Comments on: There’s pretext and then there’s pretext

By: Appellate Court freshens the air | a public defender

Appellate Court freshens the air | a public defender — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 06:07:31 +0000

[...] view mirror ornaments seem to be a big problem in Windham County, CT. Three months ago I wrote about a Superior Court decision from last December, in which the court found that C.G.S. 14-99f(c) [...]

By: Dave Tarrell

Dave Tarrell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:48:49 +0000

From the Nebraska case that dooms my client:

“The plain language… unambiguously provides and “any object” that obstructs a clear and full view of the road violates Nebraska law… [the officer] testified that he observed “an item hanging from the rear view mirror”… his observation provided him with probable cause to stop the vehicle.

Air freshening is a crime after all.

By: Dave Tarrell

Dave Tarrell — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:27:54 +0000

Thanks for this entry. I’m researching a similar issue, with much higher stakes, and will use the cases you cited, hopefully for the better. But Nebr. has a similar statute, so i’m afraid for what I’ll find.

By: rear cross view mirror

rear cross view mirror — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 13:44:53 +0000

[...] [...]

By: Gideon

Gideon — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:41:20 +0000

You make a very good point. The statute doesn’t say “any object hung on… the rearview mirror”, but rather “No..device..shall be hung on..or affixed in any motor vehicle” in a manner that obstructs the view.

The rear view mirror would seem to qualify under the statute. Heck, even one of those dancing bobblehead dolls that people affix on the dashboard could qualify.

By: Gerard

Gerard — Sun, 22 Jun 2008 17:34:00 +0000

Given the wording of the statute itself, could the rear view mirror itself be an obstruction? I actually removed the center rear view mirror from my small car because it was so large.