Off Duty Officer and guys recording at wal-mart

[WildBill]

I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken. if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

The DPS can have it's own rules concerning CHL applications, but IMO, DPS definitions are not the letter of the law.

[WildBill]

Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Actually, there is a separate law requiring the presentation of a DL when asked by a peace officer if operating a motor vehicle. It does not come under the failure to identify law in the penal code. I think there are a couple other similar special laws in various codes, like presenting a hunting license to a game warden.

But a traffic stop is definitely an arrest. The laws make this very clear and it was further clarified by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Part of the court's logic was that Chapter 543 authorizes an arrest and specifies that the person will be released on a signed promise to appear (ticket) in certain cases and taken to a magistrate in others.

And it is confusing enough that even some LEOs will argue that it is a detention, despite the court ruling. They did specify that it was not a custodial arrest high enough to trigger other rights though, which is part of the confusion. The case was primarily a jurisdiction case, but the law used for the question was where an officer had authority to make an arrest.

As for the definition of an arrest, we need to look at SCOTUS cases because it is not defined elsewhere. Perhaps the closest they come is in Terry v Ohio, when they decided to allow a stop without calling it an arrest. Until then, if a cop stopped you and you were not free to move on, it was an arrest - whether you get booked or not. That case created the detention, recognizing it as a seizure that came under the Fourth Amendment but was not a full blown arrest. They sort of refer to an arrest to include booking (calling it a "traditional arrest") but don't quite define it fully either.

If you are not sure, don't worry about it. Neither are the cops, as it continually comes up in court.

Thanks for your "clarification" Steve.

[sjfcontrol]

I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken. if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

The DPS can have it's own rules concerning CHL applications, but IMO, DPS definitions are not the letter of the law.

I didn't say or even imply that they were.

[speedsix]

Scott,

I have read on here, from LEOs, that a simple traffic stop is considered an arrest. Perhaps the definition of "arrest" could be clarified by someone?

RJ

Interesting... Good point and question...

As I understood it, a traffic stop is definitely being 'detained'. I guess I can see where it would be an "arrest" in order to ensure you provide your proper Drivers License and paperwork. Otherwise, under the law, you don't have to show those things when being only detained (not arrested), so at a traffic stop, you wouldn't have to give your drivers license, etc... That wouldn't work, right?
I guess it's a form of arrest, but I'd like to hear from someone of authority... either an LEO or an attorney.

Actually, there is a separate law requiring the presentation of a DL when asked by a peace officer if operating a motor vehicle. It does not come under the failure to identify law in the penal code. I think there are a couple other similar special laws in various codes, like presenting a hunting license to a game warden.

But a traffic stop is definitely an arrest. The laws make this very clear and it was further clarified by the Court of Criminal Appeals. Part of the court's logic was that Chapter 543 authorizes an arrest and specifies that the person will be released on a signed promise to appear (ticket) in certain cases and taken to a magistrate in others.

And it is confusing enough that even some LEOs will argue that it is a detention, despite the court ruling. They did specify that it was not a custodial arrest high enough to trigger other rights though, which is part of the confusion. The case was primarily a jurisdiction case, but the law used for the question was where an officer had authority to make an arrest.

As for the definition of an arrest, we need to look at SCOTUS cases because it is not defined elsewhere. Perhaps the closest they come is in Terry v Ohio, when they decided to allow a stop without calling it an arrest. Until then, if a cop stopped you and you were not free to move on, it was an arrest - whether you get booked or not. That case created the detention, recognizing it as a seizure that came under the Fourth Amendment but was not a full blown arrest. They sort of refer to an arrest to include booking (calling it a "traditional arrest") but don't quite define it fully either.

If youa re not sure, don't worry about it. Neither are the cops, as it continually comes up in court.

...can you quote the laws that clearly define a traffic stop as an arrest IN TEXAS? this attorney disagrees...but doesn't quote the laws, either...all traffic stops don't end with a ticket being issued... http://www.texascrimelaw.com/Traffic-Stop-Arrests.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...TTC 543.005 seems to say that it is not an arrest unless a charge is made of an offense having been committed...THEN an officer may or sometimes must release the person "from custody" when the person signs the agreement to appear...a traffic stop that results in a warning or a show of paperwork would be a detention unless a charge is made...a citation for an offense is issued...if you are "in custody" or "arrested" simply because the officer pulls you over...all the alarms go off in this old head...

[juggernaut]

Not all arrests lead to an indictment. Not even all felony arrests.

[WildBill]

I understand that an arrest, as it pertains to CHL applications and as the DPS defines it, requires that pictures and fingerprints be taken. if that didn't happen, they don't consider it an arrest. This would exclude normal traffic stops.
This is not meant to contradict srothstein's statements.

The DPS can have it's own rules concerning CHL applications, but IMO, DPS definitions are not the letter of the law.

I didn't say or even imply that they were.

I didn't say or even imply that you said they were.

I believe that the DPS made this rule because they did not want to have to spend the time and resources to investigate every traffic stop that would be reported by CHL applicants.

[speedsix]

Not all arrests lead to an indictment. Not even all felony arrests.

...true...but an arrest must be because of an offense committed...if the officer doesn't make a charge that you committed an offense...you haven't been arrested...he must be able to tell a judge in the law a reason why he arrested you...why he deprived you of your freedom...

[JP171]

Actually the police can arrest you and never charge you, happens all the time texas law allows a window before you are actually charged and still in custody, i think its 72 hours

[speedsix]

Actually the police can arrest you and never charge you, happens all the time texas law allows a window before you are actually charged and still in custody, i think its 72 hours

...legal detention to investigate is NOT an arrest...my contention is that without a crime to charge you with, you cannot be arrested...lawyers' webpages of information say that if you are not charged with a crime, you are released and it is a detention, NOT an arrest...so how can a traffic stop be an arrest until the officer charges you with an offense???

... Texas law says this: Art. 15.22. [239] [286] [274] WHEN A PERSON IS ARRESTED. A
person is arrested when he has been actually placed under restraint
or taken into custody by an officer or person executing a warrant of
arrest, or by an officer or person arresting without a warrant.

...then they say that handcuffs may be used without arrest...it's not clearly expressed at what point a traffic stop becomes an arrest...but all traffic stops are NOT an arrest...but can, if you're taken into custody and booked, or issued a citation that you sign agreeing to appear to answer for...become one...


..it does help!!! Thanks!!! Texas' laws are kinda like oatmeal when you've added too much milk...all over the place...

...as this writing details...it's not always clear... http://www.lectlaw.com/def/a100.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[srothstein]

...can you quote the laws that clearly define a traffic stop as an arrest IN TEXAS? this attorney disagrees...but doesn't quote the laws, either...all traffic stops don't end with a ticket being issued... http://www.texascrimelaw.com/Traffic-Stop-Arrests.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Well, here is what the Court of Criminal Appeals said in Kurtz:

 The State has not taken into account the way the term “arrest” is used in enforcement of the Rules of the Road statutes.

Section 543.001 of the Transportation Code provides generally, “Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle,” which is Subtitle C of Title 7-the “Rules of the Road” subtitle.   The Code makes it clear that its use of the term “arrest” is not limited to a custodial arrest.

Although the Transportation Code uses the term “arrest” to describe the process by which a person is detained and later released pursuant to a promise to appear, it is clear that this procedure involves what both the courts and common usage refer to as a “traffic stop.”   If fealty to the statutory language requires that the detention involved be labeled an arrest, it is not the sort of “custodial arrest” that subjects the person to the incidental searches allowed by Fourth Amendment law.

These Transportation Code “arrests” are temporary detentions that may end without further official action, or with the issuance of a written notice to appear (which is the only action authorized when the “arrest” is to charge a Texas resident who is operating a vehicle licensed in Texas with an offense of speeding or a violation of the open container law), or by the custodial arrest that is followed by taking the arrested person before a magistrate.

I cannot cite the law better than the CCA can, whether i agree or disagree. And, yes, they seem to be saying that not all arrests are arrests. Really clears things up, huh?

[johnson0317]

In a way, it does make it clearer. It states there is a difference between a traffic stop arrest, which seems to release the person on their own PR, and custodial arrest where they take custody of the person. In other ways, it is not so clear. If a traffic stop amounts to an arrest, then are we required to report it as an arrest? I am thinking that you would not have to since most traffic violations do not rise to the level of what would keep you from getting a CHL.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer.

RJ

[srothstein]

I am not a lawyer either, so I cannot say for sure. I do not report tickets as an arrest but most things specify something like "except for minor traffic offenses" so it is moot. What it makes a difference to for me, and this is where many LEOs disagree, is that I always thought of it as an arrest that required probable cause. But, my seeing an offense was probable cause for the stop/arrest. Officers who see it as a detention argue that you do not need probable cause but just reasonable suspicion. Of course, they also see their statement as just suspicion and not PC, though I do not know what they think they are investigating.

I think the Kurtz case was improperly argued and decided, but it is the law now. For example, I would have argued that it was an investigatory detention in his case because I would have been stopping specifically for the offense of DWI. This was part of the case and was rejected by the court, with their saying he stopped because he observed specific offenses. I would have tried to argue that the totality of the circumstances, multiple offenses and other non-offense traffic behaviors observed, led me to believe he was DWI. Of course, I would also have argued the jurisdiction thing other ways too. Oh well, it is easy to be a Monday morning quarterback when it is not me under the gun at the minute. Now we just have to handle the things the way they are.

[speedsix]

...thanks for trying...the answers aren't as clear as they could have been...probably won't get cleared up till the right person gets involved...for us common folks..." cause we SAID so" seems to be the bottom line...wouldn't take a lot to "fix" it...

[C-dub]

I am not a lawyer either, so I cannot say for sure.

Don't worry Steve. Even if you were a lawyer I'm still not sure you could say for certain. Isn't that why we have courts, to decide what two different lawyers disagree on?

[WildBill]

I am not a lawyer either, so I cannot say for sure.

Don't worry Steve. Even if you were a lawyer I'm still not sure you could say for certain. Isn't that why we have courts, to decide what two different lawyers disagree on?

Now if we could only get the judges to agree.