3 ms·

To be fair, how should the officer have known that the license and registration are valid?

mikeash 11y ago
For the license, it sounded like she had the paperwork to prove it was valid, but the officer refused to consider it. It sounds like the registration may have been the opposite case, where she had outdated paperwork but it would have been up to date in whatever system holds the data.
- realityking 11y ago
  I missed the part about her having the paperwork to prove the license is valid. I may have been confused by the fact she asked the court for more time to prove she had a valid license.
niccaluim 11y ago
She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated. A record of the registration would be available on the officer's computer. And they shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place.
- uxp 11y ago
  > She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated. It doesn't even matter that her license had at one point been revoked, may have currently been revoked, or might be revoked in the future. There was no legal basis for pulling her over, end of story.
onion2k 11y ago
By that reckoning, the police should be pulling everyone over and demanding that they show papers proving they're legally allowed to drive. After all, how do the police know that any driver has a license and registration? No. The police officer had no reason to pull the driver over, and no reason to suspect she wasn't driving legally, so he should not have stopped her.
- realityking 11y ago
  The stop was illegal, no question there. But the post I responded to said this: > Perpetuating the notion that the victim had legitimate charges dismissed on the technicality of an illegal stop is wrong practically unto libelous. Don't do that. I did miss that she had the documentation that her license is valid with her. (Though why did she need more time to prove that in court?) But the citation on the registration seems ok, but it should have been thrown out as soon as she provided the paperwork

For the license, it sounded like she had the paperwork to prove it was valid, but the officer refused to consider it. It sounds like the registration may have been the opposite case, where she had outdated paperwork but it would have been up to date in whatever system holds the data.

realityking 11y ago
I missed the part about her having the paperwork to prove the license is valid. I may have been confused by the fact she asked the court for more time to prove she had a valid license.

niccaluim 11y ago

She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated. A record of the registration would be available on the officer's computer. And they shouldn't have been pulled over in the first place.

uxp 11y ago
> She had documentation proving that her license had been reinstated. It doesn't even matter that her license had at one point been revoked, may have currently been revoked, or might be revoked in the future. There was no legal basis for pulling her over, end of story.

onion2k 11y ago

By that reckoning, the police should be pulling everyone over and demanding that they show papers proving they're legally allowed to drive. After all, how do the police know that any driver has a license and registration? No. The police officer had no reason to pull the driver over, and no reason to suspect she wasn't driving legally, so he should not have stopped her.

realityking 11y ago
The stop was illegal, no question there. But the post I responded to said this: > Perpetuating the notion that the victim had legitimate charges dismissed on the technicality of an illegal stop is wrong practically unto libelous. Don't do that. I did miss that she had the documentation that her license is valid with her. (Though why did she need more time to prove that in court?) But the citation on the registration seems ok, but it should have been thrown out as soon as she provided the paperwork