How is this possible?

Yes, that's true. Drivers have run two log books, or is this practice new to you?? The fat lady doesn't sing until there's an incident.

And you'd be wrong, just as the LEO in Oregon was wrong.......

You see, I don't like civil servants who abuse their power, I don't like scumbags who are out to write tickets....

The only reason for examining a co-drivers log book is to write a ticket.

Plain and simple.

Did you ever hear about what the California DOT was doing at the Banning scales a few years back???

They were using wrenches and taking brakes that were properly adjusted, and taking them out of adjustment...

For the purpose of writing tickets.

They were busted by the FEDS.

Or maybe you'd care to explain why Tenn did away with it's DOT inspectors, and placed the responsibility of CMV enforcement with it's highway patrol???

Please tell us what a great bunch those guys were......

 

You want to know why I get confrontational when a LEO attempts harassment???

Because we run legal.

And I don't have anything to be afraid of.

In all the years of being out here I've received only one speeding ticket, (62 in a 55 in OH... back in 1995), and have never been placed out of service, or been given a log book ticket.

NEVER.

My wife has one ticket, 65 in a 55, she received in NM, she mistakenly believed the posted speed limit to be 65.

Number of log book tickets my wife has received???

NONE.

EVER.

You want to inspect me?

No problem, want to see MY log....

Sure.

Want to harass us and fish for citations???

I'M NOT GOING FOR THAT BS.

Understood?

 

Yes, I'm fully aware that drivers have used multiple log books in order to avoid compliance with the HOS regulations...which is one of the contributing factors leading to the increased scrutiny we all receive today from those in law enforcement. They don't know you, and are not likely to take you on your word about much. They want documentation and verification to back up your statements...evidence that what you are telling them is true. If you are putting a "co-driver" out there as a reason for miles which you would not be able to account for on your own, then the officer has the right to look into that claim and ask for proof. So, they ask to see that co-driver's log book. What are you trying to hide? Your "co-driver" is required to maintain their log book current to the last change of duty status, right? So if you run legal as you claim, what harm is there in handing it over when asked? If the officer still has his doubts as to the legitimacy of your claim, he can further verify your story by simply having a look at your co-driver's CDL to ensure they are properly licensed to operate the vehicle you are claiming they help you to drive. If they are not properly licensed, they can't be your co-driver, which means that your story falls apart.

It shouldn't have to come down to that, though. Act professionally and don't give them a reason to doubt you. If they ask for your co-driver's log book to verify your claims, hand it over. Done. Simple as that. They know that log book is supposed to exist....the regulations require it to be kept current to the last change of duty status, so it should show them in the sleeper if that is where they are. The more you object to a simple, reasonable request, the more the officer is going to think you are trying to hide...which makes them want to dig deeper. As they dig deeper, it wastes your time and makes them less inclined to overlook minor infractions. That's also usually when they decide to check for compliance with other nit-picky items contained in the regulations such as §393.76(e) & (h), §393.95(a)(4) & (b), etc...


...and you still haven't produced the regulation stating that co-drivers are immune from having to produce their log book during an inspection.

 

http://www.thetruckersreport.com/tr...5740-2-articles-re-4th-amendment-applies.html

case law precludes him from HAVING to produce a co-drivers logbook or even waking the co-driver up.

 

Case law doesn't preclude anything. The Florida incident was explained quite clearly by the officer:

The ranting lunatic running the web page those links refer to needs to learn the difference between participating in a regulated industry engaged in interstate commerce, and a private individuals walking on a public street. The court case he cited was in reference to an individual refusing to show ID after being approached by an officer while walking down the street. There is no law requiring a private citizen to carry identification in that situation, just as the private individual walking down the street would have the right to remain silent when questioned by the police. When you are driving a commercial motor vehicle, you are required to do have certain things with you....CDL, medical card, and a RODS. If you are claiming the passenger in the bunk is a co-driver, then they are required (just as the driver is) to have those same documents with them. Remember, the co-driver is only asked to produce their log book when the driver's log book indicates the co-driver's assistance behind the wheel. The DRIVER is claiming that the co-driver has helped drive that truck, and the officer only wishes to verify that allegation. The officer also has a duty to ensure that if that co-driver is, in fact, sharing in the driving of that commercial motor vehicle, that they are equally qualified to do so (CDL, medical card).

As for the Texas incident, that court case involved a private passenger car, NOT a commercial motor vehicle engaged in interstate commerce and subject to the FMCSA regulations. Even if you do NOT claim the passenger is a co-driver, the officer can STILL ask to see ID along with the written authorization as required in §392.60 to ensure that you do not have an unauthorized passenger in the truck.

The case law cited deals with private individuals going about their private activities, either on foot or as passengers in private vehicles. It has nothing to do with commercial activities in a regulated industry.

 

Not hiding anything, the "hiding something" is an unfounded assumption.

The moment the co-drivers logbook is handed over, the co-driver is now involved in the inspection. The co-driver is to be undisturbed.

Period.

They can think, or suspect all they want.

The fact is,

1) I am the operator of the vehicle at the time of inspection, whatever scrutiny the officer feels compelled to exhibit is directed solely at me, unless there is some compelling reason other than a vague suspicion, then the officer has zero authority to demand the co-drivers log, as this now involves waking the co-driver, who has the log, med card, license, in their possession.

You have failed to produce the regulation stating that a LEO has some basis in 49CFR to disturb the co-driver who is in the bunk sleeping and taking what is to be an undisturbed break.

Either produce a regulation specifically naming the co-driver, and worded in language that clearly enumerates a plurality of individuals who are required to participate in a MV safety inspection, or hold your tongue.

It's really that simple.

 

I see you been drinking the Kool-Aid again..

 

He'd probably be the first one to complain if he was awoken from his sleep by a diesel cop who wanted to see his log book...lol....

 

And I'd fight for his right not to be harassed, believe it or not.

 

LOL.... yeah, the purpose of the inspection is to "make sure" we're all operating "safely"...lol....

Oregon is about writing tickets.