Proposed bill bars Montgomery Co. Police from pulling over drivers for certain violations

[Sunrise]

Bill 12-23 Legislative Text: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/council/Resources/Files/agenda/col/2023/20230228/20230228_2B.pdf​

Proposed bill bars Montgomery Co. Police from pulling over drivers for certain violations​

Bill 12-23, as proposed by Councilman Will Jawando, would prohibit traffic stops by MoCo PD for the following traffic offenses under MD Vehicle Law:

• Licensing and registration
• Certificate of title or insurance
• Window tinting
• Defective headlamp or taillight
• Illuminated license plate
• Minor obstructions, including, signs, posters, and other nontransparent materials on the windshields

The bill would also prohibit an officer stop for a jaywalking violation.

There’s also this new officer procedure as part of the proposed bill:

When a MoCo police officer makes an initial traffic stop for a reason not prohibited under this bill: If the officer identifies as a secondary violation one of the included provisions in this bill, he/she would have to first issue a verbal or written warning for it, but the officer could then issue a citation on a second offense.

Also, this proposed bill would limit a police officer’s authority to request permission to conduct a person/vehicle search during a traffic stop, regardless of whether the person actually consents to the search.

This bill effectively renders that consent not permissible. So, the officer must instead have a reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that a criminal offense arose during the stop to conduct a search. Violation of this provision would subject an officer to disciplinary action.

Don’t forget about that $20,000 hiring bonus….

CC: @spoon059

 

[Epiphany]

I don’t get it. Why are we upset about this?
The ”offenses” noted in the text of the law are all well-known to be “fishing expedition” starters…

Perhaps if it also included provisions forbidding pulling over lifted vehicles or wheels with offsets past a fender, everyone would be onboard with it?

I’ll never understand the bizarre contradiction of a pages-long thread where 21-22 is causing terror that one might hypothetically be stopped and found in violation of the law, but a change in policy to reduce the chances of that, among other outcomes, is bad?

I understand not agreeing with the politics behind it, but ultimately traffic stops for tint and registration are a waste of resources; and eliminating those is a step towards not being CA where if your car looks like it’s not stock you’re getting pulled over and impounded…

Registrations can end up suspended over $2 EZ-Pass fines that you never even received, and then you’re being pulled over and suddenly it’s an officer involved shooting... I’m thinking of a recent ASP video where there was a car parked in a handicap spot at a gas station - and instead of rolling up and telling the people to move along, the cops decided to initiate a stop, and it ended up in someone being shot. Now, the guy who got shot was an absolute moron. But there was also objectively no good that came of the decision to not just keep it moving… that’s an officer off the street while things get reviewed, blah blah blah, and so on.

It’s an oversimplification and every scenario is unique and complex, and people are unpredictable. But ultimately, no one benefits from pointless traffic stops…

I get the notion that sometimes they also result in felony arrests, and that’s a net win. I guess in general under the premise that you’re responsible for your own safety, it always surprises me that this specific community of people always wants more police…

 

[lazarus]

I am wondering how the heck some of those get enforced then? To Epiphany's point, yeah some of the fines can be ridiculous. What is it, $1000 for an expired registration? I moved a few years ago, updated my address with the MVA. They still sent the emissions renewal notice to my prior house an USPS won't forward that stuff. So, my wife got gigged for the van's emissions being expired. Fortunately, the cop didn't show for the court date. But it was about 2 weeks past expiry.

I'd be better off if some of the violations changed to warnings for first instances within a certain period of time (like 3 years).

And if you are driving without a license....

Most of the vehicle related ones I'd be more fine ditching if MD implemented actual vehicle safety inspections on a periodic basis.

 

[mpollan1]

If a MoCo council member is proposing it, it's not a good thing for working, contributing, law abiding citizens.

 

[KingClown]

I don’t get it. Why are we upset about this?
The ”offenses” noted in the text of the law are all well-known to be “fishing expedition” starters…

Perhaps if it also included provisions forbidding pulling over lifted vehicles or wheels with offsets past a fender, everyone would be onboard with it?

I’ll never understand the bizarre contradiction of a pages-long thread where 21-22 is causing terror that one might hypothetically be stopped and found in violation of the law, but a change in policy to reduce the chances of that, among other outcomes, is bad?

I understand not agreeing with the politics behind it, but ultimately traffic stops for tint and registration are a waste of resources; and eliminating those is a step towards not being CA where if your car looks like it’s not stock you’re getting pulled over and impounded…

Registrations can end up suspended over $2 EZ-Pass fines that you never even received, and then you’re being pulled over and suddenly it’s an officer involved shooting... I’m thinking of a recent ASP video where there was a car parked in a handicap spot at a gas station - and instead of rolling up and telling the people to move along, the cops decided to initiate a stop, and it ended up in someone being shot. Now, the guy who got shot was an absolute moron. But there was also objectively no good that came of the decision to not just keep it moving… that’s an officer off the street while things get reviewed, blah blah blah, and so on.

It’s an oversimplification and every scenario is unique and complex, and people are unpredictable. But ultimately, no one benefits from pointless traffic stops…

I get the notion that sometimes they also result in felony arrests, and that’s a net win. I guess in general under the premise that you’re responsible for your own safety, it always surprises me that this specific community of people always wants more police…

You would have had me aggreeing with alot. But then you wanted to throw a Jab at people with lifted trucks or wheels and that comes off as jealousy.
Do you call people you dont agree with racist and literal Nazi's too?
Why are you not ok with people being pulled over for the above violations but your OK with lifted trucks being pulled over?

 

[Sunrise]

If a MoCo council member is proposing it, it's not a good thing for working, contributing, law abiding citizens.

Yeah. While they’re building bike lanes and removing car lanes on Old Georgetown and Little Falls Parkway supposedly for the protection of cyclists/pedestrians (but which I think create greater danger for vehicles), you’ve got Jawando saying it’s not important enough to stop a car for a detective headlight or taillight, which is an important part of vehicle/biker/pedestrian safety in my opinion. It’s the inconsistency and hypocrisy which bothers me.

 

[alucard0822]

I didn't take the OP as an argument for or against, just basically reporting it. Not sure why the straw man beatdown, being there was not really a post supporting or opposing it before, and in fact a lot of us probably agree with this pretty obvious "anti-fishing expedition" law. IMO the "well fishing might lead to a felony arrest" argument is BS, should we have road blocks and checkpoints? The reason these specific things are mentioned like Epiphany said is that they are frequently abused as a reason to pull someone over. I was a tech working around Bmore county, and had HUNDREDS of SEROs come in where the reason was borderline or not unlawful. Tint on rear windows on trucks, factory headlights/taillights, factory tint, tag bulbs that were "dim", etc. While pulling someone over for a headlight out could be justified, it is abused enough that I get stopping it as a primary offense. I 100% agree with the limits on search "requests" without reasonable suspicion or probable cause. Leveraging the promise of reducing or dropping fines for traffic violations to gain consent, or pushing hard for "consent" searches that don't meet reasonable suspicion happens a lot.

 

[Michael S]

I don't get this anymore. We have installed all these laws on the books. Now we have to make laws to not enforce the laws that were made. Would it not make more sense to change the laws on the books. I guess no one thinks of that.

 

[joppaj]

https://www.mdshooters.com/threads/will-jawando-this-guy-must-hate-leo.273398