. It’s your right, right? We face fewer restrictions on private property. I can ride a loud smoggy two-stroke go-cart all over my forest acreage chasing wildlife and blaring. But venturing onto public roads means I follow the law or face punishment. > [@](#): > > To me it is like saying that there is a free press, but you have no right to buy ink or paper, those are mere privileges. Where are you prohibited from purchasing ink and paper? Don’t bother; I know you’re paralleling. But you seem not to discern the difference between private and public realms. Print your sheet with purchased or homemade ink and paper, fine. Mail it, fine. But dump it by the roadside and you’re littering. Tsk. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/85 "2020-04-12T02:40:54Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > . Let’s say that a police officer sees a suspicious looking character driving around and has a hunch that he is up to no good and would like to question him. However he has no reason for a stop. But, aha, look he isn’t wearing his seatbelt so the cop will pull him over for that. There is the central issue. Where is the constitutional support for the wild discrepancy between the 4th Amendment rights of a suspicious-looking character walking around, and one driving?? ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/86 "2020-04-12T04:21:03Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > But is it really? > > After all, absent any other indicia of suspicion, the first and only thing you know about the owner is that his license is suspended. Surely the first and most obvious logical inference to draw from such knowledge is that the owner would not, in fact, be the one driving, because his license is suspended and you’re not allowed to drive on a suspended license. Without some real stats I suppose we’re guessing… but my direct experience is that license suspensions are rather widely disregarded. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 12:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/87 "2020-04-12T12:18:38Z")
Per this wapo analysis, 7 million license suspension due to traffic debt. Not because they’re a danger. > **[More than 7 million people may have lost driver’s licenses because of traffic...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/more-than-7-million-people-may-have-lost-drivers-licenses-because-of-traffic-debt/2018/05/19/97678c08-5785-11e8-b656-a5f8c2a9295d_story.html)** > > A Post investigation found the total number of suspensions could be much higher — perhaps by millions. Some states have since changed their laws. As I mentioned before, the increased use of electronic plate readers means an increased likelihood of the car being stopped every time anyone takes it out. That is a bad outcome. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 12:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/88 "2020-04-12T12:22:35Z")
> **[More Than 7 Million Americans May Have Suspended Licenses for Unpaid Tickets...](https://reason.com/2018/05/21/more-than-7-million-americans-have-suspe/)** > > The practice traps the poor in a spiral of debt, hobbling their ability to pay off their fines. For internet neophytes who haven’t figured out how to access WaPo articles. ---
**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 12, 2020, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/89 "2020-04-12T15:06:10Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Without some real stats I suppose we’re guessing… but my direct experience is that license suspensions are rather widely disregarded. I think that your direct experience is right. In fact, I linked to a report on the first page noting that a lot of license suspensions are, in fact, widely disregarded. But that’s precisely why I quoted Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, where she notes that statistics offering population-wide generalizations are not an appropriate basis for the individualized suspicion that is supposed to be required for a traffic stop. Of course, given that she was a minority of one in this case, the other justices obviously disagree with her (and me) on that issue. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2020, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244/90 "2020-04-12T21:10:03Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Without some real stats I suppose we’re guessing… but my direct experience is that license suspensions are rather widely disregarded. Again, not the relevant stat. It’s how many cars owned by people with suspended licenses are not being driven by a licensed driver at any given time? Citing the wrong stat is such an obvious fallacy that this whole thing (and a large part of this thread) surprises me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-car-owned-by-person-with-a-suspended-license-enough-for-a-stop/851244.md?page=4)