A 16-foot straight truck, with a sleeper, if it is used solely to transport family members or personal property, and is never, ever, under any circumstances used commercially, then it requires no lettering on the doors, either. But it's reasonable to assume it's a commercial vehicle in violation of the law if you see one driving down the road sans lettering. It's the same with a cargo van.
With the straight truck, yes. A van, no. Something that requires a CDL to drive, yes. Otherwise, no. Not reasonable. There are way too many non-commercial vans on the road for that to be an reasonable, articulable suspicion.
Since the overwhelmingly vast majority of cargo vans are used for commercial purposes and are not, in fact, used for personal vehicles, with those being used for personal vehicles being the rare exception, it's perfectly logical to assume that a cargo van without lettering driving down the road is in violation of the law, and that's all the probable cause an officer needs.
You're wrong here, too, but for the moment, let's assume otherwise. So the stormtrooper stops you, and comes to the window and demands ze papiers, bitte, and you hand him your DL, insurance, and registration. He does with them what cops do, and he asks you whether you're hauling cargo. You decline to answer.
We've already discussed how cargo vans not registered in Michigan or not hauling intrastate aren't affected by the lettering law. So if you don't tell him you're hauling something picked up in Michigan and destined for a Michigan address, how does he know?
If you are using a cargo van as a personal vehicle and you get pulled over enough times that if becomes annoying, then putting NOT FOR HIRE on the side doors in letters big enough to be read from the median while zooming by might not be a bad idea.
Oh, I have a sign I'd put on all right. They wouldn't like it, nor would the moderators like it if I posted it here. Nor would Jesus like it.
As for being pulled over late at night, or any other time of day, Probable Cause is required to write you a ticket, not to stop you. The burden for a traffic stop is Reasonable Suspicion.
I was speaking rather broadly and imprecisely, yes. But he must still have an
articulable suspicion that you were breaking the law. In our scenario, he doesn't.
That is defined as anything leading an officer to reasonably suspect a violation of the law. It is a much lower burden than probable cause. For example, if you're a White Guy driving a Red Camaro in a Black part of town in the middle of the night, it's reasonable to suspect a violation of the law, and the police can pull you over and give you a closer look.
This is another element of suspicion, or the lack thereof, more precisely, and was addressed in the Brett Darrow incident near St. Louis, in which a rogue cop detained a youngster named Brett Darrow in a commuter parking area. Darrow refused to be harassed. The cop huffed and puffed, made threats, acted like a typical modern goon who doesn't know the difference between a cop and a US Marine. He threatened to arrest Darrow for assaulting a police officer and that his report would claim that Darrow "flicked his fingers" toward him, and the other cop present would verify for Darrow that he had done this in the past and wouldn't hesitate to do it again.
What he didn't know was that Darrow had not long before had a similar run-in with another rogue cop who can't pick the Bill of Rights out of a lineup if his life depended on it. It turned into a my-word-against-yours situation, so he decided to wire his car for audio and video.
I imagine you've already opened up another tab and googled this thing, so let's cut to the chase. The cop claimed he had an articulable, reasonable suspicion to detain and question Darrow because there had been instances of suicides in those parking areas, so he had the right to come check to see if Darrow was alright.
He found out he was wrong. Apparently, this particular stormtrooper was sick on the day they covered
particularized suspicion in the academy. As SCOTUS has ruled, the cop needs to be able to articulate not only reasonable suspicion (which the cop who pulled over my aunt didn't even have), but
particularized reasonable suspicion that the particular individual in question in that particular instance has broken the law, and so the rogue stormtrooper in St. Louis found out that the fact that OTHER people have parked in commuter lots and committed suicide didn't mean that he had a reasonable suspicion that Darrow would do so. He was rightfully fired for his threats, and Darrow was free to go. Unfortunately, the cops in the area showed their true nature by stalking him, staking out his home, etc.
The cops in the area, anyway, got a refresher course on particularized suspicion, which a Michigan cop wouldn't have when I drive by in my cargo van, just because he knows that most other cargo vans carry freight.
