Letter to the Editor: In the case of Mumford — Supreme Court of Iowa

A regular observation of mine is our government at work. I practice as a criminal defense attorney and believe it a public service to educate the public of our government’s activities when appropriate. My clients, as a criminal defense attorney, are criminals; they are criminals because they have been defined as such. And what is more we are all criminals in one way or the other. Now, in The Case of Mumford, she was engaged in a particularly nasty criminal act. The arresting officer said the last two digits of her license plate were not “clearly legible.”

There is a criminal infraction of driving with license plates that are not “clearly legible.” This, according to the Court, is sufficient reason to stop the vehicle and since the vehicle is no longer in route, the local k-9 dog could do a sniff, and we all know where that leads. The criminal infraction of not having a “clearly legible” license plate also includes the provision that the license plates be “free from foreign materials.” Now when you say that a license plate must be “clearly legible” and “free from foreign materials” does this mean both or either? The court is silent on this issue.

An interesting novelty in this case is that once the officer is standing behind the car, he can apparently read the two numbers he professes not to have been able to read from his moving squad car. A relevant inquiry might have been just how clean was the officer’s windshield. Mumford, in her defense, produced video and “photos showing that you could actually identify the last two digits. Didn’t matter. The video and photos were taken while the car was at a standstill, not in motion. Apparently this was a significant factor in the Court’s decision. I’m not sure why the “free from foreign materials” was not addressed, since presumably that would have freed the court from further analysis of “legibility.”

Once again we have reinforcement of my previous statements — you can’t drive without committing a crime, and hence, adding to the community-wide need for criminal defense lawyers. It is quite clear you are not going to get a break. Every effort will be made to convict you if you are charged with a crime from speeding to murder and once convicted you are a criminal.

Another factor in this case is the reason for the stop. Defendant’s car had been seen at a residence of a person associated with illegal narcotics. Clearly the reason for the stop had nothing to do with the license plate. They stopped the car because they wanted to do a dog sniff. See, you don’t need a warrant for a dog sniff. It is so much easier to do a dog sniff than trying to find probable cause for a search warrant and a lot less work. You have no right to privacy in your vehicle contrary to what courts may say. Check your pockets, the center console, and the glove compartment before driving. That trip to the grocery store could cost you. This case stands for the proposition that you’re just out of luck if you get stopped for driving - should have stayed home.

So once again folks an update on our government at work.

Richard E. H. Phelps II

Mingo