Can Police Stop You Just Because the Vehicle Owner’s License Is Revoked?

It’s a common question in Wisconsin criminal and traffic law: Can a police officer legally stop a car just because the registered owner’s driver’s license is revoked or suspended — even if the officer doesn’t actually know who’s behind the wheel?

Wisconsin courts — and even the U.S. Supreme Court — have weighed in on this exact issue. And the answer, as usual, is “it depends.”

At Johansen Law Office, S.C., we frequently challenge traffic stops based on these assumptions, especially when they lead to criminal charges such as Operating After Revocation (OAR) or Operating While Intoxicated (OWI). Understanding the law can help you recognize when a stop might have violated your rights.

The Key Wisconsin Case: State v. Newer (2007 WI App 236)

In State v. Newer, a Wisconsin appellate court considered whether an officer had reasonable suspicion to stop a vehicle after learning that the registered owner’s license was revoked — even though the officer didn’t know who was driving.

The court ruled that:

“An officer’s knowledge that a vehicle’s owner’s license is revoked will support reasonable suspicion for a traffic stop so long as the officer remains unaware of any facts that would suggest the owner is not driving.”

In other words, it’s reasonable for an officer to assume that the person driving a car is the person who owns it — unless something clearly contradicts that assumption.

For example:

• If the officer sees that the driver appears to be a different gender than the registered owner,

• Or if the driver appears much older or younger than the owner listed in the registration,

then that assumption — and the justification for the stop — no longer holds up.

The U.S. Supreme Court Agrees: Kansas v. Glover (2020)

The U.S. Supreme Court reached a similar conclusion in Kansas v. Glover (2020). In that case, the officer ran a license plate, saw that the registered owner’s license was revoked, and initiated a stop — without actually confirming who was driving.

The Court ruled that this type of stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment, because it’s “reasonable to infer that the registered owner of a vehicle is its driver,” unless the officer has information negating that inference.

The key takeaway from Glover is that the Fourth Amendment — which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures — allows officers to make logical, commonsense inferences, as long as they’re based on limited facts and not arbitrary guesses.

When the Rule Gets Complicated: Two Registered Owners

But what happens when a vehicle has two registered owners — one with a valid license and one whose license is revoked?

This question came up in a more recent Wisconsin case, where the defendant, Taylor, argued that the stop was unlawful because the officer didn’t know which co-owner was driving.

Taylor’s argument makes sense: If two people share ownership of a car, and only one of them has a revoked license, then it’s not necessarily “reasonable” to assume that the revoked owner is the one behind the wheel.

In situations like this, the officer’s assumption becomes weaker, and whether the stop is justified will depend on additional facts — such as:

• Time of day and location,

• Who typically drives the vehicle,

• Whether the officer can see the driver’s appearance before initiating the stop.

  
  

Wisconsin courts haven’t issued a single clear rule for every two-owner situation yet, but defense attorneys can — and should — challenge these stops under both Newer and Glover when the inference is too speculative.

Why This Matters

If an officer stops a vehicle without reasonable suspicion, any evidence gathered during that stop — such as admissions, contraband, or OWI test results — can be suppressed in court.

That means if the stop itself was unlawful, the prosecution may not be able to use that evidence at all. This principle is at the heart of Fourth Amendment protection and why constitutional challenges like Rodriguez motions and Newer-based defenses are so important in Wisconsin criminal law.

How Johansen Law Office, S.C. Can Help

At Johansen Law Office, S.C., we closely examine every detail of a traffic stop — from the moment the officer ran your plates to the second they turned on their lights.

We look for:

• Whether the officer had actual reasonable suspicion to stop your vehicle,

• Whether the stop was based on a faulty or speculative assumption, and

• Whether any evidence obtained afterward should be suppressed.

  
  

If you were stopped and charged with Operating After Revocation, OWI, or another offense following a questionable traffic stop, you may have a strong constitutional defense.

Our team is here to help you understand your rights — and to fight for them.

Disclaimer

This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique. Please contact a licensed attorney to discuss your situation.