You'll Love What DPS in Palo Pinto County is Doing!!

[E.Marquez]

I was going to reply to some of the more relevant responses, but I see this going nowhere good methinks. Ill shoot a few of you a PM and call it good.

Honestly and sincerely;
From me at least, thank you for your perspective.

I get your not one to get worked up over disarming just because.. and I appreciate that.

[brainman]

I was going to reply to some of the more relevant responses, but I see this going nowhere good methinks. Ill shoot a few of you a PM and call it good.

Honestly and sincerely;
From me at least, thank you for your perspective.

I get your not one to get worked up over disarming just because.. and I appreciate that.

I agree. That was why I tried to make clear my comments were not about Gig personally. It was just the comments he provided seem to be standard "reasoning" for disarming. And if used to disarm everyone pulled over, they don't fly.

[57Coastie]

Y'all might find this morning's article relevant to the broader subject-matter of this thread.

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas ... 088340.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I must say that I think the "loophole" found by the Corpus Christi PD is another example of "sea lawyering," this time aimed at the driver and not the LEO.

I will also observe that yours truly does not have a dog in this particular hunt other than for his devotion to what he believes the 4th Amendment means. That is, I had my last drink of an alcoholic beverage almost 15 years ago.

Jim

PS: sjfcontrol: truce?

[C-dub]

From Jim's link.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

There it is ladies and gentlemen. We've mused about it off and on. The legality of being stopped in an open carry state just for openly carrying to check for a license without having done anything else wrong. We've pointed out that the police do not have the right to simply stop someone to check to see if they have a DL, but now that theory might be put to the test.

[E.Marquez]

From Jim's link.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

There it is ladies and gentlemen. We've mused about it off and on. The legality of being stopped in an open carry state just for openly carrying to check for a license without having done anything else wrong. We've pointed out that the police do not have the right to simply stop someone to check to see if they have a DL, but now that theory might be put to the test.

I did not realize this was still a question.. ??
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opini ... onID=20505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lujan v. State, No. PD-0303-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)

Texas Court of Criminal Appeal seems to have decided more then a year ago,, DL check points were legal in the state of TX.

and
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

[gigag04]

PMs sent out.

Sorry guys, been busy with preggo wife, work, and finals coming up.

[Abraham]

Wassamatta Bronco, you don't approve of a police state?

[C-dub]

From Jim's link.

Julie Garcia, public information officer for the department, said the department conducts "driver's license checkpoints" regularly.

There it is ladies and gentlemen. We've mused about it off and on. The legality of being stopped in an open carry state just for openly carrying to check for a license without having done anything else wrong. We've pointed out that the police do not have the right to simply stop someone to check to see if they have a DL, but now that theory might be put to the test.

I did not realize this was still a question.. ??
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/opini ... onID=20505" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Lujan v. State, No. PD-0303-10 (Tex.Crim.App. 2011)

Texas Court of Criminal Appeal seems to have decided more then a year ago,, DL check points were legal in the state of TX.

and
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... TN.521.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

I guess I did miss that. Wow!

[57Coastie]

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

Just to muddy up the waters a bit, I would suggest that the legislature could enact a statute authorizing an LEO to stop a motor vehicle and detain the driver for any reason at all which might occur to the LEO.

Questions worthy of consideration:

Question (1): would this statute overrule the 4th Amendment?

Question (2): Does the statutory language quoted in red above overrule the 4th Amendment when interpreted to have no constraints?

Question (3): Are even our courts confusing the authority the legislature might bestow on an LEO, with whether or not a suspicion, cause, or what have you must be had before the authority allegedly granted by the legislature is constitutional in all cases, without exception, when exercised by an LEO?

Jim

[E.Marquez]

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:
(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and
(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.
(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.

Just to muddy up the waters a bit, I would suggest that the legislature could enact a statute authorizing an LEO to stop a motor vehicle and detain the driver for any reason at all which might occur to the LEO.

Questions worthy of consideration:

Question (1): would this statute overrule the 4th Amendment?

Question (2): Does the statutory language quoted in red above overrule the 4th Amendment when interpreted to have no constraints?

Question (3): Are even our courts confusing the authority the legislature might bestow on an LEO, with whether or not a suspicion, cause, or what have you must be had before the authority allegedly granted by the legislature is constitutional in all cases, without exception, when exercised by an LEO?

Jim

Jim,, Good questions.

Might want to read though Illinois v. Lidster and the SCOTUS decision
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=02-1060" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A juicy qoute "license checkpoints conducted in a systematic, predesignated manner are constitutional."

[57Coastie]

Bronco,

Good point.

It is probably apparent to the members of the forum by now that I have disagreed with many a SCOTUS decision, and will continue to do so until my last dying breath, as I believe it to be, contrary to its assertions, as political an animal as is the congress, but less honest about it than is the congress. Lidster of course has some weasel words in it giving the court some flexibility, as is often the case when we look for SCOTUS decisions to "tell us what the law is." Why else would we see here on this forum time and again prayers that our current president not have the opportunity to nominate new members to replace retiring or deceased members?

Even in the case of a black and white decision, with no gray permitting a particular case to be distinguished (if there are any), they are still capable of reversing a decision, and do.

Jim

[recaffeination]

They can do that but requiring ID to vote is racist?

Mmkay

[57Coastie]

They can do that but requiring ID to vote is racist?

Mmkay

You better believe it, when it is shown that the intention of the authorities demanding the ID is to inhibit the minority vote or that of another protected class, and when by demanding it that vote is shown to be in fact inhibited. Constitutionality is something one does not address in the abstract. It is something addressed by looking at real, live, cases. SCOTUS has historically taken the position that it cannot issue "advisory opinions" absent that real case. It occasionally slips and forgets it own rulings, but those are just exceptions that prove the rule.

One does not have to like it, but he had better believe it, else be content to live in his own fantasy world. After all, this is Amurrica!

Do you believe that SCOTUS would approve DPS stopping only black drivers to check their driver's licenses, or only women drivers, or only drivers with red hair, for example?

Jim

[Abraham]

Just getting a library card requires an I.D. and the list of other things/situations is endless that require I.D. - which is available free upon request if you don't want to bother with a drivers license.

Are all I.D. required things/situation racist or only when it comes to voting?

[Jaguar]

Just getting a library card requires an I.D. and the list of other things/situations is endless that require I.D. - which is available free upon request if you don't want to bother with a drivers license.

Are all I.D. required things/situation racist or only when it comes to voting?

Not free, it cost $16 for a new or renewal unless you are 60 or older, then it is $6.

You also have to provide documents that verify your identity, U.S. citizenship or lawful presence status, and Texas residency.

My brother does not drive. His TX ID card expired once and we had to spend money to get a copy of his Birth Certificate from Oklahoma (couldn't find the old one until after we paid for a new one), and spend money for the ID card. It was a headache.

And yes, it's only racist when the liberals say it is. Jeesh, get with the program.