Pulled over, under age

3

3ch0

Bluelighter
Joined
Sep 24, 2004
Messages
1,166
If you are driving along and have not broken any laws or anything, could a cop pull you over on suspicion of you being to young to drive? Thanks.
 
O ok, thanks for the info. I guess I should be more careful next time I drive, haha.

I don't want to make a whole new thread so I have one more question. Could a cop pull you over for having your stereo up to loud even if you aren't in a residential area? Thanks.
 
Solidly-here said:
When a Cop has Probable Cause to think that a 13-year-old is driving a car (by him appearing to be 13), he knows that a law could be broken (a person driving without a Driver's License). He stops the car; checks the ID, and (if the 13-year-old happens to be 17 instead) he lets him go on his way.
Click to expand...

The cop doesn't need probable cause to make a stop of a vehicle. All he/she needs is "reasonable suspicion."

"Reasonable suspicion" is sort of like the probable cause standard, only less demanding. It's something more than a hunch or a guess, in that the cop must articulate some fact he/she reasonably used as a basis for making the stop.

See the case of Terry v. Ohio for the main case on this, or do a search for "Terry stop" and "reasonable suspicion":

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=392&invol=1
 
Solidly-here said:
This is True statement. But it does NOT apply in my scenario.
Click to expand...
the issue in this thread is NOT your scenario but rather the legal threshold for making a traffic stop. when you give advice that confuses standards like probable cause and reasonable suspicion, it confuses everyone who is reading it as well.
 
Solidly-here said:
A 13-year-old CANNOT Legally drive; therefore, if a 13-year-old IS driving, then that is Probable Cause.

Isn't this True?
Click to expand...

Whether the cop has probable cause depends on what the driver looks like.

I don't see where the OP said they looked 13-years old, or even looked 13-years old. It seems to be a premise you built into your argument, but we can't tell if it's an appropriate assumption.

The broader point is that by stating the cop had to have probable cause, you created the false impression that anything less than probable cause wouldn't be good enough (in legal speak, this is sometimes termed a "negative implication").

Maybe you didn't mean to create that impression, but you did.

If you knew the standard for a Terry stop was reasonable suspicion, why not just say so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top