RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Nevertheless, you raised some very good points - sometimes the long road is the better one
Last edited:
Michigan illegally harassing CVs?
- Thread starter AMonger
- Start date
You are wrong. We elect officials who go on to makes laws. It is the duty of the citizen to follow the law. If the citizen(s) do not like any given law, then it is thier duty to lobby thier congressman to change a particular law. A second way to change a bad law would be to work through the courts, especially if there are grey areas in its constitutionality.
Last edited:
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
The reason that sounds crazy is that you're talking about licensure. A license, by definition, is official permission to do what is otherwise illegal. My premise, that it's a right, either a birthright or qualified, would negate the existence of a license. That's the way it used to be in this country, and we did just fine before a license existed. Someone would teach a young person to drive, or they'd learn it on the farm, and away they'd go.
Now, if you're concerned about cars being so much faster now (and you're right, but they're also much safer), and that maybe we have to adjust things because of that, that may be right. So how about we have classes, and insurance companies won't sell a policy without you having a certificate that says you successfully completed such a class?
To lose your right, the government would have to charge with violations that mean you can't be trusted on the roadway, and they have to convince a jury of your peers that your right should be suspended or revoked, just like if they want to lock you up for a crime. So iow, the right is your unless you abuse it and lose it.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
With Michigan plates, it probably would be reasonable and logical, because he's operating under another law that says that all such Michigan-plated CVs must have door signs regardless of whether they're for commercial use or not. But for out-of-state vans, they not only have to be carrying cargo, but it has to be intrastate cargo, so there are two additional elements that have to be true that the cop has no idea of when a van drives by, and unless he sees the cargo in the back, he doesn't a so much as a hunch about either, and reasonable suspicion is, by definition, more than a hunch--and he doesn't even have that! So there's no way on God's green earth that he can claim reasonable, articulable, and especially not particularized suspicion that the out-of-state van that just went by is not only operating commercially, but intrastate. If they are indeed pulling out-of-state vans over as I heard, it's not reasonable suspicion that's powering it; it's the state's audacity and the driver's complicity.
Look back to the Brett Darrow case. The cop claimed that he could come over and harass Darrow in the commuter parking lot because people had been parking there and committing suicide. But it was later ruled that just because others did a certain thing in that circumstance, that didn't produce particularized suspicion. (The cop also claimed that Darrow had been weaving and hadn't used his turn signal, both of which were proven false by the video.)
That's because I didn't know that in-state vans needed the door signs in the first place. But the owner of the company told me I may want to get some door signs made, even though he knew my plates aren't from Michigan, because Michigan has been doing this to even out of staters, because a couple of his guys had gotten stopped. And he didn't tell me what the citation charge was for, but the context of the conversation did. So it was either for the door sign issue, or his brain is scrambled and it's pulling up things at random.
You didn't read the citations close enough. More than one linked travel with driving, and I even admitted later that some had made a distinction between normal driving and commercial driving, but that driving was, indeed, linked in the citations to travel.
That's pretty much what I said in a later post, except the privilege crap. And it sounds weird because it's entirely incongruous and self-contradictory. Remove the privilege part, because it's not, maintain the parts about the right, even qualified, and you'll see how it all resolves itself.
Last edited:
Excellent. We've circled around and you've finally grasped what was posted in the third post in this thread.
The cop was wrong there, just as a cop in Michigan would be wrong in arbitrarily stopping an un-lettered out-of-state cargo van.
Well, I think there are a few things at work here. It might be the context of the conversation, but based on what I've read here in this thread, I think a blanket prejudice against cops may have played a context bias in the assumptions and conclusions reached, which puts it in a completely new context. Also, while I don't know if that owner's brain is scrambled or not, but he's clearly ignorant, or an idiot, because cargo vans not registered in Michigan engaged in interstate commerce do not have to have door lettering, and it's utterly stupid to suggest that out-of-state vans go ahead and get lettering for the express purpose of avoiding having a Michigan cop overstep his bounds.
Actually I did read them. But more than that, I sought out and read the actual court decisions of a few of them, in their entirety, rather than rely on a bunch of out-of-context snippets contained within in a large collection of agendized snippets created specifically to bolster a belief. In each and every case where a mode of transportation was mentioned they were not mentioned in the context of having a right to use a particular mode of transportation, but in support of the right to travel upon the public roads.
Yes, it resolves itself, but like it or not, society wants people to be qualified to operate a motor vehicle, and thus the licensing and qualifications that we see now, despite the wishes of those who believe they should not have to be qualified. One of the cases you cited, in fact, was about that very thing, where someone reasoned that driving was a right and that motor vehicle laws and regulations should not apply to him, and the court ruled that while traveling upon the public highways is a right, and while exercising that right you have the right to travel upon those highways using whatever transportation of the time might be, be it horse-drawn carriage or motor vehicle, you still have to abide by the motor vehicle regulations, including obeying traffic signals, licensing and registering where applicable, in order to ensure the safety of the public.
It's not easy to find the actual court cases, for many of them you have to go to the Westlaw Database or to the actual court's Web site, but it's very easy to find countless Web sites (most of them being essentially mirrors of each other, as if often the case with agenda Blogs) with an impressive looking collection of court decision that list court cases and everything, but hardly any of the decisions listed are actual decisions. Rather, they are skewed conclusions that list any and every snippet from court decisions they can find that, when piled together, make it appear that the courts have all ruled that driving is a right and not a privilege.
Yet if the courts, even just one of them, had ruled that driving is a right and not a privilege and that the licensing and registration of motor vehicles violated the Constitutional rights of citizens, and that motor vehicle laws do not apply to the citizens of this country, you can bet it would be front page news on every newspaper in the country and the lead story on every news broadcast. Yet, apparently, according to all these Blogs, court after court after court has ruled in precisely that manner.
These Blogs have attempted to amass a mountain of legal confirmation to prove something, that in reality, only one genuine court legal ruling would accomplish. Talk about incongruous.
Blogs of this type (Right to Drive, Jews have Master Plan to Take over the world, All Muslims are bad, All conservatives are bad, Canola Oil will kill you, Scientologists are all crazy) are all the same. They contain the same exact information, usually the same exact copy-n-pasted text that already state what they believe, and there is little or no original thought behind them. They take the work of one or a small number of wackos and propagate it ad nauseum because that's how you get others to bite into the propaganda. They believe that truth hinges on how many people believe it.
Well, I was pulled over last night pulling into a Meijers. Office- "you know why I pulled you over"? Me- nope. Office-" you were acting like you were lost or drunk" Me- " not drunk or lost, ya got a beer"? Office- "nope, you need help"? Me- "nope, just trying to get to that parking spot over there. And what did I do to make you think I was lost or drunk"? Office-" you were driving slower than me." me- But I was making a turn into the Meijers" Officer- "have a good night"
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Too funny ....
Has anyone called the commander of the district where these pullovers have been happening and questioned him about the practices. Sometimes this goes along way. We used to get stopped in LA. all the time and asked to go in just to have them verify gvw on reg. I called and was told there was no need nor should it be going on, with a vin # on trk they can get it off the computer. Been 2yrs since we have been stopped for that particular reason. Just a thought that might raise a flag.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I don't think anyone knows what agency is doing this. I'll probably be talking with that owner again in a few days, so I can ask him more about that.
greg334
Veteran Expediter
This must be making the truck stop rounds, I heard it today standing in line at the T/A in Perrysberg.
As turtle pointed out, decisions are not in a lot of these court cases on the web. Most of the time they ignore the relevant part of the case or proceedings which blows their argument out of the water, like Kent V Dulles. After reading that case all the way through, it had more to do with slamming the state department on not issuing the passport on the issue of guilt through affiliation than actually having issued the passport than it had with restricting travel. A good case may be made for many who are on the no fly list that this is a constitutional issue, but I think that it has been tried.
Others in that list I read through last night and still nothing in them that speaks of anything unique or special.
I think the Shelled one will confirm this, many of the conspiracies out there are made to sell the sites' ad space. Others are laughable in themselves but taken seriously because too many people have time on their hands. The one I like is the 16th amendment is illegal because the states didn't word the reply the right way or made grammatical errors while replying to the feds - takes the issue to an new level maybe it should by on Penn and Tellers Bullsh*t show?
Well anyway, heard this story that that Calhoun county sheriff is pulling people over in white vans to see if they are hauling cargo or something to that effect.
As turtle pointed out, decisions are not in a lot of these court cases on the web. Most of the time they ignore the relevant part of the case or proceedings which blows their argument out of the water, like Kent V Dulles. After reading that case all the way through, it had more to do with slamming the state department on not issuing the passport on the issue of guilt through affiliation than actually having issued the passport than it had with restricting travel. A good case may be made for many who are on the no fly list that this is a constitutional issue, but I think that it has been tried.
Others in that list I read through last night and still nothing in them that speaks of anything unique or special.
I think the Shelled one will confirm this, many of the conspiracies out there are made to sell the sites' ad space. Others are laughable in themselves but taken seriously because too many people have time on their hands. The one I like is the 16th amendment is illegal because the states didn't word the reply the right way or made grammatical errors while replying to the feds - takes the issue to an new level maybe it should by on Penn and Tellers Bullsh*t show?
Well anyway, heard this story that that Calhoun county sheriff is pulling people over in white vans to see if they are hauling cargo or something to that effect.
Yup. It's about ad revenue. That's why you find so many Web sites that are essentially the same things over and over, often with one guy operating dozens or hundreds of them. Most of the time it's about ad revenue, but many of the also believe the stuff they're shoveling, and they figure as long as they can make a buck while they're at it, might as well. One guy posts some wacko doodle to a Web page or an e-mail listsrv, and within minutes the identical text is on hundreds of thousands of Web sites. It shows up on as bazillion hits on Google, so people think it's real and true because it's so prevalent on the Web.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Hmmm...wonder why that is. Maybe more people getting pulled over.
Could be. It could also be that someone read it here, and there ya go. Rumors spread much faster than the truck, especially in trucking.
dont use white vans,,lol
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Well, the last time I tried to write this reply, I was dispatched and couldn't finish it. Maybe I'll have the same luck this time, though being Sunday night in Fargo, probably not.
No, actually, I grasped that quite early on. But I didn't know how the Michigan law affected in-staters, but I maintained, and do maintain, that cops who are pulling over vans with out-of-state plates are doing so illegally. That's the direction of most of the thread and debate.
It seems that you're the one that's finally grasping something. That differs from your previous position. If your position has evolved to that, I'm happy to hear it. Always happy to have someone on board with the Bill of Rights.
Excellent. We've circled around and you've finally grasped what was posted in the third post in this thread.
No, actually, I grasped that quite early on. But I didn't know how the Michigan law affected in-staters, but I maintained, and do maintain, that cops who are pulling over vans with out-of-state plates are doing so illegally. That's the direction of most of the thread and debate.
It seems that you're the one that's finally grasping something. That differs from your previous position. If your position has evolved to that, I'm happy to hear it. Always happy to have someone on board with the Bill of Rights.
No one's questioning the illegality of Michigan cops pulling over out-of-staters, since it's clearly illegal, but you've been maintaining that it's actually been happening, and doing so without any evidence to support it.No, actually, I grasped that quite early on. But I didn't know how the Michigan law affected in-staters, but I maintained, and do maintain, that cops who are pulling over vans with out-of-state plates are doing so illegally. That's the direction of most of the thread and debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Turtle
Excellent. We've circled around and you've finally grasped what was posted in the third post in this thread.
Differs in what way?
Are you nuts? Evolved? My statement here doesn't differ in any way, shape or form from my previous position, and to say it does is accusing me of something I did not do, which I don't take too kindly to. My prose is clear. I dare you to find a quote from me, in this thread or anywhere else, where I stated that it would be right, or legal, for a Michigan cop to arbitrarily stop an un-lettered out-of-state cargo van. My position was well stated in my first post in this thread, and I have not wavered one iota from that position. Any wavering or evolving to be found will be within your own assumptions.
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
Ok, I don't know how to nest quotes like you do, so I don't know how clear this is going to be, but we'll give it a shot.
Me: That differs from your previous position.
In that you plainly stated more than once that cops seeing a cargo van have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is engaged in commercial activity and is entitled to pull them over. I argued the point, and you persisted.
Me: If your position has evolved to that, I'm happy to hear it. Always happy to have someone on board with the Bill of Rights.
We had several posts regarding whether or not a cop has reasonable, articulable, and especially particularized suspicion that an out-of-state van going by can be assumed to be subject to the signage law. You maintained that he can. It wasn't until post 104 that you made the distinction between pulling over a Michigan-plated van vs. an out-of-state van, while I had pointed out previously that we were talking about out-of-staters.
UPDATE: Talked to that guy again today. He said it's now 3 of his guys pulled over without cause, all registered elsewhere. He confirmed that the camera phone was temporarily confiscated, and they were cited. The charge was commercial vehicle without signage. This was done by Kalamazoo PD. He told at least one of the drivers to fight it in court. Whether he will and when that would be, I couldn't say. But the numbers are growing, both this guy's and that other expediters are talking about it.
Me: That differs from your previous position.
In that you plainly stated more than once that cops seeing a cargo van have reasonable suspicion to believe that the driver is engaged in commercial activity and is entitled to pull them over. I argued the point, and you persisted.
Me: If your position has evolved to that, I'm happy to hear it. Always happy to have someone on board with the Bill of Rights.
We had several posts regarding whether or not a cop has reasonable, articulable, and especially particularized suspicion that an out-of-state van going by can be assumed to be subject to the signage law. You maintained that he can. It wasn't until post 104 that you made the distinction between pulling over a Michigan-plated van vs. an out-of-state van, while I had pointed out previously that we were talking about out-of-staters.
UPDATE: Talked to that guy again today. He said it's now 3 of his guys pulled over without cause, all registered elsewhere. He confirmed that the camera phone was temporarily confiscated, and they were cited. The charge was commercial vehicle without signage. This was done by Kalamazoo PD. He told at least one of the drivers to fight it in court. Whether he will and when that would be, I couldn't say. But the numbers are growing, both this guy's and that other expediters are talking about it.
Incorrect. I did not state that cops, meaning any and all cops in every state, seeing a cargo van have reasonable suspicion to believe the driver is engaged is commercial activity, and is entitled to pull them over. My comments were within the scope of Michigan and Michigan law, not in the abstract, as it's Michigan that has the applicable lettering law for cargo vans 5000 pounds and heavier, engaged in commerce. My very first post in this thread noted the distinction of Michigan-plated vehicles, and didn't address out-of-state vehicles since the law doesn't apply to them.
No, not especially anything. I never said a Michigan cop has reasonable suspicion or probable cause to stop an out-of-state cargo van for no-lettering. I'm talking about Michigan cops pulling over Michigan plated vans, and you wanted to expand it to be something reckless and illegal.
No I didn't. Not even once. Every single time I addressed that issue it has always been within the scope of Michigan and Michigan law, a law that I also quoted in Post #3. Since the law doesn't provide for stopping out-of-state cargo vans that have no lettering, why in the world would I maintain otherwise? Contrary to popular belief, I'm not a stone cold idiot.
See Post #3 where I stated quite plainly:
While the second paragraph also applies to interstate vans running intrastate within Michigan, in a later post I also agreed with you that unless the cop has some reason to believe the van in actually operating intrastate within Michigan, he would have no reasonable cause to perform a stop.
One thing I do maintain is that if cell phones were confiscated, temporarily or otherwise, it would be front page news. That's straight up illegal search and seizure, and even a rookie cop will know that. There's no reason whatsoever to confiscate a cell phone, camera phone or not. Picture or no picture, that cop's information is on the ticket, so a picture of the cop or anything else won't mean a thing.
As for an out-of-state cargo van getting a ticket for a law they didn't brake (unless they were, in fact, running intrastate), I'd want to see a copy of the ticket and the number of the statute violated, or even just the ticket number since citations can be looked up and paid online, before I'll believe it. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I'm just saying I need more to believe it. The only discussion of this issue on the entire Internet is right here on EO. If true, this is something that should at the very least be all over the wacko Web sites, yet not one word anywhere except here. Because if one small carrier has three vans pulled over, then it's happening a heckuva lot more than that, certainly enough to wake up the wackos, if not every newspaper and television news organization in the state.