Dallas Police Officer threatens to Revoke my license

[baldeagle]

Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

Wow! I respect your opinion a great deal, but are you sure??? All the officer needs is the fact that you are in a vehicle to justify a search?

[RSJ]

Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

Wow! I respect your opinion a great deal, but are you sure??? All the officer needs is the fact that you are in a vehicle to justify a search?

There is a lower expectation of privacy in a vehicle than in a home. However, a warrantless search of a vehicle STILL requires probable cause, under normal circumstances.

[Jaguar]

Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

Wow! I respect your opinion a great deal, but are you sure??? All the officer needs is the fact that you are in a vehicle to justify a search?

I believe you have to have both probable cause and exigent circumstance. One is met by the fact you are in a vehicle, the other is up for the officer to find, articulate, and convince a judge and jury of the validity of.

But you are correct, it doesn't take a whole lot, and don't argue on the side of the road. Tell them "I do not consent to searches" loud enough to be heard on camera, and then evoke your right to remain silent.

ETA - I am not a lawyer and this in no way represents legal advice. I do have a lawyer in the family, and she says the same thing.

[RSJ]

Automobile exception, under which officer may conduct warrantless search of motor vehicle if officer has probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime, extends to all types of motor vehicles.
--holding from Powell v. State (of TX) 898 S.W.2d 821

It is up to the court to determine if the probable cause was valid.

[Jumping Frog]

For anyone new to this hearing people say, "I do not consent to a search", there is one important issue to keep straight.

Just because you do not consent to a search does not mean you can stop an officer from searching.

If he says he is searching anyway, get out of his way, then comply with the LEO's orders or you can face charges for failing to comply or obstruction.

All putting your lack of consent on the record really accomplishes is giving your lawyer ammunition to argue about the search after the fact.

I've taught my children to say, "I do not consent to a search but I will comply with your orders."

[WildBill]

For anyone new to this hearing people say, "I do not consent to a search", there is one important issue to keep straight.

Just because you do not consent to a search does not mean you can stop an officer from searching.

If he says he is searching anyway, get out of his way, then comply with the LEO's orders or you can face charges for failing to comply or obstruction.

All putting your lack of consent on the record really accomplishes is giving your lawyer ammunition to argue about the search after the fact.

I've taught my children to say, "I do not consent to a search but I will comply with your orders."

[Reds45ACP]

Automobile exception, under which officer may conduct warrantless search of motor vehicle if officer has probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime, extends to all types of motor vehicles.
--holding from Powell v. State (of TX) 898 S.W.2d 821

It is up to the court to determine if the probable cause was valid.

... Really? I'm relatively new to Texas. That's scary. So if I violate a traffic ordinance then my vehicle is evidence in a crime. So they can search? Does that extend to searching my person as well? This is the first law in Texas that I'm not happy about. That's, as far as I'm concerned, case law that opposes the 4th Amendment.

[RSJ]

Automobile exception, under which officer may conduct warrantless search of motor vehicle if officer has probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime, extends to all types of motor vehicles.
--holding from Powell v. State (of TX) 898 S.W.2d 821

It is up to the court to determine if the probable cause was valid.

... Really? I'm relatively new to Texas. That's scary. So if I violate a traffic ordinance then my vehicle is evidence in a crime. So they can search? Does that extend to searching my person as well? This is the first law in Texas that I'm not happy about. That's, as far as I'm concerned, case law that opposes the 4th Amendment.

I'd say if you were pulled over for going 38mph in a 35mph zone, and had no other probable cause (no odor, no visible PC, no statements, etc) that would not give probable cause to search the interior of the car. Keep in mind it is up to the officer to search, but up to your attorney to scrutinize the search.

The automobile exception is present in all jurisdictions, at least that I've come across.

[kjolly]

If we do not stand up for our 4th amendment rights we will loose them. I have nothing to hide or for them to find but I do have a 4th amendment right to protect.
When pulled over, smile, be friendly, courteous. Do not fall for bullying. As a citizen you have done nothing wrong.
I used to be very scared of the police but have outgrown it.

[Rex B]

Automobile exception, under which officer may conduct warrantless search of motor vehicle if officer has probable cause to believe vehicle contains evidence of crime, extends to all types of motor vehicles.
--holding from Powell v. State (of TX) 898 S.W.2d 821

... Really? I'm relatively new to Texas. That's scary. So if I violate a traffic ordinance then my vehicle is evidence in a crime. So they can search? Does that extend to searching my person as well? This is the first law in Texas that I'm not happy about. That's, as far as I'm concerned, case law that opposes the 4th Amendment.

The automobile exception is present in all jurisdictions, at least that I've come across.

If you have been stopped for a typical misdemeanor - no license light for example - the police can call that a crime and the vehicle considered evidence? That's a big stretch!
If that were happening very often II would hope there is a backlash from the citizenry.

[knoxknoxrocks]

Good morning....Day 2 and I would like to share an update on my situation. After a long day yesterday of research and inquiry, an officer I know, that trained him (she is excellent btw) spoke with the officer in training who threatened to have my license revoked. She relayed a message to another individual who called me last night and stated that he was told yesterday about the update on the chl law (no requirement to show chl to officer at stop unless handgun is in vehicle or on person) which states :

GC §411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. (a) If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

His response, that was relayed to me, was that he will not submit a letter to revoke my license and that if I would like to talk to him he is willing to do that. He also said something to the effect that he was trying to send me a message and teach me a lesson about not revealing my CHL. The officer that trained him said he is a great cop and was surprised to hear about this.
After speaking to another officer that I have known for a long time I took their advice and emailed the officer who threatened me and his two superiors a very professional letter asking if he was going to continue with the revoke of CHL and informing him of the CHL -16 handbook law as to not put another individual in my situation.

Part of me wonders if I should request the dash-cam video in case something unusual happens. I know a few people have said leave it alone but he is a TRAINEE, hired in 2010.

I have to tell you that this is all pretty nerve-wracking for a newbie like me. I am a strong individual but I feel shaken up. I don't want this to happen to anyone else. Bullies are the worst.

[RPB]

1) Relax
2) Refer to Charles Cotton's post viewtopic.php?f=7&t=58084#p713227" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.texaschlblog.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.texasshooting.com/blog/?page_id=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://texasfirearmscoalition.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
3) Relax

[knoxknoxrocks]

ahhhhhh....ok

[Jim Beaux]

Give it up. Let it go. It's over with.

(I think the LEO in question may have a touch of Barney in him.)

[sjfcontrol]

Part of me wonders if I should request the dash-cam video in case something unusual happens. I know a few people have said leave it alone but he is a TRAINEE, hired in 2010.

Really? That means he's been a trainee for 2-3 years. Is an officer still considered a trainee after all that time?