TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Yeah I see it now - too long - didn't read the inbetweens.

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

rl168 wrote:What can happen after you refused consent to search? Can someone point me to where i can learn more about this? Thanks!

The LEO can request a search warrant from a judge. If it is granted, the police can search. If not, they can't. Google "search warrant" for more information.

This isn't true.

WB - I know you probably know what I'm about to type but for everyone else:
Probable cause must be met to get a search warrant. During a traffic stop, if probable cause for search is present, then a vehicle may be searched under the exigent circumstances clause for warrantless searches*.

*Depending on time frame - but in most cases, during a traffic stop, the car can be searched.

RSJ wrote:

WildBill wrote:

RSJ wrote:

Rex B wrote:"tort claims act notice"

What is that exactly - telling them you think you have grounds for a lawsuit?

Kind of, yes. It will let this city know you are serious enough to take formal action.

I am not a lawyer nor a lawyer-in-training. My understanding of a tort case is that the party filing the suit has to have suffered some loss or harm. Other than slightly hurt feelings, what loss or harm did the OP suffer that could result in some kind of settlement?

Exactly it is unlikely he could prevail, however he is allowed to send a tort letter to put everyone on notice that this kind of anti-CHL behavior will not be tolerated. My above posts stressed the hardship in prevailing on ANY claim, and particularly this one.

There are cases where a § 1983 (civil rights) or other violation is clear, but damages are NOMINAL (like $1) and awarded.

Sometimes it is the only way to "stop" a behavior. I am not saying this is or isn't what OP should do, I just like to help people and direct them to info.

I'd like to note their is a large difference between a tort claim letter (basically a demand letter) and filing a civil suit.

RSJ wrote:

Rex B wrote:"tort claims act notice"

What is that exactly - telling them you think you have grounds for a lawsuit?

Kind of, yes. It will let this city know you are serious enough to take formal action.

Reds45ACP wrote:

RSJ wrote:Automobile exception, under which officer may conduct warrantless search of motor vehicle if officer has probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime, extends to all types of motor vehicles.
--holding from Powell v. State (of TX) 898 S.W.2d 821

It is up to the court to determine if the probable cause was valid.

... Really? I'm relatively new to Texas. That's scary. So if I violate a traffic ordinance then my vehicle is evidence in a crime. So they can search? Does that extend to searching my person as well? This is the first law in Texas that I'm not happy about. That's, as far as I'm concerned, case law that opposes the 4th Amendment.

Jumping Frog wrote:For anyone new to this hearing people say, "I do not consent to a search", there is one important issue to keep straight.

Just because you do not consent to a search does not mean you can stop an officer from searching.

If he says he is searching anyway, get out of his way, then comply with the LEO's orders or you can face charges for failing to comply or obstruction.

All putting your lack of consent on the record really accomplishes is giving your lawyer ammunition to argue about the search after the fact.

I've taught my children to say, "I do not consent to a search but I will comply with your orders."

srothstein wrote:Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

As for learning more, I suggest reading at the library on books on 4th Amendment issues for police. This is a subject that there are lots of long courses on, both for police and for lawyers.

rl168 wrote:What can happen after you refused consent to search? Can someone point me to where i can learn more about this? Thanks!

knoxknoxrocks wrote:THANK YOU for ALL the tips. It turns out that the officer is in TRAINING. I think he was being ghosted by other officer. I am learning more ins and outs. As far as the Passing Stopped Mark is concerned....i don't care. I will donate to the fine city of Dallas.