Supreme Court

The Supreme Court's Next Big Fourth Amendment Case

What’s at stake in Kansas v. Glover.


Assume the following: You are a licensed driver, age 17. You live with your father. His driver's license has been suspended. He hands you the keys to his car and asks you to run an errand. While driving to do that errand you are stopped by the police and subjected to roadside questioning. You have not broken a single law. The only reason why the police stopped you is because they guessed that your father might be driving. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did it violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures?

The above scenario is hypothetical but the questions it raises are genuine. In its October 2019 term, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that asks whether the Fourth Amendment "always permits a police officer to seize a motorist when the only thing the police officer knows is that the motorist is driving a vehicle registered to someone whose license has been revoked."

The case is Kansas v. Glover. In 2016, a patrolling sheriff's deputy ran the plates on a Chevrolet pickup truck and learned that the truck's owner, Charles Glover, had a revoked driver's license. The deputy had no idea if Glover was actually behind the wheel. But the deputy still pulled the truck over on the assumption that Glover was driving. He was. Now Glover wants the Supreme Court to rule the stop unconstitutional under the Fourth Amendment.

"When a driver loses his license, he and his family must rely on other drivers (a spouse, a driving-age child, a child-care provider, a neighbor) to meet the family's needs," Glover and his lawyers point out in their brief to the Supreme Court. "Under Kansas's proposed rule…any of those other drivers can be pulled to the side of the road at any moment merely for driving a lawfully registered and insured car in a completely lawful manner." That rule, they argue, is an "unjustified intrusion on personal privacy" that violates the Fourth Amendment.

Kansas has a different take on what the Constitution allows. "The Fourth Amendment permits brief investigative stops—such as the traffic stop in this case," the state argues in its principal brief, "when a law enforcement officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting" illegal activity. In the state's view, it simply does not matter if innocent drivers happen to get stopped based on the false assumption that someone else is behind the wheel. "While it is certainly possible that the registered owner of a vehicle is not the driver, '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,'" the state maintains. "That is the very point of investigative stops—to confirm or dispel an officer's suspicion."

Oral arguments in Kansas v. Glover are scheduled for November 4.

NEXT: Another Multiracial Family Falsely Accused of Sex Trafficking While Flying

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. So who's behind Glover? Hardly seems a guy from Kansas would have the wherewithal to run a case such as this all the way up to SCOTUS, especially with a while crew of lawyers from both Kansas and Maryland.

    1. That should be "whole crew".

      An edit function sure would be nice.

      1. Can we at least get preview back?

        1. Can I get a like button for your post?

          1. If we're doing wishes, can I get a weekend in Tahoe with the U of Oregon cheerleading squad and a truckload of White Claw?

    2. Seems like an East Coast comment to me. Mid-Westerners LOVE their Constitution and The Bill of Rights. If the son was driving and got caught with drugs then this case would be coming from NYC, Baltimore or DC. BUT, since nothing was found inappropriate, it makes 100% since this comes out of Kansas.


      1. FRSA: thank you, I no longer feel like A [deplorable bumpkin] Man Without a Country

        1. Hell of a game coming up on Saturday... beat Clanga! EMAW!

          1. Win the Dang Day!

      2. Gaskill...I thought EXACTLY the same thing, and hell, I live in the People's Republic of NJ. The comment seemed....parochial.

      3. Agreed. Many Midwestern police forces have had dashboard cameras in their patrol cars for a quarter century. The Massachusetts State Police do not have dashboard cameras, despite the fact that this is one of the wealthiest police departments per officer in the nation, and that is because the police and prosecutors know that their overwhelmingly white leftist population is much more willing to trust the word of "authority" over that of their fellow citizens.

      4. The son thing was a hypothetical. The story doesn't make it terribly clear what actually happened in this case, but I believe that Glover was driving on a suspended license. SO something was found inappropriate.
        And stop with the geographical prejudice and bigotry. The middle of the country is as full of petty tyrants and drug warriors as anywhere.

        1. Actually, the story above does make it perfectly clear - and yes, Glover was driving on a suspended license. He wants the evidence suppressed because the government had no way to know that it was him driving prior to stopping him. The question is the reasonableness of the officer's presumption that the driver of a vehicle is the registrant. The hypothetical points out the other side of the reasonableness argument.

          Personally, I think they had a reasonable basis for their suspicion that it was Glover driving but that's not (or should not be) the appropriate standard. They should only be able to stop you when they have evidence that a crime was committed and a reasonable suspicion that it was you. Mere suspicion about the existence of the underlying crime should not be enough. If Glover wasn't driving, no crime was committed.

          1. +10000

    3. Somebody with money to burn, I'm guessing. The odds of prevailing here don't strike me as all that good.

      1. It's a good point, though. Especially as automatic license plate scanners become more ubiquitous. If 4th amendment rights are to mean anything in the technological age, we really need to get them tightened up.

        1. As a general proposition I'll agree with that. But this does not strike me as a good test case for doing so.

          1. Not everyone fights these case issues, so sometimes the court has to work with what they have.

            I for one want more sua sponte court decisions striking down unconstitutional statutes and policies.

          2. It seems like a horrible test case. There have to be better ways to incrementally improve fourth amendment jurisprudence.

    4. Co-Founder of the SCOTUSBlog

  2. Again, constitutional violations abound when a cop doesn't know something.

    1. One day you lament constitutional violations.

      Another day you seem to want to run roughshod over the same.

      Make up your mind. You don't have to like all of them, but where rights are concerned it's Join or Die.

  3. I have to say, I don't see where Kansas is in the wrong here, so long as the traffic stop ends as soon as they've confirmed the driver isn't the person whose license was suspended, instead of leveraging the stop to conduct some sort of search.

    It actually IS quite reasonable to assume, if you see a car being driven down the road, that the owner is driving it. As was actually the case here!

    1. I have to say, I don’t see where Kansas is in the wrong here

      The wrong part is pulling over the car in the first place.

      1. My first inclination was to side with Kansas. But then it occurred to me that someone with a suspended license is unlikely to sell their car. Instead they are likely to ask someone else to drive it.

        Therefore the presence of that car on the road yields no prior information or suspicion of unlawful activity.

        Unless you assume that people with suspended licenses routinely violate the suspension. In which case perhaps we need to re-evaluate the suspension of licenses.

        The only middle ground would be if the stop were entirely limited to determining the ID of the driver. But we know that isn’t how real life works.

        1. >>people with suspended licenses routinely violate the suspension. In which case perhaps we need to re-evaluate the suspension of licenses

          this^ but until this^ I think Kansas wins as long as Suspected DWLS = Illegal Activity

        2. Therefore the presence of that car on the road yields no prior information or suspicion of unlawful activity.

          ding ding ding

          1. As with routine booze checkpoints, we're all guilty until proven innocent.

            1. Yeah, if those pass muster, then I'm sure this will too. Which is really disgusting. DUI checkpoints are so obviously unconstitutional only a lawyer could argue otherwise.

              1. I don't cooperate at DUI/Drivers license/Immigration checkpoints. I dont roll me window down nor stop unless another vehicle is stopped.

                I press my pocket CATO Declaration of Independence and US Constitution up to my darkly tinted window and wave.

                1. The bulletproof glass helps, obviously. A key point.

        3. Unless you assume that people with suspended licenses routinely violate the suspension.

          In my experience that is a valid assumption. In my state, it's been estimated that about 15% of drivers on the road do not have valid licenses.

        4. I'm sorry, but if this is ruled in the favor of Glover, it creates a situation where driver license bans cannot be enforced at all outside of extreme circumstances such as secondary crashes.

          1. Drivers licenses are supposed to be a qualification to drive, that's it.

            If you can safely drive, you get a license. No picture needed.

            Now it's a National ID tied to all sorts of other government databases to keep tabs on people.

            Himmler would have so proud of a national surveillance system that citizens cooperate with.

          2. It still leave room in cases of moving violations and fix it tickets. Which are really the only two "probable cause" reasons for a pull-over in the first place 😉 This is why you cannot be pulled over for being on your phone, or not wearing a seatbelt, but it can be tacked on to some other offense (E.g. broken tail light, speed, not staying in lane, etc.)

            1. Are you sure about that? My state recently passed a "hands-free" law and the cops in my county have started dressing up as road workers and surveyors to catch people driving while using their cell phones

              1. Why would anyone stop for a road worker disguised as a cop?

            2. Not all states have “fix it tickets” or crimes for using cell phones while driving.

        5. If studies showed that the likelihood of the suspended driver being the driver in the traffic stop involving the car so tagged was higher than in randomly stopping drivers and seeing if their license was suspended (impossible study, it's unconstitutional!), would that be probable cause?

    2. I agree. Doesn't seem that unreasonable to assume the owner is the driver.

      1. "Doesn’t seem that unreasonable to assume the owner is the driver."

        Apparently, no assumption by an agent of the state, including sniffing dogs, is unreasonable these days.

      2. If it is not unreasonable, then why didn't they revoke his car registration along with his DL? Since, you know, it is assumed he will just use the car anyways.

        1. Because car registration has zero to do with licensing to drive.

          You dont even need a drivers license or vehicle registration if you drive on private property.

    3. I disagree with you on this Brett.

      Driver's Licenses and Vehicle registration should/are independent of each other.

      The Officer had no Probable Cause that a crime occurred, therefore the government agent violated the 4th Amendment. The cops assumed a crime was taking place and the 4th Amendment does not have an "assumption" exception. Or an exception for government agents being incorrect about the law either.

      I don't know why anyone drives a vehicle that is in their own name and not a business name. It minimizes the chances of this bullshit happening but glad someone is fighting it.

      1. No, the cops did not assume a crime was taking place. They assumed there was enough chance of a crime taking place to make it reasonable to check.

        1. This cop was sure. Hence the stop.

          The cop could have drove past the driver to see and match it to the drivers license photo. Or just waited for the vehicle to stop and approach the driver.

          There is no real penalty for violating the Constitution, so we have police procedures like this.

          1. "The cop could have drove past the driver to see and match it to the drivers license photo."

            This is highly problematic depending on lighting, traffic, tinted windows.

            1. The constitutional protections list in the BoR are problematic for government by design.

      2. Driver’s Licenses and Vehicle registration should/are independent of each other.

        In MA if you have a vehicle registered you cannot renew your drivers license without showing proof of insurance.

    4. You don't know it's reasonable. Maybe it's historically been 1% of the times a suspended-license-owner's car is pulled over that the owner is behind the wheel. Those folks mostly don't object (to avoid retribution against their suspended family member/friend/employer) and if they do, the case doesn't make it far. Anyone remember "it's a free country"?

    5. Actually, it seems quite reasonable to assume only that the legal owner has allowed someone properly licensed to be driving.

      Kansas turns a presumption of innocence on its head. But then, that's the way we do it these days, just ask any TSA agent.

  4. Abolish drivers' licenses.

    1. We have constitutional carry in some states. How about constitutional "travel?" Let's give in to the a-hole "sovereigns" and "Moors" whose youtube videos are so amusing.

      1. How about constitutional “travel?”

        Sounds good to me. We shouldn't need permission from the government to use public roads.

        a-hole “sovereigns” and “Moors”

        I don't know who you're talking about.

        1. He means The Moops

      2. How about constitutional “travel?”

        This is exactly why the founders wanted to avoid having an explicit bill of rights: once you start listing them, some damn fool assumes that if a right is not listed, it's not a right. Even the Ninth Amendment doesn't really solve this once politicians / SCOTUS decides to go full-on statist.

        Again and again and again, the Constitution delegates a very few, limited powers to the Federal Government. Everything else remains with individuals, or the States.

  5. I warned you people about registering your automobiles with the state.

    1. What if I register it with Alexa?

    2. As Fist does endless unlicensed, unregistered donuts in his backyard...

    3. Register your vehicle under a dba business name.

  6. So from Kansas's viewpoint a horny cop see a beautiful woman driving around town he can legally stop her because he suspects she may be a prostitute. What goes through the brains of a cop should not be the basis of any law. Otherwise we should make murder, spousal abuse, rape and pedophilia legal.

    1. What percentage of cars owned by drivers who have had their licenses suspended, are being driven by their owners? I'll wager that it's a lot higher percentage than the percentage of women drivers who are prostitutes.

      1. What percentage of cars owned by drivers who have had their licenses suspended, are being driven by their owners?

        That doesn't matter. Statistics aren't driving cars, actual people are.

        1. What exactly do you think "probable" cause is about, if not probability and statistics?

          1. "What exactly do you think “probable” cause is about, if not probability and statistics,"

            I'll enjoy watching you convince the ACLU, NAACP and the courts that profiling, racial or otherwise, is merely the use of statistics in establishing probable cause.

            1. Statistics aren't woke, is that your point?

          2. The "probable cause" is about the cop's belief that *the actual person* driving the car is breaking the law.

            Since in this case the cop has no idea who specifically is driving the car, and there are no other moving violations alleged, the copy can't have any sort of "probable cause" that the driver is breaking the law.

            With your version of "probable cause", the police can just walk into a mosque and arrest everyone, since, statistically, Muslims are terrorists. Right?

            1. "Since in this case the cop has no idea who specifically is driving the car, "

              You know, ignoring the fact that the cop knows who owns the car, which absolutely IS relevant information.

          3. Probable Cause:
            n. sufficient reason based upon known facts to believe a crime has been committed or that certain property is connected with a crime.

            Cop made a bad assumption and therefore had no Probable Cause.

            Assumptions are NOT Probable Cause.

            1. Fact - That car belongs to someone who is not allowed to be driving.
              Hypothesis - someone may be driving when they are not allowed to.

              Probable cause is a very low bar. Warrants are issued on weaker bases all the time. "The fugitive has a mother. He might be hiding in her house" and its infinite variants have been used countless times as the sole basis for a search warrant. Confirming the identity of the driver is less circumspect than that bog-standard concept.

              Besides, I would much rather that they be honest in the reason for the stop rather than pretend there was a nonsense violation. Which, if this is ruled in Glover's favor, is exactly what they would do.

              1. Probable Cause is NOT a very low bar.

                Its one of the highest standards ever imposed on government agents before they can search or seize you. It requires evidence that a person likely committed a crime. Technically the 4A also requires a warrant affidavit sworn by Oath or affirmation and judge issue it. The agent swears the evidence is true and the person is the right person.

                Huge change from General Warrants.

                Nonsense violations are also unconstitutional. This is NOT a negotiation!

                1. LC1789:

                  This is exactly why every kid graduating from high school, and every prospective citizen of the US needs a solid Am. Revolution history course. I considered myself well educated, but it wasn't until I started reading on my own that I really grasped the problem with General Warrants and the Writs of Assistance.

                  This is why we have a Fourth Amendment in the first place. To set the bar quite high so the cops etc. can't say, we'll I had a hunch.

            2. "Assumptions are NOT Probable Cause."

              If only probable cause was what we were working with here but it is not. It is much worse and it goes by the name of reasonable suspicion. That said, I would argue that the stop was not reasonable either.

              As long as the citizen was not excessively delayed it will likely get the green light because of a public safety crisis created by dangerous drivers with suspended licenses trumps an individual's right to travel unmolested.

              Everyone knows that when a license is suspended all of the driver's acquired driving knowledge skills and experience are extracted along with their driving privilege. And for FFS, anyone that gets their license suspended, even for something like not paying child support, is obviously a threatening menace to society. And studies have shown that drivers with a suspended license always drive (more) recklessly while driving under suspension than prior to. It's a fact. Look it up. Do not ask me where.

          4. "probable cause" is the observation of a possible crime. A car on the road, doing the speed limit, staying in the lines of the road, using turn signals, with no broken DOT signals, current tags, is not exhibiting "probable cause". When he ran the plate, with no "probable cause" to do so, he violated the 4th amendment. It was not the act of pulling him over that was wrong, but running the plates with no other reason to do so than, perhaps, boredom.

            1. This is a good point

        2. Statistics aren’t driving cars

          Just wait a few years.

          1. And then the question will be whether I can still be hit with a DUI if the car is driving.

            1. Sure you can. "Alcohol was involved."

              1. In all fairness your honor, the feds require my car to consume some level of alcohol to run.

                1. 10% at that. Just a bit over 0.8 I would think.

                  1. That's 0.08 and it is 0.08%.

        3. but statistics are at the heart of 'probable cause'.

          And the cop might be able to reasonably improve on the generic statistic (how many folks who own a car and have a suspended license still drive the car), by noting that the driver was not the hypothetical teenage son, or a female, or otherwise obviously not the suspended driver. (that's the part in the case title '...absent any information to the contrary.')

          So, yes. A quick ID check seems quite reasonable, when the driver is both plausibly, and probably one with a suspended license.

          1. Cops are prohibited from searching or seizing Americans without Probable Cause (and technically a warrant).

            We lost the protection of a warrant a loooooooong time ago with vehicles.

            Now cops want to be able to stop vehicles for any reason and "investigate". Bullshit. Have Probable Cause that I committed a crime or fuck off.

            I don't even cooperate at DUI/Drivers license checkpoints. I refuse to open my window and wont stop unless there is a car in front of me. I put my pocket copy of the CATO Declaration of Independence and Constitution up to the tinted glass. Always works.

            1. Yeah, No.
              Don't make up nonsense like that. No one believes you.

              If you tried, you would get you a polite knock on your window, followed by a less polite knock, followed by broken glass.

              1. Poor Ben is scared to stand up for himself and challenge unconstitutional police behavior.

                You are in a state full of tyrants wearing a badge. I'm not.

                Must suck to be scared all the time, like you are.

                1. No, I'm standing up against idiots pretending to be tough guys.

                  I'm certain you also have 5 black belts but prefer your own brand of martial arts that you made by combining the best of each.

                  And I'm certain that every time you say these things, everyone slow-claps at how awesome you are.

                  What are you, 15? At least make your stories believable.

      2. The suspension of the license necessitates an assumption that the owner will find someone else to drive the car.

        If we believe that is unlikely or impossible then we need to stop suspending licenses.

        And what about cars jointly owned?

        1. I think Kansas would have a considerably weaker case were the car jointly owned. The case hinges on whether it is reasonable, when you see a car being driven, to think it is more likely than not being driven by the owner.

          This does not strike me as an unreasonable expectation, but in the case of a jointly owned vehicle obviously becomes less likely.

        2. All of my teenaged children have driven cats that were legally mine but effectively their own. My license status should not subject my daughter (in particular) to the risk of being "officer involved" through no fault of her own.

          1. Yeah, it's hardly unusual to have a car in one person's name that is driven almost exclusively by another person.

            1. No, that's quite true, my wife drives a car that's under my name, though she's listed on the insurance as the primary driver.

              But, how high do the odds of the guy behind the wheel being the owner have to get, before the cop can justify checking? Certainly not 100%!

              1. Clearly this method of creating Probable Cause is wrong...a lot.

                If the legal reasoning is that probable cause for search and seizure of a vehicle is created by the driver's license status, not the proper licensing of the vehicle, then the entire reasoning is completely unconstitutional. Its unconstitutional because some very high percentage of the time, that person might not be driving. So the state is unconstitutionally stopping a person who never broke the law.

                This is the underlying problem that needs to be fixed. Police are mostly allowed to stop and search people who have never violated the law. Probable Cause requires some evidence of violation of the law that THAT PERSON BEING STOPPED committed.

              2. I don't know. 90%? At least get a look at the driver and see if he's at least the right age and sex and resembles the license photo, which I'm pretty sure cops can also pull up on their computers.

                Police seem to think that traffic stops are no big deal to people. No one who isn't a cop thinks that. It's stressful and a waste of time and could lead to all kinds of unpleasantness if the cop decides to go that way. The threshold for any involuntary police interaction should be a lot higher than it is. A traffic stop is an arrest.

                1. +1

  7. "While it is certainly possible that the registered owner of a vehicle is not the driver, '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,'" the state maintains.

    Is it also reasonable, "absent other circumstances", for an officer to suspect that a previously-convicted registered owner is using the vehicle to commit yet another crime?

  8. Why did the cop run the plate in the first place? Seems like that's the real constitutional violation.

    1. I suspect they do it when nothing else is going on and they are behind your vehicle. Why waste an opportunity to use the on bored computer and a miss a possible nab? Whose to know [see my hypothetical below]?

    2. I would guess an automated plate reader spit out an alert.

    3. The automated alert is the problem. That is where the unconstitutional search comes into play, I believe. Every plate is being scanned, regardless of actual suspicion. The suspicion is then generated by the automated system, itself. This is the issue I have with "insurance scans", as well. The requirement to purchase car insurance should be unconstitutional, as well.

      If the car was being operated in a lawful and safe manner at the time of the stop, the stop is unreasonable.

      1. Well, driving is a privilege, not a right. So you don't HAVE to buy auto insurance like you HAVE to buy health insurance, just if you want to drive on public roads.

      2. I always loved that "automated system" exception to the Bill of Rights.

        The computer says you're guilty and will sentence you immediately!

    4. Yep, that was my first reaction. Randomly running plates ought to be illegal.

    5. I don't know about other states, but my state's supreme court has held that plate readers do not violate the unreasonable search prohibition of the Fourth Amendment (or even its state-level equivalent) because a defendant has no reasonable expectation of privacy in the contents of the license plate, given that it is exposed to the public.

      1. Of course, you cannot legally cover said license plates either.

        Hence, the bullshit legal reasoning and clear violations of the Constitution.

        Same with wearing a mask in public to confuse facial recognition but is illegal in some jurisdictions. More bullshit legal reasoning.

  9. This seems like a particular 4A edge case. The final ruling won't likely affect the "reasonable suspicion" standard.

    1. SCOTUS is working on narrowing the focus to microscopic levels as we speak, trust me.

  10. I've wondered about this so seems like an appropriate time and place to bring it up:
    So if I drive through New Jersey, and a cop runs my plates, he or she will see that I have a concealed carry permit [from a different State, where such things exist]. Let us assume that if I were to find myself in such a place, I would have committed no traffic violations to provide an opportunity.

    Would this not be viewed be an opportunity to arrest me for having a [out of state and therefore illegal] handgun on my person, and provide sufficient probably cause to pull me over and demand to search my vehicle? I'm thinking it would, in such an Orwellian place.

    1. probable cause; all I want for Christmas is an edit button...

    2. No necessarily. Have you committed a gun infraction in New Jersey before? It's not the same situation. This guy has license suspension, so he already committed an infraction.

      1. I've never even been to NJ and have no plans to ever go there. Purely hypothetical; there are many stories of persons whose flight was diverted to NJ, or who found themselves driving through the State, who complied with the legal requirement to inform an officer that they had a gun in their possession. Then all hell breaks loose and they are arrested and charged accordingly. My question is if a police officer in such a place runs your plate and sees that you hold a CCW from a different State, would that provide reason enough for them to pull you over? Once they do you have to declare that you do or do not have a weapon in your possession. If you say you do not, would a search then be demanded? I am guessing it would, regardless of the legality.

        1. Tandem...good call about the People's Republic. Yeah, the previous Governor pardoned a lady who carried a gun into NJ. It was quite the case. Glad she was pardoned.

        2. These kinds of things are exactly why you should never go to New Jersey, even hypothetically.

          1. Mike....I dream of ways to leave the People's Republic of NJ. I really would, because the cost of living is tremendous. My beloved wife however, has determined that as long as the children are here (they live within a 2 hour drive), then we will be here. As my lawyer friends tell closed. 🙂

            Location is a definite plus with the People's Republic, though.

          2. Yes; I was just hypothetically pulled over and refused to answer the question about having a gun; my hypothetical car was seized and impounded, and a local judge gleefully issued a hypothetical warrant to search; my little [non hypothetical] Ruger LCP was found, and now I'm hypothetically being charged will illegal possession of a handgun and looking at some serious hypothetical time in the not so hypothetical Republik of New Fucking Jersey.

            You're right by the way, stay the fucking hypothetical away from there; it is after all America's experiment as to what life would be like had we not won the Revolution, or lost the Cold War

            1. Tell the judge to fuck off and demand a jury trial.

              Inform the jury trial that the 2nd amendment protects your right o keep and bear Arms no matter what the corrupt judge and DA say. They can read the constitution themselves. Inform the the jury that a conviction is a disregarding of the constitution and it only a matter of time before the state comes for them on some bullshit charge.

              I spent 5 days in jail for contempt saying that to a jury for my client. Client was acquitted. I appealed that contempt order and got the judge fired. Very satisfying year...that year.

        3. Once they do you have to declare that you do or do not have a weapon in your possession.

          That is a condition of the CC permit. You also have to follow the laws of whatever fiefdom you are in. Maybe in NJ, ammo and gun, disassembled (both) in separate locked cases or some other stipulation.

          When you entered NJ you complied with their laws, and no longer carrying concealed, do not have to volunteer information about any tools which may be in your possession FOR THE CC REQUIREMENT.

          NJ may state you have to tell them on any interaction, I do not know. I stopped going North of Virginia when I couldn't get there without disarming myself.

    3. Fun fact, if you have a concealed carry permit (and the cop gets the flag), when you're pulled over, you'll notice the cop touch the back fender of your vehicle as he approaches. This is so if you kill him, he'll have left his fingerprints on your vehicle. They're trained to do that.

      1. Uh.... no. That is to make sure the trunk is closed, so a bad guy doesn't open it and come in behind the lone cop.

      2. I believe the fingerprint move is true for all stops these days

    4. This has ALREADY happened, in Maryland. It got quite a bit of coverage in the pro-2A media.

      A couple years later, the Virginia General Assembly passed a bill prohibiting the State Police from sharing Concealed Handgun Permit data with any state that does not honor that permit. (Since they don't honor the permit, there is no legitimate reason to divulge the information.) The Governor, who hates guns almost as much as he hates law-abiding citizens, vetoed the bill.

  11. So what happens if you're behind the wheel of a self-driving car while your license is suspended?

    1. asylum for robots.

    2. +100

  12. I think someone hit on the bigger issue. Is it constitutional for a cop to just run your plate because he is behind you? You haven't done anything wrong, no violations, he just wants to see if he gets a "hit" on your tag.
    Me-thinks this is actually the unreasonable search and seizure.
    I know this has been done to me multiple times and when it comes back clean they move on. I've watched them do it to other people. Type in the license in their computer, wait, then do what ever is appropriate (for them at least).

    1. What is appropriate is to eat another donut - - - - - - - - -

    2. >>do what ever is appropriate (for them at least).

      shoot the dog.

    3. I don’t see this as unconstitutional. There’s no search involved. The cop is observing publicly available information. It’s the same as if the cop had memorized all problematic licenses and then seen one. Or he had seen photos of wanted perps and then seen someone who fit the description.

      1. Its the seizure.

        Being stopped by police is a seizure. The 4th Amendment made no distinction between being "detained" and being "arrested". They are both seizures and require warrants technically following the 4A.

        Police didnt like holding people where they were to get a warrant, so the courts devised this little unconstitutional scheme. Now its all crashing down around the corrupt bureaucrats.

      2. I am against license plate scanners because they are a waste of taxpayer money and are being used to create probable cause based on a computer.

        If the computer is wrong, oh well. No sorry from the police for fucking with you or worse.

      3. Except what he actually saw was a known criminal's property, not the criminal. That property was legally possessed, and registered for the use that the officer observed.

        If the officer had gotten a good look at the driver, knew it was the guy who's license was suspended, and then pulled him over this wouldn't be a problem. Frankly I'm surprised that isn't the story the police are telling, they lie about much more serious shit than this all the time.

        1. Not even necessarily a criminal. Licenses can get suspended for all kinds of purely civil reasons.

          1. True, I was being far too generous with the term "criminal". Crimes have victims, and very few of the things that lead to your license getting suspended have those.

      4. Sorry, don't think the information the cops are looking at is publicly available. I've never been able to look up an owners information based on a license plate number. What is done is a random search on a plate hoping to get a hit.

        Kinda like walking into your back yard and looking in your windows hoping to see something.

      5. It’s the same as if the cop had memorized all problematic licenses and then seen one.

        A list of "problematic" tags that have probable cause to be stopped (stolen, BOLO, witnessed at or in a crime, no insurance, etc).

        The list they have is EVERYONE's registration and driver's license info, not just those suspected of committing a crime. They are investigating a citizen because they have spotted a car (tag).

  13. PRESUMPTION OF PROBABLE CAUSE. Kansas is saying that probable cause exists here, because the registered owner is presumed to be operating the vehicle. This presumption continues in effect until the contrary appears.

    In other words, the Fourth Amendment has been turned on its head.

    God Bless America, land that I love ...

  14. Judges appointed by Republicans and Democrats are bound ipso facto to decide that the initiation of force by police--especially deadly force--is absolutely justified in all cases. Pettifogging and nitpicking about justifications and cause are the mark of bomb-throwing arnychists* like what shot McKinley, dinged TR, and irritated Fisk. Old newspapers provide clear proof that--to intellectuals of the looter persuasion--only a terrorist would sign a non-aggression pledge. (*See Mr Dooley)

  15. Obviously we need mandated license readers installed in all cars to avoid this. Sort of like BAC blow and goes. Swipe your license and if it is valid then your car turns on and your free to drive. If not a SWAT team will be sent to your house to arrest you and shoot your dog.


  16. You know, here is the part of this that sticks in my craw: In the absence of an emergency or imminent threat, I just want to be left alone unless I am harming myself or someone else. What the KS police did was probably legal, but it bothers me a LEO can just pull you over for absolutely no illegality whatsoever. If I am not breaking a law, and there is no emergency, then I want to be left alone.

  17. The 4th Amendment enables criminals to conceal evidence of their crimes.

    Some of those criminals go on to murder children.

    Therefore, the 4th Amendment costs the lives of children.

    the Supreme Court should ask if being able to refuse being searched by police is worth the lives of children.

    1. You could ghost write for "The Squad"

      1. The argument that constitutional rights lead to dead kids is hardly limited to the 2nd Amendment.

        1. Freedom is unsafe. The argument for it is that tyranny is even less safe.

  18. These cases are more complicated than a brief summary can convey. For starters, it's a Supreme Court case and the Supreme Court does not take on simple issues nor do they take on traffic court cases from Kansas - this is a case that multiple lower courts have already weighed in on and obviously failed to properly address.

    Nevertheless, assuming that the petitioner's brief is correct, there are a couple of related serious issues here. The first is the lower court's failure to address the specifics of the "reasonable suspicion" claim, based on the idea that the officer can claim any number of "reasonable suspicions" such that the court can't imagine a scenario under which an officer couldn't provide a reasonable "reasonable suspicion" - in other words, the court just admitted that the "reasonable suspicion" standard is a bullshit fig leaf and the very fact that the cop stopped you means he was suspicious of you and therefore it was a reasonable suspicion.

    The second part of that, though, is the confusion of "reasonable" and "plausible" which is why the "reasonable suspicion" standard includes a "particularized" and an "articulable" in there. "Reasonable" doesn't mean that you have no reason to believe that an assertion is not true, you must actually have some evidence or reason to believe that the assertion is true. Absent any evidence or reason to believe, all you've got is "plausible". (You might remember this from the back-and-forth on the subject of Christine Blasey Ford and Bret Kavanaugh.)

    Now, if you see a vehicle traveling down the road registered to somebody with a suspended license, is it more reasonable to assume the driver is the scofflaw owner of the vehicle stubbornly refusing to abide by the law or more reasonable to assume that, since the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, surely the driver must be someone other than the owner because it's unlikely that the owner would be breaking the law again after he's already been warned once? "Reasonable" doesn't mean just a hunch by the police officer - where are his facts to back up his beliefs? Has he read studies or surveys or even a newspaper story citing some sort of evidence one way or the other? Just guessing does not constitute "reasonable", it's just "plausible".

    And despite the lower court's argument that there's effectively no difference between "plausible" and "reasonable", there really ought to be.

    1. since the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens, surely the driver must be someone other than the owner because it’s unlikely that the owner would be breaking the law again after he’s already been warned once?

      You are comically naïve. My observation is that the proportion of people who have their licenses suspended who continue to drive anyway is approximately 100%.

    2. "since the vast majority of people are law-abiding citizens"

      But we're not talking about the vast majority of people. We're talking about somebody who has already had their license revoked. That by itself eliminates the vast majority of citizens, since most people go their entire lives without getting the license so much as suspended, let alone revoked.

  19. The case is Kansas v. Glover. In 2016, a patrolling sheriff's deputy ran the plates on a Chevrolet pickup truck and learned that the truck's owner, Charles Glover, had a revoked driver's license.

    This is exactly why driver's licenses should NOT be tied to vehicle registration as they have nothing to do with each other.

    1. That would be the only way to fix this problem. But since they ARE associated with the owner, do we really believe that this Supreme Court case is going to make it illegal for an officer to pull over a car that's associated with an on-the-loose murderer because, hey, it might not be him driving.

      In my opinion it's not the stop itself that's at issue, it's what happens after the stop. If they found that it was not the owner with the suspended license, they smile, tell you to have a nice day and send you on your way and perform no further searches of the vehicle or the driver.

      1. Yup. The 4A has been fucked for so long and so hard that much of what police do is tied into the court decided violations of the 4A.

        Cop stops you for speeding on interstate. Cop asks to search vehicle. Why? What does violating the law by speeding have to do with the inside of your vehicle?


        Cops are right. It is Us vs. Them.

      2. I think that running random plates is an issue here too.

        If there is a murderer on the loose, tell cops what his plate number is and have them look for that. Don't go on fishing expeditions.

        I'm not sure the 4th really forbids a stop like this one. But if it doesn't, I think we need laws (or amendments) that put stronger protections in place. I think this is one area where technology really requires updates to the law. There is a lot of danger in police being too efficient. IF every law were fully enforced all the time, we'd be fucked.

        1. If there is a murderer on the loose, tell cops what his plate number is and have them look for that. Don’t go on fishing expeditions.

          I can't speak for the constitutionality of that, but cops do that all the time. I had a former friend who became a police officer that bragged he made several felony arrests by driving through Hotel parking lots and running all the plates.

          1. Lots of cops do that.

            Some hotels "require" that you park without your license plates against the building for that purpose. They try to scare into parking like that by saying you will get towed if you don't.

            I've never been towed and block my license plate as much as possible just to cause some officer to get mad and confront me.

            The 4A clearly has requirements to prevent "fishing expeditions" before the Founders even knew of that term.

            1. I'm pretty sure the founders knew the term "fishing".

              1. I said “fishing expeditions” retard.

            2. Is it legal to cover the license plate of a car parked on private property?

          2. The cops in my town do that routinely. They'll cruise through the parking lots of bars and motels running the plates to see if they get a bite.

        2. the basic presumption this copper made is that the guy WAS driving thus guilty from the start until he can prove otherwise.

          That is not how our laws work. The initial presumption MUST be of innocence, until something arises to indicate guilt. And a vehicle moving down the road is NOT an indicator of guilt.

  20. The only reason why the police stopped you is because they guessed that your father might be driving. Was the traffic stop lawful? Or did it violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures?

    I'm going to say "yes" because every car license plate is associated with its owner. If I'm a criminal on the lam with a warrant out for my arrest, and my daughter drives my car, you can bet your ass she's going to get pulled over if she's spotted. It has always been as thus. This narrow situation seems like a strange hill to die on. But again, we keep seeing these oddball hills precisely because they don't matter. The hills that matter have already been lost.

    1. My vehicles are in my company's name.

      After the cops started pulling crap like this, I made sure that all my vehicles and ATVs are not associated with my name at all.

    2. "I’m going to say “yes” because every car license plate is associated with its owner."

      Distinction without a difference unless it were illegal for someone to drive someone else's car.

      So, if a cop determines that a male owns a vehicle with a random plate check but sees someone dressed as a female, is it okay for the cop to presume the car is stolen? Asking for a tranny friend.

  21. The police can do anything they want.
    That's why they have guns.
    Constitutional rights are optional.

  22. KS is flat out wrong. It is never reasonable to assume the driver of a vehicle is the owner. Truck drivers, most people under 18 and a decent number of people of college age, lower and middle class Americans, etc. It would be hard to gauge, but I wouldn't be surprised if half of all drivers on the road at any given point in time are not owners of said vehicles.

    1. The SCOTUS took this case to smack down this police practice.

      The current police practice is to get away with this, so the SCOTUS taking this case is to stop it from continuing. If the Court did nothing, it would continue.

  23. Anecdotal story. My adult son was driving to work and saw a cop tailgating him, scanning his plates. She later pulled up next to him and looked at him through the window. She then pulled him over and ticketed him for an expired driver's license (it had expired the week before and he hadn't gotten around to renewing it). As appalling as this petty horseshit is, it at least appears that the local cops have a protocol for establishing probable cause.

    1. License plate scanners are a police gold mine. They dont want to fuck it up like what happened to Stingrays

  24. It's the same thing in Colorado. I had a revoked license, and had my helper driving my truck. We got pulled over several times a week. Complete bullshit. But, even if Kansas looses, the cops will just find another reason to pull the vehicle over.

  25. I would prefer a better case to come up. This idjit is going to cause the Supremes to give the gov't a big win, and carve out a huge exception to the 4th Amendment that could easily go the other way with a more deserving case. I wonder if this case is being underwrittn by 4th Amendment opponents?

    1. Yes, it would be better if the driver ended up not being the one with a suspended license.
      No one believes the horseshit about "justice being blind".

  26. When someone I know was going through all the insane horseshit of a license suspension, and we read up on all the stuff, it seemed pretty established that this does not count as probable cause. It felt like the one silver lining to the shit cloud of entrapment and extortion that are traffic laws.

    I guess all a suspended person needs to do is drive someone else's car, and make sure the tail lights are working.

  27. 5-4 decision with Gorsuch casting the deciding vote? In any event, I’m interested to see Gorsuch’s opinion on this one.

    1. The Lefties are joining Gorsuch not that he is the deciding vote.

  28. The underlying premise behind this practice in Kansas is that the following copper makes the assumption that the owner of the vehicle is a lawbreaker. the copper ASSUMES the driver is guilty until he (the driver)can prove otherwise.

    Flat contrary to the US Constitution.

    Wait, follow, find a valid excuse for "contact" then make your stop. If YOU don't catch the guy driving on a pulled license today, someone else will tomorrow. Don't be so stinking greedy to get the bust under YOUR name.

    What would be useful information but is lacking in this story, is WHY was the guy's licence pulled in the first place? Forgot to pay a fine? Coppers playing revenooers is never a good thing.

  29. 1) Yes - It completely "Reasonable" to have "probable cause" that the owner of a vehicle might be driving the vehicle.
    2) WAS the vehicle searched and seized??? Or was it just a knock at the window for a drivers license?

    This case stinks of entitlement; bypassing state law with some 'manipulated/made-up' excuse of constitutional entitlements that have been coated with idiocy (i.e. Political Correctness). The bill of rights aren't entitlements granted by government - they are protections granted by "The People" over their governments.

    It floors me such a lame excuse to get out of a rightfully served traffic ticket can get to the Supreme Court and yet somehow 1/2 the UN-Constitutional Federal Agencies have yet to even see their Constitutionality claim.

  30. Why should a state have to comply with the Fourth Amendment?
    They routinely, and constantly violate the Second Amendment.
    Why is the Fourth any different?
    Note: This is somewhat sarcastic. IMHO ALL of the Bill of Rights should apply to the states - especially the 2A - as required by the second section of the 6th Article: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

    1. The 14A forces all state to comply with the Bill of Rights whether they like it or not.

      All US Citizens in states cannot have their federal rights violated as per the 14th Amendment. In other words, states must, at a minimum, follow the Bill of Rights.

  31. The reason a case like this has probably never made it to the Supreme Court like this one is because most people know they don't have to show identification at a traffic stop if the driver was not being pulled over for a traffic violation. If he would have refused to show ID, then this case would have never happened.
    This is along the same lines as pulling a vehicle over because an arrest warrant is out for the driver. You can't go into that person's address without a search warrant, so you can't pull that person's car over either without a search warrant.

  32. I think the issue is "proximate cause." (No I am not a lawyer).

    If police run my plates and find out that the license of the owner is suspended, and the car is "in motion" they might reasonably have "proximate cause" to see who is driving it. If they find my wife driving the car and HER license has NOT been suspended, then they should send her on her way if she was not speeding or doing anything illegal.

    They would NOT have proximate cause if the car is parked in front of my house or in my driveway and would have no right to search.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  33. The owner's license is suspended, not the usage of the vehicle as long as it is registered and insured. The idea that a cop can stop you for any reason and even search your person or vehicle is a violation of every amendment (the Constitution) in my view. Of course, a cop can make up an excuse to stop and search and you have little recourse even if there is no law-breaking reason. Any resistance will be seen as hostile and then your very life becomes in play. This is where we are at. The police state is becoming too powerful and it all leads back to the creation of Homeland security. I have heard of various jurisdictions sending out "fake" tickets charging a driver with something they never did. They assume that most people will not take the time to fight the ticket and just pay the fine. They are doing this because many local governments are going broke trying to pay promised pensions. The coffers are running dry and they are spending hours and hours coming up with different ways to tax, fine or fee you to death.

    1. Thats the most aggresious thing i have ever heard! Which of the officers 5 senses told this cop a crime? Are we just going to rewrite the amendments to include a cop's paranoia? Maybe the cop is a meth head. The only thing for certain is that this cop was certainly a criminal and a hypocrite on this day. Where the windows tinted beyond the law? If not he should use his eyeballs. This nation was foun dedon rights to privacy, and taxes being to high!!! Will America ever be America again. How dare a nation to pass such terany on to its children. Thats any time the govt does not have to abide by the same laws as its citizens. Monopolies and ponzi schemes are fine for our govt, yet we have lost all our rights. Insanity!!! There isnt an American soul/spirit in the land. For shame!

  34. I predict that this case will end up demonstrating the peril of developing precedential legal standards under the Fourth Amendment in criminal cases (guilty person's 4A rights), rather than civil cases (innocent person's 4A rights). The 4A rights of guilty and innocent are the same, but when the scope and contours of those rights are being defined by courts, context matters. It shouldn't, but it does. Wish this case were being brought by the hypothetical 17 year old instead of ol' Charlie Glover.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.