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

[lunchbox]

put yourself in our shoes would you think this is fair or right

Lunchbox, and anyone else asking these types of questions to CHL/LEO. He is NOT the person to be debating regarding this. He is only giving us the LEO side of things so as to help clarify why officers may or may not have done something. If you want to debate a policy, you need to debate it with the Chief of Police for that particular city, or other high-up elected officials. Don't debate or attack a policy or action some officer did with CHL/LEO, he didn't do it, and he has no authority to change it.

Give the man a break, he's just trying to help clarify actions.

it seemed to me he was defending this policy
thats why i said what i said

[flintknapper]

put yourself in our shoes would you think this is fair or right

Lunchbox, and anyone else asking these types of questions to CHL/LEO. He is NOT the person to be debating regarding this. He is only giving us the LEO side of things so as to help clarify why officers may or may not have done something. If you want to debate a policy, you need to debate it with the Chief of Police for that particular city, or other high-up elected officials. Don't debate or attack a policy or action some officer did with CHL/LEO, he didn't do it, and he has no authority to change it.

Give the man a break, he's just trying to help clarify actions.

We are NOT attacking CHL/LEO, he is a well respected and highly valued member of this forum (and a "big enough boy" to answer the questions asked of him).

I addressed certain questions to him because he is a LEO, is in daily contact with LEO...and can probably provide us a pretty good pulse on things LEO-ish. Who better to ask?

It has already been made clear that there is no law or mandate requiring us to give out information about our employment. So...I am at a loss to understand why an officer would become upset if I refuse to do so (which I would).

Lets look at what has been said:

CHL/LEO wrote:

I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.

Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.

I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.

What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.

This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.

This statement suggests that the majority of officers he spoke to would take you to jail for failing to give them information that is NOT required. I simply asked him to help me understand why that was.

I can think of no other reason than the officer was somehow offended...or felt his/her authority had been challenged. So...in retribution, hauls the citizen off to jail. Presumably, He/She would not have jailed the citizen if the person had answered "unemployed or self employed". They still didn't get the information they were after (a place to come find you), but its O.K. because you didn't get "smart" with them...I guess?

I am NEVER disrespectful or discourteous to LEO. With the exception of one incident many years ago...I have never had a reason to be. But, I will always place greater value on my rights, the law and principles, than I do "policies of convenience" that the city may put forth.

Just my .0002 on it.

[lunchbox]

put yourself in our shoes would you think this is fair or right

Lunchbox, and anyone else asking these types of questions to CHL/LEO. He is NOT the person to be debating regarding this. He is only giving us the LEO side of things so as to help clarify why officers may or may not have done something. If you want to debate a policy, you need to debate it with the Chief of Police for that particular city, or other high-up elected officials. Don't debate or attack a policy or action some officer did with CHL/LEO, he didn't do it, and he has no authority to change it.

Give the man a break, he's just trying to help clarify actions.

We are NOT attacking CHL/LEO, he is a well respected and highly valued member of this forum (and a "big enough boy" to answer the questions asked of him).

I addressed certain questions to him because he is a LEO, is in daily contact with LEO...and can probably provide us a pretty good pulse on things LEO-ish. Who better to ask?

It has already been made clear that there is no law or mandate requiring us to give out information about our employment. So...I am at a loss to understand why an officer would become upset if I refuse to do so (which I would).

Lets look at what has been said:

CHL/LEO wrote:

I thought that I explained it fairly well regarding other departments. The news story about the Irving PD shows what can happen regarding traffic stops.

Over the last few days I have spoken with officers I know from quite a few different agencies (small to mid-size departments) regarding this question. In almost every case they told me that if someone makes a blanket statement of, "I don't have to provide you with that information" they will probably end up going to jail unless the ticket was going to be for speeding - state law mandates that you can't perform a custodial arrest for just a speeding violation by itself.

I'm not here to defend other departments or their officers regarding the policies they enforce. I have a hard enough time explaining to friends and family about some of the goofy things that occur within my own department.

What you said about writing refused vs. all the other work info is correct IF that department or officer will accept refused. If they don't or won't accept it then you're a lot better off just saying you're self-employed or unemployed than getting arrested. Not only would you have that to deal with you would also have to deal with the costs of getting your car out of the pound along with paying for any towing fees.

This is all just my 2¢s worth and take it as such.

This statement suggests that the majority of officers he spoke to would take you to jail for failing to give them information that is NOT required. I simply asked him to help me understand why that was.

I can think of no other reason than the officer was somehow offended...or felt his/her authority had been challenged. So...in retribution, hauls the citizen off to jail. Presumably, He/She would not have jailed the citizen if the person had answered "unemployed or self employed". They still didn't get the information they were after (a place to come find you), but its O.K. because you didn't get "smart" with them...I guess?

I am NEVER disrespectful or discourteous to LEO. With the exception of one incident many years ago...I have never had a reason to be. But, I will always place greater value on my rights, the law and principles, than I do "policies of convenience" that the city may put forth.

Just my .0002 on it.

well said

policy should never come before rights

[DoubleJ]

okay, I'ma gon' play devil's advocate for a moment. (the following does not necessarily reflect my opinion)

Say you have a department, and you run into this issue that a fat chunk of citations given either don't pay, or fail to appear. This in turn means more warrants for stupid stuff, which is an increase in cost, time...
so, now you have to serve this warrant, and all the info you have is that person's last known address. Who knows if they still live there or what...
anyway, the majority of the time, you can't serve a warrant to someone's home cause, well, they ain't there. so, whatcha gon' do?
hey, let's get'em at work.
well, how do we do that?
when we write the citation, let's get their work info.
alright, so now let's look at this policy. Is it illegal? nope, ain't illegal to ask someone where they work. a cop can pretty much ask you anything, you don't wanna answer, you don't have to. does asking someone where they work trample their rights? nope, if it did, you couldn't put it down on a job application.
if a cop gets the impression you do not plan to pay your fine, or at the very least appear in court, he has the legal authority to take you to jail. he had this authority *before* he asked you for your job info, so what's the difference?

there ya go, tear that argument to shreds and let's go from there.

[eric]

If you taped the conversation with the leo, would that be a violation while on traffic stop?

[Pinkycatcher]

If you taped the conversation with the leo, would that be a violation while on traffic stop?

Not if it can be heard by someone else, meaning as long as it's not inside your car and your car is soundproof, but if it's out in the open you can, otherwise you have to tell them and then if they answer yes you can.

[flintknapper]

there ya go, tear that argument to shreds and let's go from there

Be happy to.

Say you have a department, and you run into this issue that a fat chunk of citations given either don't pay, or fail to appear. This in turn means more warrants for stupid stuff, which is an increase in cost, time...
so, now you have to serve this warrant, and all the info you have is that person's last known address. Who knows if they still live there or what...

I don't know what you consider a "fat chunk"...but for arguments sake...lets say that 50 % of folks fail to pay or appear (which I doubt). Clearly there is a problem here and steps need to be taken to encourage citizens to do the right thing, we can all agree on that. So....the City/Courts/Police dept./Whoever... decides that the best way to do that is to collect PERSONAL information from ALL citizens in hopes of scaring them into appearing/paying. The obvious purpose is to create an apprehension that if the person is served a warrant, it will happen at work (something less than desirable).

I can not imagine there is any added cost or time involved (as you suggest) by serving the warrant at a persons home or any other place. Its simply a matter of convenience for the police since most folks work normal daytime hours. The cost associated with a serving a warrant is there either way..and is probably born by the offender in the end, if it isn't then it should be.

And as far as "warrants" go....it would be a pretty safe bet that precious little time is spent by most Dept's. running down "warrants" for people with traffic violations...right? What happens in real life..is that the offender is stopped sometime in the future..the warrant is discovered... and the person is arrested (as they should be). My suggestion is that the courts adopt a "triple the fine" policy for offenders that intentionally ignore their duty to address citations.

alright, so now let's look at this policy. Is it illegal? nope, ain't illegal to ask someone where they work. a cop can pretty much ask you anything,

It's also not illegal to refuse to answer extraneous questions, right? Seems like a colossal waste of the officers time and mine.

if a cop gets the impression you do not plan to pay your fine, or at the very least appear in court, he has the legal authority to take you to jail.

And just how does one determine this? Maybe by the sweat on my upper lip? Is this ability to look into the future taught at the academy now. Yes, I know that much of what an officers does.. involves some amount of "street smarts", so I don't require any lectures about that. I recognize also.. that there exists a delicate balance of "letting LEO do their job" and the potential for abuse of authority. So...I am at a quandary with this. But...I am not entirely comfortable having the outcome of my day based solely on a whimsical "impression".

he had this authority *before* he asked you for your job info, so what's the difference?

He/She had the authority to arrest you for a "violation" (excluding speeding) NOT for refusing to answer questions that are neither required by law or necessary to insure that you will show up in court or pay your fine.
That is the "difference" and the whole point of this discussion.

The real problem is that increasingly...people (of all ages and backgrounds) are becoming less and less responsible. A person with any respect for the law, sense of duty and integrity will take care of such issues.

I see no reason why those of us that DO.. need be treated the same as those who Don't.

In closing...let me make one thing perfectly clear:

I generally have the greatest respect for the Men and Women in Law Enforcement..and I genuinely appreciate the hard and often dangerous work that they do. I have nothing against an officer who is simply trying to their job...(even if it involves some lame-brained policy from on high). But I DO have a problem with any officer who might think it is their duty to "teach someone a lesson" over an issue that is not required by law.

We sure as heck don't need any more "wedges" driven between LEO and the public IMO.


Done with my rant.

Respectfully,

Flint.

[pt145ss]

Say you have a department, and you run into this issue that a fat chunk of citations given either don't pay, or fail to appear. This in turn means more warrants for stupid stuff, which is an increase in cost, time...

Apparently this is the case in most departments.

so, now you have to serve this warrant, and all the info you have is that person's last known address. Who knows if they still live there or what...
anyway, the majority of the time, you can't serve a warrant to someone's home cause, well, they ain't there. so, whatcha gon' do?
hey, let's get'em at work.

Let’s suppose you do get the individuals employment info…who says they still work there. At that point who says the individual even works in the same jurisdiction. As in my situation…the citation is in hays county (where I live)…I work in Travis county. How difficult would it be for Hays County to serve a warrant in Travis County…I think it would be easier to serve it in Hays….where I live.

Is it illegal? nope, ain't illegal to ask someone where they work. a cop can pretty much ask you anything, you don't wanna answer, you don't have to. does asking someone where they work trample their rights? nope, if it did, you couldn't put it down on a job application.

Although technically asking is not illegal…intimidating someone into answering is illegal. Your analogy about the job application makes no sense. A prospective employer can not ask questions about things that are protected by civil rights…like age, religion, and etc. A LEO asking and/or forcing you to provide employment information is a violation of the 4th and 5th amendments not a violation of civil rights. This is because at the time of the LEO asking you questions during a traffic stop, you are the subject of the investigation. When under investigation in a criminal matter you have the right to keep in tact your person (4th amendment) and you have the right to not self incriminate (5th amendment)…See SCOTUS ruling on Hiibel vs. Sixth Judicial Court of Nevada…also read the dissenting justices’ stuff…interesting in the fact they do not think a LEO should even be allowed to force Identification.

if a cop gets the impression you do not plan to pay your fine, or at the very least appear in court, he has the legal authority to take you to jail. he had this authority *before* he asked you for your job info, so what's the difference?

How would a LEO know if I was going to appear or not? I would assume that if I did not appear for something else…then I would have a warrant and would be arrested for that. If I did not have an active warrant…how would he know that I was a risk of not appearing? I believe he would have to use some sort of sixth sense (i.e. Profiling) in order to make that determination. Aside from that, TX Statute does not allow a LEO to effect a custodial arrest when the only violation is speeding (at least that’s what I was told…would love to see the statute that says that). Further more, in my specific situation, he already told me he was going to issue me a citation…prior to asking employment information. What this means to me is that if I had refused, and then he decided to arrest me, then he was arresting me solely because I refused to answer.

[pt145ss]

If you taped the conversation with the leo, would that be a violation while on traffic stop?

No...in the state of texas one can tape any converstation that one is involved in...and it is admisible in court. For example, if you and I were have a conversation with each other, I could record it...without telling you...and it is admisible. However, if I recorded a conversation (that I am not party to) between you and your significant other...that would be inadmisible.

I believe this is correct...but I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

[WildBill]

If you taped the conversation with the leo, would that be a violation while on traffic stop?

They can tape the traffic stop on video and use it as evidence. As long as it's in public you are fine.

[Right2Carry]

You can record a conversation between yourself and a police officer ( or others) and you are under no obligation to inform that officer ( or others) that the recording is taking place.


Texas Penal Code § 16.02: So long as a wire, oral or electronic communication — including the radio portion of any cordless telephone call — is not recorded for a criminal or tortious purpose, anyone who is a party to the communication, or who has the consent of a party, can lawfully record the communication and disclose its contents.

Under the statute, consent is not required for the taping of a non-electronic communication uttered by a person who does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in that communication. See definition of "oral communication," Texas Code Crim. Pro. Art. 18.20.

Unlawful recording of a conversation, or disclosure of its contents with reason to know of the illegal interception, is a felony punishable by two to 20 years in prison and a fine not to exceed $10,000. Texas Penal Code § 12.33. A civil cause of action is expressly authorized for unlawful interception or disclosure. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.002. The plaintiff may be entitled to $10,000 for each occurrence, actual damages in excess of $10,000, punitive damages and attorney fees and costs. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 123.004.

The U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans (5th Cir.) held in 2000 that a television station and reporter who had been given illegally obtained tapes of telephone conversations, but who had not participated in the illegal recording, could nonetheless be held civilly liable under the federal and Texas wiretapping statutes. Peavy v. WFAA-TV, Inc., 221 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2000). The case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court along with two other cases raising similar issues. The Supreme Court refused to hear the Texas case but decided in one of the other cases, Bartnicki v. Vopper, that media defendants could not be held liable for publishing information of public concern that was obtained unlawfully by a source where the media were blameless in the illegal interception. Following the Bartnicki decision, the parties in the Peavy case settled out of court.

http://www.rcfp.org/taping/states/texas.html

[Bart]

I am amazed that people like pt145ss who show a DL and CHL are bullied and threatened with arrest if they don't give give their work address and phone number, but people with no ID and no insurance are allowed to continue driving until they kill someone who is politically connected.

[nedmoore]

I just tell them that I am self employed. If they want the phone number I give my fax #.

[tallmike]

Wow. Submit all of that to the Hays Free Press and lets see if we can get a story about this, or at least something on the editorial page. Im shocked that Tom Mattis responded like that. "We are your government officials and we will not debate policy with you" Pure arrogance there.

[DoubleJ]

Jeesy Chreesy!

as a caveat, it's hard to pose an argument when you don't believe in the cause!
like I said, just trying to *play* devil's advocate
And to Flintock The Mighty, nicely done, sir.

oh, and ETA, yes, they actually do teach telepathy and other forms of ESP in the academy. you just have to go to the "cool" cities to learn.