Covered License Plate Results in Arrest

[DoggyDaddy]

I think there are two lessons to be learned here: (1) Be nice, and (2) Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole by being an a**hole. I'm with Doug on the "expired LTCH = RAS of illegal activity" question. If you don't have a valid fishing license is that RAS of illegally taking fish?

A couple goes on vacation to a fishing resort in Northern Minnesota. The husband likes to fish at the crack of dawn, the wife likes to read. One morning the husband returns after several hours of fishing and decides to take a nap.

Although not familiar with the lake, the wife decides to take the boat out and get some sun. She motors out a short distance, anchors, and continues to read her book. Along comes a game warden in his boat.​

He pulls up alongside the woman and says, "Good morning ma'am. What are you doing?"

"Reading a book," she replies. (thinking, isn't it obvious.)

"You're in a restricted fishing area," he informs her.

"I'm sorry officer, but I'm not fishing, I'm reading"

"Yes but you have all the equipment. For all I know you could start at any moment. I'll have to take you in and write you up."

"If you do that, I'll have to charge you with sexual assault," says the woman.

"But I haven't even touched you," says the game warden.

"That's true, but you have all the equipment. For all I know you can start at any moment."

"Have a nice day ma'am, " and he left..........

MORAL: Never argue with a woman who reads, its likely she can also think.​

 

[Bill of Rights]

I don't think so (Pinner). But if constitutional carry had passed and been effective by then, he would have been in the clear on that charge, I think. More shade-tree lawyering: Once it was determined his license was suspended, he wouldn't be allowed to drive the Tahoe any further. Being so, wouldn't he have been detained for driving on a suspended license and then all of the Terry stuff could then transpire?

I don't think Constitutional carry would have been a factor. When he committed the act, Const. carry was not law, so he would have been charged and tried on the basis of the law in place at the time he did the act. Otherwise, it's ex post facto, and unConstitutional. Now, that doesn't mean a judge can't dismiss the case based on the change in law, but an act committed yesterday cannot be made either legal or illegal by a law passed today. Lawyers or others who can show me to be mistaken are invited to do so.

I think there are two lessons to be learned here: (1) Be nice, and (2) Don't dig yourself into a deeper hole by being an a**hole. I'm with Doug on the "expired LTCH = RAS of illegal activity" question. If you don't have a valid fishing license is that RAS of illegally taking fish?

That depends on whether you've taken fish at all. To use the example of the joke posted, the woman was reading. There were no fish in the boat. There was no evidence she'd touched the rods and reels. If needed, she could show that her husband had had the boat out earlier; I suppose it's theoretically possible that the game warden could have called into question where the husband had taken the fish, but I'd think that would require some evidence proving he'd been in the area that was restricted.

As for the expired LTCH, I think if the officer found that while checking your license, he might be within his authority to ask if you had the handgun on you at that time. Dunno.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Fargo]

I don't think Constitutional carry would have been a factor. When he committed the act, Const. carry was not law, so he would have been charged and tried on the basis of the law in place at the time he did the act. Otherwise, it's ex post facto, and unConstitutional. Now, that doesn't mean a judge can't dismiss the case based on the change in law, but an act committed yesterday cannot be made either legal or illegal by a law passed today. Lawyers or others who can show me to be mistaken are invited to do so.



That depends on whether you've taken fish at all. To use the example of the joke posted, the woman was reading. There were no fish in the boat. There was no evidence she'd touched the rods and reels. If needed, she could show that her husband had had the boat out earlier; I suppose it's theoretically possible that the game warden could have called into question where the husband had taken the fish, but I'd think that would require some evidence proving he'd been in the area that was restricted.

As for the expired LTCH, I think if the officer found that while checking your license, he might be within his authority to ask if you had the handgun on you at that time. Dunno.

Blessings,
Bill

Ex post facto only applies to making things illegal that weren't illegal at the time they occurred. There's a thing called the doctrine of amelioration which in many instances prevents further prosecution of acts which were illegal at the time they occurred but have now been legalized. If the legislature doesn't want this to apply, it normally enacts what is called a savings clause which says that amelioration does not apply. That is what happened during the last criminal code revision.

 

[DeadeyeChrista'sdad]

With some of the others, I'm thinking...
Stop being a dumbass in a no dumbass zone.
That is all.

 

[edporch]

Yet I see people with tinted license plate covers that make the plate unreadable unless you're close in right behind them, and I NEVER hear of any of them being stopped.
WHY?

 

[amboy49]

Is it just me . . . . Or does anyone else think this stop falls into the "If I follow behind someone long enough I can find a reason ( real or imaginary) to pull them over for violating some infraction or another ? Wish I could quote the background or source that stated that the government will keep passing laws to the point it is impossible not to exist without being in violation of a statute.

I am wondering why a State Tooper would feel it necessary to pull over someone because he couldn't see "all" of the license plate. Arguably the Troopers instincts were correct and the offender was an apparent violator on several fronts. It does, however, underscore my belief that law enforcement does choose, on occasion, to make a traffic stop for minor violations and then probe for other more serious infractions.

Perhaps the word "profiling" comes to mind.

 

[oldpink]

Is it just me . . . . Or does anyone else think this stop falls into the "If I follow behind someone long enough I can find a reason ( real or imaginary) to pull them over for violating some infraction or another ? Wish I could quote the background or source that stated that the government will keep passing laws to the point it is impossible not to exist without being in violation of a statute.

I am wondering why a State Tooper would feel it necessary to pull over someone because he couldn't see "all" of the license plate. Arguably the Troopers instincts were correct and the offender was an apparent violator on several fronts. It does, however, underscore my belief that law enforcement does choose, on occasion, to make a traffic stop for minor violations and then probe for other more serious infractions.

Perhaps the word "profiling" comes to mind.

I've been told by those in the profession that it's nearly impossible for the average driver to avoid some sort of infraction within a five minute timespan, especially in town, with stoplights, stop signs, pedestrians, and other variables thrown into the mix, something as minor as creeping through a stop sign at 1/10 mph, having the passenger side wheel briefly cross the center line, or stopping with the front tires just forward of the white line on the pavement.
Maybe if this guy didn't want to get pulled over, he shouldn't have made it that much easier, though.
If the stop is legit, whining about how unfair he thinks it is when things go poorly is no defense, only equivocating after the fact.

 

[Doug]

I've been told by those in the profession that it's nearly impossible for the average driver to avoid some sort of infraction within a five minute timespan, especially in town, with stoplights, stop signs, pedestrians, and other variables thrown into the mix, something as minor as creeping through a stop sign at 1/10 mph, having the passenger side wheel briefly cross the center line, or stopping with the front tires just forward of the white line on the pavement.
Maybe if this guy didn't want to get pulled over, he shouldn't have made it that much easier, though.
If the stop is legit, whining about how unfair he thinks it is when things go poorly is no defense, only equivocating after the fact.

HA! HA!
If the passenger side wheel crosses the centerline, you are totally in the oncoming lane!
As far as the wide white line at intersections, as nearly as I can tell, not one person in a hundred knows you're supposed to stop behind it. Many people pull far enough into the intersection to block part of the crossing lane.

 

[db1959]

I thought that white line at stops was for the rear tires. I learned something new today.

 

[oldpink]

I thought that white line at stops was for the rear tires. I learned something new today.

heh
Judging by the way so many people out there drive, you'd be forgiven for believing that.