driving on a michigan licence in Illinois

>>They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the
>>4th amendment first.
>
> You're in some serious denial there, buddy-boy:
>
> http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstorie...111171244.html
>
> An earlier enforcement crackdown at CHP's South Sacramento office
> netted nearly $575,000, said Officer David Costantini. Six officers
> searched parking lots at shopping centers, apartment complexes and
> college campuses for out-of-state plates.
>
> The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have
> an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required
> to be registered in CA.
>

Guilty until proven innocent.

Or put another way, since when did it become illegal to simply DRIVE a car
in CA that has plates on it that were issued in another state?

If you search parking lots (shopping centers, apartment complexes, college
campuses) and find 100 cars with out-of-state plates on them, how do you
know that even ONE of them is being driven by a California resident??? To
take this a step further, if you somehow had a crystal ball that would tell
you that a vehicle with Oregon plates parked in CA (for example) was being
driven by a CA resident, how do you know that the vehicle wasn't just loaned
to the CA resident by an Oregon resident??? For example, maybe a college
student living in CA could be driving Mom's car.

Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver, or you place
a driver in a situation where he is guilty until proven innocent. Either
way, the founding fathers of our country would not approve of such behavior.
They'd be rolling over in their graves, in fact. -Dave

>> Not anymore. Now they put them in nice little plastic sleeves so you
>> don't have holes in them.
>
> That was because the thickness of the new licenses. From when the TW was
> smashed, the asshole cop was sure to put staple holes in my bond card.
>
> I still remember the first time I was ever pulled over. Cop runs his
> fingers around the edges of my license and says something like 'first
> ticket?'. When I got my license back I was sure to iron out the staple
> holes so it was like they were never there.

Seems like this particular issue would be a GOOD reason to claim that your
license was lost, and pay the minimal fee to have the state mail you a new
one. Then shred the one with the staple holes when the new one
rrives. -Dave

>
> One of these days someone's going to challenge that nonsense.
> California requires you to have your car registered in their state if
> you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work
> in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions,
> it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states.
> --


Somebody else posted that the cops were patrolling college campuses looking
for out-of-state plates. If you are a college student, it's POSSIBLE that
your permanent home address could be in another state. It's also possible
that you are not a FULL-TIME student. (therefore, CA couldn't claim you are
'living' in CA, if you spend most of the year elsewhere) If you are a
college student in CA, it's also possible that the car is owned by someone
who is not a CA resident, and who doesn't work in CA, either (ie, maybe you
are driving Mom's car, and listed as a driver on Mom's car insurance . . .
perfectly legal).

You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse the
owner of the car of wrongdoing without stomping all over the Constitution,
SOMEHOW. -Dave

Mike T. wrote:

> Somebody else posted that the cops were patrolling college campuses looking
> for out-of-state plates. If you are a college student, it's POSSIBLE that
> your permanent home address could be in another state.

And if you're not making any taxable income in that state, why register
the vehicle in that state? It stands to reason that either the student
or their guarantor is paying out of state tuition rates. Why do either
of them have to go through the additional cost of changing the title and
registration (and possibly getting another state inspection) as well?

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 6 Apr 2006 09:19:06 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:
>
>>> The CHP apparently sends you a letter first. Presumably you would have
>>> an opportunity to prove that the vehicle in question is not required
>>> to be registered in CA.
>>
>>Guilty until proven innocent.
>
> Probable cause.

No, probable cause can not exist without getting information from the
driver, and you'd have to violate the 4th amendment to obtain the
information you would need FOR probable cause. The HUGE flaw in your
"probable cause" argument is that it is not illegal (yet) for someone to
drive in CA if they are operating a vehicle that happens to be registered in
another state. Therefore, no probable cause.

>
>>Or put another way, since when did it become illegal to simply DRIVE a car
>>in CA that has plates on it that were issued in another state?
>
> It's not. However, if you show up at the same workplace day after day,
> it's pretty reasonable to suspect that you are employed there. If you
> show up to the same apartment complex night after night, it's
> reasonable to suspect that you live there. At that point you
> investigate further.

Here you are taking information gathered from a vehicle and using it to make
assumptions about the driver, and assuming that there is only ONE driver,
for that matter. As I posted elsewhere, our company has property in CA and
it is not unusual for (out-of-state registered) vehicles to be parked on our
CA lot daily for weeks at a time. These cars are legally registered and
insured, and driven by people who neither work nor live in CA. They are
employed in other states and live in other states, and just happen to be in
CA to assist CA workers, temporarily. Most of the year, these vehicles
would be outside of California. But it might APPEAR that some of the
drivers are employed in CA, if someone was anal enough to jot down all the
license plate numbers on a daily basis. Also, there are legal circumstances
under which an (out-of-state) registered vehicle might park at the same
apartment complex night after night. My nephew is going drive his mom's car
up to our house to spend the summer with us. We will have an out-of-state
registered vehicle parked on our property every night for months. Legally.
We don't live in a CA apartment complex, but there is nothing preventing us
from doing so. (except that we prefer to own rather than lease, but that's
another topic entirely)

>
>>Again, either you violate the 4th amendment to catch a driver
>
> Huh? How is any of this a violation of the 4th amendment?

When there is no reason to suspect illegal activity, it is a violation of
the 4th amendment to search a person or property. If you enter a property
to jot down out-of-state license plate numbers for the specific purpose of
trying to find illegal activity, that is merely a fishing expedition which
would not pass Constitutional muster. Saying that it's been done in the
past does not make it suddenly OK, as far as the 4th amendment is concerned.
If you repeatedly violate the 4th amendment, you are just as wrong the 100th
time as you were the 1st time. -Dave

>
>>You can't just jot down an out-of-state license plate number and accuse
>>the
>>owner of the car of wrongdoing without stomping all over the Constitution,
>>SOMEHOW.
>
> You're insane.
>
> If I see a car weaving all over the road, jot down the license plate
> number, call the CHP, and report the driver as a possible drunk, I am
> "stomping all over the Constitution?" If the cops pull this driver
> over and give him a sobriety test, they are "violating the 4th
> amendment?"

That's a totally different situation. It is not illegal for an
(out-of-state registered) vehicle to be parked in CA. It is illegal to
drive drunk in CA, last I checked. If you don't suspect illegal activity,
then the search can't be Constitutionally valid. You can't violate the 4th
amendment, and then use evidence gathered from the illegal search to justify
violating the 4th amendment in the first place. That's putting the cart
before the horse, and it is definitely a violation of the 4th
amendment.-Dave

Matthew Russotto wrote:
>California requires you to have your car registered in their state if
>you live OR are employed there. If you live in another state and work
>in California, and don't fall under one of the commuter exceptions,
>it's probably impossible to satisfy the laws of both states.

I've come to believe that many people in this ng are scofflaws
themselves, and think all traffic laws are just for revenue.

However, in this area, I pretty much have to agree.

I moved from from TX to AZ. In TX, you have to have your car
registered there if you live there. I still owned a house there, and
was essentially commuting from TX to AZ. But AZ wants you to register
(and pay vehicle taxes) if you live or work in AZ. I started doing
some contract work in AZ while still living and owning a TX home. So,
legally, I had to register in both states (I wonder if that's legal...)

Then, most states want you to register within 10 days (or less) when
you move into their state. To my knowledge, no state gives you a
refund when you move out, and you don't get to wait until the
registration runs out on the old state before you register--and pay--in
the new state.

OTOH, there are lots of people who register their cars in cheaper
states, and essentially live here. Which serves to justify the states'
attitudes.

Still, there IS a better way....

Mike T. wrote:
> > BTW, if you are one of the many from MI living in chicago still keeping
> > MI plates to avoid a city sticker, they can still get you when they
> > observe your car parked on the street everyday...
>
> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily, though?
> Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it.

Actually they are doing this in DC, saw this in the "Dr. Gridlock"
column of the Washington Post a while back. Guy from either VA or MD
was dating a girl that lived in DC, and he was in the habit of parking
on the street by her apartment, and was getting hassled for not
registering his car in DC. Unclear whether or not a disgruntled
neighbor reported his car to the cops or if the cops just noticed a car
with out of state plates in the area a lot and decided to give him a
hard time.

I'd post a link, but it's registration required.

nate

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2006 11:31:48 -0400, "Mike T." > wrote:
>
> >> In CA, the cops patrol company parking lots, making note of any
> >> vehicles with out-of-state plates. I hear they catch a lot of
> >> scofflaws that way...
> >
> >They couldn't catch scofflaws 'that way', unless they stomped all over the
> >4th amendment first.
>
> You're in some serious denial there, buddy-boy:
>
> http://cbs2.com/topstories/topstorie...111171244.html
>
> An earlier enforcement crackdown at CHP's South Sacramento office
> netted nearly $575,000, said Officer David Costantini. Six officers
> searched parking lots at shopping centers, apartment complexes and
> college campuses for out-of-state plates.

College campuses???? At least when I was in school, if you were a
college student, you were still a legal resident of your home state;
you couldn't establish legal residency if you were just living in a
dorm room. Or is this something unique to Pennsylvania?

nate

>> Who would be anal enough to write down the plate and check it daily,
>> though?
>> Has ANYONE been busted this way? I sincerely doubt it.
>
> Actually they are doing this in DC, saw this in the "Dr. Gridlock"
> column of the Washington Post a while back. Guy from either VA or MD
> was dating a girl that lived in DC, and he was in the habit of parking
> on the street by her apartment, and was getting hassled for not
> registering his car in DC. Unclear whether or not a disgruntled
> neighbor reported his car to the cops or if the cops just noticed a car
> with out of state plates in the area a lot and decided to give him a
> hard time.
>
> I'd post a link, but it's registration required.
>
> nate
>

Holy ****, you are right. I found the article, and I didn't have to
register. IT is:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022201385.html

The taxpayers of DC should be ****ED over this situation.

The cops are paid by taxpayers who live in DC.
The cops in DC are apparently so under-worked that they have to waste
taxpayer money collecting license plate numbers of LEGALLY PARKED CARS, and
entering them into some kind of database somewhere, BECAUSE THERE IS NO REAL
CRIME IN DC AND THUS THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO.

This tells me that it's time for some 'right-sizing' in the DC police
department, and some corresponding tax cuts for DC residents. Then the DC
wouldn't need so much money, and they'd be less worried about dreaming up
creative ways to tax everybody, in and out of the DC area. -Dave