TexasCHLforum.com

NcongruNt wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: My shift was sent from our city to a Port Aransas to assist with a huge beach riot once. There were PD's from everywhere there, as well as DPS from as far away as San Antonio.

A beach riot?? I have a hard time picturing anything resembling a riot on the lazy beaches of Port Aransas. What was going on? The only thing I can even remotely think of that would get to riot proportions would be Spring Breakers getting too rowdy.

dihappy wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

dihappy wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Absolutely. Non state LEO's are restricted in actions taken outside of their jurisdiction for traffic and other minor offenses.

My shift was sent from our city to a Port Aransas to assist with a huge beach riot once. There were PD's from everywhere there, as well as DPS from as far away as San Antonio.

I remember that
Those High School days were crazy :)

TX, how old are you, lol :)

Old enough. Two questions;

1) Were you there?


2) Do you remember how we cleared the beach?

1. Yes, i was near the crazy mob that overturned the vehicle ( i think it was only one vehicle).

2. No, we left when we saw them overturning the vehicle. I had a good feeling it was all going to you know what from there.

I graduated that year :)
Man, if i was 17 back then, you must of been like 40, so that makes you...daang :)

How did you clear the beach?

dihappy wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Absolutely. Non state LEO's are restricted in actions taken outside of their jurisdiction for traffic and other minor offenses.

My shift was sent from our city to a Port Aransas to assist with a huge beach riot once. There were PD's from everywhere there, as well as DPS from as far away as San Antonio.

I remember that
Those High School days were crazy :)

TX, how old are you, lol :)

kw5kw wrote:

txinvestigator wrote: Yeah, I almost added that they DO have traffic authority statewide. lol and the game violations come from the licensing requirements, but you ARE correct.

Actually, don't troopers have statewide authority... period. If an emergency exists in Orange, does not a trooper from El Paso have just as much authority when in Orange, helping out, as he does while doing his regular duties in El Paso.

Same would be true for a trooper from Dalhart going to Brownsville, wouldn't it?

Russ

srothstein wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

srothstein wrote:

easttexas wrote:Ok I'll throw this in while talking to my trooper friend said he knows of this officer that pulled me over and he is a new trooper. Interesting enough he said that the DPS has the right to search any vehical once pulled over for a viloation at any time unlike a city cop which might or might not have the right to search. Which is why DPS are called to stops at times for back-up (drug, weapons search).

Let me second Kevin on this. Troopers have very little authority any other peace officer does not (very little as in the only on I can think of offhand is for commercial vehicles, and that is only restricted away from small city departments, large cities and counties have it also). ?).

Troopers have no authority other Texas LEO's don't have.

Imagine the SCOTUS making a ruling and adding; "Except for the Texas DPS Troopers. That bunch is just superior to all other LEOs"

The level of officiousness I hear about from some LEO's is just appalling.

Actually, Troopers do have some authority other LEO's don't have. For example, in Section 14.03 of the CCP, you can see that city and county officers cannot arrest for most traffic offenses outside of the county they are based in.

The other authority I was referring to is the one for troopers, and other officers who are certified properly, to do commercial vehicle inspections. Federal law restricts what agencies can do this, and I think (without checking for accuracy) that no officer from a municipality with a population less than 50,000 can be certified as an inspector.


On the flip side, Game Wardens have some authority that even DPS does not. They have a "right" (well, that is what the law says anyway) to search based on reasonable suspicion for game violations (Parks and Wildlife Code 12.104).

I am curious about if this has ever been challenged out of the municipal court and up high enough. There are a couple of Transportation Code authorities that I think are not constitutional also, such as checking a motorcycle helmet for DOT compliance. Again, no one has challenged it as far as I know, but that is the way the law is written.

But these are written by the legislature, not SCOTUS. So far, SCOTUS has not bought into any agency's line that they are the only REAL police in the area and the others are not really police.

srothstein wrote:

easttexas wrote:Ok I'll throw this in while talking to my trooper friend said he knows of this officer that pulled me over and he is a new trooper. Interesting enough he said that the DPS has the right to search any vehical once pulled over for a viloation at any time unlike a city cop which might or might not have the right to search. Which is why DPS are called to stops at times for back-up (drug, weapons search).

Let me second Kevin on this. Troopers have very little authority any other peace officer does not (very little as in the only on I can think of offhand is for commercial vehicles, and that is only restricted away from small city departments, large cities and counties have it also). ?).

srothstein wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

easttexas wrote:Well I talked to a trooper I know and a retired Longview PD Capt. about this they both said the officer can do this and "not a good idea to pursue this any further." This "is tactics for people under suspicion with criminal records". I asked about a refuse to search and was told that will make you look guilty he might even impound the truck for a search and so on. So lesson learned if they want to search they can.

A LEO cannot legally simply "impound" a vehicle unless the operator is arrested or the vehicle is not registered, expired registration or if the operator has no insurance.

I beg to disagree with this part. A peace officer may impound a vehicle without arresting the driver if the vehicle is evidence of a crime, or for various other reasons. Consider the possibility that a vehicle is involved in a hit and run accident with injuries. I see the vehicle (identified from the front license plate left at the scene matching the rear one still on it) the next day. I impound the vehicle as evidence of the hit and run, gettign the damage before it can be repaired. I do not arrest the driver because I do not have probable cause to believe that person was operating the vehicle at the time of the accident. That is just one scenario.

Also, a peace officer may seize a vehicle to hold it while he gets a warrant for the search. In this case, the vehicle gets impounded (without an inventory if the officer know what is good for him) and pulled to a secure area until a warrant can be walked through. He still needs probable cause for the seizure. This is done a lot when they are looking for evidence of a kidnapping/murder in a car that takes a good evidence tech for the search instead of just the average officer on the street.

A LEO cannot simply impound the vehicle as subterfuge for searching a vehicle.

I do agree it can not be done as a pretext for searching without one of the other authorizing events (like the no insurance or similar).

nitrogen wrote:Ok, so another question:
let's say an officer removes me from my vehicle, and I lock my doors.

He asks to search the vehicle, and I tell him, "i don't consent to any searches"

What recorse does the officer have at that point if he really wants to search the vehicle? Can he just take the keys? Does he place me under arrest?

Also realising that this isn't the place to argue these things, but just wondering from a procedural standpoint.

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Terry and subsequent decisions allow Terry type searches of vehicles when the occupant has been removed.

I'd like to read a decision that allows an officer to force entry to a locked vehicle with nothing more than Terry as a basis.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Mike1951 wrote:In my opinion, once the driver was outside the car and separated from his firearms, there was no longer any issue about the trooper's safety and no reason to see the firearms.

Of course, you have never had a subject run back to his vehicle in an attempt to either get away or obtain a weapon. I have.

So to deal with that, do you handcuff all traffic stops and put them in the back of the car?

Sorry, but that's a strawman argument. Threatening behavior is entirely different from a scenario where a non-threatening motorist verbally objects to a broader search than should be allowed under Terry.

Kevin

KBCraig wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Search and seizure law is complex, and the side of the road is not the place you want a student to try to assert his limited and often wrong information.

However, the side of the road is exactly the place where the driver needs to make it absolutely clear that they do not give consent to any search that might take place.

If no consent is required, no harm.

However, the driver should limit the roadside interaction to making sure the police (and any witnesses, including dashboard video/audio) know that consent has not been given. And that's it -- no resistance, no roadside debates about the Constitution. Assert the right, but save the fight for later.

Kevin

easttexas wrote:Well I talked to a trooper I know and a retired Longview PD Capt. about this they both said the officer can do this and "not a good idea to pursue this any further." This "is tactics for people under suspicion with criminal records". I asked about a refuse to search and was told that will make you look guilty he might even impound the truck for a search and so on. So lesson learned if they want to search they can.

Skipper5 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:

Skipper5 wrote:[
I guess I better take off my NRA Life Member and TRSA Stickers off back window as relates 'reasonable suspicion' TXI?

I am in the middle of studying this topic to take my TCLEOSE exam. I do not believe an NRA or like sticker amounts to even reasonable suspicion.

Thanks TXI... appreciate your reply...How soon do you take your TCLEOSE? Do you already have a LEO job lined up, pending the exam?? It is your intention to return to LE full-time and drop the Security Officer position?

llwatson wrote:

carlson1 wrote: No Ma’am He can take your weapon until the stop is over. Reasons for search. . .
1. Immediate area for "his" safety
2. Probable cause.
3. Inventory search. - This is done after an arrest and everything in the vehicle is placed on a log. They say they do this to stop the tow truck driver, etc. . . from taking things and so the suspect can say something was taken, but it is a SEARCH.

I understand that a peace officer can disarm a CHL holder “at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual� (Section 411.207)

However, if my lawfully carried weapon is in a case, in my car, then removing me from the car effectively disarms me, right?

I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, but I need to know how to answer a student who asks me... does an officer have the right to search my car just because I am a lawfully armed CHL holder?

Skipper5 wrote:[
I guess I better take off my NRA Life Member and TRSA Stickers off back window as relates 'reasonable suspicion' TXI?