RS not required for traffic stop to conduct DOT inspection?

It justified more like alcohol breath tests. You give an implied consent when you apply for a CDL and drive a CMV.

What bounty hunters do is justified on the theory that you are your bail bondsman's prisoner the entire time you are out on bail.

 

I don't give the source of this because someone needs to learn to find their own answers. Took me less than a minute to find it too. According to the federal motor carriers admin. By operating a commercial vehicle you are giving implied consent of alcohol/drug testing and inspection by authorities.

 

The traffic itself is not considered a seizure.

 

Quick! Someone call the Federal Marshals! Where do these people come from?!?!

 

The officer was reasonably suspicious that you were driving a commercial vehicle.

 

There are some people who still believe that the Federal Marshall's job description includes arresting scale and POE officers. Heck, in the Federal District of Minnesota the Marshalls Service will not even serve civil process in federal cases.

 

I had a driver just the other day mention the federal marshals.. I just bite my tongue and let them ramble..

 

Traffic Stop Based Only on Suspicion of Criminal Activity Ruled Unconstitutional - Lexipol

Others have mentioned taking the case to the supreme court. Here it was. Now I understand the case dealt with a drug arrest, but if you look at the decision by the court it indicates that an officer may stop a CMV to conduct an inspection for safety purposes without probable cause. To stop them without a violation to conduct a drug search is an completely different thing.

 

There are other cases upholding drug and alcohol testiing and the ELD mandate which hold that because (a) trucking is a dangerous profession; and (b) because trucking regulation is pervasive; and (c) because there is dangerous of waste of evidence if there is delay; and (d) because there is a lower expectation of privacy in a commercial vehicle - searches generally of the person when performing a safety sensitive function (or having just performed such, and searches of the CMV are not unreasonably within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and moreover, no warrant is required. This is not something with which I necessarily agree, but it is based on Supreme Court precedent.