Ticket To Ride

Pierce's example makes no sense.

How do you compare walking on a sidewalk to being a passenger in a (however brief) detained/seized car?

Oh, wait. I get it: This is supposed to scare me into a Big Brother fear...

(Which- Big Brother- by the way, is on tonight!!!)

On one hand the only people that need worry are the criminals (hopefully the innocent who are wrongly listed as such are a small percentage). On the other hand, where do you draw the line that keeps the government out of your personal business? The most frightening line in the article was "The Supreme Court said during a motor vehicle stop, a passenger is considered "seized" under the federal and state constitutions and police do not need a reasonable suspicion to run a background check. That's scary.

Not really scary. It's always been that way.

And the 6-0 decision shows that the Court clearly believes this is reasonable.

So do I.

This is so because the car itself, it's occupants and possessions are considered seized.

(Likewise, has any passenger of a car pulled over ever felt as if they were not detained and were free to get out of the car?)

People carpool in NJ?

I'm skeptical because I've never seen this carpooling. Is this what kids are into these days? What happened to the respectable people who would put dummies in the passenger seat so that they could use the HOV lane? I say ride sharing is a load of bunk.

" In the case that led to yesterday's ruling, Kugler said, "the police officer's action was more than reasonable.""

Anyone know what case they are refering to?

This one, from the article:

The high court held Carteret police did not violate the federal or state constitutional rights of Sulaiman Sloane, 34, of Carteret, when they ran a National Crime Information Center database check on him after they stopped the car he was riding in on Nov. 11, 2003.

The driver of the car, Sherma Moore, was found to have a suspended license. That led officers to run an NCIC check on her, which showed there was a warrant out for her.

After Moore was arrested, Sloane asked if he could return the car to his uncle, who owned it. But Sloane could not produce a license. Police ran a check on him and found his license was suspended. They then checked his name in the NCIC database and discovered Sloane was wanted for a parole violation and two outstanding arrest warrants.

Don't ride dirty, and don't be dirty and ride with a dirty driver.

According to the state constitution you are protected from unreasonable searches and seizers (sec. 7), to use a thin veil of a motor vehicle stop to circumvent that right is scary (and what's the next scenario?). But if you look at sec. 20, and how ruined lives lay in the wake of the corrupt atmosphere of Trenton before the courts finally recognized the "misinterpretation", I guess you could say 'business as usual". I prefer the freedoms to be upheld. If an unregistered gun is found in a car, reasonable cause is there, if someone volunteers to drive a car and their license is suspended it's reasonable, but to just run the record of a passenger for a speeding stop, no way (which is what they are saying). The case they used was reasonable; the binding precedent they are setting seems to be opening a Pandora's Box.

CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

"I say ride sharing is a load of bunk."

Whadda think about bunk sharing? :)

But isn't the Court saying that being in an illegally driven (or stopped) car is all the reasonable suspicion needed?

As for the Constitution, you must then look at the State's Supreme Court interpretation of those section.

For section 20, you can thank the Kelo decision for much of what we're seeing as it relates to the land grabs going on in the nation....

This part of the story lays it out (seems reasoned in the approach):

The Supreme Court said during a motor vehicle stop, a passenger is considered "seized" under the federal and state constitutions and police do not need a reasonable suspicion to run a background check.

"Because the decision to check the NCIC database was within the scope of the traffic stop and did not unreasonably prolong the stop, there is no basis to suppress the evidence found," Chief Justice Stuart Rabner declared.

The justices said Sloane "had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the public records maintained in NCIC -- his two outstanding warrants and record of a parole violation ..."

State Deputy Attorney General Paul Heinzel said background checks are a routine part of traffic stops.

"Police have onboard terminals," he said. "They go online, and it tells them if the name they are entering has an outstanding warrant in any jurisdiction."

Kill two birds with one stone I say if there's reasonable cause. How long does it really take to run a check? But let's figure out where to put all the criminals. I think the jails are pretty full.

"I prefer the freedoms to be upheld."

So how do you feel about Megan's Law?

Uno. Prof (and I use that term loosely), I said that the case used is reasonable and I believe well within the law; it's the interpretation and precedent that results that is scary.
Dos. Check ackme

Duck (and I use the term freely because at times your posts are Daffy),

Interpretation and precedents make up the law.

Prof, if the law already exists that allows for the further investigation of someone who is suspect, why would you allow the investigation of a nobody? Why would you make a ruling that doesn't just allow for further queries, instead, leaves the door open for new, unrelated ones? They seem to have taken an incident that is justified and ruled in a way that allows unconstitutional behavior. If this is a wrong interpretation of what is happening, tell me. But you are arguing nothing; "Interpretation and precedents make up the law" goes without saying. The problem is where you draw the line of who gets to be checked out. A carpooler is not a person of interest, someone who wants to drive away a car after a legitimate stop is.

In your class, it would seem to be OK to stop a pedestrian and ask for papers, no? It seems that would be daffy.

... And the Court decided that all occupants are of interest and can be checked out.

But are you arguing against the decision? Or that you believe this was already clear?

Asking for papers? No.

But if that cop had a reasonable suspicion, s/he could stop and frisk.

(However, being stopped in a car is treated very different than stopped on the street.)

It seems the decision allows unreasonable search (your record or your person). If the stop has reasonable suspicion (I.E. drugs, guns, you presenting yourself as an alternate operator of the vehicle), search away, the currentlaw would support it. What seems to have changed is if the stop is for one brake light out, why would a passenger now be reasonably suspect of anything? Oh, wait, "a passenger is considered "seized" under the federal and state constitutions and police do not need a reasonable suspicion to run a background check"
Get it?

I carpool everyday, and frankly, I am a little relieved that my passengers can now be subject to a background search. I've always felt that the two three-year-olds in the back were up to no good. And don't get me started about the second grader. She's bound to have an outstanding warrant or two.

This is a good reason now to never ever give bad dude walleroo a ride.

The (Police) State of NJ. Don't tell me you didn't see this coming.

Yakky pointed out exactly what I was thinking. So if Smokey decides it's a slow day and pulls over hubby for a burnt-out running light, he can run a criminal background check on me, his mom, my kids, and any other other passengers in my car? What if his mom has a warrant for parking tickets or something? do they now seize my car because mum didn't pay her fines?

I'm all for catching gun-toting druggie criminals, but this sounds a little more like a police state than I like.

It seems a little unreasonable to me. Think about why the police stopped the car. The driver (who is also presumably the owner) is the one who did the suspicious or illegal thing that caused the officer to stop the car. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable suspicion to "search" the passenger, unless the officer then notices something the passenger did (say the car smelled like illegal drugs.)

Kay,

The answer is, yes. If your mom has a warrant-- not parking fines- out for her, she might be caught.

I say, good.

And if you are driving with a busted light-- you're braking the law. So, ah, yes. I hope you get pulled over.

Because I don't want to end up in an accident caused by "just a little old light" being out of your hoopdee.

I would, seriously, suggest that folks simply make sure their traffic tickets are all paid. And take care, too, not to ride with others whom they suspect may be felons. (Or with outlaw walleroos.)

Really, however, this does not presage the coming of a police state. And it's already also a rather common method of catching bigger "fish" by law enforcement. The amazing thing to me is that some posters apparently wonder if they can be classed as such fish. They should know better, since baristaville is neither downtown Camden today nor Phenix City, Alabama during its heyday.

I'd like to think of myself as a 12-lb. fluke, 22-inches in all, who cannot be pulled into the boat without much difficulty.

Mike91,

Unfortunately, your idea that the driver is not presumably the owner is not always (or even sometimes) true.

How many teenagers own their cars? Business owned vehicles? Hell, most family cars probably are in a single name.

Unfortunately, your idea that the driver is not presumably the owner is not always (or even sometimes) true.

It still doesn't change the fact that the driver is the only one who should have 'reasonable suspicion' applied to them. The driver borrowed or owns the car.

Miss Martta, I by contrast, only ever assume that you are the most composed, and innocent, of swans.

So many other posters, for all their floundering, suggest their core flukiness to me.

Awww, thanks, Cathar. I was just thinking back to one of the biggest fish I ever caught. It WAS the biggest fish caught by the crew on our boat that day and I was the only woman on board. [[[[Sigh]]]]

Is it April yet?

Mike91,

Suppose the owner is the passenger?

Should a cop only check out the driver and not the owner?

If yes, why not? The owners property was used in a violation.

If no, why not? The owners property was used in a violation.

To be involved in an accident, prof, you would have to leave the house, something you have not done since, apparently, 1959, or you would be aware of how aggressive the police have already become. As you said, a lot of cars are owned by those not driving them. What if the driver does not inform the owner of violations? What if the owner is carpooling with someone whose bulb happens to burn out on that trip, even if the driver checked that morning and found it was working? What if notice of said violations had not yet come in the mail? What if you lived somewhere the citizens wished that they had a time machine because 20/20 hindsight said this much checking of people was not good because you could go from reasonable to anything that they legislated was bad (shhh, don't argue). I'd ask again where you would draw the line, but crayons are all you got.

Mr. Duck,

It seems that Supreme Court of the New Jersey must be writing with the same crayola's.

Funny, I've been out quite a bit and sorry, but I haven't noticed "aggressive" police.

But then again, while no guarantee, I tend to follow the law.

However, so your (very wrong, I'm sure) picture of me stands, please tell me about the "aggressive" policing "out" in the state.

Yakky, I'm likin' you more and more. So, if mummsy is one of those people who hoards junk but doeesn't pay her bills and hasn't told anyone because she's ignorant or whatever, and there's a judgment out for debtor's prison or a bench warrant or something, and all we want to do is take her out for dinner - sorry Mom! you better fill out this affidavit first before you get in my car. (of course, I'll have to explain it to her. HA) Because, and my point before was maybe too succinct, is that Smokey the Cop can pull over anyone anytime, using the ol' light bulb excuse, and guess what, since I'm not allowed out of my car during a traffic stop (for good reason usually, officer safety) I can't show the cop or even verify that my bulb IS in fact working, and meantime they are running poor Mum through NCIC and my car gets impounded, for a bogus light bulb stop. (and I don't get my dinner out either!)

Since hubby and I are a so-called mixed couple, this hypotehtical may resonate more with me than others.

and believe me, I am all for Montclair's finest but I am worried this decision could be abused endlessly.

Kay, mixed as in Irish and Italian?

But don't worry. Most cops around here don't care about harassing folks. They have too much other stuff to worry about.

Prof,

Is my car "seized" when I stop at a road-block set up on 4th of July weekend when the cops are looking for drunk drivers?

How about when they've got those silly seatbelt checking stations set up?

I'm the one driving (sober and with everyone seat belted) but the cops can still run background checks on everyone in my car and, if someone in my car has a bench warrant out for unpaid parking tickets from the 1970s, can have my car impounded?

You think this is a good idea, why?

will, I have been pulled over, as the police target not only certain groups based on visual clues, but definitely those that are young and less likely to say "what light is out, show me", I can say that you could exit your vehicle, confront the officer on the spot as to the validity of the stop and if they were fishing, go on your way. Now, you can't get out of the car without getting arrested if not shot, any question of the stop is addressed to the court, good luck on that. Oh, and questioning the 6, that's not only appropriate but a right that has not yet been taken away, it also is, apparently, necessary.

While I haven't researched it, I do not think a quick visual inspection for a seat belt is a seizure compared to lawful stop.

However, a good argument can be made that it is because they are prohibiting you from freedom of movement. (Perhaps someone else knows this point.)

But both your points are not some new kinda of law here. So if you are concerned you should check with another attorney (I charge too much).

And Mike, it's best to pose a question and wait for a reply, rather than assume the answer as you last sentence does.

Prof, (wink) no - and sadly there are still parts of this great nation that I wouldn't want to drive through.

Prof,

My point wasn't about being against those checks (especially the drunk-driver check points), but to point out that having the ability to run everyone's background while conducting one of those checks is a) paramount to randomly stopping people on the street and b) punishing the driver of a vehicle for something the passenger did that the driver didn’t necessarily have anything to do with.
Now I really am curious as to whether the law considers a check-point to be the same as a "lawful stop" re: seizure.

Like where Kay?

Honestly, NJ and this area are the most segregated in the nation.

The South? Hardly, if you haven't been, go. You find some of the nicest folks around who have already had their race conversation (unlike the enlightened North).

And then you'd move because the living is much nicer and cheaper.

Damn tenure!

I don't need a lawyer (I'll leave the outing to Wally) at whatever cost (what do you know about what I can afford?).
Once the police pull you over, you and your passengers are "seized" and under the current ruling, subject to examination under a microscope until turned loose.
I remember my father telling a cop to go get some donuts after a stop for not using his blinker. It was back in the sixties, at four in the morning while on the way to go fishing, no other cars in sight. "You think I can’t see if there is someone else on the road, who would I be signaling to, the seagulls?" was what he said as he drove away; again, now you’d be lucky if you weren't shot.
I don’t believe the current laws (atmosphere?) make us any safer. Taking liberties away was why some people thought our government was a good idea, they didn’t like either.

The Court is clear: seat belt and DWI checks are perfectly fine if done in a random fashion (e.g. every 4th car checked).

I was curious about the technical question of while they are checking your car, are you considered seized?

This doesn't really matter other than the legal reasoning since it is permissible.

"they didn’t like IT either"

GNM,

Many years ago, early 70's, my brother was driving a car and one of the passengers threw an empty bottle from the window.

A police officer pulled him over and said "You're responsible!" to my brother and handed him a citation.

Little bro with the plus 140 IQ went to the Bloomfield Public library and found that the statue in question specifically read that he was not, in fact, responsible for the conduct of his passenger.

He represented himself in court and won the case. The judge said to him "Healy, you ought to be a lawyer".

We still chuckle about this today.

Suppose the owner is the passenger?

Should a cop only check out the driver and not the owner?

If the passenger is the owner, and the car was stopped because a brakelight is out, then maybe he should be checked for warrants.

But lets say that the car is stopped because of a brakelight out, and the owner is driving. Why then are the passengers in the car automatically included in the list of suspicious persons?

Prof, if you have "tenure" anywhere I suspect it's just an end stool at one "old man bar" (as "Weird New Jersey" terms them) or another that your fellow pensioners save for you because it's near the rest room. Not an institution of post-high school learning.

Mr. Chips you are not, in other words.

Here is the case:

http://lawlibrary.rutgers.edu/courts/supreme/a-40-06.doc.html

Forget tenure or Mr. Chips, maybe Regarding Henry.

"But both your points are not some new kinda of law here. So if you are concerned you should check with another attorney (I charge too much).
Posted by profwilliams | February 12, 2008 4:03 PM"

Gentlemen,

You miss the obvious: maybe both.

Tenure and large hourly fees......

The Star-Ledger piece leaves a lot of questions unanswered. I had, & still have, the same question as Kay - what constitutes a "traffic stop"? Does the right of cops to investigate passengers apply in the seatbelt check situation?

So off I went googling for more information. I wasn't able to find anything else on the Supreme Court ruling. I don't have an answer to my original question.

However, I did find the text of the appellate court ruling which the Supreme Court has now overturned. It's an eye-opener.

I suggest that folks read this document. We are in much murkier waters than I'd thought.

The most surprising thing to me is that Moore's vehicle was not stopped due to any moving violation or vehicular infraction. It was stopped solely because a cop thought he recognized her, & thought that her license was suspended.

Interesting take on a traffic stop, no? "Hey, that girl looks familiar. Isn't she the babe with the suspended license? Let's check her out!"

This is the same cop, mind you, who also testified in court that he thought that passenger Sloane was a drug dealer named "Russell," a notion which proved to be false.

Read the differing accounts of Officer Muzyka's interactions with Moore and Sloane. Who do you believe? Do you still think that this was an entirely reasonable "seizure"?

I give the Star-Ledger a D- in Journalism for their superficial whitewash of this story.

And you, crank leave out important info too:

(from the decision)
The cop "first contacted police
headquarters. As soon as he verified that Moore's license was
in fact suspended, he backed up his police car and activated his
overhead lights to effect a stop."

So the cop thought he recognized her, called it in, verified that her license was suspended and pulled her over.

Sounds like good police work to me.

What would officer crank do?

Prof, you missed the obviousness of our replies: talk of "tenure" coupled with apparent obliviousness to English grammar does not academic standing prove....

And all those silly degrees?

Wait, perhaps this:

"...My high school was the black ghetto
of Roxbury. My college was the streets
of Harlem, and I took my masters in prison."

But what, dear friend cathar, "proves" academic standing?

Nothing tells us why Officer Bazooka thought Moore's license had been suspended. If he'd arrested or cited her previously, I'd presume that he simply would have said so. Was this just another case of getting stiffed for DWB?

Like I said, murky.

The Appellate Court's reasoning in allowing the motion to suppress is interesting. I want to read the Supreme Court's decision before getting into that, though. It supposedly has been published but I can't find it online, yet.

I guess one proof of academic standing would be some evidence of learning. Another might be , well, some evidence of learning. And the third, uh....
Prof has degrees! He may have a master's! It may be in some demanding discipline -- perhaps "education", or maybe even "communication", or perhaps "film" or maybe even "ethno-nutrition" (wait, that's another guy).
I can't decide which is funnier -- the prof thinking that he has more or better (or even mo' bettah) academic credentials than anyone else here, the idea that the prof thinks he's a smart guy, or the fact that the prof thinks anyone gives a damn.

Prof, now I'm picking up the idea that you think your life experience makes you academically qualified.

But this is not a coven of pickpockets. And "tenure" does not easily correspond to, say, 7 years in a Federal can for jacking sports cars.

As to whether your life experiences would qualify you for anything other than derision in those British "open" universities who do give degrees to certifiable lowlifes with priors, I don't know. I have merely noted your considerable pretensions re being a "faculty member" here (and one qualified to teach English grammar, to boot). And on that level, even if perhaps on that level alone, you fail miserably. You seem to be no more a "professor" than "Colonel" Sanders held recognizable rank anywhere outside of Kentucky, which is fine. I still enjoy your posts, no matter how bruised you may be feeling right now.

Are you telling me that Sanders was not a full bird?
What about Commander Cody?

While I agree what constitutes a traffic stop is important, or any other circumstance that considers one as seized, what constitutes more than one individual "seized"?
The case seems to infer that had the individual not asked permission to drive the vehicle away (and not being able to produce a valid license) is what triggered the warrant search.
So, if the person had not made the request or had a valid license does that mean this "frisking" of benign passengers would be still be illegal? It seems that it was until now. Why would this change the interpretation of the law? It would make sense that if cops could legally run a passive passenger’s info before this they would have at every opportunity. I want to think this needs a legislative change (if change is what it is) not a court interpretation of existing law. In which case we would have input as to whether the majority thinks this is what we want and it would have to pass constitutional muster.

(prof is waiting at his designated muster station...)

(prof is so bruised... a little waif in a corner... so many attacking... Wait...)

Ah, no.

And cro, how do you get to thinking prof claims (or even cares) about his mo' betta credentials-- reading too much into an anonymous post on a public blog again? Or something else?

I've told you, don't believe everything you read here.

So as you go on with your scary exploits in Europe here.

Or your scary history in mining, here.

Or perhaps your scary Catholic school exploits here, I will continue to take it all as equal parts fact and bluster.

Or perhaps I'll just continue to wither under this thunderous beating from all these folks who don't give a damn.

(Note: This was originally written as a single post.)

Just so we're clear, your third ref would indicate that I mentioned a Catholic service, not a Catholic school. But who would expect such a titanic intellect to bother with a close reading? That goes to (or maybe "speaks to") your "credentials".
But hauling up my posts is instructive, prof. For now I see that I needn't bother with legal assistance when I'm stopped driving, but rather with a stalking faux prof who shows how little he cares by keeping a scrapbook of my posts.

Finally, don't lump film, music or any other art form with communication (mass is my favorite) or ethno-nutrition...

(The list goes on, but why pile on?)

It's insulting to artists.

So, in other words, you got nothin' when it comes to a sensitive issue concerning the evolving cutting edge of law. I guess that is what constitutes an anonymous poster that inferred education and degrees, as a teacher no less, and insinuates large fees for judicial advice...smoke and attack of another poster. Being just a Duck can be sweet.

prof, try to get all of your thoughts into a single post. This presentation sort of mirrors your fractured thought process.
Who says it is insulting to artists? Who says that everyone who makes a film or a song is an artist? And what artist has designated you as defender or advocate?
Do you have a "degree" in that as well, or do you simply collect large hourly fees for this service to artists everywhere.
By the way, since you're apparently awfully interested in me -- what am I wearing right now?

Somehow I have a feeling that you should take it off before cather get any ideas or wally takes a picture.

Heh,heh,heh, couldn't resist.

Duck, its too damn cold!

Then you better run fast, I bet that wally's camera is cutting edge and I really don't want to go to cathar catching you. (blank mind, blank mind)

cro, (I say this too often to you) please re-read, friend. Movable Type used here didn't allow my post to go through as a single.

But perhaps it's better that way. So you can handle it in easily digestible nuggets.

AND cro, you clearly have no clothes on.

Duck, can you try a powerpoint with that post-- I'm dizzy trying to follow and maybe some visuals will help.

(I have to go back to defending artists!!)

the visuals are all yours will, I'm going to bed...alone (blank mind, blank mind)

Ah, the Movable Type wouldn't allow it. Doesn't it know who its dealing with? You're the prof, dammit.
Listen, old boy, I usually call my sister on Tuesday nights. Right around this time, to allow for the time change (she lives in CA). Now, I love her and all, but I can never get off the phone with her. Do me a favor -- since you know so much about me and have clearly been keeping tabs, will you give her a call and let her know what I'm up to? This way, I can turn in early.
And prof, with the clothes -- you're right. You are peeking aren't you, you Jason Bourne you!

I'm not sure about the Colonel's military bona fides in anything other than the 'Confederate Air Force' (a real organization, by the way, they restore WWII planes and rent them for films), croiagusanam.

But it certainly was originally "Commando" Cody. Commander Cody led the band, Commando Cody flew.

Y.A. Duck, I never find you nearly as funny as you apparently see yourself. And since you shared your opinions on the Hasidim and other strict Orthodox a few weeks ago, have even found your posts occasionally repellent.

Prof, hang in there. Degreed pedagogue or not, you're never less than a good sport.

"Don't ride dirty, and don't be dirty and ride with a dirty driver."

You simpleton. Way to be a "good german"

ANY erosion of our civil rights is too much. The "It doesnt bother me, I have nothing to hide" mentality is the fertile soil from which fascism springs to life, period.

(Thanks cathar... Now for the sport of shoveling- not to be confused with the warm air spew I practice here daily...)

For me, Colonel Tom Parker is the only "military" man I follow.

(Very hard to find good chicken at KFC.)

Prof,

Be careful out there! It's very slippery and the slush must be excruciatingly heavy.

Me, I will abstain from any shoveling or any other manual labor for that matter. Inguinal hernia surgery has rendered me a most sedentary man. Ouch!!

cathar, My views of one extremist sect are what they are, my views of strict Orthodox are fine with my Orthodox Jewish friends (and the more mainstream ones also). What makes me happy though is having a 99.9% offensive person such as yourself stay away, being a cathar repellent is fine with me.