I agree that it seems this should be reasonable suspicion to stop. The standard is very low. However, I did point out the conceptual difference between the stolen car report (or the suspended license) because those are databases that show an affirmative report of a possible crime. In this circumstance, it's not an affirmative report, it's the absence of information. I don't know if that is a significant distinction, but I did want to point it out for the sake of debate.

Where's the harm in stopping someone and making sure they do have insurance if the computer shows they do not?

No damages? Who knows... maybe you are scheduled to fly to a hospital where someone... lets say its a child or maybe a nun is waiting on your arrival because you are the only willing compatible kidney or bone marrow donor in the tri-state area... and they died because you missed the flight... because you were stopped... because the insurance company was negligent in updating the records.

Where is there an exemption from civil lawsuits?
And even if there were, the Texas Adminstrative Code, Title 28 Chapter 5/A7 Rule 5.610, provides:

"The commissioner may after opportunity for notice and hearing, discipline an insurer or license holder under the Insurance Code Chapters 82, 83, and 84, and any other applicable law if the commissioner determines the insurer or license holder is in violation of, or has failed to comply, with any of the requirements of ��5.601 - 5.611."

Those requirements include keeping the system 95% accurate right now and 98% accurate by January 1, 2010.

Isn't that discipline by the commissioner enough to ensure that the database is accurate, or at least accurate enough to supply a reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop?

Do we really need civil lawsuits to guarantee the integrity of the database?

That is a lot more accurate than the statewide criminal database used every day by patrol officers. As you may know, the Legislature recently passed a bill requiring counties to form a database improvement committee if their reporting of local criminal data fell to less than 90% for cases.

By way of example, Travis County had a 13% report rate for recent information. So, it is all relative.

When the insurance database was implemented, my chief made it known to the patrol officers that we were not to use the insurance return as cause to make a stop on a vehicle. At this point in time, from my experience, it is not reliable enough to be used in such a manner. I have stopped dozens of cars that have no validated insurance record on the database that have proof of insurance with the driver, just as I have stopped dozens of other vehicles that show to be insured that do not have proof inside the vehicle. Because the system is in its infancy, there is not enough valid data in the system to use it as a reason to stop a vehicle. The system is useful, though, if a vehicle is stopped, has no proof of insurance with the vehicle/driver, and the driver has no insurance convictions. Rather than towing the vehicle due to no insurance, if it can be confirmed on the database, the driver is just cited for the original offense and advised to contact his/her insurance company to get a new insurance card.

I cannot count the number of times when I have stopped people that couldn't find their insurance cards, left them in another vehicle, or just flat out lost them. Although the database can assist officers with verifying the insurance of a questionable car, it seems to be just a little over 50% accurate from my experience. Many times, company pickup trucks (self-insured), vehicle with new license plates, and vehicles with insurance coverage through hole-in-the-wall insurance companies don't have any kind of insurance record on the database.

With a little more time of working out the bugs, it would be a good tool for officers to use to get a stop on a car, but for now, I still don't have complete faith in the database. Several years from now, I think that it will be as accurate as registration returns but it will take some work.

Oral submission set for January 6, 2010 in the Amarillo Court of appeals

We just received the opinion from the Amarillo Court of appeals that says a police officer does not have reasonable suspecion to stop a vehicle based on an "unconfirmed" or "unavailabe" hit on the insurance database.

And in Utah, the 10th circuit already held that making a brief traffic stop to check on a "no coverage on record" response from their insurance database WAS legitimate. And this wasn't even the definitive "no coverage" response. It just indicated the possibility that the car was uninsured.

As the court put it, “indeed, the resolution of particularized and objective yet still ambiguous – potentially lawful, potentially unlawful – facts is the central purpose of an investigative detention.” Because of the ambiguous return, the officer “had reason, therefore, to pluck this needle from the haystack of cars on the road for investigation of a possible insurance violation.”

The court went on to say, "reasonable suspicion requires a dose of reasonableness and simply does not require an officer to rule out every possible lawful explanation for suspicious circumstances before effecting a brief stop to investigate further."

But, of course, that's the 10th Circuit. No reason why that kind of logic should prevail here.

United States v. Cortez-Galaviz, 495 F.3d 1203 (Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, 2007, cert. denied)

The Utah system has been in reliable use for 15 years and it contains protections not present in the Texas system. A notification letter is sent to Utah drivers who are identified by the state database as not having liability insurance for 45 days. The letter invites the driver to respond with proof of insurance. A second letter is sent if the driver fails to respond.

Thanks for pointing that out David H. I will include that in my Motion for Rehearing!!

Perhaps that's a notable difference, Alex, but I admit I don't see much of a distinction. I recognize that you distrust the idea of making a traffic stop based on our database. I will simply point out that since no computer system has yet been found to be 100% reliable, we are quibbling over (to me) minor details. I have stopped cars based on TCIC / MVD information that turned out to be inaccurate; I have detained people (sometimes seriously) for warrants that TCIC said were there but turned out to not be valid. The fact that potential violators were (or were not) sent letters from TXDOT or courts or whomever had no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the detentions.

If this system is not reliable enough to base a traffic stop on, then I suggest removing all law enforcement access to the database. I don't know when or at what point it was decided that the database should be created or that police should have access, but clearly that was done with the understanding that officers would be able to rely on its contents. There is no more confusing message than giving officers an information-gathering tool, but then telling them that they can't rely on that tool to be reliable.

Officers get paid even if their time is wasted by a dubious database... there is no compensation for the citizen's wasted time. It wouldn't be hard to design a much more reliable system. Utah did it 15 years ago when a desktop PC cost $2000 and had 28.8 modems.

As a LEO I have also stopped people who have a "valid" insurance card on a traffic stop. Sometimes when the licese plate is checked the computer returns as unconfirmed or no coverage, which shows something is not proper. During the day (Monday-Friday 8am-5pm of course) I have actually called the insurance company to confirm the policy's existance and it is often times (in my experience) not a good insurance policy. Many of the folks we encounter (in this type of situation) are getting a six month policy and put on a payment plan and they stop paying after a month or so. They have a card that says they have coverage over six months, but confirmed by the computer data base and the insurance company itself, they really do not since they stopped paying and the policy was cancelled for non-payment.

To read the opinion related to this thread, click here.

Seems like someone from DPS should verify whether the database has been improved to the point of being reliable. See the footnotes.

PDR was refused on the Insurance database issue with the notation that presiding Judge Keller would grant. My DA wants me to file a motion for rehearing. Are there any other COA's that have addressed whether the insurance database gives an officer reasonable suspicion to conduct a traffic stop? (published or unpublished) Are there any other COA's looking at the issue?

We've recently had the question come up again of whether the insurance database is sufficient to provide reasonable suspicion for a stop.

I see the two Amarillo cases.

I'd like to know what y'all are doing in your jurisdictions.

Have you got a policy?
Any new cases looking like they'll be appealed?

Thanks in advance.

The two Amarillo cases are back before the trial judge, we are going to ask the trial judge to allow us to reopen our evidence on the supression issue to develope what the COA said was lacking.

On a case out of our county, the 1st Court of Appeals agreed that insurance data available through an officer's MDT could serve as reasonable suspicion justifying a temporary investigative detention. However, unlike the case out of Amarillo the database in this case provided information about a specific insurance policy that lapsed on a particular date. Unfortunately, the opinion is not published.

The opinion is Crawford v. State, No. 01-10-00559-CR, (Tex.App--Houston [14th Dist.] March 31, 2011 no pet. hist.). Good work Montgomery County!

I understand a motion to publish the opinion is in the works.