Illinois revenuer got me.

It's not a huge deal whether or not, in the OP's state, a car has a front plate; that's reflected by the relatively small fine.

 

Front license plates can't be that important since some states don't see a need for them.

 

Sure. But it is not about plates. It is about the mentality that some people still think, in this case, that the officer is doing something good to public. He is not! OP's complain, objection is fully justified.

 

Any lawful reason to stop a vehicle ,equipment or registration included does to the non police, seem petty, but the rewards came be huge. I have stopped dozens of vehicles for one headlight, one taillight, no front registration, registration expired one or two days and found the driver had no valid license, no insurance or an outstanding warrant for a felony or violent crime. The best a rookie i was training stops a car 2 day expired registration driver has a warrant for homicide in southern part of state and is arrested. We find out later he was a councilor at a summer camp homicide was of an 8 year old child he sexually assaulted. This one was hard, parents called us to thank as this was hundreds of miles away and the case was a couple years old. That is what a b.s. stop can yield or my friend who made one of those stops of an armed robber who killed him in the street. Last anyone know Mr. Mcvey was stopped with expired registration on a truck and oswald killed an officer on one of those b. s. stopps. If something comes out of the stopp you must write a ticket for the basis of the stop called probable cause.

 

Sounds like you are a police officer. Please read constitution, if you never read before. Maybe that will help you to understand why we don't give you the power to randomly search people for no proper cause. I consider that as very basic qualification for any law enforcement personnel.

 

Wow you should be a detective with such a keen observation but where did i say or give the impression i did or favored a "RANDOM" search of anything. The smallest infraction can and many times does lead to bigger things. We are talking about driving which is a privilege not a constitutional right and a traffic ticket is an arrest and not the drivers decision to comply with an officer . What are they teaching in school these days this is not Mcdonalds have it your way, go back to occupy Michigan Ave.. I am retired and glad, wish i had a nickel everytime i got the read the constitution speech over the years or that i needed to read the law.. My comment was bring your argument to court and then tell the judge he needs to do the same. Funny thing is several fools did just that and left the building in handcuffs enroute jail.

 

As Jimbo pointed out before me, the issue is not the profanity. The issue is insulting another member of Prius Chat. You'd have gotten a similar reprimand if you'd couched the insult in words not of themselves profane. A certain amount of profanity is tolerated.

I once briefly participated in a forum where words like "darn" were censored and members reprimanded and even banned for such expressions. I quit that forum pretty quick.

Back on topic:

When I got the electric Porsche (which I drove for a month or so before its serious flaws and hazards became evident) there was no place for a front plate. So I never put one on. Didn't drive it for long, though.

Then I got the Tesla, and didn't like the idea of putting a bracket on it. Someone had told me it was technically required in WA but never enforced. A few months later I got stopped for no front plate. The officer asked me for my registration, my license, and my insurance card. Then he showed me where the registration says "Front plate still required in Washington State," or words to that effect.

I was not happy about being stopped. I felt that I had been stopped just because I was driving a fancy car. But the officer was right that I was in violation. I got the front bracket installed.

Some laws warrant protesting. Some warrant resisting. And there have been times and places where enforcing some laws is more evil than breaking them. But U.S. traffic laws and regulations don't seem to fall into that category.

 

You are obviously very happy that a broken light gave you the power to ask for more information, and sometimes it ends up catch bad guys. Apparently giving you the random search power, you will catch more bad guys. Following your logic, why not?

But what's the relationship between a bad buy and a broken light?

 

It's not the profanity, necessarily, or the spelling. It's the attitude that counts. Take issue with the argument, or the situation, but not the person. Logic and articulation count for more than anger and insults - at least in this little part of the galaxy.

Not that I've ever met him, but Jay Leno seems like a reasonably nice guy to me. Jeremy Clarkson, on the other hand.....

 

Boy, You folks make FHoPol seem tame! Arguing the merits (and getting upset) over probable cause stops, police over stepping, stupid triad fix laws is really quite silly!

Any smart driver knows what a probable cause stop is, and any smart police officer does as well. If I am driving with defective equipment in the eyes of the law, then I shouldn't be surprised to get stopped and checked out.

The last time I got stopped, was in North Dakota, for "suspicion of too dark tint on drivers side window"! We were driving through, Wi th windows tinted to Washington standards, and the guy was bored, wanted to see what we were doing in the middle of nowhere in the middle of winter. He produced a tint meter, found ours to be in violation of ND density requirements, checked my registration and insurance, and since we were clearly a middle aged couple who posed no threat, he told us to have a nice day. If we moved to ND we would have to change the tint.

Was that a trully BS stop? Of course. Was it legal? Of course. The guy probably could have just run our plate on the fly and found it the same info,, but as I say, he was curious.

Had I just smoked a bowl before he stopped me, would I have bought myself a world of hurt? Sure,, but I don't do such things so no worries. Most cops are just decent folks wanting to do the right thing, and go home safe at night. Most folks are decent folks who want to do the right thing, and go home safe at night. There are, however, bad eggs in both groups,, and the cops need to be vigilant,, as do we.

Icarus

 

Good point icarus and well stated. The stop is a tool and many times minor infractions are not written and no further investigation is needed. Most experienced officers are masters of the stop and read people like yesterdays newspaper, a lie,nervousness over and above normal, movements inside the car to hide items under the seat and glovebox etc. The best where are you going or where did you come from? Who me? aaa I don't know. LOL

 

Thank you for your service, oldasdust.

 

I find myself in complete agreement with Icarus.
It happens every now and then, even though he would probably agree that I'm off to his right a little, politically speaking.

The "probable cause" argument is a well worn path.
If you think that police in this country have a little too much power, then you probably don't get around very much (IMHO.)
I've often been amused at folks that like to piss and moan about how the police in this country are infringing on the Constitutional rights of the citizenry until they're the victim of a drunk driver...or a home invasion...or worse.
THEN they're full of rage at the inefficiency of our emasculated LEOs.

In this part of the country, they have roadblocks to check for seatbelts, valid driver's licenses, proff of insurance, valid safety inspection sticker, and (of course!) to determine whether or not the driver is sober.
I always make it a point to thank the LEOs for their work when I run across one of these travesties to the fourth amendment...

So...why is it legal to stop everybody at a given intersection or stretch of highway to check for equipment/seatbelts/valid licenses, but not some (expletive deleted to avoid my own ticket) driver that's obviously and flagrantly disobeying an equipment or traffic law?

 

While I applaud the idea of roadside sobriety checks, I am not sure they meet my idea of constitutional muster,, even though they seem to have in the arbiter that counts,, the court.

I think probable cause is just that, probable cause.

Icarus

 

Police roadblocks happen quite frequently; especially around major holidays. Given their effectiveness at getting drunk drivers off the road, I'm not too fussed about any alleged breach of individual freedoms. The slight personal inconvenience pales in comparison to the risks to society that would ensue if police had to wait for a drunk driver to demonstrate 'probable cause'.

On the other hand, we should be able to board an airplane without threat of having our nether regions probed and photographed.

 

Living on both sides of the border, Canada has very different constitutional protections than the US.

In the US, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness reigns supreme. In Canada, the founding premise was, peace, order and good government.

One extols the virtue and supremacy of the individual, while the other recognizes a responsibility to the whole.

Icarus

 

I don't like to fly.
Actually.....that's not quite true. I LOVE to fly, but they won't let me do that. I have to stay in back with the other passengers, and I HATE that. Crashing and burning is also something I try to avoid. If GOD had intended for man (and women) to fly, he would not have provided us with rental cars with unlimited mileage.
So....unless there is a very good reason for me to do so, I eschew airline hospitality unless my CinC sends me somewhere with a large body of water separating me from my destination.

Having said allllll of that, I see no reason that passengers cannot be subjected to reasonable security checks to ensure that they're not trying to convert a Boeing 767, with its 20,000 gallons of AV-GAS and 300+thousand pounds of weight into a (sic) "smart-bomb".
If you don't like being patted down, then go to the rental car counter.
Some day...it's gonna happen again, unless you're one of those crop-circle fanciers that don't think that it happened the first time, that is. The funny thing is.....alllll of those people that are fussing about their forth amendment rights are probably going to be the first ones that are bellyaching about why "more wasn't done to prevent it!"
As for me....It's not the top turd in my pile.
The TSA people have a saying: "We get paid whether you make your flight or not!"
If it were me....I believe that I'd take off my shoes and let them pat me down!
Interestingly enough, the last time I flew back from the sand box (literally in dust covered DCU's---or a Desert Camouflage Uniform) I was subjected to a rather intense pat down, and combat boots are a helluva lot harder to take off than loafers or sneakers!!!
I didn't put up a BIT of fuss about it, since my stern (and all attached pieces/parts) were going to be riding in the plane that they were trying to keep safe.

Most airports have rental car counters.
Your call....

 

767s don't burn av gas,, they burn jet A, (kerosene)

Av gas is for piston engines.

Icarus

 

I'd fly too if they let me.

I'd rather take the train, most of all, but I don't usually have the luxury of that much time.

 

It seems both countries have fallen somewhat short of their founding principles.