TexasCHLforum.com

sailor2000 wrote:

srothstein wrote:

loosecannon wrote:No, nothing shows up when tags are run but the owner and the stolen status. If you run a DL, it will also show the CHL but I don't know if the expired CHL will show up then or not. I would guess it depends on when it expired.

I was stopped ny DPS for a bad tail light about a year after my CHL expired. They noted I had an expired CHL and asked if I was armed.

So it seems that it does show up.

Thanks, I was unaware they would show up that long after they expired. I figured they would be gone when the grace period for renewal expired.

Lucky,

Some departments have internal rules on how their officers handle various contacts with suspects. They may require the cuffs anytime someone is placed in a patrol car.

Part of the reason they do this is some of the very convoluted court rulings on when a search is justified. For example, I can only do a search based on probable cause, except for the very limited search known as a frisk. But to justify a frisk, I must have specific articulable reasons why my life is in danger from this stop and just having a policy of it is not sufficient. However, if they claim a search of the car is justified based on probable cause, how can a search of the person in the car not be justified?

I know a lot of officers who handcuff prisoners during this type of detention for the prisoner's safety. People who are stopped by the police sometimes (especially under drugs or alcohol's influence) do very unusual things. I know of one case where the drunk ran onto Loop 410 in San Antonio to show the cops he could walk a straight line (he wanted to use the lane dividers as his line). Of course, the officer was very glad the LT had stopped by to check on him, so the in custody death report from the car that hit him was easier to write.

I handled one case where a prisoner managed to unseatbelt himself and open the car door and jump out of the car, while it was on the way to the jail at 60 MPH on IH-10. Fortunately, he landed on the cuffs and the car behind the officer hit his brakes when the door opened. No major injuries but a very irritated officer who had to buy a new set of cuffs. We also started calling him the JumpMaster after that and said we were going to install red and green jump lights inside his car.

And then there was the case in Houston recently where the prisoner shot the officer after he was handcuffed and in the back seat of the patrol car. I have no idea how the officer missed the pistol during the search. Prisoners have also suicided in patrol cars the same way. Cuffs may not prevent this, but it does give the officer a chance to intervene if he is watching carefully.

As for the other half of the question, it is a very weird situation on when a detention becomes an arrest. There is at least one Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case (from 2004 IIRC) that says any traffic stop is automatically an arrest. Most of us think of an arrest as being taken into custody, which the cuffs usually indicate. There is also a SCOTUS case that says it is not necessarily an arrest, even though the officers took the people out of the car at gunpoint, proned them out on the street, and then cuffed them. SCOTUS tends to use the time taken as their primary means, with less than 30 minutes before release being a detention and over two hours being an arrest and anything in between is still a gray area. Of course, moving the person to another area is normally an arrest but SCOTUS has ruled that if I take a suspect to another area for a victim ID and then return him, it is still a detention. See what I mean about it being confusing.

In the specific case, I believe the best thing to do is get a good lawyer. The officers violated the civil rights (IMHO) of the person, and the department is liable vicariously for failure to train them on what constitutes probable cause and the new traveling laws (firearms in cars).

Of course, I think the city will settle fairly quickly if he only asks for about 50,000 (or accepts that amount anyway) but a lawyer may see things very differently from you or me.

Liberty wrote:

loosecannon wrote: I always wondered. If cops and constables have enough cops to stop and harass folks for traffic violation Perhaps they have run out of crime to fight, or investigate. Perhaps we have to many cops on the payroll. Constables are suppose to chase down check kiters and assist with evictions.

Just so you have a full understanding of the situation in Texas, Constables are peace officers with full authority to do anything else in their jurisdiction that any other peace officer does. This concept of them being only there to chase check kiters or evictions is not a position supported by the law.

Also, in Texas, all traffic violations are crimes. Most are class C misdemeanors, the same as shoplifting or a bunch of other crimes. Some are Class B misdemeanors or even higher. But what this means is that if I want to arrest a criminal (a person who is committing a crime) all I need to do is stop someone for a traffic violation.

Given that. I know and understand what you meant by your comment. Unfortunately, it is based on a false impression that cops are here to arrest criminals. That concept is how we get LEO's instead of peace officers. A peace officer is here to help protect the safety and quality of life of his community. Traffic enforcement is certainly a big part of this.

And there is another unusual correlation that you might want to be aware of. When the police get a reputation for being very tough on traffic and other small crimes, the overall crime rate, especially the violent crime rate, tends to drop in that area. This is called the broken glass theory in law enforcement, that if cops investigate every time they find anything as small as broken glass, they will be able to prevent or solve much worse crime.

And no, before you ask, I do not do strict traffic enforcement. I was a big proponent of making traffic stops when I was on patrol, but not every stop had to result in a ticket. Not being on patrol now, I sometimes wish I had red lights on my p.o.v. the way some idiots drive.

loosecannon wrote:About unlawful searches...some--maybe many--occur because of officer error caused by poor training. Administrator or managerial incompetence, low morale, low pay, and low hiring standards all impact this issue. My opinion is that these negatives are more likely to be found in a large constable department than in any other LE group. Deputy constables occupy the bottom rung on the ladder.

While you are correct about some of the causes of the problem, especially low pay attracting lower quality officers and lack of proper supervision, I would say that this is more of an explanation than an excuse. Their behavior is wrong and criminal and that is inexcusable for a peace officer in Texas.

I am not sure I would agree with you about the place on the rung for Deputy Constables. I have met some very good ones, as well as some bad peace officers at other types of agencies. I do know that in many of the larger cities, the constable offices are not well regarded by the city officers, but I always felt this was just snobbery at its worst.

If it were me, my concern would be to bring this error to a supervisor so these guys would know better next time. Remember that supervisors, especially those that are desk bound, dread complaints or lawsuits because they reflect negatively on their leadership.

I would file the complaint, but I would also file a lawsuit immediately. I would file the lawsuit as quickly as I could so I could subpoena the videotape of the stop before it disappears (probably within 90 days of the stop). It is possible that there will not be a video tape, but then the statement of what was probable cause would be disputed and they would claim he gave permission. If they are this bad, don't trust them the rest of the way either.


EDIT: Incidentally, on the lawsuit, i would file in federal court naming the officers and the department, both individually and severally. Under 42 USC 1983, the individual officer is responsible for the civil rights violation as well as the department.

Carrying an expired chl shouldn't be an issue. Doesn't such info show up when tag numbers are run?

No, nothing shows up when tags are run but the owner and the stolen status. If you run a DL, it will also show the CHL but I don't know if the expired CHL will show up then or not. I would guess it depends on when it expired.