Watch Out for Dealer Frames; Minimal Obscuring of License Plate Supported Stop
U.S. v. Cardenas-Alatorre, --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1334511 (10th Cir. May 8, 2007)
New Mexico requires that all portions of a license plate be legible. The cop, believing the statute was violated, stopped Defendant because his license was framed by a dealer frame which covered the state name of Arizona, but did not cover other pertinent identifying information, such as saguaro pictures, “Grand Canyon State,” plate numbers and the registration sticker. The stop turned into a request for consent to search and the discovery of drugs.
1. The 10th ducks Defendant’s as-applied constitutionally vague and over-broad challenge to the statute by determining that the cop acted in good faith and objectively reasonable reliance on the statute, and that his interpretation of the statute and application of it to the current case was reasonable. Indeed, according to the court, an officer should not consign to himself the role of determining whether a particular statute is constitutional and should simply enforce it. The court stated that the issue of whether the statute is constitutional remains open to challenge.
2. The 10th rejects Defendant’s alternative argument that because the statute had been complied with–all information necessary to determine registration was visible–the cop was unreasonable under the 4th amendment in stopping the car. It cites to the cop’s testimony that although the license appeared to be a valid Arizona license, he did not know if it was without seeing the state name on the plate. It rejects Defendant’s narrow reading of the statute that its only purpose is to require enough information by which police can determine validity of the license and registration.
3. Defendant’s reply to the cop’s request to ask him further questions (after all info re: license, car, driver checked out as OK) with the question “About?” was reasonably construed by the district court as a consent to further questioning.
New Mexico requires that all portions of a license plate be legible. The cop, believing the statute was violated, stopped Defendant because his license was framed by a dealer frame which covered the state name of Arizona, but did not cover other pertinent identifying information, such as saguaro pictures, “Grand Canyon State,” plate numbers and the registration sticker. The stop turned into a request for consent to search and the discovery of drugs.
1. The 10th ducks Defendant’s as-applied constitutionally vague and over-broad challenge to the statute by determining that the cop acted in good faith and objectively reasonable reliance on the statute, and that his interpretation of the statute and application of it to the current case was reasonable. Indeed, according to the court, an officer should not consign to himself the role of determining whether a particular statute is constitutional and should simply enforce it. The court stated that the issue of whether the statute is constitutional remains open to challenge.
2. The 10th rejects Defendant’s alternative argument that because the statute had been complied with–all information necessary to determine registration was visible–the cop was unreasonable under the 4th amendment in stopping the car. It cites to the cop’s testimony that although the license appeared to be a valid Arizona license, he did not know if it was without seeing the state name on the plate. It rejects Defendant’s narrow reading of the statute that its only purpose is to require enough information by which police can determine validity of the license and registration.
3. Defendant’s reply to the cop’s request to ask him further questions (after all info re: license, car, driver checked out as OK) with the question “About?” was reasonably construed by the district court as a consent to further questioning.
posted by Anonymous at 9:53 AM
<< Home