Uechi-Ryu.com

The case reported was decided by the Massachusetts Appeals Court:


Where a Plaintiff charged with operating a motor vehicle after the revocation of his driver’s license, filed a suppression motion based on the fact that a police officer, acting without any reasonable suspicion, had checked the validity of the license plates on the defendant’s car and subsequently pulled the car over, the motion was correctly denied based on a lack of a reasonable expectation of privacy.

The Court held that the operation of a motor vehicle has no reasonable expectation of privacy in a ‘number plate’ that is required by law to be displayed conspicuously on that vehicle.

SYNOPSIS OF THE FACTS:

At about 2:45 A.M. on October 12, 1999 a female police officer was driving a marked cruise on a public way in the town of Douglas. Traveling in front of the cruiser was a brown Thunder Bird. Nothing in the operation of the Thunderbird or its appearance was suspicious or unlawful. The officer called dispatch and asked that the registration displayed on the Thunderbird’s Massachusetts number plate be checked through LEAPS. Upon being advised by dispatch that the plates belonged to a blue Ford Taurus, the officer stopped the Thunderbird.

“The threshold issue in our review of the denial of the motion to suppress is whether Officer Glynn’s use of information appearing on the number plates of the Ford Thunderbird, without benefit of a warrant, constituted ‘a search’ of the defendant in the Fourth Amendment sense of that word…

“We hold that the defendant had no reasonable in the number plate viewed by Officer Glynn and that its examination, therefore, was not a search in the constitutional sense”.

Reports of cases on Search and Seizure have been made in the past, because each seems to have insight on why or why not a certain set of facts affords protection to a defendant.

I believe these issues are important to MA’s as a legal self defense issue as much as your training is in your dojo, dojang, kwoon or training hall.

We can apply the facts of the above case to a martial artist who was stopped under the same circumstances.

We will add to the recipe the discovery by the LEO of in view sets of nunchuck, balisong,
sai, and tonfa.

Your defense is that you are a martial artist on the way to class and this is part of your study of the arts.

Your stop has been ruled legal in the above case.

To those not aware, the above weapons, pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 269, Section 10(b) qualify as “per se” dangerous weapons and a two and one half year jail sentence is possible.

How do you believe the court will rule on your defense that the search should, upon the above facts, be suppressed?

Compare case on this forum March 11, 2002.

Let's see if I get this straight...

(1) The law requires a <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

(2) Because of this law, <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote .

So, the law takes away our privacy rights?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote

There is no "Martial Artist on the Way to Class" exception to the dangerous weapons law.

There is no "Martial Artist on the Way to Class" exception to the dangerous weapons law.

There is no "Martial Artist on the Way to Class" exception to the dangerous weapons law.

If you have these weapons and you are lawfully caught, you are breaking the law. Period.

Don't like it? Write your State Representative, your State Senator and the Governor and have the law changed.

Gene




[This message has been edited by Gene DeMambro (edited August 29, 2002).]

You are right on the money, Gene, except for one distinction.

You stated: quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court held that the operation of a motor vehicle has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

The inquiry of the officer was not a Fourth Amendment violation because there is no privacy in a license plate and the information revealed by the inquiry was not subject to protection.

The case was not decided on the visible operation of the vehicle and the court reported;

"Nothing in the operation of the Thunderbird or its appearance was suspicious or unlawful."

If the officer pulled over the car without reasonable suspicion and obtained the LEAPS information later, that may have been a seizure.

The registration of a motor vehicle and the licensing of the driver is considered not to be a right, and merely a privilege.

This case seems to be an extension of that thought process since the license plate is a requirement and the information a public record.

Alan K

Prepare for rant.

<rant>

I've hated the reasonable expectation of privacy standard since Olmstead.

IMHO it's degenerated into an entirely unreasonable expectation of whatever fits the Court's bias the day it rules. A reasonable person these days should expect no privacy whatsoever and extensive, invasive intrusion. I do.

But simply because I do not expect the government to respect my privacy does not mean I should not demand it.

</rant>

Murray/student

Sigh.
Wonder how many lists that got me on....



[This message has been edited by student (edited August 29, 2002).]

You are a true patriot, Murray and should not be on the USA Patriot Act list.

Seriously, with national ID cards being proposed and advocates of GPS systems monitoring our movements, you would have no privacy in bed or bath all in the name of national defense.

George Washington would roll over in his grave if he saw the modern image of the inerpretation of the Constitution. On the other hand he would be more surprised if he saw the republic still intact.

But he did stay a second term to help insure this, when most of the politicians of that era feared and expected a continuation of a kingship or absolute rule. Maybe it will endure another 226 or so years.

However, since you are a published and famous lawyer, you are deemed a public figure and have no right to privacy.

Alan K

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Alan K:

You are a true patriot, Murray and should not be on the USA Patriot Act list.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>.

Thank you. High praise, indeed. I do damned near nothing in Federal Court, but I wouldn't be surprised if, before everything is over, I'm one of the challengers to the USA PATRIOT Act.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>However, since you are a published and famous lawyer, you are deemed a public figure and have no right to privacy.

Alan K<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I know: New York Times v. Sullivan, et seq.

Sigh.
I suppose I could attempt a life beyond reproach....


(Lee Darrow is the only member of these Forums currently who has actually met me. I envision his coming to that last sentence and spitting up coffee all over his keyboard.)



[This message has been edited by student (edited August 29, 2002).]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by student:
I know, I know: [b]New York Times v. Sullivan, et seq.

Sigh.
I suppose I could attempt a life beyond reproach....


(Lee Darrow is the only member of these Forums currently who has actually met me. I envision his coming to that last sentence and spitting up coffee all over his keyboard.)

[This message has been edited by student (edited August 29, 2002).][/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<MOPPING UP SPLATTERED CAFFEIN>

Lesee, intentional infliction of emotional distress, criminal damage to property (my Boss's keyboard), and assault with intent to commit a spit-take...

No jury in the world would aquit.....

Lee Darrow, C.Ht.

Ah, but they would acquit.

Gotcha!

Murray/student/Azarael/whole buncha people....

[This message has been edited by student (edited September 03, 2002).]

(In my very best Johnny Cochran voice...)

"If tha defendant spit, you must acquit!"