Vernal45
member
No ‘Fishing’ Stops: Bill would restrict warrantless searches
April 22,2005
The Monitor View
State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa has offered a bill that seeks respects for Texans’ constitutional rights. Hinojosa, D-McAllen, filed Senate Bill 1195 to curtail law enforcement agencies’ fishing expeditions during traffic stops, which have become a matter of habit for some police and sheriff’s departments.
Simply put, the legislation says an officer may not ask to search a vehicle just to see what he or she might find. The request for a search must be based on a reasonable belief that the search will turn up some evidence of a crime.
As Hinojosa pointed out in The Monitor, because law enforcement agencies can confiscate suspected "drug money," officers are more interested in the cash they can seize than illicit substances. The senator also filed a bill to bring the South Texas Specialized Crimes and Narcotics Task Force to work under direction of the Texas Department of Public Safety.
The senator filed this bill, it turns out, after getting pulled over last fall by officers with the Kingsville anti-drug task force in what Hinojosa claims was a case of racial profiling. The legislation raised claims of retaliation and strong protests from police officials and prosecutors, who say the restriction would impede their efforts to enforce the laws.
That’s a strange assertion, since the bill does exactly that — it reinforces the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states that the right of the people and their possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. To routinely ask to search vehicles on simple traffic stops, when no evidence of a crime is visible, clearly is unreasonable.
Granted, people don’t have to consent to unwarranted searches, and law enforcers make that point to defend the practice. But many individuals who get pulled over don’t know they have that right. Some who do know still consent to the searches rather than give the impression that they have something to hide. Even with the law on their side, some might feel too intimidated to refuse a search request by a uniformed officer with a gun.
"Every citizen has the constitutional right to liberty without fear or harassment," Hinojosa said in The Austin American-Statesman. "I am concerned that others in my community, however, are subjected to undue harassment because they are unaware they have the right to say no to an invasion of their privacy."
Our Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches. Police do not have the right to search anyone’s property without a warrant. Even if the officer states detailed and specific reasons why he or she believe the search will provide evidence of a crime, the owner still has the right to insist that the officers get a warrant.
It’s unfortunate that so many Americans aren’t aware of their rights, or are too afraid to assert them. Ideally, widespread public refusal to unwarranted searches would curtail the practice without the need for the type of legislated controls that Hinojosa rightly believes is necessary.
http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=6841&Section=Opinion
S.B. No. 1195
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of peace officers to conduct certain
searches.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 1.06. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. (a) The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.
(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
411.0207, Government Code, the written consent of the operator of
the vehicle.
SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.0207 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.0207. GUIDELINES FOR FORMS INDICATING CONSENT TO
VEHICLE SEARCH. (a) The director by rule shall establish
requirements for a form used to obtain the consent of the operator
of a motor vehicle under Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) At a minimum, the rules must require the form to
contain:
(1) a statement that the operator of the motor vehicle
fully understands that the operator may refuse to give the peace
officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) a statement that the operator of the motor vehicle
is freely and voluntarily giving the peace officer consent to
search the motor vehicle;
(3) the time and date of the stop giving rise to the
search;
(4) a description of the motor vehicle to be searched;
and
(5) the name of each peace officer conducting the stop
or search.
SECTION 3. The director of the Department of Public Safety
of the State of Texas shall adopt the rules required by Section
411.0207, Government Code, as added by this Act, not later than
December 1, 2005.
SECTION 4. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b) of
this section, this Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
(b) Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by
this Act, takes effect January 1, 2006.
Trucker Buddy International
Trucking News Article
Our news is provided as a courtesy Of OOIDA / Land Line Magazine
Used with permission. Unauthorized Use or Duplication Is Prohibited
Texas legislature debates limits on police search rights
04/22/2005 - 2:50:45 am
Law-enforcement officials and civil liberties groups are butting heads over a proposed bill in Texas that could give privacy back to drivers and take authority away from the police.
The bill, SB 1195, would stop police from performing consent searches without probable cause. The author of the bill, Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-Mission, told the San Antonio Express-News that the current law encourages racial profiling and intimidation of drivers.
“It is happening a lot all over Texas because people do not know they have the right to refuse, or because they are intimidated and threatened with arrest,†Hinojosa told the Express-News. He added that officers shouldn’t be allowed to ask drivers for search consent where probable cause doesn’t exist, because the resulting search should be illegal anyway.
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.
The committee has so far not taken action on the bill.
http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=2345
April 22,2005
The Monitor View
State Sen. Juan "Chuy" Hinojosa has offered a bill that seeks respects for Texans’ constitutional rights. Hinojosa, D-McAllen, filed Senate Bill 1195 to curtail law enforcement agencies’ fishing expeditions during traffic stops, which have become a matter of habit for some police and sheriff’s departments.
Simply put, the legislation says an officer may not ask to search a vehicle just to see what he or she might find. The request for a search must be based on a reasonable belief that the search will turn up some evidence of a crime.
As Hinojosa pointed out in The Monitor, because law enforcement agencies can confiscate suspected "drug money," officers are more interested in the cash they can seize than illicit substances. The senator also filed a bill to bring the South Texas Specialized Crimes and Narcotics Task Force to work under direction of the Texas Department of Public Safety.
The senator filed this bill, it turns out, after getting pulled over last fall by officers with the Kingsville anti-drug task force in what Hinojosa claims was a case of racial profiling. The legislation raised claims of retaliation and strong protests from police officials and prosecutors, who say the restriction would impede their efforts to enforce the laws.
That’s a strange assertion, since the bill does exactly that — it reinforces the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which specifically states that the right of the people and their possessions against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated. To routinely ask to search vehicles on simple traffic stops, when no evidence of a crime is visible, clearly is unreasonable.
Granted, people don’t have to consent to unwarranted searches, and law enforcers make that point to defend the practice. But many individuals who get pulled over don’t know they have that right. Some who do know still consent to the searches rather than give the impression that they have something to hide. Even with the law on their side, some might feel too intimidated to refuse a search request by a uniformed officer with a gun.
"Every citizen has the constitutional right to liberty without fear or harassment," Hinojosa said in The Austin American-Statesman. "I am concerned that others in my community, however, are subjected to undue harassment because they are unaware they have the right to say no to an invasion of their privacy."
Our Constitution protects people against unreasonable searches. Police do not have the right to search anyone’s property without a warrant. Even if the officer states detailed and specific reasons why he or she believe the search will provide evidence of a crime, the owner still has the right to insist that the officers get a warrant.
It’s unfortunate that so many Americans aren’t aware of their rights, or are too afraid to assert them. Ideally, widespread public refusal to unwarranted searches would curtail the practice without the need for the type of legislated controls that Hinojosa rightly believes is necessary.
http://www.themonitor.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=6841&Section=Opinion
S.B. No. 1195
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT
relating to the authority of peace officers to conduct certain
searches.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
SECTION 1. Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, is
amended to read as follows:
Art. 1.06. SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. (a) The people shall be
secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.
(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
411.0207, Government Code, the written consent of the operator of
the vehicle.
SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 411, Government Code, is
amended by adding Section 411.0207 to read as follows:
Sec. 411.0207. GUIDELINES FOR FORMS INDICATING CONSENT TO
VEHICLE SEARCH. (a) The director by rule shall establish
requirements for a form used to obtain the consent of the operator
of a motor vehicle under Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure.
(b) At a minimum, the rules must require the form to
contain:
(1) a statement that the operator of the motor vehicle
fully understands that the operator may refuse to give the peace
officer consent to search the motor vehicle;
(2) a statement that the operator of the motor vehicle
is freely and voluntarily giving the peace officer consent to
search the motor vehicle;
(3) the time and date of the stop giving rise to the
search;
(4) a description of the motor vehicle to be searched;
and
(5) the name of each peace officer conducting the stop
or search.
SECTION 3. The director of the Department of Public Safety
of the State of Texas shall adopt the rules required by Section
411.0207, Government Code, as added by this Act, not later than
December 1, 2005.
SECTION 4. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b) of
this section, this Act takes effect September 1, 2005.
(b) Article 1.06, Code of Criminal Procedure, as amended by
this Act, takes effect January 1, 2006.
Trucker Buddy International
Trucking News Article
Our news is provided as a courtesy Of OOIDA / Land Line Magazine
Used with permission. Unauthorized Use or Duplication Is Prohibited
Texas legislature debates limits on police search rights
04/22/2005 - 2:50:45 am
Law-enforcement officials and civil liberties groups are butting heads over a proposed bill in Texas that could give privacy back to drivers and take authority away from the police.
The bill, SB 1195, would stop police from performing consent searches without probable cause. The author of the bill, Sen. Juan Hinojosa, D-Mission, told the San Antonio Express-News that the current law encourages racial profiling and intimidation of drivers.
“It is happening a lot all over Texas because people do not know they have the right to refuse, or because they are intimidated and threatened with arrest,†Hinojosa told the Express-News. He added that officers shouldn’t be allowed to ask drivers for search consent where probable cause doesn’t exist, because the resulting search should be illegal anyway.
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.
The committee has so far not taken action on the bill.
http://www.truckflix.com/news_article.php?newsid=2345