Coppell Police

[Replaced Texan]

I was pressed for time and unfamiliar with the location for my appointment in Coppell on Thursday afternoon. Enroute, I had called the person with whom I was to meet but got his voicemail instead of his live voice so I was on my own for locating his office. I drove through a construction zone, made a couple of turns and miraculously found the cross street I was looking for. I pulled into the parking lot, was shutting down my car when I saw something dark to my left. I looked and it was a police officer (black uniform). I first thought he might have been security but he was a cop. He asked for ID and I gave him my insurance and CHL before I gave him my DL since the CHL was easier to remove from my wallet. He asked me where the weapon was, if I was the owner of the vehicle, if my address was current, and he then went to his car and called in to check me out. He was gone for a couple of minutes and I got out of the car and put stuff in the trunk. He asked me to return to the vehicle, which I did. I had already resigned myself to do an online drivers' ed course to dismiss the ticket as the cost of doing business when he came back and told me that he had clocked me at 45 in a 30 but gave me no ticket. I thanked him and told him I was in an unfamliar city looking for an unknown office and I was pressed for time. He was very pleasant. He told me to watch my speed and he left.

The lesson for me in this encounter was to pay attention to my surroundings. I was completely oblivious to his presence. My body was driving my car but my mind was somewhere else. I suspect he had followed me for close to a mile before I even knew he was behind me. He could have had his lights on for all I know because I never checked my rearview mirror. He DID have his lights on while parked behind me in the parking lot. I believe that he did not ticket me because of my age, he saw me make the call on my phone for directions, I followed his requests and gave him no grief, and I had my CHL and presented it to him as I was supposed to. Had I not had the CHL I think I would have been cited. Were I a thirty year old with no CHL, I think I would have gotten the ticket.

[dihappy]

"... I got out of the car and put stuff in the trunk. "

Are you crazy?

Things could have gotten so much worse for you.

[Replaced Texan]

Nope. Not crazy. Had nothing in my hands (after I put 'it' and another bag in the trunk). I was just trying to make the most of my time. He asked me to return to the car which I did. I was stressed and not thinking. I was in a strange place looking for a location to which I had never been. Although he said "Stay in your car, I'll be right back" I took that to mean a couple of minutes at most. When he didn't return I got out, put my stuff in the trunk, he reiterated to get back in the car, to which I did. I never advanced toward him any further than the rear bumper of my car. After I closed the trunk I moved back toward the driver's side door and then he said get back in. After another minute or so he then comes over and talks to me. I guess all this took five minutes.


Having said all the above, I now realize I should not have gotten out of the car. If stopped again, I will be more attentive to ask more precisely what he or she wants me to do. I am a pretty law abiding sort and pay attention to what's going on but that day was not going too well. Live, learn, and move on. God smiles on fools and dumb aviators.

[GlockenHammer]

Imagine being that officer. What is the worst case scenario when a car you've stopped has an occupant get out and access the trunk? Whether or not that is you is immaterial. Pull a semi-automatic rifle out and that officer is DRT. A vigilant officer goes through those frightening thoughts on every stop. Make their life a little easier and don't give them a bad worst case scenario to prepare for.

I'm glad you had a positive experience.

[Skipper5]

Sounds as if that scenerio turned out well...the walk back to the trunk would have really caught my attention I think if I had been LEO....
however, overall...think you really did good job in conduct ....obviously Officer did as well!

[maximus2161]

Having been a former LEO I can tell you that I will not exit a vehicle if I had been stopped. That is not appreciated. Didnt you see what happened in Meet the Fockers? ;)

Seriouls IMHO I believe one should remain in their vehicle until the stop is over.

[Rex B]

I understand all the reasoning here on both sides.
But I wonder about the legality.

I was stopped last year for rolling a stop sign (I didn't) a block from my shop.
By the time he was behind me with lights on I was in front of my place, so I just turned into the drive and pulled up to the shop door.
After the usual "pleasantries" and exchange of documents, he went back to the cruiser.
Now, I'm 6'4" and long of limb, having driven a Honda CRX 30 miles. After a few minutes I was ready to get out and stretch, so I did that. Cop comes on the PA and tells me to get back in the car. I did, but I've wondered then and now whether he had the legal right to confine me to my car, on my own private property.

[seamusTX]

... I've wondered then and now whether he had the legal right to confine me to my car, on my own private property.

I don't know if anyone can point to a specific law that requires you to follow the instructions of a LEO in that regard, but the practical consequences of not doing so are obvious.

- Jim

[Rex B]

It was obvious to me at the time, but I wasn't too happy about it.
Of course we started of with a stop for an alleged infraction which did not happen. I don't roll stop signs, and I don't run them either.

As far as that goes, I recall being told decades ago at at a defensive driving class taught by a Ft. Worth cop, that the legal definition of stopping in Texas is "2 MPH or slower". Anyone else heard of that?

[casselthief]

I remember something in the last DSC course I took saying something to the effect of your bumper dips, or 2 seconds, or something to that effect.
I'm sure one of our Lawyers will quote some TXDOT or PC or something for ya.

as far as having to stay in your car, well, they ARE the Man, they can pretty much tell you whatever. not "cooperating" isn't something I feel compelled to try out.
I like my knee caps.

[seamusTX]

Rex B: Here's the skinny, as far as I can tell:

§ 38.03. RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

There' s no way that getting out of your car meets that standard, but it will probably be the DA or judge who decides, after you are arrested.

§ 38.15. INTERFERENCE WITH PUBLIC DUTIES. (a) A person commits an offense if the person with criminal negligence interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with:
(1) a peace officer while the peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law;

This one could easily earn you a ride.

AFAICT, no law specifically requires you to do exactly what a LEO says; but there's no law against spitting into the wind, either.

I am still not a lawyer.

- Jim

[Odin]

It was obvious to me at the time, but I wasn't too happy about it.
Of course we started of with a stop for an alleged infraction which did not happen. I don't roll stop signs, and I don't run them either.

As far as that goes, I recall being told decades ago at at a defensive driving class taught by a Ft. Worth cop, that the legal definition of stopping in Texas is "2 MPH or slower". Anyone else heard of that?

That "legal definition" is bunk, but I don't really think it takes a legal degree to figure out what "stop" means (unless you're Bill Clinton).


Texas Transportation Code 541.401

(10) "Stop" or "stopping" means:

(A) when required, to completely cease movement;
and

(B) when prohibited, to halt, including
momentarily halting, an occupied or unoccupied vehicle, unless
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to comply with the
directions of a police officer or a traffic-control sign or signal.


Which reminded me of an old joke...


A policeman pulled over a car, walked up to the driver's window, and asked the man if he knew why he was pulled over.

"No," the man replied.

"You failed to stop at the stop sign," the cop explained.

"But I did slow down!" the guy argued.

The cop shook his head. "You are required to stop. That's why they're called stop signs."

The man started to get belligerent. "Stop, slow down -- what's the difference?"

The cop pulled out his baton. "I can show you. I'm going to start hitting you with my baton. You tell me if you want me to stop or slow down."

[Rex B]

As far as that goes, I recall being told decades ago at at a defensive driving class taught by a Ft. Worth cop, that the legal definition of stopping in Texas is "2 MPH or slower". Anyone else heard of that?

That "legal definition" is bunk, but I don't really think it takes a legal degree to figure out what "stop" means (unless you're Bill Clinton).


Texas Transportation Code 541.401

(10) "Stop" or "stopping" means:

(A) when required, to completely cease movement;
and

(B) when prohibited, to halt, including
momentarily halting, an occupied or unoccupied vehicle, unless
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to comply with the
directions of a police officer or a traffic-control sign or signal.

No arguing with the letter of the law, but I wonder if case law could have tempered the definition? I did not get the impression this officer was the sort to pull something like this out of his butt.

[Odin]

As far as that goes, I recall being told decades ago at at a defensive driving class taught by a Ft. Worth cop, that the legal definition of stopping in Texas is "2 MPH or slower". Anyone else heard of that?

That "legal definition" is bunk, but I don't really think it takes a legal degree to figure out what "stop" means (unless you're Bill Clinton).


Texas Transportation Code 541.401

(10) "Stop" or "stopping" means:

(A) when required, to completely cease movement;
and

(B) when prohibited, to halt, including
momentarily halting, an occupied or unoccupied vehicle, unless
necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or to comply with the
directions of a police officer or a traffic-control sign or signal.

No arguing with the letter of the law, but I wonder if case law could have tempered the definition? I did not get the impression this officer was the sort to pull something like this out of his butt.

I'm not aware of any such case law, but that doesn't mean anything. There are probably a bazillion cases out there that some lawyer could use as "case law" if it suited his defense, too. I do know that I wouldn't want to defend myself in court using the "I slowed to 2mph" defense because I'm pretty sure that the judge would probably apply the common sense definition of the word "stop" to the deal and make me pay the fine.

I've heard so many things that people purport to be "the law" and a great many of them are nothing more than someone's interpretation of the lawm which then gets slightly changed each time it's passed on to another person. When it doubt, study that big fat book until your eyes hurt.