By Anthony Bandiero, attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training.
A question from a sergeant in Atlanta who has been explaining this case law to his guys and wanted it on video. License plate readers come back showing the owner of a car is wanted. There is no traffic violation, so there is no probable cause. Is there reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver is the wanted person?
Can you stop a car with reasonable suspicion instead of probable cause?
All right, let’s talk about Flock cameras and a hit coming back that the registered owner is wanted. My name is Anthony Bandiero. I’m an attorney and senior legal instructor for Blue to Gold Law Enforcement Training, bringing you the roadside chat.
I’m also the author of several bestselling books, especially the Search and Seizure Survival Guide. We do have a state version for every state now, from Hawaii to Texas, New York and California. Check it out. It is by far the best search and seizure book for hardworking law enforcement officers like you that need to know the law, but also don’t have a lot of time to read an 800 page legal guide.
So this officer, he says, I’m a sergeant in Atlanta and I’ve explained some of this case law to my guys, but perhaps you can also do a video on this and help elaborate on these issues. So, stopping a vehicle with reasonable articulable suspicion, not PC. The situation comes up that basically our Flock cameras, those are license plate readers, showing that the owner of a car is wanted. So there’s no traffic violation, so there’s no PC. But is there reasonable articulable suspicion that the driver is wanted?
And the answer is absolutely yes. Absolutely yes.
What did Kansas versus Glover actually decide?
The really the biggest case on this, almost directly on point, is Kansas versus Glover.
What happens is an officer in Kansas, who I had the pleasure of speaking to about this case, he got behind a truck and he ran the vehicle, and the registered owner was showing that he had basically a revoked license. They call it a little bit different there, but he had a revoked license. And the officer did not know for sure that the driver was the registered owner, but presumed, right, presumed that in fact the driver was the registered owner. So he pulled it over, and he is actually correct. The driver was the registered owner. He got cited, I think arrested, accordingly for not having a driver’s license.
And we go all the way up to the US Supreme Court. Glover is trying to make the argument that, hey, you know what, you should make the opposite presumption. When you’re behind a vehicle and you run the tag and the vehicle shows that the registered owner doesn’t have a license, well that is presumptively stating that the driver is not the registered owner, because they’re not supposed to drive in the first place.
And the US Supreme Court said, you know what, time out for a second, let these officers use some common sense. Let them use a presumption.
Why is the presumption that the owner is the one driving?
The presumption here is that, according to studies, about 70% of people who lose their license from DUIs, traffic tickets and so forth, still drive. Therefore, when this, there’s other information too, but that’s just like the main piece of evidence that they had, and just some common sense that a lot of people still drive even though their license is revoked.
And the officer is allowed to presume, based on common sense and training and experience and these studies that he or she may not have known about, but the point is they exist, he or she is allowed to presume that the person behind that wheel is in fact the registered owner. And if we stop the person, it’s not the registered owner, then the traffic stop is over and we go back to our business.
Does the same presumption work for a warrant hit?
Now here, when the LPR hit that this registered owner has a warrant, we’re back in the same boat. Can you presume that the person behind the wheel is your registered owner and therefore has a warrant? And the answer is yes.
Reasonable suspicion is a low standard. It is a moderate chance that, based on these facts and circumstances, that the person in that vehicle is the registered owner, right, which is the person who is wanted.
When do the facts tell you not to make the stop?
Now, if you have information to contradict what you believe, these facts of course, right. You have a registered owner that is a white male but a black female is driving the vehicle, and you don’t see anybody else in the vehicle that matches the description of the registered owner, then don’t stop it.
If you get up to the vehicle and clearly the wanted person is not in the vehicle, you know what, I think the stop is over. And you can debate with me about whether or not you can demand ID and licenses and so forth. We can have that discussion. I’ve had plenty of those discussions. But generally speaking, my position on it is that the reasonable suspicion has dissipated, and therefore the US Supreme Court has, to me at least, made it pretty clear that that stop is over.
And so whether or not you get these other extra attendant traffic stop routine license checks and VIN checks and all so forth is debatable. I think that for the most part it’s going to be over, and especially if they tell you that they just want to leave and you have no other reasonable suspicion that they’ve committed a crime.
But the point is, here’s the point. The point is that Kansas versus Glover, to me, makes this pretty clear that this is going to be a lawful traffic stop to determine for sure if the registered owner is driving the vehicle, contrary to other facts.
I hope this has helped. If you like what we’re doing here, like, subscribe, share with your friends, and until next time, my friends, stay safe.
The short version
- No traffic violation and no probable cause does not end the question. Reasonable articulable suspicion is enough.
- The biggest case on this, almost directly on point, is Kansas versus Glover.
- The Supreme Court said, let these officers use some common sense. Let them use a presumption.
- The officer is allowed to presume that the person behind that wheel is in fact the registered owner.
- An LPR hit that the registered owner has a warrant puts you in the same boat. The answer is yes.
- Reasonable suspicion is a low standard. It is a moderate chance based on the facts and circumstances.
- If you have information to contradict it, a registered owner who is a white male and a black female driving with nobody else in the car, then don’t stop it.
- If you get up to the vehicle and clearly the wanted person is not in it, the reasonable suspicion has dissipated and the stop is over.
- Whether you still get the routine license and VIN checks at that point is debatable. My position is that for the most part it’s going to be over.
Related from Blue to Gold
- What Do We Do If We Make a Stop Under Kansas v. Glover and the Driver Refuses to ID?
- Reasonable Suspicion vs. Probable Cause
- Under a Stop and Identify Law, Can Police Demand More Than a Name?
This article is an edited transcript of Roadside Chat EP #790. It is legal training, not legal advice. Check your state law and your agency policy, because both can be more restrictive than the Fourth Amendment.
