Got a ticket-strange traffic stop-update...Chiefs Response

[Liberty]

I am sorry if I offended any one, but the truth is I have seen officers and defendants both caught in lies by in traffic court and nothing happened. I am sorry if some find that fact offensive. I meant no personal attacks, and was only recalling what I have personally observed.

I am kind of surprised by the reaction, I thought most people understood how JP courts work. I've been a couple of times as juror, witness and defendant. I never saw any justice. Others millage may have varied, but I can only report on my experiences.

I definitely believe that CHL/LEO is one of the good guys, and I certainly didn't mean to offend him. Apparently abusive ticketing is a sore spot with some people and I promise not to bring it up again.

[pt145ss]

Was this the Austin PD? If so, it sounds like the City Council is leaning on the PD to ensure that the revenue stream is not impeded. After all, the City does have a bit of a budget shortfall, as of late.

This was in small town Kyle. I was polite...as I said before...i do not think LEOs are paid enough to put up with a jerk on the side of the road. Besides my wife was in the car with me and she would have given me grief if I was rude. At first I thought he asked just out of curiosity because we were in the Benz crusing aroud small a small town (even though we were not crusing...on the way to get groceries and we live in Kyle). I basically told him that I had never been asked those questions during a traffic stop and he did not seem to be annoyed that I inquired about the questioning. At the end of the traffic stop he did thank me for being cooperative.

BTW...after looking at the citation...it does have my employent information printed on it. As well as information about the stop being video taped.

[pt145ss]

I too would not provide that information. It is none of their business.

This just rubs me the wrong way. No disrespect to CHL/LEO but the "Policy" stinks and can only require more time off the street for the Officer involved when he asks me those questions.

My opinion on this is that the State should crack down on these Agency's that overstep their authority and create frivolous "Policies" without regard to laws associated with "Right to Silence", "Right to speak with an Attorney" ....or ANY other RIGHT they they are trying to circumvent due to "Policy" or in some cases ask by way of "conversation".

I did not like giving out that information either. But on the other hand...arguing the point on the side of the road is not the right thing to do. I suppose that if I feel that strongly about it I could file a complaint with the city. The LEO involved was courteous and professional and I would hate for him to get hassled in any way for simply following procedure if I do file a complaint.

[AEA]

these few forum members do not represent the 250,000+ CHL holders in the state of Texas. I appreciate your contributions to the forum and don't want you to get discouraged by these minority opinions.

Maybe not, but I am entitled to my opinions regardless how many people agree or disagree with them.

[WildBill]

these few forum members do not represent the 250,000+ CHL holders in the state of Texas. I appreciate your contributions to the forum and don't want you to get discouraged by these minority opinions.

Maybe not, but I am entitled to my opinions regardless how many people agree or disagree with them.

That is correct. If you noticed, my post did not state that these people shouldn't express their opinions. It didn't even say that that I disagree with their posts. It merely stated that, in my opinion, they did not represent the majority of CHL holders and that should not stop CHL/LEO from posting his opinions.

I agree that there is corruption in the justice system, but wholesale bashing of LEOs and the legal system in this forum is pointless. It is not allowed on this forum and I believe this thread was drifting in that direction.

[pedalman]

Was this the Austin PD? If so, it sounds like the City Council is leaning on the PD to ensure that the revenue stream is not impeded. After all, the City does have a bit of a budget shortfall, as of late.

This was in small town Kyle. I was polite...as I said before...i do not think LEOs are paid enough to put up with a jerk on the side of the road. Besides my wife was in the car with me and she would have given me grief if I was rude. At first I thought he asked just out of curiosity because we were in the Benz crusing aroud small a small town (even though we were not crusing...on the way to get groceries and we live in Kyle). I basically told him that I had never been asked those questions during a traffic stop and he did not seem to be annoyed that I inquired about the questioning. At the end of the traffic stop he did thank me for being cooperative.

BTW...after looking at the citation...it does have my employent information printed on it. As well as information about the stop being video taped.

I'm sure the officer was just doing as he is instructed to do, and you did the right thing by not arguing on the side of the road. But I still question the authority of the officer's department to have him gather such information that has nothing to do with the actual violation. Just because an agency has a "policy" or "procedure", it does not imply that said "policy" or "procedure" is legal, valid. or moral.

Again, my apologies to CHL/LEO. The officer in this stop obviously was professional and courteous. It is not my intent for my opinion to impune the reputation of our good LEOs. I only cast a squinted eye at the agency's effort to gather this extraneous information.

[lunchbox]

Was this the Austin PD? If so, it sounds like the City Council is leaning on the PD to ensure that the revenue stream is not impeded. After all, the City does have a bit of a budget shortfall, as of late.

This was in small town Kyle. I was polite...as I said before...i do not think LEOs are paid enough to put up with a jerk on the side of the road. Besides my wife was in the car with me and she would have given me grief if I was rude. At first I thought he asked just out of curiosity because we were in the Benz crusing aroud small a small town (even though we were not crusing...on the way to get groceries and we live in Kyle). I basically told him that I had never been asked those questions during a traffic stop and he did not seem to be annoyed that I inquired about the questioning. At the end of the traffic stop he did thank me for being cooperative.

BTW...after looking at the citation...it does have my employent information printed on it. As well as information about the stop being video taped.

I'm sure the officer was just doing as he is instructed to do, and you did the right thing by not arguing on the side of the road. But I still question the authority of the officer's department to have him gather such information that has nothing to do with the actual violation. Just because an agency has a "policy" or "procedure", it does not imply that said "policy" or "procedure" is legal, valid. or moral.

Again, my apologies to CHL/LEO. The officer in this stop obviously was professional and courteous. It is not my intent for my opinion to impune the reputation of our good LEOs. I only cast a squinted eye at the agency's effort to gather this extraneous information.

[KBCraig]

For the life of me I can't figure some of you guys out. On this forum I try to address questions that members have submitted, and in doing so perhaps explain why another LEO took the actions he or she did. After I've done that lately it seems then that it all becomes a big conspiracy by LEOs to "tell lies" and "violate citizens rights".

I appreciate all our LEO participants on the forum. Unlike some other forums (a certain moderator on opencarry.org comes to mind), our guys here don't seem to have that "Us vs. Them" mentality that causes so much trouble on the street.

That said, let me continue with your own answer to illustrate why people can feel their rights are being violated:

You may not like the answers I give, or even agree with why our department does things the way we do. That's your choice, but be aware that arguing with a police officer on the side of the road about why you don't like his city's procedures or policies is probably not going to get you the response that you want.

Whether you intended it or even realized it, that's an implied threat. It's one on the mind of every driver: "Give me anything less than full deference, and you're going to jail!"

Is the threat more perceived than real? Probably so, in most cases. Definitely not, in others. In your heart of hearts, you probably could name a few officers you've met, who would effect a custodial arrest over a speeding ticket if they didn't like the driver's attitude.

That individual officer is only enforcing state or municipal laws that they've been directed to enforce.

Do you really think any law requires collection of this information? Some might require the officer to request it, but I frankly do not believe any law requires the driver to divulge it.

[CHL/LEO]

Whether you intended it or even realized it, that's an implied threat.

No threat was implied - what I was trying to point out is that if you argue with an officer and try to get him or her to change their mind regarding a TC violation - it's probably not going to happen. In fact, I personally know of no officer who has changed his or her mind because someone is arguing with them that they don't agree with the law, like the law, weren't breaking the law, or whatever reason they have. That's what the court system is for, or getting the legislature to change the laws. Just the fact that someone argues with me on the side of the road doesn't mean I'm going to change my mind as to whether they get a ticket or go to jail.

In your heart of hearts, you probably could name a few officers you've met, who would effect a custodial arrest over a speeding ticket if they didn't like the driver's attitude.

Have I seen people "talk themselves into jail" you bet I have. On our department for us to "jail traffic" someone there has to be five TC violations for that to happen so you really don't see it that much. Whenever you do it's usually because someone just needs to go to jail ie: no DL or expired DL, registration not current, no insurance, speeding, lights burned out, and so on. There are lots (if not most) departments that would arrest you for only one or two of these offenses (other than speeding) so we're pretty lenient in this aspect.

Do you really think any law requires collection of this information? Some might require the officer to request it, but I frankly do not believe any law requires the driver to divulge it.

My experience has taught me that if a department or agency has a policy (such as requesting someone's information) and it is illegal for them to do that, someone usually sues that department or agency and gets a court ruling to prevent them from doing such in the future. In this day and time I can't imagine that someone hasn't tried to challenge this issue, and the courts must have ruled that it is indeed legal for them to collect it.

One thing you might want to remember is just because something is legal (or illegal) in another state or part of the country, doesn't mean it's the same in Texas. A good example are DWI or sobriety checkpoints. In many states they have been ruled legal and in others they have been ruled illegal. There are lots of states with state constitutions that are more restrictive than our federal one - Texas being one of them. There are certain search and seizure laws that we have in Texas that are more restrictive on LE than the federal ones are. DWI checkpoints are the same - you just don't see them in Texas due to court rulings. I understand that might be changing in the future but for now we don't do them.

It's the same with traffic laws and procedures. I've had people tell me plenty of times on traffic stops that, "I'm from Oklahoma, or I'm from Arkansas and we don't have to do that where I'm from." I love kidding with these folks especially when I tell them that the reason that I stopped them was because they ran a stop sign or a red light and they reply something like, "Oh, I'm from Oklahoma." I usually respond with, "Oh, you don't have stop signs in Oklahoma?" After a few seconds it sinks in as to exactly what they said and we both get a good laugh out of it.

In all my years of writing tickets or completing accident reports I've never had anyone say that they weren't going to answer a question I needed to complete a ticket or report. I'll have to check with some of our traffic enforcement officers that write tickets day in and day out to see if they've ever had this happen and what they would do if it did occur.

[lunchbox]

[/quote]
My experience has taught me that if a department or agency has a policy (such as requesting someone's information) and it is illegal for them to do that, someone usually sues that department or agency and gets a court ruling to prevent them from doing such in the future. In this day and time I can't imagine that someone hasn't tried to challenge this issue, and the courts must have ruled that it is indeed legal for them to collect it.[/quote]


maybe that will be the case here it just hasnt happened yet weather it because nobody who was asked knows better or the court date has not come up yet
regardless this should not be happening
arresting somone at work is just low anyway murderers so if they get exonerated and go back to work they have probly been fired if not they will be looked at by coworkers as a criminal forever ruining someones job when your not even sure if they are guilty should not be happening
but LEO dont realy care about that anyway

[flintknapper]

In regards to a traffic stop...I believe you are only "required" to give the information contained on your drivers license (and present your CHL if you are carrying).

If for some reason...you do not have your drivers license on you, you must verbally respond to the officer's request and "truthfully" give your name and date of birth. Beyond that (correct me if I am wrong).. you have no obligation (per the law) to provide anything else.

Documentation...such as proof of insurance (and perhaps current registration) may be demanded of you...but no other verbal response on your part is required.

If at any point you are uncomfortable giving out extraneous information....STOP!

[AEA]

[SCone]

This is when I hand the officer my Legal Shield card and ask that he please read this before we go any further. The card says...

This person is a member of the Legal Shield program and has 24-hour telephone access to legal representation by a law firm... "If it is your intention to question, detain or arrest me, please allow me to call my attorney immediately."

And in big BOLD type is the toll free number to call.

[DoubleJ]

jes' hand'em yer CHL badge, man.

[Right2Carry]

In regards to a traffic stop...I believe you are only "required" to give the information contained on your drivers license (and present your CHL if you are carrying).

If for some reason...you do not have your drivers license on you, you must verbally respond to the officer's request and "truthfully" give your name and date of birth. Beyond that (correct me if I am wrong).. you have no obligation (per the law) to provide anything else.

Documentation...such as proof of insurance (and perhaps current registration) may be demanded of you...but no other verbal response on your part is required.

If at any point you are uncomfortable giving out extraneous information....STOP!

Although I asked it earlier, I still have yet to see any law presented that requires me to provide my place of employment, address of employer, and employment telephone number to any officer asking for it. I have rights, and I will exercise those rights when it is necessary to do so.