LB 02-03 - VehicleStopsBasedonMCTInfo

TOPEKA POLICE DEPARTMENT	Number: LB 02-03
LEGAL BULLETIN
SUBJECT: VEHICLE STOPS BASED ON INFORMATION FRON IN CAR COMPUTERS
AMENDS:
STATUTE REFERENCES:
ISSUING AUTHORITY: John Knoll, City Attorney	DATE ISSUED: 21 Feb. 2002

Several officers have recently asked me questions about the legality of randomly checking tags on in-car computers (variously known as mobile data terminals (MDTs) or mobile data computers (MDCs), hereinafter referred to as MDTs) and stopping the vehicle based on the results of those checks.

Although I have not located any Kansas cases dealing with these issues, I have set forth below, in question and answer format, answers to these questions based on my research:

Q. Can I run random checks on car tags without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity?

A. Yes. The state requires vehicle owners to purchase tags, place them on the back of the vehicle and make sure they are visible. The state’s purpose in doing are the strong state interests in promoting highway safety, removing unregistered vehicles and unlicensed drivers from the highways, and to deter the theft of motor vehicles. There is no expectation of privacy to the numbers displayed on a license plate, and no driver can reasonably expect that police officers will not check the validity of the registration. City of Rocky River v. Saleh, 139 Ohio App.3d 313, 327, 743 N.E.2d 944 (2000); State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 54-55, 723 A.2d 35 (1998); State v. Parks, 288 N.J.Super, 407, 410, 672 A.2d 742 (1996). Q. If I run a tag and get a response "Record Not Found." Is that reasonable suspicion to stop the car? A. Yes. Aside from valid safety reasons, to stop a vehicle a police officer must have a reasonable, articulable suspicion the driver is, was or about to be engaged in criminal activity. United States v. Callerman, ___ F3d ___ (10th Cir. No. 01-3039, filed 12/7/2001). A return from the state Motor Vehicle Division database showing the tag is not on file can mean one of two things: the tag is illegal, or a recent transfer occurred and the registration is a work in process. The officer may stop the vehicle and conduct a brief, limited investigation to confirm or dispel his or her suspicion the tag may be illegal. State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 56, 723 A.2d 35 (1998). In Donis, defendants argued police shouldn't be able to run a tag until they observe a driver commit a traffic violation. The court rejected this argument, stating, "The use of MDTs by police officers should not be limited only to those instances when they actually witness a violation of motor vehicle laws. By the time an officer sees a vehicle change lanes or speed down the highway, that officer no longer needs to use the MDT. The officer has a permissible basis to effectuate a stop." 157 N.J. at 54. Q. I run a tag. The return indicates Joe Blow is the registered owner of the vehicle, Blow's driver's license is suspended, and Blow has a warrant for his arrest. The driver appears to match Blow's physical description. I stop the vehicle and discover that Blow is the driver and he is intoxicated. I arrest Blow. He moves to suppress all evidence resulting from the stop claiming that I did not have reasonable suspicion for the stop. He argues that all I could see was the back of his head, I couldn't make facial identification, and I could not confirm his height and weight. Should the motion to suppress be granted? A. No. Once an officer has knowledge that a registered owner has a suspended license, the officer can assume the owner is the driver of the car, and the officer's knowledge constitutes reasonable suspicion for a stop. State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 58, 723 A.2d 35 (1998); Minnesota v. Kolstad, No. C6-96-972, filed 10/29/96 (Minn. Ct. App., unpublished). See also State v. Parks, 288 N.J.Super, 407, 411, 672 A.2d 742 (1996)(MDT provided general description of owner with a suspended license that could have been the driver). While you have reasonable suspicion for a stop, you will still have to build your DUI case. In the absence of any "bad" driving, the evidence of DUI will be thin, particularly if Blow exercises his right to refuse chemical testing. Make sure you ask about and accurately document any statements about whether the defendant has been drinking, where his is coming from, what he has been doing, etc. Ordinarily you can ask these questions without giving Miranda warnings provided you ask them before you make an arrest. Pennsylvania v. Bruder, 109 S. Ct. 205 (1988); Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984). Also make sure to document all available indicators that Blow was intoxicated (bloodshot eyes, slurred speech, odor of an alcoholic beverage, alcohol containers in vehicle, slow reflexes, etc.) Q. Same facts as the last question, but the driver is NOT Joe Blow, and is not intoxicated. The driver also did not commit any other traffic violations. Can I stop the car and check the driver's license, registration and insurance information? Can I interrogate the driver about Joe Blow? What limits are there on this kind of stop? A. The answer in this scenario is not quite as clear as the last one, but the case law suggests you can make the stop, check the driver's information and ask brief, limited questions about the driver's knowledge of, or relationship to, Joe Blow and about the driver's legal right to operate the vehicle. Past criminal activity (which results in the issuance of a warrant) can be a basis for a stop State v. Steen, ___ Kan. App. 2d ___, 13 P.3d 922 (No. 83,673, filed 12/1/2000). Because officers appear to get the benefit of a presumption that a registered owner with a warrant is driving a car, there is a sufficient basis for stopping the vehicle.

In State v. Mitchell, 265 Kan. 238, 960 P.2d 200 (1998), the court said:

"A law enforcement officer conducting a routine traffic stop may request a driver's license and vehicle registration, run a computer check, and issue a citation. When the driver has produced a valid license and proof that he or she is entitled to operate the car, the driver must be allowed to proceed on his or her way, without being subject to further delay by the officer for additional questioning."

However, if the stop exceeds the scope and duration of a reasonable traffic stop and proceeds into an interrogation about drugs or other crimes for which the officer has no reasonable suspicion, the detention becomes illegal and any evidence obtained will be suppressed. State v. DeMarco, 263 Kan. 727, 952 P.2d 1256 (1998).

During a traffic stop, the officer can also ask if there are any weapons in the vehicle, United States v. Holt, 229 F.3d 931 (10^th Cir. 2000), vacated on rehearing en banc 264 F.3d 1215 (10^th Cir. 2001), but interrogation about anything other than the original purpose of the stop or weapons is prohibited unless the officer has reasonable suspicion the driver is, was or about to engage in criminal activity. Q. Can a police officer use a MDT to discover personal information about a vehicle owner prior to stopping a car? A. No, according to the New Jersey Supreme Court. Officers may only conduct a limited inquiry to see if the vehicle is stolen, registered properly and if the owner's license has been revoked. If responses disclose a basis for further action, only then may the officer use the computer to search for personal information about the registered owner, including their name, address, social security number and criminal history. State v. Donis, 157 N.J. 44, 55, 723 A.2d 35 (1998). The court balanced the vital and compelling state interest in maintaining highway safety by ensuring that only qualified drivers operate motor vehicles, against the privacy rights of licensed drivers as recognized by the federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The court upheld the use of random checks, provided the information returned to the officer was limited to stolen or validly registered vehicles and owner license status. Q. What if I run a tag and the MDT shows the car is stolen or the tag is not registered to the vehicle. I stop the car, search it, and find drugs. It turns out the car was not stolen or improperly registered, but a clerical error resulted in it showing up that way. Will the evidence be suppressed? A. No. Provided that the officer had a good faith belief in the information, and that information established an exception to the warrant requirement. Of course, the officer can always ask for consent as well. See Arizona v. Evans, 514 U.S. 1, 131 L.Ed.2d 34, 115 S.Ct. 1185 (1995)(court clerk's error in failing to delete an expired warrant should not defeat an officer's good faith in relying on the mistaken information). Q. I am following a car. The tag bears a current registration sticker, but a mobile data computer check shows the tag is expired. Can I stop the car and ask the owner about his registration? A. Yes. A discrepancy in what shows on the tag and what shows in the computer can mean: (1) the registration sticker is stolen; (2) the state computer contains old or erroneous information; or (3) the vehicle owner inadvertently applied the sticker to the wrong vehicle. Situations 1 and 3 both result in illegal acts (illegal or expired tags) and situation 2 is a clerical error. In any event, the discrepancy is reasonable suspicion to stop the driver to further inquire. See Evans, 514 U.S. at 15-16 (officer entitled to arrest on what appeared to be a valid warrant where court clerk erroneously failed to purge the warrant); City of Manhattan v. Larson, 26 Kan. App.2d 851, 994 P.2d 1087 (2000)(what appeared to be an expired registration sticker supported a stop, even though tag was legal due to a statutory grace period). But see Minnesota v. Lincoln, 2002 WL 171691 (Minn.App.)(unpublished)(where there are two plausible explanations, including the state computer system not being updated, there must be an additional reason to stop the car). Please advise if you have any questions about this bulletin.