Dallas Police Officer threatens to Revoke my license

[Nightshift]

"I will not legitimize your continued attempt to paint all LEO's as unprofessional" who said I was attempting anything, so you are saying that my experience with cops has to be the same as yours, or its invalid? Whatever then. Thanks.

[JP171]

"I will not legitimize your continued attempt to paint all LEO's as unprofessional" who said I was attempting anything, so you are saying that my experience with cops has to be the same as yours, or its invalid? Whatever then. Thanks.

no one is saying your interaction with LEO's is the same as anyone elses, they are all different as we are all different. I don't think anyone here is coloring all LEO interactions as unprofessional or that your personal interactions are invalid. what most of us here are saying is that no matter what you believe a police officer has a job to do, he or she will ask questions that are infact meant to lead you to disclosing information that you may not want them to have, searching your vehicle and possibly finding something you may not want them to know about even if its not against the law. we are advocating the CYA rule, a lie is a lie an omission may be considered a lie, but your lack of knowledge isn't a lie, but rather a perceptive difference of what is going on.

As I see things at this point you asked a question, we gave an answer. Our answer is not one that you agree with, our theory isn't one you can subscribe to and therefore you are becomming intractable or purposely obtuse in reading the answers. When one becomes petulant upon reading something that doesn't agree with ones preconcieved notion, one should reconsider if ones belief and value system is infact valid or is one looking to make a statement by petulance.

All of here including many of the LEO's subscribe to the belief that we should never give up our rights in the name of expedience or avoiding discord, you maintain that giving up your rights is the easier road as it will inconvienience you less or be safer. I refute and refuse to accept both precepts as fact or even a valid hypothesis because of the reality that I have been detained for possible cause and now the LEO wishes to see what if anything he can find, this costs me time, dignity and removes my right to reasonable privacy, the LEO may or may not have a reasonable belief that I may have something in my vehicle that I shouldn't have but not have any real way to articulate that belief as it may be nothing more than because he just has a "funny feeling". If you believe as most of us do that if its just a funny feeling it may just be the kolache's he had an hour ago then you are being someone who might be a reasonable person, if however you believe that it is incumbant upon you to do as the officer askes with no perceptable and definable reason then you might be the current administrations best spokesman.

[E.Marquez]

"I will not legitimize your continued attempt to paint all LEO's as unprofessional" who said I was attempting anything, so you are saying that my experience with cops has to be the same as yours, or its invalid? Whatever then. Thanks.

Relatively new to the site and your first post here was about a NICS check denial http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php? ... 78#p723778" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
In part:

I was recently denied on a NICS check after purchasing another long rifle the week before. I immediately sent in the appeal, I had no arrest records or convictions for anything.

Then yesterday ...

I see a lot of people saying to refuse a search, my feeling is that a refusal only makes you look more suspicious and most cops already view people as having something to hide and with so many unscrupulous cops with power trips out there if you refuse they will just bring a dog and claim the dog is smelling something and even worse if you make them go through all of that to search your car they may be irritated enough to plant something. Then you go to jail or prison just to stand up for your rights. So is refusing the smartest thing you can do in this situation?

Followed by this excerpt from your next post

I would like to hear opinions on this as I am not decided on what to do in that situation but in my opinion and from my experience most of the cops that I have dealt with when I am by myself tend to be somewhat on a power trip. That is my experience.

If I mistook those posts of yours, then I apologize.

But based on what you wrote I did come away with the impression you paint LEO's as unprofessional..
Again if I misread your words, or jumped to a conclusion not supported, my apologies.

So back to the topic...

The short answer again.. and then I'll leave it be unless later responses pose a different question...

So is refusing the smartest thing you can do in this situation?

Yes it is in my opinion, the best choice to refuse consent, and not provide more then required in info/details.

No in my opinion it will not lead to a LEO on a powertrip faking RS or PC, and then planting evidence on your vehicle, arresting you and sending you to jail.

[Jumping Frog]

If we concede to abuses of authority by waiving our rights to prevent conflict, the sooner we will lose that right permanently. Refuse searches and refuse to speak to investigators without counsel present.

Rights that are not exercised are rights that are lost.

[Jaguar]

I am not a lawyer but my sister is, and she is as liberal as they come.

Her advice - do not consent to searches, do not speak to police without a lawyer present. There are reasons for this but mostly because it can make her job (and your life) more difficult in the long run.

[Nightshift]

"As I see things at this point you asked a question, we gave an answer. Our answer is not one that you agree with, our theory isn't one you can subscribe to and therefore you are becomming intractable or purposely obtuse in reading the answers. When one becomes petulant upon reading something that doesn't agree with ones preconcieved notion, one should reconsider if ones belief and value system is infact valid or is one looking to make a statement by petulance."

Wow, no I wasnt being petulant, intractible, or purposely obtuse (another attack on me not based on any response), I was defending myself from an outright accusation that I was trying to paint all LEOs as being bad or something and even more so that I was trying to get the person that said that to also agree with me. Which is absurd if you read my comments I only stated my experience.

The person who accused me of trying to paint all LEO's as bad did not say "I believe you are attempting to paint all LEO's as unprofessional, unethical", he stated as fact that I was actually attempting to do so. "I will not legitimize your continued attempt to paint all LEO's as unprofessional, unethical or whatever with a response"

Also, bringing up my past comments as if I was on trial here in an attempt to paint me as being negative towards LEOs when in actuality I have posted on 6 different topics and you only choose to bring up certain ones that might seem to be negative (although they are not) is also in my opinion absurd and what seems to be an attempt to paint me as someone I am not. My issue that I had with NICS denial was again a legitimate thing that I had to get worked out and it was resolved. I was completely fair in my assessment of the situtation.

Finally, I am more inclined now to actually deny a right to search after reading these comments, but I really dont like the way this conversation has ended up. This should be a forum for learning and sharing of experiences and not people attacking others. That is all I am going to say on this topic.

[longtooth]

The trying times of today bring strong feelings on every side of issues we face.
No one has been put on trial here.
When our Constitution was written & then ratified there was much debate, a lot of strong feelings & most probably some loud reteric.
Those brave Patriots left those trying discussions only after HAMMERING OUT the good Constitution we have today.

Let everyone on this board continue to speak w/ civil tongues, manly firmness, & unruffled feathers.
LT

[gigag04]

FWIW -

If I found myself being asked questions by another LEO, regardless of the context, my level of cooperation, demeanor, and depth of response would hinge largely on the following items (in no order):

The attitude of the LEO asking questions
Why said questions are being asked
What I stand to loose by answering honestly
Whether or not I believe there is any chance I could be answering questions while suspected of a crime

Most times, I am asking questions as routine habit (during a traffic stop) just to detect deception. It doesn't matter what the person's answer actually is - I am more interested in body language/non-verbal cues than I am the verbal content alone.

That said, when questioning actual suspects of (class b misdemeanor and above offenses, ie non-traffic), I am still surprised about how easy it is to get people to confess to these crimes.

[Abraham]

I have mixed thoughts regarding some of what's posted here.

It's generally advised one should always firmly state when traffic stopped by an LEO: "I do not consent to a search"

O.K. and how often does that stance require the expense of a lawyer later?

Rarely/Sometimes/Often? And I'm not arguing one should consent either...just asking.

Assuming one takes a principled stand, denying consent of his vehicle and it happens anyway. What's the next step, assuming nothing incriminating is found and the officer goes ahead with a search?

You go on about your business and forget it happened?

Also, can you remain silent legally without being Mirandized? (with the exception of stating you have nothing more to say than you want a lawyer before uttering anything further?)

I'm going to put myself in the LEO's shoes for a moment: I make a traffic stop and the driver invokes now consent for search and silence without a lawyer. As an LEO, I'm definitely going to pursue looking as deeply into this person as legality allows.

Am I saying give in to some LEO on a fishing expedition?

No, but giving the LEO the silent treatment and denying a search seems at first blush in making the stopped person look more than a little quirky...

[sjfcontrol]

I have mixed thoughts regarding some of what's posted here.

It's generally advised one should always firmly state when traffic stopped by an LEO: "I do not consent to a search"

O.K. and how often does that stance require the expense of a lawyer later?

Rarely/Sometimes/Often? And I'm not arguing one should consent either...just asking.

Assuming one takes a principled stand, denying consent of his vehicle and it happens anyway. What's the next step, assuming nothing incriminating is found and the officer goes ahead with a search?

You go on about your business and forget it happened?

Also, can you remain silent legally without being Mirandized? (with the exception of stating you have nothing more to say than you want a lawyer before uttering anything further?)

I'm going to put myself in the LEO's shoes for a moment: I make a traffic stop and the driver invokes now consent for search and silence without a lawyer. As an LEO, I'm definitely going to pursue looking as deeply into this person as legality allows.

Am I saying give in to some LEO on a fishing expedition?

No, but giving the LEO the silent treatment and denying a search seems at first blush in making the stopped person look more than a little quirky...

Well, I wouldn't start the conversation with the LEO by denying a search. That wouldn't come up unless he asks to search.

[E.Marquez]

I have mixed thoughts regarding some of what's posted here.

It's generally advised one should always firmly state when traffic stopped by an LEO: "I do not consent to a search"

O.K. and how often does that stance require the expense of a lawyer later?

Rarely/Sometimes/Often? And I'm not arguing one should consent either...just asking.

Assuming one takes a principled stand, denying consent of his vehicle and it happens anyway. What's the next step, assuming nothing incriminating is found and the officer goes ahead with a search?

You go on about your business and forget it happened?

Also, can you remain silent legally without being Mirandized? (with the exception of stating you have nothing more to say than you want a lawyer before uttering anything further?)

I'm going to put myself in the LEO's shoes for a moment: I make a traffic stop and the driver invokes now consent for search and silence without a lawyer. As an LEO, I'm definitely going to pursue looking as deeply into this person as legality allows.

Am I saying give in to some LEO on a fishing expedition?

No, but giving the LEO the silent treatment and denying a search seems at first blush in making the stopped person look more than a little quirky...

Well, I wouldn't start the conversation with the LEO by denying a search. That wouldn't come up unless he asks to search.

Exactly.
Im ok with polite conversation, Im not saying one should be antagonistic. Nor that you should try the silent treatment...

Id yourself as required, answer the "is he a drunk" questions if you want.

But when it gets to the "why are you out so late?" or "why are you in this area?", where do you work? Where are you coming from? ect or "Since you have nothing to hide, how about you let me have a quick look in your car?" I draw the line, I will not answer those questions, and I will not consent to a search at any time.. If the LEO has RS or PC, he is going to do it anyway... My saying no does not effect that decision.

[Abraham]

No, I wouldn't start the conversation with a search denial either.

Only if requested, of course. I didn't make that clear, my fault for not doing so.

A lot of these "I'm law a abiding citizen and you can't treat me like a criminal" attitudes sound great, in theory.

What I'd like to hear about is: Ever done the old road side search denial? If so, how'd that work out for you with the police officer? What was the follow up situation?

Same for road side police questions and you remain mum unless you have a lawyer present while not being Mirandized - how did that go...? If anyone has done that, I'd love to know how that scenario worked out also.

Or similarly, if the police officer simply asks me what I consider inappropriate questions, I won't and don't have to answer. What happened after not answering?

To help keep the OP's responses going, had I been threatened in the manner he endured, I wouldn't let bygones be bygones. The officer's "after action response" if you will, is entirely unacceptable. He, the officer, obviously still doesn't get it.

[JP171]

No, I wouldn't start the conversation with a search denial either.

Only if requested, of course. I didn't make that clear, my fault for not doing so.

A lot of these "I'm law a abiding citizen and you can't treat me like a criminal" attitudes sound great, in theory.

What I'd like to hear about is: Ever done the old road side search denial? If so, how'd that work out for you with the police officer? What was the follow up situation?

Same for road side police questions and you remain mum unless you have a lawyer present while not being Mirandized - how did that go...? If anyone has done that, I'd love to know how that scenario worked out also.

Or similarly, if the police officer simply asks me what I consider inappropriate questions, I won't and don't have to answer. What happened after not answering?

To help keep the OP's responses going, had I been threatened in the manner he endured, I wouldn't let bygones be bygones. The officer's "after action response" if you will, is entirely unacceptable. He, the officer, obviously still doesn't get it.

yes I have infact said you may not search, the LEO just got angry, I got the ticket he was going to give me anyway, I got it dismissed
yes I have given broad non specific answers to non pertainant questions, just got a "get the bleep outta here" one time and a ticket another that also got dismissed
I have stood toe to toe and told an LEO that unless he had an EMS Certification he had no say in the care and treatment of a patient that was not being arrested, he got a weeks unpaid suspension and a district transfer because he threatened to arrest me and take me to jail while I was in direct care of a patient, he also got a visit from the enforcement division of DSHS and advised that the next time he made medical decisions without a certification he would be charged with practicing medicine without a license, last I heard he moved to Florida.