DES MOINES – An officer conducting a traffic stop who discovers his reason for the stop is without merit must allow the driver to go free, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled this week.
In a case verdict released this week, the Iowa Supreme Court considered whether a law enforcement officer, after making a valid traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion that an offense may being committed, must terminate the stop when the underlying reason for the stop is no longer present.
In this specific case, an Eldridge, Iowa police officer was randomly checking license plates in 2014. He encountered a vehicle that was registered to a woman who had a suspended driver’s license, but couldn’t tell whether the driver was a man or woman. The officer stopped the car and found that a man was driving, Jayel Coleman, and then arrested him for driving while barred. Coleman’s case made it to the Supreme Court.
The majority of justices (4-3) ruled that under the result in this case, the officer should have allowed the Coleman to go on his way after the resolution of the reason for the stop; he was not the person the officer originally sought in the stop. The majority ruled that under the search and seizure provision of article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution, the stop must end when reasonable suspicion is no longer present.
The court concluded that when the reason for a traffic stop is resolved and there is no other basis for reasonable suspicion, article I, section 8 of the Iowa Constitution requires that the driver must be allowed to go his or her way without further ado.
This doesn’t make sense. How can they conduct random traffic stops? Twice in the past two years we have detoured off the interstate in Iowa and they checked all the vehicles for a valid DL, proof of insurance and vehicles for safety.
You don’t have to let them, it is up to the driver to say no, and they can not do a damm thing. People stop being sheep led to slaughter!
As Huckabee said on Fox News this morning – these liberal judges are short circuited – democrap liberals intent on destroying the rule of law. Trump has 4 years to flush out these worthless employees. YOUR FIRED.!
Quoting The Huck……. Baptist preacher, political wannabe, smooth talking salesman.
You people bitching about this ruling are brain dead! You drinking would have got pulled over to begin with or charge if the CIO would have done his job they way he was suppose to! The coo seen that a woman owned the car not a man, a woman was barred not a man. He should have said nevermind and not done a damm thing. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty, you DON’T have to prove your innocents or incriminate yourself and by handing the cop his license when the cop knew it was a woman he was looking for, this guy he was incriminating himself, he should have never even had to hand the cop his license.
If the cops want a reason to pull you over they are clever enough to figure out a reason to legitimize the stop. They are very resourceful and do it all the time, so please don’t get your panties all up in a bunch.
Wow, this is stupid, and I’m one who is concerned about unreasonable search and seizures…but wow…really dumb. So the problem now is that when the Supreme Court allows for idiotic precedents to be established…it undermines concerns for legitimate revisions. If the guy is barred and cannot produce a valid driver license then by all means the cop should get to arrest him. What happens if the guy is wanted for felony murder? Let him go? Bizarre ruling.
Police can chalk just about anything up to “reasonable suspicion”. This really isn’t going to make a difference.
So an officer checking on one violation finds another violation can not perform their duties.
Time you recall and remove more Iowa Supreme Court judges.
They clearly lack common sense. Using their logic when an officer makes any traffic stop they may not ask for your drivers liscense or insurance information because there is no reasonable susipciion to believe we don’t have them with us while we are driving.
Forgive my foolish example for a foolish ruling but I am only using the same logic for my example they applied to their ruling.