Williamson County :(

[Alf]

Wait, I don't get this: What reasonable cause does he have to think your guns are stolen? Without his statement of probable cause, I doubt I would consent to that search.

His insurance lapsed. Or maybe there was an error in their computer system. That's all the probable cause he needs to assume the car and anything inside is stolen.

[puma guy]

Wait, I don't get this: What reasonable cause does he have to think your guns are stolen? Without his statement of probable cause, I doubt I would consent to that search.

His insurance lapsed. Or maybe there was an error in their computer system. That's all the probable cause he needs to assume the car and anything inside is stolen.

A routine traffic stop without evidence of criminal activity is not justification for any search, period! IMHO, IANAL

[Originalist]

Wait, I don't get this: What reasonable cause does he have to think your guns are stolen? Without his statement of probable cause, I doubt I would consent to that search.

His insurance lapsed. Or maybe there was an error in their computer system. That's all the probable cause he needs to assume the car and anything inside is stolen.

If you come back with a warrant (via TLETS) as a LEO I am still required to verify it is still active and whether or not the ORI will come get the individual. If I don't verify and I detain, if the warrant ends up being old I put myself in some hot water.

With regards to insurance, this was a "help" DPS devised to assist with the unneccessary towing of vehicles (in places where it was occurring all the time). My insurance has been the same for the last 8+ years, no lapses and same USAA policy. My wife was involved in MVA where her phone got damaged, being the hi-techies that we are, and our insurance card was electronic (on the phone). The Leon Vally PD Officer who responded indicated the system was down so she got cited for No Insurance. No worries, 15 minutes at the court house and it was dismissed.

TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

ETA: How would one articulate PC for stolen stuff IF the only infraction is no insurance? Especially since, if it was reported, it would come back STOLEN on the registration return....

[Jumping Frog]

Without his statement of probable cause, I doubt I would consent to that search.

The hassle factor would probably sway me to allow the search without PC, or I'd expect to be there all day while he called out a dog or whatever tyranny would come next.

I'll never consent.

If they have probable cause, they do not need my consent.

If they are asking for my consent, then they do not have probable cause.

In all circumstances, I do not consent to a search. If ordered, I will comply with the order but I will not consent. I'll wait it out. They clearly cannot keep you "there all day while he called out a dog or whatever tyranny would come next."

Here is a case from the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (which applies to Texas) where acquittal was directed because the defendant was detained for 8 minutes by questioning unrelated to the original traffic offense.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT MACIAS, JR..

[GeekDad]

Ah ok, he ran the plates prior to the stop thus creating PC.

That does not create probable cause... and there is a reason he didn't file that ticket.
If he did, he would have to had made up some story on his report about why he stopped you. That insurance check is not PC.

My cousin use to work for Williamson County... I try not to talk law with him so much any more... he has picked up some really bad habits. Overall he is a good guy and just wants to get home to his 2 kids but some of the discussions I have had with him about what a cop can legally do and what they can't scares me from time to time what police are getting away with.

[srothstein]

What makes you think that the plate check does not create probable cause? This is a question for the courts and how well the officer articulates his case. I don't see it ever coming up in a straight traffic case to be honest, but I can see a traffic stop that results in a different arrest going up to the higher level courts.

But here is the way I would write it if I had to. I ran the plates at random because I was running plates as I drove. Nothing in particular attracted my attention to the car until I got the plate return. When I received the return, it said that the insurance was no longer in effect. Texas law requires a car operator to have proof of financial responsibility and requires insurance companies to report the status of insurance policies to this database. I have run hundreds of plates through this database and the returns have always been accurate. I have found cars without insurance before and this has been accurate. This combination led me to believe that the person driving the car was operating without insurance in violation of Texas law.

That is probable cause for a traffic stop. The only problem the officer might have is if the local prosecutor or his department has given instructions specifically saying that a return from this database is not grounds for a traffic stop. This is probably true but I cannot say for sure that it is. Some departments will allow stops for returns and some won't. Of course, if the officer has found errors in the database before, or is aware of a significant number of them from other officers, then he cannot say he has faith in the system.

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

AFCop, with all due respect, if you're running random insurance checks on cars as they drive by, and a database which is known by many to often not be current tells you to manually verify, that IS a fishing expedition. I have maintained current and uninterrupted insurance on my vehicles for multiple decades, but what I'm hearing here is that your database may still not be aware of that. Why in Sam Hades must I be stopped to verify something that I, as a responsible and trustworthy citizen, have properly maintained as required by law, just because the system that you are required to depend on is notoriously unreliable? Here's the principle it violates: I am being directed to prove I'm not guilty of something before even being charged with it. See what I mean? It's not right. I'm not accusing you personally of inappropriate actions, but if I were a cop and I was being ordered to use a system that could get me in hot water for using it, I'd be disinclined to want to use it very often.

[Originalist]

TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

AFCop, with all due respect, if you're running random insurance checks on cars as they drive by, and a database which is known by many to often not be current tells you to manually verify, that IS a fishing expedition. I have maintained current and uninterrupted insurance on my vehicles for multiple decades, but what I'm hearing here is that your database may still not be aware of that. Why in Sam Hades must I be stopped to verify something that I, as a responsible and trustworthy citizen, have properly maintained as required by law, just because the system that you are required to depend on is notoriously unreliable? Here's the principle it violates: I am being directed to prove I'm not guilty of something before even being charged with it. See what I mean? It's not right. I'm not accusing you personally of inappropriate actions, but if I were a cop and I was being ordered to use a system that could get me in hot water for using it, I'd be disinclined to want to use it very often.

Perhaps something got lost in translation but I am agreeing with you 100%. The system doesn't always have up to date information, even pertaining to warrants. That's why hit confirmations are required... The system merely states insurance is confirmed or to manually verify. That is all. I wholeheartedly disagree with it being the premise of PC for a stop.

[GeekDad]

What makes you think that the plate check does not create probable cause? This is a question for the courts and how well the officer articulates his case. I don't see it ever coming up in a straight traffic case to be honest, but I can see a traffic stop that results in a different arrest going up to the higher level courts.

But here is the way I would write it if I had to. I ran the plates at random because I was running plates as I drove. Nothing in particular attracted my attention to the car until I got the plate return. When I received the return, it said that the insurance was no longer in effect. Texas law requires a car operator to have proof of financial responsibility and requires insurance companies to report the status of insurance policies to this database. I have run hundreds of plates through this database and the returns have always been accurate. I have found cars without insurance before and this has been accurate. This combination led me to believe that the person driving the car was operating without insurance in violation of Texas law.

That is probable cause for a traffic stop. The only problem the officer might have is if the local prosecutor or his department has given instructions specifically saying that a return from this database is not grounds for a traffic stop. This is probably true but I cannot say for sure that it is. Some departments will allow stops for returns and some won't. Of course, if the officer has found errors in the database before, or is aware of a significant number of them from other officers, then he cannot say he has faith in the system.

One, because its not a DPS system, its a third party DB that is not always up to date...

I don't want to hijack this thread in a PC debate, but I will say that if you think that is PC based on third party information I would like to know what other rights you would allow a police officer to violate. just sayin.

[flintknapper]

Actually, from a TLETS terminal (slightly better then a MDC) TLETS will tell you if insurance status is confirmed or if you need to manually verify. It is not a flawless system and can be outdated by a couple months. Furthermore, I am not sure if that would be a valid traffic stop, considering the system doesn't say expired or not, merely confirmed or manually verify.

I don't mind if a cop asks me for proof of insurance after he stops me. It's the law, and I am required to have it. I do mind fishing expeditions. Getting stopped to see if I'm breaking the law is a darn sight different from getting stopped because I've broken the law. It's like the difference between getting stopped for speeding or something and being asked for ID during the stop, and being stopped just to see if you have ID. One is acceptable. The other isn't.

I respect the job of an LEO, I want to have cordial relations with them, and they are absolutely necessary to an orderly society..........not because most of us need to be policed, but because a small few of us do. Treating all of us like we're part of the few that need it is insulting and oversteps the bounds of the relationship between citizens and government. Trust cuts both ways. Treat me like I can't be trusted, particularly when I know that I can, and pretty soon I stop trusting you. If I can't trust you, then I don't want to pay your salary, and I don't feel safe around you.

If I was speeding, then fine, pull me over and write me the ticket. I deserve it. Ask for my ID and proof of insurance, and I'll gladly hand it over. But if I wasn't speeding (or otherwise breaking the law), how about presuming my innocence instead of pestering me? It's like being pulled over to prove that I didn't do anything. Cops like that, I don't need. Departmental cultures like that are not deserving of respect.

BTW, I haven't been stopped for a moving violation since Christmas eve of 1999. I was stopped once a couple of years ago for an expired inspection sticker. It's not that hard to stay out of trouble. Just show a little respect for the law.......the same kind of respect that I expect from law enforcement. It's a two way street.

I've been told by certain LEO (who's name I won't mention), that is being "proactive".

[The Annoyed Man]

TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

AFCop, with all due respect, if you're running random insurance checks on cars as they drive by, and a database which is known by many to often not be current tells you to manually verify, that IS a fishing expedition. I have maintained current and uninterrupted insurance on my vehicles for multiple decades, but what I'm hearing here is that your database may still not be aware of that. Why in Sam Hades must I be stopped to verify something that I, as a responsible and trustworthy citizen, have properly maintained as required by law, just because the system that you are required to depend on is notoriously unreliable? Here's the principle it violates: I am being directed to prove I'm not guilty of something before even being charged with it. See what I mean? It's not right. I'm not accusing you personally of inappropriate actions, but if I were a cop and I was being ordered to use a system that could get me in hot water for using it, I'd be disinclined to want to use it very often.

Perhaps something got lost in translation but I am agreeing with you 100%. The system doesn't always have up to date information, even pertaining to warrants. That's why hit confirmations are required... The system merely states insurance is confirmed or to manually verify. That is all. I wholeheartedly disagree with it being the premise of PC for a stop.

I guess you're right....I must have missed something in translation. I thought you were arguing for it. My bad.

[srothstein]

Of course, if the officer has found errors in the database before, or is aware of a significant number of them from other officers, then he cannot say he has faith in the system.

One, because its not a DPS system, its a third party DB that is not always up to date...

Perhaps you missed this line I said. If it is not up to date and the officer is aware of errors, then it is not PC. But this has not yet been proven to me. Some people here have said the system full of errors, but Austin PD says otherwise, especially in their ads. And, it doesn't matter who runs the database for it to be PC, just the accuracy rate.

[jmra]

My take as an ordinary citizen.
The OP stated he had been pulled over 3 times in the last 9 months. In the OP he only told us about one of the stops (may have mentioned the others later - I'm not sure). It would be interesting to hear about the other two stops.
We are all required to carry valid proof of insurance. OP dropped the ball on that one. That being said, I have a problem with the stop. In fact, I think I have a problem with officers randomly running plates but that's what we get when we are only a gnats hair away from a police state.
Back to the stop - its one thing if the cop runs the plate and the car comes back stolen or there is a warrant on the person the car is registered to, but to pull them over because the system doesn't have a record of insrance sounds like something you would expect from a full blown police state.
We lost a whole lot more on 9/11 than 3000 lives - we lost our rights, our freedom, our America.

[tomtexan]

My take as an ordinary citizen.
The OP stated he had been pulled over 3 times in the last 9 months. In the OP he only told us about one of the stops (may have mentioned the others later - I'm not sure). It would be interesting to hear about the other two stops.
We are all required to carry valid proof of insurance. OP dropped the ball on that one. That being said, I have a problem with the stop. In fact, I think I have a problem with officers randomly running plates but that's what we get when we are only a gnats hair away from a police state.
Back to the stop - its one thing if the cop runs the plate and the car comes back stolen or there is a warrant on the person the car is registered to, but to pull them over because the system doesn't have a record of insrance sounds like something you would expect from a full blown police state.
We lost a whole lot more on 9/11 than 3000 lives - we lost our rights, our freedom, our America.

[GeekDad]

My take as an ordinary citizen.
The OP stated he had been pulled over 3 times in the last 9 months. In the OP he only told us about one of the stops (may have mentioned the others later - I'm not sure). It would be interesting to hear about the other two stops.
We are all required to carry valid proof of insurance. OP dropped the ball on that one. That being said, I have a problem with the stop. In fact, I think I have a problem with officers randomly running plates but that's what we get when we are only a gnats hair away from a police state.
Back to the stop - its one thing if the cop runs the plate and the car comes back stolen or there is a warrant on the person the car is registered to, but to pull them over because the system doesn't have a record of insrance sounds like something you would expect from a full blown police state.
We lost a whole lot more on 9/11 than 3000 lives - we lost our rights, our freedom, our America.