New law prohibits light bars from motor vehicles. Below is the law. I did not know this was a problem in our state but apparently it is such a problem that the legislature felt the need to enact a new law to keep this madness out of our state.
§ 20-130. Additional
permissible light on vehicle.
(a)
Spot Lamps. - Any motor vehicle may be equipped with not to exceed two spot
lamps, except that a motorcycle shall not be equipped with more than one spot
lamp, and every lighted spot lamp shall be so aimed and used upon approaching
another vehicle that no part of the beam will be directed to the left of the
center of the highway nor more than 100 feet ahead of the vehicle. No spot
lamps shall be used on the rear of any vehicle. For purposes of this section,
the term "motorcycle" shall not include autocycles. Autocycles shall
be subject to the requirements under this section for motor vehicles.
(b)
Auxiliary Driving Lamps. - Any motor vehicle may be equipped with not to exceed
two auxiliary driving lamps mounted on the front, and every such auxiliary
driving lamp or lamps shall meet the requirements and limitations set forth in
G.S. 20-131, subsection (c).
(c)
Restrictions on Lamps. - Any device, other than headlamps, spot lamps, or
auxiliary driving lamps, which projects a beam of light of an intensity greater
than 25 candlepower, shall be so directed that no part of the beam will strike
the level of the surface on which the vehicle stands at a distance of more than
50 feet from the vehicle.
(d)
Electronically Modulated Headlamps. - Nothing contained in this Chapter shall
prohibit the use of electronically modulated headlamps on motorcycles,
law-enforcement and fire department vehicles, county fire marshals and
Emergency Management coordinators, public and private ambulances, and rescue
squad emergency service vehicles, provided such headlamps and light modulator
are of a type or kind which have been approved by the Commissioner of Motor
Vehicles.
(e)
High Mounted Flashing Deceleration Lamps. - Public transit vehicles may be
equipped with amber, high mounted, flashing deceleration lamps on the rear of
the vehicle.
(f)Light Bar Lighting Device. – Notwithstanding
any provision of this section to the contrary, and excluding vehicles described
in subsection (d) of this section, and excluding vehicles listed in
G.S.20-130.1(b), no person shall drive a motor vehicle on the highways of this
State while using a light bar lighting device. This subsection does not apply
to or otherwise restrict use of a light bar lighting device with strobing
lights.For purposes of this subsection,
the term "light bar lighting device" means a bar -shaped lighting
device comprised of multiplel amps capable of projecting a beam of light at an
intensity greater than that set forth in subsection (c) of this section
Great new summary of new case law on Search of Vehicles after Stop and when the stop ends. Thanks to Shea Denning from the NC SOG.
The court of appeals decided another significant Rodriguez case yesterday, ruling (again) in State v. Reed
that the highway patrol trooper who stopped the defendant for speeding
on Interstate 95 detained the defendant for longer than necessary to
carry out the mission of the stop without reasonable suspicion of other
criminal activity.
Please exit the vehicle. Trooper Lamm told Reed to
get out of the car and to come sit in the patrol car. When Reed got out
of the car, the trooper frisked him and found a pocket knife.
Reed sat in the front seat of the patrol car. Trooper Lamm’s K-9 was
in the back seat. Reed initially sat with the door open and one leg
outside of the car. Lamm told him to close the door. Reed said he was
scared to do so. Lamm said: “‘Shut the door. I’m not asking you, I’m
telling you to shut the door. I mean you’re not trapped, the door [is]
unlocked. Last time I checked we were the good guys.’” (Slip op. at 4.)
Reed responded, “‘I’m not saying you’re not,’” to which Lamm replied,
“‘You don’t know me, don’t judge me.’”
Where are you headed? Trooper Lamm questioned Reed
while he checked his record. Reed admitted that he had previously been
arrested for robbery; he said he was in North Carolina to visit family
in Fayetteville. When Lamm noticed that the rental agreement listed a
different car than the one Reed was driving, he got out of the patrol
car to ask Peart for the correct agreement. He told Reed to “‘sit
tight.’” (Slip op. at 5.) Peart explained that the rental agreement
listed a different car because the original vehicle had been struck and
they were driving a replacement vehicle. The trooper called the rental
company, which confirmed this information. Peart, like Reed, said the
two were traveling to Fayetteville to visit family.
Mind if I ask a few questions? While Reed was still
sitting in the front of the patrol car, Trooper Lamm returned his
paperwork and driver’s license and issued a warning ticket for speeding.
Lamm said he was “‘completely done with the traffic stop,’” but wanted
to ask Reed additional questions. Lamm said Reed nodded his head in
response. By this time, another trooper had arrived on the scene and had
parked his vehicle, with the blue lights activated, behind Lamm’s. This
trooper stood outside the passenger door of the patrol car where Reed
was sitting.
Sit tight. Lamm asked Reed for permission to search
the car. Reed said he should ask Peart and added: “‘I’m just saying,
I’ve got to go to the bathroom, I want to smoke a cigarette, we’re real
close to getting to the hotel so that we can see our family, like, I
don’t, I don’t see a reason why.’” Lamm told Reed to “‘sit tight,’” and
went back to the rental car. By this time, a third trooper was on the
scene.
Peart initially said Lamm could not search the car, but subsequently
acquiesced to his repeated requests. Lamm found cocaine under the back
passenger seat.
Procedural history. Reed was charged with
trafficking cocaine. He moved to suppress the evidence discovered in the
search of the rental car. The trial court denied the motion. Reed pled
guilty, preserving his right to appeal the denial of his motion to
suppress, and was sentenced to 70 to 93 months imprisonment. Reed
appealed.
The court of appeals in State v. Reed, __ N.C. App. __, 791
S.E.2d 486 (2016), reversed, holding that the trial court’s findings did
not support its conclusion that Trooper Lamm had reasonable suspicion
of criminal activity to extend the traffic stop and conduct a search
after it concluded. The State petitioned for a writ of supersedeas,
which the state supreme court granted. The North Carolina Supreme Court
subsequently vacated the court of appeals’ opinion and remanded the case
for reconsideration in light of State v. Bullock, __ N.C. __, 805 S.E.2d 671 (2017) (discussed here). State v. Reed, ___ N.C. ___, 805 S.E.2d 670 (2017).
Legal backdrop. The United States Supreme Court held in Rodriguez v. United States,
__ U.S. __, 135 S.Ct. 1609 (2015), that a traffic stop becomes unlawful
if it is prolonged beyond the time reasonably required to accomplish
its mission. Specifically, Rodriguez held that a traffic stop
may not be extended for even a de minimis period to carry out
activities, such as a dog sniff, that are unrelated to the mission of
the stop, unless that delay is supported by reasonable suspicion to
believe that criminal activity is afoot.
The North Carolina Supreme Court in Bullock, ___ N.C. ___,
805 S.E.2d. 671 (2017), considered whether a traffic stop in which the
officer ordered the driver to get out of his vehicle and into the patrol
car, frisked him, and ran record checks while the defendant was seated
in the patrol car, was lawful. The court determined that none of these
activities unlawfully prolonged the stop and that, by the time the
database checks were complete, the officer had developed reasonable
suspicion to prolong the stop so that a dog sniff could be performed.
The defendant’s nervous behavior, contradictory and illogical
statements, possession of large amounts of cash and multiple cell
phones, and his driving of a rental car registered to another person
provided reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
Analysis. The court in Reed determined that Bullock resolved several issues in the case. Under Bullock,
Trooper Lamm’s actions of requiring Reed to get out of his car,
frisking Reed, and making Reed sit in the patrol car while Lamm checked
his record and questioned him did not unlawfully extend the stop.
Nevertheless, the court said the case was distinguishable from Bullock
because after Trooper Lamm returned Reed’s paperwork and issued the
warning ticket, Reed “‘remained unlawfully seized in the patrol car.’”
(Slip op. at 10.)
The court explained that while the return of a person’s driver’s
license and other paperwork normally marks the end of a traffic stop and
the commencement of a consensual encounter, a reasonable person in
Reed’s position when the paperwork was returned would not have believed
that he was free to terminate the encounter. Reed remained seated in the
patrol car. Trooper Lamm continued to question him. When Lamm left the
patrol car to ask Peart for consent to search the rental car, he told
Reed to “‘sit tight.’” (Slip op. at 10.) In addition, another trooper
stood directly outside the car door where Reed was seated. Lamm himself
admitted that Reed was not free to leave. This continued detention was
not, in the court’s view, consensual nor was it supported by reasonable
suspicion that criminal activity was afoot. Instead, the facts known to
the officer, which included Reed’s nervous appearance, the dog, the dog
food, and the detritus in the car were, the court said, “legal activity
consistent with lawful travel.”
Thus, the court concluded that, even after considering Bullock, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.
The dissent. Judge Dillon, who dissented from the first court of appeals decision in Reed,
likewise dissented from yesterday’s opinion. Dillon reasoned that Reed
consent to the search of the vehicle after the traffic stop concluded
and that, even if one assumed he had not, Trooper Lamm had reasonable
suspicion of separate, independent criminal activity to support the
extension of the stop.
Stay tuned. The dissent provides the State with an
appeal of right to the state supreme court. If the State exercises that
option, Reed will continue to serve the sentence for which he has been
imprisoned since July 2015 and the North Carolina Supreme Court will
again be called upon to further define the parameters of Rodriguez
as applied to North Carolina traffic stops. If that happens, we’ll be
sure to write all about it. Next time, though, I can skip the facts and
just remind you that this is the friendly pit bull case.
The person’s license must have been revoked for at least 10 years
following the completion of any sentence imposed for habitual impaired
driving;
The person must not have been convicted of any criminal offense in
any state or federal court in the 10 years preceding the date of the
application; and
The person must not currently use alcohol, unlawfully use any controlled substance, or excessively use prescription drugs.
I just came across this article. While it is not illegal, it is not a good idea.
A Tennessee fire department took to Facebook on August 3 to share an
extremely crucial car safety tip that often gets overlooked.
The Chattanooga Fire Department shared the alarming message, which was originally posted by road safety activist Shane O'Connor on Twitter, to warn residents about the dangers of riding in a car with their feet on the dashboard.
“While
traveling this weekend, I noticed many passengers had their feet on the
dashboard of their car,” the post read. “Airbags deploy between 100
& 220 MPH. If you ride with your feet on the dash and you’re
involved in an accident, the airbag may send your knees through your eye
sockets.”
While that may sound like a far-fetched scenario, one
Georgia woman can confirm that this nightmare can, indeed, happen to
anyone.
Audra Tatum says that she used to ride in cars with her feet on the dashboard all the time.
“My husband would tell me, ‘If we have a wreck it’s going to break your leg.’ I dismissed him,” she told WTVC.
But on August 2, 2015, all that changed when Tatum and her
husband T-boned another vehicle on their way to pick up their two son’s
from her parents’ house.
At the time of the crash, Tatum wasn’t wearing a seat belt and was also resting her foot up against the dashboard.
The force of the airbags exploding threw her foot up into her face, shattering her nose, ankle, femur and shoulder.
Sadly,
doctors told Tatum that if she had both of her feet on the floor at the
time of the crash, she likely wouldn’t have sustained any injuries at
all.
