TexasCHLforum.com

speedsix wrote:

jamullinstx wrote:The real problem is that male prohibita crimes can result in someone's arrest. Only male en se crimes should hold the consequence of arrest. Our current system gives police agencies too much leverage for very minor offenses.

...would you please 'splain them two foreign language terms for those of us who ain't so eddicated???

Malum prohibitum means something that is wrong only because it is prohibited by the state. Malum in se means something that is wrong in and of itself without the law.

For example, most people would agree that theft is wrong, so it would be a malum in se crime. Many people claim that there is nothing wrong with smoking marijuana, so they would define it as a malum prohibitum crime.

One of the questions of legal philosophy is how many and what crimes that are malum prohibitum should actually be allowed. A totalitarian government makes many of these type of laws. A free government that respects its citizens makes very few. I don't think any government would make none and many of the laws are on things that could be argued either way.

One example of a crime that could be argued is speeding. If it possibly puts others in danger, it could be argued to be malum in se. But if it puts no one else in any danger at all, it could be argued as malum in se. whether it does put others in danger or not is an arguable point that makes it a great example of this question.

JP171 wrote:how I wish that were true, ask any of the LEO's here and they will tell you for a fact that at any given time they can stop you for about 40 infractions or violations you didn't even know you comitted. I get stopped all the time, haven't gotten a ticket in quite a while, but still get stopped at least once a week and always get some thing about my plate or turn signal, the last one an officer swore to high heaven that I was not in compliance because my turn signals weren't at least 13 inches apart, no I didn't get a ticket

I have said many times that our laws have become so hard to read and understand, both from the language and the sheer number, that I could pull over almost any car if I followed it for one mile. The odds of finding a real offense in that space are too good. Of course, this is not a guarantee, but just a set of probabilities as an observation on the state of our laws.

As for the lights being 13 inches apart, this is the other half of the problem. Officers who do not know the law and enforce it properly. The actual law (Transportation Code 547.324) says the signals will be mounted as far apart as practicable and does not give a minimum distance. And they are not even required to be present on motorcycles. But we have so many laws that officers can stop people and make up things and the people don't know what is being made up and what is the law. If we had reasonable laws, officers could not do this.

And that is without getting into the discussion of whether the officers know the laws and make it up deliberately or are that confused themselves.

I disagree about establishing a victim as a key to any crime. The Code of Criminal Procedure clearly states that Texas is the victim in EVERY crime. Note Article 1.23 that states that the offense is "against the peace and dignity of the state". There are many crimes without a "victim" other than the state, such as resisting arrest or bail jumping.

As for the right to travel, I have long been convinced that this exists and means that driving is a right not a privilege. This does not mean that traffic laws are invalid though. It could mean that laws requiring a license to drive or a vehicle registration are unconstitutional but laws such as speeding or running a red light would be allowed. Continuing your analogy to the Second Amendment it means that guns are all legal to own, but you cannot shoot them when and where you want. The use may be reasonable restricted. I am not aware of any court in recent years that has agreed with me on the license laws. But in anotehr thread I did note that Texas did not require a DL until the mid 1930's and seem to work out just fine.

I am not sure what some of the other cases would have to do with this point though. And I think we are drifting too far from the OP's points and questions, so we should let this sub-thread drop and stay on topic a little better.

GeekDad wrote:but Corpus Delicti does play in traffic tickets

I think you may have a misunderstanding of the corpus delicti rule and what is necessary to prove a crime. Corpus delicit means the body of the crime or the body of evidence. It is a term of art used in criminal cases to mean the elements of the offense that must be proven. Every offense is composed of several elements that must be proven. Some of the elements normally include jurisdiction and culpable mental state and the specific parts of each crime.

For example, to prove a murder was committed, the state must prove jurisdiction (that some part of the offense occurred in Texas, noting that finding the location of the body is included as a part of the offense), that the deceased was an individual (as an individual is defined in the law), that the deceased was killed, that the actor (proper Texas term for suspect) killed the deceased, and one of several conditions on the killing (that it was intentional or knowing - culpable mental state, that the actor intended to commit serious bodily injury and committed an act dangerous to life that did kill, or that the actor was committing or attempting to commit another felony and while doing so or fleeing after doing so committed an act dangerous to life that did kill).

Now, taking the illustrated case, you do have an injury involved - the death. but there is no legal requirement for an injury to have a crime committed. For example, there is a whole chapter in the penal code on gambling. Section 47.02 says you commit an offense if you simply place a bet on a political nomination or appointment. Now, this is true even if the gambling is honest and not rigged. Where is there an injury in this offense?

Similarly, there may not be an injury in a traffic offense, but it is still an offense. Traffic offenses also do not require a culpable mental state, differing them from most other crimes. This is a theory of criminal responsibility known as strict liability. I bring this up only to show that the general rule of criminal theory may not apply to traffic law.

One of the problems many people have is in using public references that include otehr states. In some states, traffic offenses are all civil cases. In other states, traffic offenses are crimes. Texas is normally one of those states that makes traffic offenses a crime, but we have moved into a slightly confusing position where it may also be a civil offense. Now, running a red light is a criminal offense when a police officer sees you and a civil offense when you are caught by a camera.

I thought I would jump back in with my opinion on several points made in this thread so far.

An officer needs probable cause to make a traffic stop (this point has been disputed but it is what I believe). This can only possibly be true because violating a traffic law is a crime. In fact, in most cases, it is a class C misdemeanor but it can be higher. For example, passing a school bus is a class B (the fine can go over $500) or class A misdemeanor. And any misdemeanor is a crime, as defined by the law.

Any officer can arrest you for any traffic offense with the exception of two. And he can arrest you for those if you decline to sign the ticket - the law only requires that he offer you that option one time. Those two offenses are speeding and having an open container of alcoholic beverage in a car. Any other charge is automatically an arrestable offense and the officer does not have to allow you to sign the ticket. This has been to the SCOTUS in a case from Lago Vista and upheld. Sorry I don't remember the woman's name but she sued the department over being arrested and held in jail for an offense that is not punishable by jail time. She lost big time.

Now, as to whether or not the officer can ask questions, go fishing, or what he needs to know, there are differing facts to consider. One of the first has already been pointed out - you may not know what the officer is looking for or investigating. I have stopped people for traffic offenses that they committed when I was really investigating other crimes. A traffic stop is a perfect way to find out what is really going on. I have found burglars and rapists, among others, by talking with people during a traffic stop.

I generally do not believe in fishing expeditions without some suspicion. I definitely do not believe in violating people's rights. But if I have some suspicion, there is no reason for me to tell you what I am looking for when I ask you questions. So I might ask you where you are coming from or headed. This is valid and reasonable to me. And no, you do not have to answer any of these questions. As a matter of fact, I generally advise everyone to not talk to an officer without a lawyer.

As for the questions and Miranda, the case (Kurtz) that said that a traffic stop was an arrest specifically said that it was not a custodial arrest. Most people do not realize this, but you do not have to be mirandized just because you are under arrest or because a cop is asking you questions. The Miranda case laid out specific rules for when a person must be given a warning. They must be in custody and the officer must be asking questions designed to elicit an incriminating response. Some of the cases that have clarified this include things like the police going to someone's home to ask them questions. the suspect was not in custody so the statements were admissible. Also, freely made statements (called res gestae exclamations) where the officer asks no question or a non-incriminating question (what is your name and the person say they never meant to kill anyone) are admissible. Do not get caught up in what they show ion TV as it is not real law (or real police work or real forensics, but those are separate discussions).

And finally, corpus delicti means the body of the crime. this is the principle that says I must prove in court that you committed each of the required elements of the crime. For example, speeding has the elements of going faster than that speed which is reasonable and prudent, being in a motor vehicle (as defined in the law), and being on a public highway. The important part of this is that I have to prove it in court. I do not have to prove it to make the arrest. I only have to have probable cause to make an arrest, not prove anything. So this concept does apply to traffic law, but it is really irrelevant to the stop or questioning.