Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
From Justia:
US Supreme Court Opinions
Docket: 18-556
Opinion Date: April 6, 2020
Judge: Clarence Thomas
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A deputy ran a license plate check and discovered that the truck belonged to Glover, whose driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, assuming that Glover was driving. Glover was driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. The trial court granted his motion to suppress all evidence from the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed. When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect wrongdoing. The level of suspicion required is less than necessary for probable cause and depends on “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.” The deputy’s common sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely its driver provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion but this deputy possessed no information to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.
Pete Haskel
pete@ texasmunicipallawyers.com
214-577-9635 cell
I do not believe out-of-state plate would provide reasonable, articulable suspicion of violating a quarantine order under my reading of Glover. Travel is permitted for essential business under CISA Memo (3/28/20) and numerous essential personal care reasons under state/local guidance. A plate should not provide RAS that criminal activity is afoot to wit: “violating a quarantine order” since travel is permitted for a multitude of lawful reasons. Some states have not even enacted quarantine orders. An out-of-state plate could mean a local resident has not updated an out-of-state plate, for example, a college student. An officer would be relying inconsistent patchwork of local and state orders in effect to effectuate a stop.
The exercise is purely academic because even if it formed the basis for the stop, then what? Would an officer charge an out-of-state resident for violating a local quarantine order, essentially inviting them back to the state sometime in the future to go to court? Does the officer have proper PPE to approach the vehicle? With county jails releasing people as quickly as possible, would the quarantine offender be transported to detention? In North Carolina, our criminal court system is essentially closed until June which means cases charged now won’t get heard for 6-24 months once the backlog is addressed.
In North Carolina, I would not advise an officer to use an out-of-state plate for RAS for a quarantine order violation under the totality of our current cirumstances.
From: Disasterrelief [mailto:disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Pete Haskel
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:16 AM
To: CityAttorneyTech google cityattorneytech@googlegroups.com; disasterrelief@lists.imla.org Disaster Relief List disasterrelief@lists.imla.org
Subject: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
From Justia:
US Supreme Court Opinions
Docket: 18-556
Opinion Date: April 6, 2020
Judge: Clarence Thomas
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A deputy ran a license plate check and discovered that the truck belonged to Glover, whose driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, assuming that Glover was driving. Glover was driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. The trial court granted his motion to suppress all evidence from the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed. When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect wrongdoing. The level of suspicion required is less than necessary for probable cause and depends on “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.” The deputy’s common sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely its driver provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion but this deputy possessed no information to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.
Pete Haskel
pete@ texasmunicipallawyers.comhttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ftexasmunicipallawyers.com&c=E,1,0AmGA5yqTTXIw4-AW1630PnI9bRdqY23pnyEoFXBA5Ac2pTuBm1LiYikd7qA1Vy8Dj7I1nRCroar2GK2pnqG_q2BjwpPGkICga8ziLLF&typo=1
214-577-9635 cell
Excellent analysis, Anna. Thank you!
From: Disasterrelief disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Davis, Anna
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:13 AM
To: Pete Haskel pete@texasmunicipallawyers.com; disasterrelief@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Baltimore City IT Network Systems.
Reminder: DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.govmailto:BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.gov / 410-396-6648.
I do not believe out-of-state plate would provide reasonable, articulable suspicion of violating a quarantine order under my reading of Glover. Travel is permitted for essential business under CISA Memo (3/28/20) and numerous essential personal care reasons under state/local guidance. A plate should not provide RAS that criminal activity is afoot to wit: “violating a quarantine order” since travel is permitted for a multitude of lawful reasons. Some states have not even enacted quarantine orders. An out-of-state plate could mean a local resident has not updated an out-of-state plate, for example, a college student. An officer would be relying inconsistent patchwork of local and state orders in effect to effectuate a stop.
The exercise is purely academic because even if it formed the basis for the stop, then what? Would an officer charge an out-of-state resident for violating a local quarantine order, essentially inviting them back to the state sometime in the future to go to court? Does the officer have proper PPE to approach the vehicle? With county jails releasing people as quickly as possible, would the quarantine offender be transported to detention? In North Carolina, our criminal court system is essentially closed until June which means cases charged now won’t get heard for 6-24 months once the backlog is addressed.
In North Carolina, I would not advise an officer to use an out-of-state plate for RAS for a quarantine order violation under the totality of our current cirumstances.
From: Disasterrelief [mailto:disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Pete Haskel
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:16 AM
To: CityAttorneyTech google <cityattorneytech@googlegroups.commailto:cityattorneytech@googlegroups.com>; disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org Disaster Relief List <disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
From Justia:
US Supreme Court Opinions
Docket: 18-556
Opinion Date: April 6, 2020
Judge: Clarence Thomas
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A deputy ran a license plate check and discovered that the truck belonged to Glover, whose driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, assuming that Glover was driving. Glover was driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. The trial court granted his motion to suppress all evidence from the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed. When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect wrongdoing. The level of suspicion required is less than necessary for probable cause and depends on “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.” The deputy’s common sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely its driver provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion but this deputy possessed no information to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.
Officer who does make the stop now has qualified immunity?
Pete Haskel
pete@ texasmunicipallawyers.com
214-577-9635 cell
On Apr 7, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Jones, Veronica P. Veronica.Jones@baltimorecity.gov wrote:
Excellent analysis, Anna. Thank you!
From: Disasterrelief disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org On Behalf Of Davis, Anna
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:13 AM
To: Pete Haskel pete@texasmunicipallawyers.com; disasterrelief@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Baltimore City IT Network Systems.
Reminder: DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.govmailto:BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.gov / 410-396-6648.
I do not believe out-of-state plate would provide reasonable, articulable suspicion of violating a quarantine order under my reading of Glover. Travel is permitted for essential business under CISA Memo (3/28/20) and numerous essential personal care reasons under state/local guidance. A plate should not provide RAS that criminal activity is afoot to wit: “violating a quarantine order” since travel is permitted for a multitude of lawful reasons. Some states have not even enacted quarantine orders. An out-of-state plate could mean a local resident has not updated an out-of-state plate, for example, a college student. An officer would be relying inconsistent patchwork of local and state orders in effect to effectuate a stop.
The exercise is purely academic because even if it formed the basis for the stop, then what? Would an officer charge an out-of-state resident for violating a local quarantine order, essentially inviting them back to the state sometime in the future to go to court? Does the officer have proper PPE to approach the vehicle? With county jails releasing people as quickly as possible, would the quarantine offender be transported to detention? In North Carolina, our criminal court system is essentially closed until June which means cases charged now won’t get heard for 6-24 months once the backlog is addressed.
In North Carolina, I would not advise an officer to use an out-of-state plate for RAS for a quarantine order violation under the totality of our current cirumstances.
From: Disasterrelief [mailto:disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Pete Haskel
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:16 AM
To: CityAttorneyTech google <cityattorneytech@googlegroups.commailto:cityattorneytech@googlegroups.com>; disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org Disaster Relief List <disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
From Justia:
US Supreme Court Opinions
Docket: 18-556
Opinion Date: April 6, 2020
Judge: Clarence Thomas
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A deputy ran a license plate check and discovered that the truck belonged to Glover, whose driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, assuming that Glover was driving. Glover was driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. The trial court granted his motion to suppress all evidence from the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed. When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect wrongdoing. The level of suspicion required is less than necessary for probable cause and depends on “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.” The deputy’s common sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely its driver provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion but this deputy possessed no information to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.
Qualified immunity in a civil 1983 action? What would the harm be under the standing prong for a brief stop under a Friends of the Earth analysis? I do not think 1983 action would survive a motion to dismiss for a straightforward stop with nothing more, and yes, I do think qualified immunity would probably be a solid basis for a 12(b)(6).
That could change if the stop results in detention, excessive force, etc. That is going to be a fact-intensive analysis that is going to be informed by our Circuit Courts, in my case, the 4th Circuit.
I don’t have real concerns about police liability for a traffic stop in this instance, but I don’t see how it’s practical in a criminal law context or in a subsequent civil suit to potentially defend the police action.
Just seems like a lot of work for a lot of people when travel is clearly lawful under our present circumstances.
From: Pete Haskel [mailto:pete@texasmunicipallawyers.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:25 AM
To: Jones, Veronica P. Veronica.Jones@baltimorecity.gov
Cc: Davis, Anna Anna.Davis@durhamnc.gov; disasterrelief@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
Officer who does make the stop now has qualified immunity?
Pete Haskel
pete@ texasmunicipallawyers.comhttps://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2ftexasmunicipallawyers.com&c=E,1,wV2jQBoESLaOfipgQtE0V4SpDj82PPS9U_Ix5BB8BYW3sbKBU-2Ffho_8zvVgGrRExfOtttFb1W_AiqTC7CRI1ZqQ6X4H07qQm1BM8bBUHmBOaxcPrI,&typo=1
214-577-9635 cell
On Apr 7, 2020, at 11:20 AM, Jones, Veronica P. <Veronica.Jones@baltimorecity.govmailto:Veronica.Jones@baltimorecity.gov> wrote:
Excellent analysis, Anna. Thank you!
From: Disasterrelief <disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org> On Behalf Of Davis, Anna
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 11:13 AM
To: Pete Haskel <pete@texasmunicipallawyers.commailto:pete@texasmunicipallawyers.com>; disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org
Subject: Re: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of Baltimore City IT Network Systems.
Reminder: DO NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know that the content is safe. Report any suspicious activities to BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.govmailto:BCIT.ServiceDesk@baltimorecity.gov / 410-396-6648.
I do not believe out-of-state plate would provide reasonable, articulable suspicion of violating a quarantine order under my reading of Glover. Travel is permitted for essential business under CISA Memo (3/28/20) and numerous essential personal care reasons under state/local guidance. A plate should not provide RAS that criminal activity is afoot to wit: “violating a quarantine order” since travel is permitted for a multitude of lawful reasons. Some states have not even enacted quarantine orders. An out-of-state plate could mean a local resident has not updated an out-of-state plate, for example, a college student. An officer would be relying inconsistent patchwork of local and state orders in effect to effectuate a stop.
The exercise is purely academic because even if it formed the basis for the stop, then what? Would an officer charge an out-of-state resident for violating a local quarantine order, essentially inviting them back to the state sometime in the future to go to court? Does the officer have proper PPE to approach the vehicle? With county jails releasing people as quickly as possible, would the quarantine offender be transported to detention? In North Carolina, our criminal court system is essentially closed until June which means cases charged now won’t get heard for 6-24 months once the backlog is addressed.
In North Carolina, I would not advise an officer to use an out-of-state plate for RAS for a quarantine order violation under the totality of our current cirumstances.
From: Disasterrelief [mailto:disasterrelief-bounces@lists.imla.org] On Behalf Of Pete Haskel
Sent: Tuesday, April 7, 2020 10:16 AM
To: CityAttorneyTech google <cityattorneytech@googlegroups.commailto:cityattorneytech@googlegroups.com>; disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org Disaster Relief List <disasterrelief@lists.imla.orgmailto:disasterrelief@lists.imla.org>
Subject: [Disasterrelief] Would new SCOTUS decision authorize traffic stops for out-of-state places to check on self-quarantine compliance?
From Justia:
US Supreme Court Opinions
Docket: 18-556
Opinion Date: April 6, 2020
Judge: Clarence Thomas
Areas of Law: Civil Rights, Constitutional Law, Criminal Law
A deputy ran a license plate check and discovered that the truck belonged to Glover, whose driver’s license had been revoked. The deputy stopped the truck, assuming that Glover was driving. Glover was driving and was charged with driving as a habitual violator. The trial court granted his motion to suppress all evidence from the stop. The Kansas Supreme Court agreed that the deputy violated the Fourth Amendment by stopping Glover without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Supreme Court reversed. When the officer lacks information negating an inference that the owner is driving the vehicle, an investigative traffic stop made after running a vehicle’s license plate and learning that the registered owner’s driver’s license has been revoked is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. An officer may initiate a brief investigative traffic stop when he has “a particularized and objective basis” to suspect wrongdoing. The level of suspicion required is less than necessary for probable cause and depends on “the factual and practical considerations of everyday life.” The deputy’s common sense inference that the owner of a vehicle was likely its driver provided reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop. Empirical studies demonstrate that drivers with suspended or revoked licenses frequently continue to drive. Officers, like jurors, may rely on probabilities in the reasonable suspicion context. The presence of additional facts might dispel reasonable suspicion but this deputy possessed no information to rebut the reasonable inference that Glover was driving his own truck.