Hartford, CT – Break out the small fuzzy dice, pine tree air fresheners, Mardi Gras beads and graduation tassels.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Hanging an object from a car’s rearview mirror is acceptable under Connecticut law as long as it doesn’t distract the driver or impede the view, a divided state Supreme Court ruled in a decision released Monday.
The 4-3 decision upholds rulings of the state Appeals Court and a Superior Court, both of which sided with Gregory Cyrus, who was pulled over in Danielson in 2006 when a trooper spotted a cross hanging from a beaded chain on his rearview mirror.
Cyrus was charged with drunken driving and driving without a license, but the courts threw out the charges after ruling the alleged evidence was inadmissible because he never should have been pulled over.
The trooper never testified that the 1 3/4-inch-tall cross and its 10-inch chain seemed to be blocking Cyrus’ vision or distracting him, and it was so small in relation to the entire windshield that it couldn’t have swung into Cyrus’ line of vision, the judges wrote.
Pulling him over just for having the item on his mirror wasn’t legal, and hypothesizing that it could pose a hazard wouldn’t have been enough without showing why, the court said.
The three justices who dissented from the majority view said the trooper could have reasonably suspected the hanging cross distracted or blocked Cyrus’ view in violation of state law, and that the officer had the legal right to stop him to investigate that.
A telephone number for Cyrus could not immediately be located, and a message seeking comment was left for his public defender.
Courts in Massachusetts, Florida, Colorado and elsewhere have made similar rulings based on language in their state laws that bar items that distract or block a driver’s view, but don’t prohibit all items outright.
Some other states, including Minnesota, specifically say in their laws that nothing can hang from a driver’s rearview mirror. In South Dakota, the law specifically bars “any object or gadget dangling between the view of the driver and the windshield of the vehicle.”
A 1968 federal ruling known as Terry v. Ohio governs how and why police can stop vehicles.
Officers must reasonably suspect a crime has occurred, is occurring or is about to happen; the stop’s purpose must be reasonable; and detaining someone must be done reasonably in light of the reason for the stop.
West Hartford Police Chief James Strillacci said the Connecticut case is a good reminder to police that they need to be cautious about judging and recording the reason for stopping drivers.
In fact, he said, he forwarded information about the new Supreme Court decision to his officers Monday.
“There are a lot of variables, so the officer has to make the case — not just that the person had something hanging from the rearview mirror, but it was yay-big and it was waving to and fro, or whatever occurred,” Strillacci said.
He said they’ve stopped drivers for several items impeding their view by hanging from the rearview mirror, including compact discs, garlands, bridal garters, large religious medallions and even a mezuzah.
“When it doubt, take it down. You need to be able to see,” Strillacci said. “Frankly, if I was advising a driver, I’d say do what’s best for your safety. If something’s in your way, get it out of there.”
In NY, I was pulled over for no good reason. The officer was ahead of my vehicle and then pulled right and stopped at the curb so I should pass. When I passed he pulled back onto the road, followed me after 2 stop signs he pulled me over. His excuse was, well you shouldn’t have passed me. I replied, well you parked at the curb, what do you think I was obligated to do. He asked me for Lic and registration, when he came back he handed me a ticket for driving with an obstructed view. I forgot to mention, that a tassel about an inch and a quartel tall was hanging from my rear view mirror.
I pleaded not guilty and prepared for trial. A day before the trial, I snapped photos from vehicles parked in the court parking lot and within half hour, I finished a 36 film of vehicles with all type of gadgets, one with a bow as large as honey dew. All photos where dated and time printed so the judge to see that it didn’t took that long to proof the insanity for ticketing me for that tiny tassel. I hoped that the vehicle with the bow should only be the judges vehicle. At end B”H, the cop didn’t show up and was dismissed.The cop, I guess knew how stupid he was and wasted precious time.
What about GPS on everyone’s window?
I was in a NYS court and I heard a fellow got a ticket for failure to stop at the white line (by a stop sign) The officer didn’t charge him with running a stop sign, so there is an admission that he came to a complete stop, only he didn’t stop at the white line. Problem is, there is no such law. One must stop before entering the intersection. It does not have to be before the sign or before the line.
No question there are cops who have an ego problem. I once pulled alongside a cop at a left turn, the roadway had no markings, there was room for 2 cars. He took offense that I squeezed in near him and as soon as I turned, he pulled me over. COuldnt articulate an offense other than I shouldnt have pulled up alongside him. Luckily, his radio went off and called him away. Idiot.