Officer’s knowledge that owner of vehicle has suspended license is cause for stop

Officer’s knowledge that the owner of a vehicle being driven has a suspended license is reasonable suspicion to stop, absent information that the owner is not the driver. The court adopts the majority rule. State v. Hess, 185 N.C. App. 530, 648 S.E.2d 913 (2007):

In sum, our research reveals that when an officer knows that a vehicle being operated is registered to an owner with a suspended or revoked driver’s license, the majority of jurisdictions have held that an officer has reasonable suspicion to make an investigatory stop, absent evidence that the driver is not the owner. See, e.g., State v. Tozier, 2006 ME 105, 905 A.2d 836, 839 (Me. 2006) (holding that “[a]lthough it is possible that a driver under suspension could register a vehicle and that others … could drive it, it is reasonable for an officer to suspect that the owner is driving the vehicle, absent other circumstances that demonstrate the owner is not driving”); accord State v. Mills, 458 N.W.2d 395, 397 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990) (holding that “[i]t was reasonable to infer the vehicle was being driven by its owner given the absence of evidence to the contrary”); accord State v. Panko, 101 Ore. App. 6, 788 P.2d 1026, 1027 (Or. Ct. App. 1990) (holding that if an officer knows that the owner’s driver’s license is suspended, “he may make a stop … unless other circumstances put him ‘on notice that the driver is not the vehicle’s owner'”). We are persuaded by the rationale of the majority of jurisdictions and thus adopt the holding of the majority of jurisdictions that when a police officer becomes aware that a vehicle being operated is registered to an owner with a suspended or revoked driver’s license, and there is no evidence appearing to the officer that the owner is not the individual driving the automobile, reasonable suspicion exists to warrant an investigatory stop.

Defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy as to stolen property he stashed on his father’s property. Even if he had standing, his father had the authority to consent, which he did. State v. Sullivan, 2007 Iowa App. LEXIS 910 (August 22, 2007).*

Officer approached the defendant at the counter in a Waffle House after watching the defendant have a hard time parking the car at 3 a.m. The encounter was on reasonable suspicion under the Fourth Amendment, and the DUI is affirmed. State v. Green, 2007 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 667 (August 22, 2007).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.