Nice Texas bill, one problem, LEO' dont want it.

Status
Not open for further replies.
This law enforces it better, lays it out plain and simple. There must be a reason why LEO's are against this........



there couldn't be any cops with those reasons for wearing sunglasses or being completely bald could there? How about a cop who suffers from alopecia? I guess God just made him genetically predisposed to being an intimidating JBT, right?

There couldnt be any citizens out at 3AM, minding there own business. How about a citizen who works the late shift, drives a beat up car. God just made them genetically predisposed to get harassed by shaved head JBT's. :neener:
 
But when Johnny does that, he has violated someones rights, illegally detained them, publicly embarassed them, and cost them a run through the system, that should not happen, even once.

No.

What happens is Johnny asks someone for permission to look inside the vehicle. The person gives permission to look inside the vehicle. Johnny looks and finds evidence of a crime. Johnny arrests the person.

At the trial, Johnny says he had permission to look inside the vehicle. The defendant denies giving permission. The evidence is thrown out, the defendant is found Not Guilty, and Johnny will get the Consent to Search form signed from now on.

LawDog
 
There couldnt be any citizens out at 3AM, minding there own business. How about a citizen who works the late shift, drives a beat up car. God just made them genetically predisposed to get harassed by shaved head JBT's.
Again, you haven't read anything I wrote for comprehension. I am the one who said: "I think it's a bogus argument to base either argument on looks anyway . . ." I don't think every person out driving around at 3AM, in a beat up car is a criminal, hell I've been that guy MANY times in my life. Got pulled over a couple of times too. However, I was speeding so I had no room to whine about it. ;)

BTW, Vernal there is nothing genetic about driving a beat up car. :neener:

Anyway, P95 makes a good point. Very few here will change their minds on this, so I'm done. Feel free to judge cops based on looks rather than behavior. Feel free to support redundant legislation. Isn't freedom grand?
 
garyk/nm.........


I'm really trying not to get into a pissing match here and the quote was from Law Dog, I've been doing LEO work since 2002. I am not a Texas Peace Officer, I don't pull people over (regularly); I do a different breed of LEO work.

Secondly, Law Dog has been right on thus far as well as DMF. Third, a signed consent form was not necassarily designed to protect the citizens, but the law officers as proof that:

1.) Consent was obtained from a person who:

2.) Was informed of their rights.

Though DMF has made a solid legal argument, lawdog has a solid argument that this would be a waste of time.

As long as "probable cause" will not be the requirement for Terry Frisk then all good. As it stands now "reasonable suspicion" can suffice....though you are VERY limited in your search criteria in that you are looking for "weapons" in the suspects immediate area of control.

Now if this law is an attempt to increase the burden of proof for a Terry Frisk, then this law is a bad idea. As for general searches, it wouldn't make a whit of difference except more paper work than is currently legally required.

Nuff said.
 
Even if you refuse to believe I'm a cop,

I specifically DO believe you are, read it again. I made the statement I did to explain why I almost never mention my own short experience in the field, not because I was trying to impugn you.
 
were are ya'll finding these cops?
i've been driving for about 29 years and have been pulled over a few times.
i have never been searched nor has my car.
i was asked once to set in the back of the patrol car as we were on a busy freeway and a 30 year old guy can't be trusted not to walk into traffic!
i have been stopped by houston pd, harris and montgomery county sheriffs, hiway patrol, and assorted county and local police. some were nicer and more professional than others but none ever tried to search me or my car.

Some of us like annoying the status quo. :D

Police intimidation has never been a problem for me. I tend to weird the police out. Once had a pair of cops cross the street to get away from me. Black oilskin duster, oilskin hat, facemask and heavy black leather boots. Works every time. :evil:

I've been questioned more times than I can count. Usually for misunderstandings or just not going with the flow. Squeaking wheel gets the oil. Be polite, be firm, know your rights, and you won't usually have a problem. One of the niftiest experiences I've had in a long time was having an FBI agent suggest that I should buy more ammo. My significant other didn't believe me when I explained I was just trying to be a good citizen and following directions from an LEO when I brought home an armful of ammo. You'd really be surprised how far politeness and understanding will get ya.


From what I read, the law can't hurt. It shouldn't even be required. People should know their rights. I doubt it will complish much, but I'm not seeing how much harm it could cause.
 
This thread has been a great debate. We won't solve the issue here, but I suspect we've given those Texas legislators (hopefully, they'll read this thread) some genuine food for thought.

DMF, you do make a good point about the "appearance" elements of cop intimidation and evil/black/military-style "assault weapons." Most here would agree that the "assault rifle" political scam is primarily one of gun-illiteracy driven (mis-) perception. Regrettably, Perception IS everything these days.

I suspect the "intimidation" effect (of both militarized cops and evil/black guns) is far more effective with run-of-the-mill folks than with the predominantly weapons-literate THR members herein. However, BOTH types do vote.
 
I've worked as a LEO in Texas since 1993. Each and every department I've worked for has required citizens to sign consent forms before I am allowed to conduct a consent search, as do any departments and officers that I've spoken to.

After having consented to a number of searches of my vehicle over the last few years I have NEVER been asked to sign a consent form.

I routinely travel the Hwy 77 and 281 corridors between Corpus and the Valley while doing my job as an independent mechanical failure inspector. You should see the looks I get from cops and Border Patrol when I explain that. :)

And yes the question asked is "Do You Mind If I Search Your Vehicle?"

I let 'em do it just to get going again. Most of the time I don't even get a warning slip.

As for the not getting pulled over unless you're doing something wrong idea that I see some still have. I would say that is not true especially since I just got pulled over last Thursday down by Linn/San Manuel for no real reason other than I was a single male driving an older car through the area that their wolf pack was patrolling/working. Oh sure, the Trooper said it was because I didn't signal a lane change around another stop that they had going, but I knew he was back there in his silver unmarked Concorde and made certain I did so. I started to get upset that he was saying I did something wrong that I didn't, and then it clicked what was going on. He just wanted to check my ID, or pull over an Anglo to balance out other profile stops so it doesn't look like they're targeting a certain segment of the population. Extent of the conversation this time was to ask for license and registration, how do I say my last name, and be careful when changing lanes, and drive safely, before zooming off around me. Total time couldn't have been more than 3 minutes. I didn't think to get his name it happened so quick. I was actually surprised that he didn't do the full-on get me out of the car and then ask to search like has happened so often before.

edit: fixed needlessly inflammatory first line
 
I will say this - as just an observation. However much some might disagree with cop's thinking, attitudes - call it what you will, IMO DMF and Alduro - et al - have shown excellent and polite restraint when under some ''bombardment'' - I applaud them for that. I still lay claim to a ''Piscean position" - I see both sides! :). Same in that other thread about young and old cops.

We all will never see eye to eye but - as responsible gun owners, we do have a duty to do the best we can, with what we have. And what we feel we don't have or consider under threat - then that is where efforts to change are needed - whether thru lobbying or whatever legal means.

The battle goes on .... whilst the sheeple sleep! :p
 
Drifting away from the issue of this particular proposed law: One major problem with arguments like these is that a too-high percentage of people do NOT know their rights.

They don't know that a cop can't search their car. Even after (let's suppose) an illegal search, they're not gonna see a lawyer. They're gonna sit around and bitch to their buddies, but that's as far as it goes.

Just looking through threads here at THR where we have a lot higher percentage of folks who chase links and read findlaw and all that, we still have some who can't differentiate between what's truly legal or what's required by existing law and all that, and an opinion of what oughta be. Hey, there are a lot of Joe Sixpacks out there who haven't a clue about whether or not their rights have been violated. That occasional "bad apple" cop can or will take advantage of that sort of cluelessness.

Sure, it's incumbent on each individual to learn about his rights. But it's incumbent also to learn about credit-card over-use, and we know what that's about, right?

So, yeah, I agree with DMF and LawDog, but I can see where honest ignorance can lead to problems. I don't have a real-world answer...

Art
 
People should know their rights.
RevDisk hit that one over the fence.

If people knew their rights and government wasn't so determined to teach our children to be acquiescent wimps, this entire discussion would be moot.
 
People should know their rights.

So, if folks are ignorant of their rights, does that mean rights do not apply to them?

Total time couldn't have been more than 3 minutes.

3 minutes of wasted time on a BS stop that should not have happened in the first place.

Keep quoting case law. Case law and statutory law, 2 different animals.

Case law will help after the fact
Statutory law is supposed to make sure there is not an after the fact.

Case Law is the law of reported judicial opinions. These are distinguished from statutes or administrative law. "Stare Decisis" (or precedent) is the basic concept of case law (common law) in which courts look to both the statute/regulation and prior court decisions to formulate opinions.

Statutory Law consists of the acts of legislatures declaring, commanding or prohibiting something; a particular law established by the will of the legislative department of government.

That is what upsets LEO's on this, its demanding, ordering them to stop doing things the way that they have been, and applying a standard. A standard that may exist in agency SOP, but needs to be spelled out better in Statute.
 
3 minutes of wasted time on a BS stop that should not have happened in the first place.

Oh no, I wasn't saying it was OK because it was only 3 minutes, but rather trying to say that the whole thing was odd.

And another thing. The people advocating refusing a search are not the ones on-deck, so to speak. I, all too often, am. I have to pass through the same areas, past the same cops just about every workday. Somehow I don't think refusing a search would be a good idea for continued good relations.
 
Opponents of the bill say the measure would limit officers’ reach in cases where it could be beneficial. However, Texas Municipal Police Association representative Tom Gaylor said that “the vast majority of the time, we found nothing†that would lead to an arrest, the Express-News reported.

“A good police officer never stops asking questions, and no, the sky is not going to fall (if the bill passes), but we will lose a good tool that helps us do our job,†San Antonio Police Lt. Rosalinda Vasquez told the state Senate’s Criminal Justice Committee.

How many times have our cop-apologists, feigning innocence, said: "Don't blame us, we don't make the law, we only enforce it"? (Some even coyly posting links to legislators email addy's, haha...) Yet, cops, cop administrators, cop unions, are up to their eyeballs lobbying legislators. Take a guess how much of that lobbying activity is aimed at expanding personal freedom, vs. expanding police powers? Yeah, I thought so.
 
My three cents (inflation)

ten years of driving, three stops, and a long time of being a passenger previous to that and the only time I've ever been asked to be searched... well, wasn't even me, wasn't a traffic stop, I was 11 or so and being driven inside the TANG base here and we were the "every third car" that day.

The MP wasn't happy. Lincoln Mk V's have *tons* of concealable space; takes a while to open and scan 5 ashtrays, 2 storage bins, and a 6 body trunk.

Anyways, two out of the three stops I've had personally I've looked downright seedy (I dress for comfort on trips) and didn't get asked for a search. Maybe I'm just a trustworthy looking person? Could be that I'm polite. Some would say it's because I'm white but I have more faith in my LEOs than that...
 
Vernal45 cites "Quote: People should know their rights." and then asks, "So, if folks are ignorant of their rights, does that mean rights do not apply to them?"

While I happen to think you're really working at being obtuse, there, I'll play it straight: No. It does not mean rights do not apply.

What it means is that knowing their rights is less important to them than counting their change at the local Stop'n'Rob, assuming they can count change.

It also means they are among the most likely to have their rights ignored by that occasional LEO who either doesn't care about or doesn't know his law-limited abilities. Ignorance not really being bliss, this group also is among the least likely to seek or gain redress.

No matter how many laws are passed, no matter how many regulations get written, there ain't gonna be no perfect world. I don't care WHAT Ralph Nader thinks--and it holds for the world of law enforcement, the same as for consumer products.

:), Art
 
I have no problem with any of the bill so far as it provides a paper trail. ONE area where I get stuck is

"b) A peace officer who stops a motor vehicle for any
alleged violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic may not
search the vehicle unless the peace officer:
(1) has probable cause or another legal basis for the
search; or
(2) obtains on a form that complies with Section"

Which eliminates the ability to perform a Terry Frisk of a vehicle correct?

Incorrect.

A Terry stop is based on "reasonable suspicion" and has been adjudicated as legal by the SCOTUS. Does that not qualify as "another legal basis"? However, a Terry stop does not give authority to search the entire vehicle -- only to confirm that the driver does not have a weapon within reach. The trunk or luggage area would be off-limits to a Terry search.
 
this needs to be the law of the land.
not just in Texas but everywhere.

last spring ..2004.. I was driving my Uncle's car up from Florida for him, the drive from Florida to Wisc is a bit much for him and so he fllies me down, I get a couple of days with my parents and then take him to the airport and drive north with his car. In the fine state of Georgia I was stopped for driving too rapidly (I was) I presented the trooper a letter identifying me and my purpose signed by my Uncle, my license, his proof of insurance and copy of the registration. It was pouring rain and after some time the trooper walked up and knocked on the window and said " here is your documents, I would like your permission to search the car,"

This was a brand new white Cadillac Deville, less than four thousand miles on the clock and immaculate inside, clean as a whistle, the trooper, however was soaked and muddy, and I told said trooper I really do not see the need. I said "my uncle is a neat freak and I am not even supposed to drink soda in the car, there is nothing here. I really do not think you have a need to search this car." I was told to exit the vehicle, placed in the squad car, and told that a police dog was being brought to search the car. I asked on what grounds, and i was told they did not need grounds, as the dog search was not covered by constitutional protection.

I was forced to sit while they ran that dog over, around and inside that brand new Cadillac. That dog was covered in mud and he left paw prints on the new leather seats, the carpet and all over my stuff in the trunk. There were scatches all over the car from them jumping the dog onto the hood and on the the trunk lid. the cops kept laughing as they ran the dog over and over on the drivers seat. finally I was told " next time don't mess with us when we tell you to let us search your car," They tossed me the keys and drove away the last officer making sure he spun his wheels on the gravel shoulder again hittin me and the car with a nrew barrage of muck and stones.

My Uncle had his insurance cover it and I asked him repeatedly to talk to our lawyer about it, and he just said ," Pete, sometimes i have to drive in Georgia " and he shrugged his shoulders.

After going through this as a 40 something white guy who is not usually known as raving lunatic, I can only imagine what happens if you are a hispanic or black family man. sure sometimes cars do have and illegal substance in it, but is the rare arrest worth the removal of our personal freedoms.?
 
Can you tell me what part of Georgia this was in? Maybe you have badge numbers or names? I'm interested.. :evil:
 
Not once so far have I read any commentary on the Profiling supposedly used in determining whether or not a vehicle gets stopped.

Having worked drug interdiction for a solid year on a major highway on the west coast of Florida I have personal experience, and never made a stop based on profiling. I looked for and always found a traffic violation committed by the vehicle in question. My validation for a stop was whether I normally made traffic stops and wrote tickets for the violations. If I could answer yes then the stop was valid.

Once the vehicle was stopped, the driver was asked for his licence and registration. If there were other occupants in the vehicle, ID was gotten from them also. In many instances, either the driver or passengers or both had outstanding warrants. (finish Business, he goes ton jail and the vehicle got inventoried) It never ceased to amaze me that the very individuals targeted as most likely to be involved in drug trafficing (Hispanic and Black males between the ages of 18-35) would be the ones clocked on radar and stopped for speeding, or who would be driving a vehicle with defective lights or expired tags, guaranteedn to draw LEO attention like moths to a flame.

If during the stop the driver and passengers seemed to have completely different stories concerning the vehicles ownership, their destination and or point of origin, ebven the slowest LEO on the detail could reasonably suspect that something was not right.

My own personal SOP at that point was to signal the K-9 assigned to the detail to do a walk around of the vehicle to sniff out the presence of drugs. If he got a positive alert, a search of the vehicle was warranted without the drivers permission. Whether it was the drugs or drug tainted money that caused the alert, it doesn't matter.

Just for the record, the time involved in the stop from start to arrest or release was never more than 15-20 minutes including ticket writing time, not an unreasonable detention time, and even if the violator refused permission to search, it made no difference in the outcome, because cortrary to the belief of many of our members, the violator is not free to leave until the traffic stop is concluded. Try to leave before you got the ticket and signed for same, and the lack of a warrant to search would be a non-item.

We didn't always find drugs or money, but the legality of the stops was never questioned.I don't know what criteria Texas uses for their stops, however if they rely on valid traffic violations for the stops the new law should make no difference.

JPM
 
Once the vehicle was stopped, the driver was asked for his licence and registration. If there were other occupants in the vehicle, ID was gotten from them also.

If during the stop the driver and passengers seemed to have completely different stories concerning the vehicles ownership, their destination and or point of origin, ebven the slowest LEO on the detail could reasonably suspect that something was not right.

Just curious what is your response if the passangers refused to give you ID or to answer any of your questions?

Has that ever happened to you?
 
mind if i search your vehicle
I hate that question. If you answer "no" it is interpreted as "no I do not mind if you search." If you answer "yes" it is interpreted as "yes you can search the car." That phrase and other misleading ones like it should be banned by law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top