RS not required for traffic stop to conduct DOT inspection?

I suspect you are right.

 

Also worth a read: Camara v Municipal Court. Significantly different circumstances (housing inspectors refused access to a home), but nonetheless a safety-related inspection. Court vacated a conviction for the homeowner who refused to allow the inspection.

 

The admin’s are not going to lock a thread just because you demand it. No one owns a thread on here just because they start it.

They might ban you from the forum though do to the “Are you freaking dense” insult posted earlier as you clearly did not read the forum rules on here any better than you have understood that diving a commercial vehicle gives the government the right to stop and inspect it at any time.

We are not your paid attorneys and have no obligation to give you anything other than the short answer (actually no one here is obligated to do even that). Users answered you because they were trying to help and got nothing in return but a self righteous attitude from you.

If you want the long one, start by reading the guidance from the FMCSA (you know, the agency that gives you authorization to conduct interstate commercial transportation) at https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/396.17 (Question 8). If you want to read the full regulation it is at https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&=PART&n=pt49.5.396#se49.5.396_19 under the "§396.9 Inspection of motor vehicles and intermodal equipment in operation link".

 

The real answer is: You consented to the investigation without objection. The key word being consent. Without consent a warrant would need to be issued. Where would that leave the person that objected?

It's like during an inspection a person declines to incriminate himself by helping the officer with his inspection by signaling, lights, brakes, etc. All fine and well but again what happens after.

Technically, after your initial yearly inspection you should be good for the year unless something is spotted to warrant a further investigation. Face it, they could find one just by being in their state. The moral of the story is that decades of citizens passiveness has lead to local, state and federal government stepping over their bounds all over the place.

If you don't like the current system of pay to play then I'd suggest that you educate yourself and do something about it. Rather than come here and degrade others for things that even you cannot explain.

Just do the norm and sit down, be quite and open your wallet. That's what I do because I'm smart enough to know I cannot afford to play in their arena. Push it and find yourself homeless or imprisoned. Best bet is to try to stroke a change locally... They have smaller bank accounts.

 

Only way to settle this is for somebody to volunteer to be a test case. Take it all the way to the Supreme Court if needed.

I don't know what the true answer is. They could very well not have the right to stop you, but it's going to take a awfully lot of money to prove either way.

 

I foresee a lockup coming soon on this thread

 

Since it's been dead for a month something tells me it being locked is not going to happen.
Unless new stuff happens of course.

 

I know, lets turn it into a zenophobic hate thread.

 

BINGO! DING, DING, DING. WE HAVE A WINNER FOLKS. LOL. Great response sir. But I will say, that catch word "they" get to use 'reasonable suspicion' is BS in my mind. I mean, all they have to say in a report or on the stand is, "i had reasonable suspicion to go through his personal items" is what really chaps my butt.
Now, I think to myself, self, if I had a small safe in the truck, can I be made to open it? Hmmmmmm

 

If you went to the academy, why didn't you call up one of your instructors and ask them your question? Or one of your colleagues in CMV enforcement?