How is this possible?

If they are acting unlawfully, there is a law which is being broken. You have yet to cite that law, though, and absent an ACTUAL law prohibiting the co-driver from being disturbed, the officer IS NOT acting unlawfully. If it exists, surely you know where to find it....so post it up! For somebody who knows so much, it shouldn't be all that difficult.

As for your assertion that motor carriers have the burden of requiring drivers to record their duty status, try reading the rest of the regulation. Paragraph (a)(1) & (a)(2) referred to in the portion I cited:

(1) Every driver who operates a commercial motor vehicle shall record his/her duty status, in duplicate, for each 24-hour period. The duty status time shall be recorded on a specified grid, as shown in paragraph (g) of this section. The grid and the requirements of paragraph (d) of this section may be combined with any company forms.

(2) Every driver who operates a commercial motor vehicle shall record his/her duty status by using an automatic on-board recording device that meets the requirements of §395.15 of this part. The requirements of this section shall not apply, except paragraphs (e) and (k) (1) and (2) of this section.


Golly gee...looks like EVERY DRIVER is in fact required to record their duty status by the regulations.

Still waiting on that law you claim the Oregon officer was breaking......post up or shut up.

 

During a MV inspection there are two parties involved,

1) The operator of the MV, the driver, singular noun, here, it's defined here....http://www.k12reader.com/singular-nouns/ all language in the regulations refer to the driver, the one, and pay attention here cause the number is clearly one, who is presently operating the vehicle.

2) The governmental authority who is conducting the inspection would be party two.

Now, the only logbook that I AM responsible for is, whose??

Whose medical card am I responsible for??

Here, let's try another one.

Whose driver's license am I responsible for??

So, at an inspection what documents am I responsible for??

And please, again, cite the regulation that empowers the officer to disturb the required, undisturbed, sleeper berth period...

 

Apparently you do not know the difference between the law and your opinion. You still have not provided any laws or regulations stating that an officer cannot view a co-drivers log book or CDL...and until you do, nothing you post is relevant. The regulations clearly state that EVERY DRIVER who operates a commercial motor vehicle needs to keep a record of their duty status, current to the last change of duty status. The regulations also state that you must hand over supporting documents so that the officer can verify that what you have indicated in your log book is correct. The officer needs to make sure that whenever the truck is in motion, it is LEGAL for that truck to be in motion. Even if your log book did NOT indicate a co-driver, the officer during the roadside inspection would not only have the power, but also the duty to identify the passenger in the truck, along with whatever written authorization you might have from the motor carrier or proof that they work for the motor carrier.

Whichever way you dice it, the regulations just don't support your assertion that your co-driver is not to be disturbed during an inspection. Post up some actual regulations backing up your claim, or your claim is nothing more than your simple opinion. Opinions do not matter...only laws & regulations.

 

You have case law that was shown to you that DOT shouldn't disturb a driver on a 10 hour break....


But that's not good enough for you now is it....

 

That "case law" you speak of is irrelevant to trucking, and I already explained why. The cases involved private individuals, going about their private business, either on foot or as passengers in privately owned personal vehicles. Commercial trucking is a different ball game altogether. Dig up some case law referring to commercial trucking and you'll have a valid point. Some ranting lunatic's website comparing apples to oranges, though, is irrelevant.

 

Just because we have a cdl, does not mean we give up our rights.


I'd rather discuss it with a rock.

 

You have failed to post ANY regulations that empower a LEO to harass a certified co-driver during a required, mandatory, undisturbed sleeper berth break.

None.

You misapplied a regulation concerning the record keeping requirements of the carrier, and the additional regulations that you cite are merely subsets of that regulation.

That regulation pertains to the motor carrier, and of course to it's drivers as a whole, you see it encompasses the entirety of the motor carriers operations, and does not pertain to the individual, (one), who is being inspected as the current operator of a CMV, (one), and is being asked for documents that he/she is NOT required to fill out, AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HAVING IN THEIR IMMEDIATE CUSTODY, (these documents being the documents that the MOTOR CARRIER keeps in it's records, or documents that some other driver is responsible for). Your interpretation is simply wrong, for if it was correct then the LEO in charge of the inspection could go back further than the last 8 days of logbook entries, and could additionally ASK FOR ANY OTHER DRIVERS' LOGS WHO ARE OPERATING UNDER THAT CARRIERS AUTHORITY.

As to equating a non-driving passenger with a duly licensed and certified co-driver, that is a straw man argument, is an apples and oranges comparison, and the fact that you cite that as somehow being relative to the topic at hand shows the weakness of your argument.

You cannot cite any regulation that links my responsibility to the co-drivers responsibility, as to the question being posed, specifically, "Am I responsible for my co-drivers RODS...."

The answer clearly, and plainly is.....

I am not.

I cannot be cited for any infraction in a logbook not my own, I have no obligation to provide documents that are not mine, do not pertain to me, and that are not issued in my name.

The only logbook in question during a routine inspection is the one in the immediate possession of the driver who is directly operating the vehicle at the time of inspection.

Period.

If that logbook indicates that the operator in question is operating lawfully, then the need for the officer to pursue the matter further is without merit.

You obviously have no actual experience running team, for if you did your experiences would verify this, as ALL OTHER STATES, (with the exception of OR, and at that less than 15% of the time the access to the co-drivers logbook has been attempted, and only then as an attempt to "find" a revenue producing citation), and their requirements during an inspection, will have proven to you that any other state does not, and will not, ask to see the co-drivers logbook, my home state of California included. (hundreds of inspections throughout the years and NEVER ONCE being asked for the co-drivers log book.

I have actual experience in the matter, as my previous posts indicate.

But you keep on thinking your view to be correct, and when the civil authorities wake you in the middle of the night, while you're parked and taking your required sleeper berth break, solely for the purposes of attempting to catch you off guard and with the idea in mind of writing a citation, then you keep silent on the matter and do whatever they ask for as long as they ask, for after all, and according to you, they have this authority. (even though you have yet to provide us with that particular regulation).

I will provide better than a regulation, I will provide a court ruling that deals with the matter of civil authorities exceeding their authority....

 Fatigue Inspections
The federal court in Minnesota has held that fatigue inspections by the Minnesota State
Patrol (MSP) are not covered by the pervasively regulated industry exception to the Fourth
Amendment’s warrant requirement. This confirms the position taken by OOIDA that there is
nothing in the FMCSRs that acts as a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant in
connection with fatigue inspections as required under New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691 (1987).
The Minnesota federal court found further that the North American Standard Level III inspection
does not authorize detaining drivers for fatigue inspections absent probable cause or reasonable
articulable suspicion. This ruling has implications for fatigue inspection in all states. FMCSA
should drop MCSAP funding for state fatigue inspections until proper Burger-style regulations
are adopted or other Fourth Amendment protections are put in place.
 Fatigue Based OOSO’s - Punitive Not Remedial
Trial testimony by Major Ken Urquhart during the Minnesota fatigue litigation
established that OOSOs for fatigue are punitive not remedial. Drivers placed out-of-service are
not monitored to see that they get rest, nor are they reinspected before they are allowed to resume
driving. Under a Minnesota State Patrol General Order, after a driver is placed out-of-service for
fatigue, the motor carrier is to be notified that under federal regulations they may keep the driver
on-duty with the vehicle. The whole process is a farce. Without FMCSA leadership on this
issue, CVSA has filled the void by creating out-of-service criteria, but CVSA has neither the
authority nor the expertise to establish valid or reliable criteria for identifying and measuring
driver fatigue. FMCSA should identify reforms to fatigue inspection and regulation as a priority
in its Strategic Plan.

FMCSA was soundly criticized by Judge Donovan Frank during the Minnesota trial for
its hands off approach. OOIDA attempted to ask FMCSA for information and individuals who
could explain FMCSA’s policies related to fatigue and DataQs, but was refused by a four page
letter by Debra Straus from the Office of Chief Counsel, Enforcement and Litigation Division.
Then, well after the discovery process was over, FMCSA’s William Quade belatedly volunteered
to become a witness at the trial. Judge Frank refused to allow him to testify, remarking on
FMCSA’s failure cooperate during the litigation.
 CVSA
CVSA has no authority to promulgate substantive regulations. Its out-of-service criteria
(OOSC) are merely enforcement tolerances that are supposed to provide guidance to officers as
to when an out-of-service order is appropriate once it is determined that a substantive regulation
enacted by FMCSA or a state has been violated. The OOSC for fatigue contains no standards for
determining when a driver is so fatigued that he (she) cannot continue to operate his (her) vehicle
safely. CVSA should be directed to drop this item from its OOSC until standards are approved.
CVSA’s current provision that a driver found to be fatigued must remain out-of-service for 10
hours is completely inappropriate. First, CVSA has no standards to determine when an
individual is too tired to drive safely. It follows then that CVSA has no data to support the
implied conclusion that persons are alert enough to drive after 10 hours. Second, CVSA has no
legal authority to legislate substantive violations or penalties. FMCSA’s failure to provide
leadership here has created a vacuum within which confusion and uncertainty reign.
 General Truck Inspections
FMCSA should also be concerned about the adequacy of its regulations to support even
routine vehicle and driver inspections. Under the test in New York v. Burger, a warrantless
administrative inspection may not take place absent regulations informing drivers of the
authority of inspecting officers and any limitations on that authority. Violation of state adopted
versions of the FMCSRs is a misdemeanor in most states. Nothing in the regulations informs
drivers of the authority of inspecting officers to pose questions and what limitations there are
with respect to that authority. No federal or state regulations inform drivers of what obligations
they may have to answer such questions. FMCSA should adopt a regulation stating that, where
violations have criminal penalties, drivers have a right to remain silent and inspecting officers
have no authority to force drivers to answer incriminating questions. These are the rules where
FMCSA and states elect to operate within the pervasively regulated industry exception to the
Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.
 Regulations Governing Other North American Standard Inspections
FMCSA’s legal authority to sanction and fund warrantless vehicle and driver inspections
is also suspect for another reason. North American Standard Level I, II and III inspection
procedures have never been incorporated into the FMCSRs, and to our knowledge, they have not
been formally adopted as regulations by individual states. It does not appear that the status of the
North American Standard procedures as binding regulations has ever been actually challenged
and litigated. FMCSA should address the lack of formal regulations governing North American Standard inspections. Again, drivers’ Fourth Amendment rights are directly tied into FMCSA’s
responsibilities.
 Lack of Uniform Sanctions
Federal statutes authorizing MCSAP funding require that FMCSA promote consistent
and reasonable sanctions by participating states. 49 U.S.C. § 31102(b)(1)(S). Participating states
must agree to such consistent and reasonable sanctions. 49 C.F.R. § 350.211. Fines imposed for 12
violations of FMCSRs vary significantly from state to state. FMCSA should require uniform
fines by states participating in MCSAP. The level of such fines should be dictated by safety
goals not the revenue needs of each individual state.

 

Additionally I'd like to add this in closing,

The power and authority of law enforcement is not limitless, as you have implied by asking for a, or some, particular regulation/regulations which sets a limit/limits as to how far and to what degree a LEO can go in his pursuit to write citations and generate revenue.

That's not how it works, as then you have an open ended process by which any manner of harassment becomes allowable.

No, the limits are clearly defined as set forth in our constitution, which is not rendered moot by some regulatory agency, as you have implied in your previous posts, and additionally the regulations, of, and to which, a federal court has thusly determined that the FMCSA has been, and still currently is, irresponsible in it's duties to clearly identify standards of fatigue in relation to safety, (see above ruling), and has been found to be vague in it's language, and as such has been used/interpreted by some law enforcement agencies as a means to be unduly punitive, as well as being a revenue based incentive disguised as a public service for the purposes of filling state coffers, as opposed to being understood within the context of public safety, for which such regulations were originally intended....

You see, absent a clear regulation empowering law enforcement with authority to conduct warrantless searches, and such searches being without a clear constitutional basis it follows then....

That there is none.

Truck drivers are free citizens, and afforded constitutional protections in spite of your ridiculous claims to the contrary.

They, LEO's, are not a law unto themselves.

For that, you should be grateful.

In summation....

Barring some mitigating incident....

Such as a MV accident in which the operator of the CMV is involved....

And where loss of life, injuries, and/or property damage are involved...

And one where a closer inspection of the factors that may have contributed to the incident are warranted....

Then it necessarily follows, according to our constitution and it's fourth amendment protections that,

The only one who is subject to scrutiny during a random CMV inspection is the OPERATOR, (singular, not plural), of the CMV, (singular, not plural), at the time of the inspection.

Any argument to the contrary is not with standing.