A “smoked cover” on a license plate is an objective basis for a stop under Wyoming law that says that the license has to be clearly visible. The record supports everything after that, which was consent to search revealing 77 pounds of cocaine. United States v. Martinez, 244 Fed. Appx. 187 (10th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished). (Comment: I see these license plate covers everyday. Indeed, I see a vehicle with some defect(s) and I mentally run through the scenarios where courts have held them sufficient for a stop.)
That same day:
An officer stopped the defendant for an expired tag, and the officer walked up to the driver’s window. The defendant said that he had a temporary tag in the window, but the window was so dirty it had to be wiped off to see it. The defendant conceded at the suppression hearing there was cause for the stop. The officer had an objective basis for the stop, and the record supports what happened thereafter. United States v. Monje-Contreras, 245 Fed. Appx. 738 (10th Cir. 2007)* (unpublished):
In this regard, it would appear that it was later determined that the temporary registration had not expired, and was still valid. In connection therewith, the Trooper testified that as the Defendant was wiping the dust and grime off the windshield, it occurred to him that the Defendant had perhaps violated the Wyoming statute. As above mentioned, in this regard, the district court concluded that the Trooper did have a reasonable articulable suspicion that the Defendant had violated the Wyoming statute. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968); United States v. Botero-Ospina, 71 F.3d 783 (10th Cir. 1995). We agree, and like the district court, we reject the suggestion that the Trooper knew the registration was valid when he first exited his vehicle and went forward to engage in conversation with the Defendant.
Plaintiff stated a claim against the individual officer (but not any other entity) for relief alleging the officer “‘forcefully pull[ed]’ him out of his vehicle and placed handcuffs on him ‘without notice or warning,’ without his consent, and without his having committed ‘any wrongdoing.'” Gamble v. Barnette, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48815 (W.D. N.C. July 3, 2007).*
Observation on “unpublished” opinions: F.R.A.P. 32.1, effective December 1, 2006, made all opinions authoritative. Some courts are still operating as if the rule was never adopted, still calling a case “unpublished,” probably as a flag to West to put the opinion in Fed. Appx. For what it is worth, I have noticed a trend in some federal appeals courts where the opinions are truly getting shorter, some marginally shorter. In the Ninth Circuit, they have been issuing “Memorandum [Per Curiam] Opinions” that are extremely short and to the point, just giving the public the bare facts necessary to justify the conclusion. It is obvious these opinions are written just for the parties. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court has been doing this for as long as I have been around. Moreover, as the Tenth Circuit demonstrated last week, the core issue in the case; e.g., the basis of the stop; is the only one discussed, and then something to the effect of “We hold that the district court’s finding on that particular matter is supported by the record before us. And, we conclude that the district court’s resolution of this issue is consistent with Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968) and [whatever specific Tenth Circuit case is in point].” I am not complaining; just observing. My own circuit, the Eighth, has always been good about getting to the point in an unpublished opinion, sometimes summarily affirming in about three sentences, which tells the public nothing. I’ve been on the losing end of a few of those.
Notes to readers:
(1) I’ve been asked about this because there has been nothing online about it in a while. An asterisk after a citation means that the case is of insufficient legal significance to the law of search and seizure as a whole that it will not be included in any supplement to the book. I used to use my shorthand code for propositions before this website became searchable (e.g., RS = reasonable suspicion, PC = probable cause, SI = search incident, GFE = good faith exception), but I decided that people new to the site could not search it without knowing the code.
(2) Yes, there has been no supplement for three cycles now because I’ve been doing this website up to two hours a day, I practice law full time (65-70 hours a week), and I’m President-Elect designate of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. (Yes, I apparently have no life.) We plan to have the Fourth Edition out by early 2008. Several people are working on it under me, but three of them are studying for the bar, which happens in three weeks.
