Search found 4 matches

by LabRat
Sat Dec 27, 2014 4:01 pm
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO
Replies: 126
Views: 34578

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

hillfighter wrote:
LabRat wrote:I do know that Carrollton Police will tow a car if there is no insurance and they find it on the roadway. Good for them.
I wasn't sure if "find it on the roadway" includes traffic stops but if it does I think that's a great idea. Especially if they apply the same standard to vehicles with out of state and foreign plates. They're also required to have proof of financial responsibility if they operate the vehicle on Texas roads.
There is no distinction in Municipal Code about in-state or out-of-state vehicles. From the Municipal Code:

Sec. 70.53. - Authority to direct traffic and remove vehicles.
(D) A police officer is authorized to remove or cause the removal of a vehicle or other property of any description from a street to a place designated by the Chief of Police when the vehicle is stopped for an alleged violation of a city or state traffic law or other law applicable to the operation of a vehicle on the roadway and the vehicle's owner or operator fails to show evidence of financial responsibility as required under Chapter 601 of the Texas Transportation Code, as amended.

(E) A vehicle removed and towed under this section must be kept at the place designated by the Chief of Police until application for redemption is made by the owner or the owner's authorized agent, who will be entitled to possession of the vehicle upon payment of costs of towing, notification, impoundment, and storage. I assume they must also have proof of insurance in order to operate the vehicle on city streets.

In the car insurance world, financial responsibility refers to money you are responsible for paying to someone when you cause damages or injuries in an accident. For example, if you get into a car accident and it is determined that you caused the car accident, you can be held financially responsible for any costs related to injuries or property damages suffered by other people as a result of that crash. Most states require you to prove that you are "financially responsible" for potential accidents. Insurance is the most common way folks prove this. Some people can be self-insured, but I think you have to have a bunch of money set aside for that purpose.

So if the Carrollton police have the opportunity to legally encounter the vehicle under any circumstances and the operator fails to show proof of insurance then the police are authorized to remove said vehicle.
by LabRat
Thu Dec 25, 2014 10:43 am
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO
Replies: 126
Views: 34578

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

JP171 wrote:
and the requirement to carry proof of insurance hasn't been removed from the law
Absolutely correct. Still a requirement and you should have it.
There are plenty of folks driving around without insurance...usually discovered when an accident occurs.

If I have to pay for car insurance, so should everyone. It's the fair thing to do. I do know that Carrollton Police will tow a car if there is no insurance and they find it on the roadway. Good for them. Not a dreaded seizure; just get insurance and reclaim the car.

LabRat
by LabRat
Wed Dec 24, 2014 1:48 pm
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO
Replies: 126
Views: 34578

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

Abraham wrote:nightmare69,

You said: "All that comes back is name and address of owner, insurance infomation, and if the vehicle is stolen."

Insurance information being that you have it and it's current or ...?

If that's the case, why do we have to show proof of insurance if the insurance information is in the system?

Thanks!
The insurance database is only about 85% accurate. It has gaps and incorrect information and this admission is from the State of Texas website. But cops are trained to ask so they ask.

LabRat
by LabRat
Fri Oct 31, 2014 8:50 pm
Forum: LEO Contacts & Bloopers
Topic: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO
Replies: 126
Views: 34578

Re: Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO

StrangeBulge wrote:Headed home from early voting, noticed Rosenberg PD cruiser passing cars behind me, exceeding the 30 mph speed limit , other moving violations, no lights no siren. Once directly behind me she hit the lights and the siren.

I pulled into a parking lot, put the car in park, rolled down all four windows, turned radio off, was digging dl and chl out of wallet as she approached. In friendly and non confrontational manner she asked for my license and insurance ( which was still in the glove box). I handed her my dl and chl with my left hand while keeping my right hand on the wheel and returned my left hand to the top of the wheel.

She reacted badly ... placed her left hand on her pistol, removed the retention, stepped back behind me, and demanded in a shrill voice "ARE YOU ARMED!" Calmly stated that i was armed. She asked "WHERE IS IT!". Calmly stated on my right hip. Was instructed "not to reach for it", She asked again for the insurance card, calmly told her that the card was in the glove box and asked if she would be ok with me opening the glove box to produce the card ....

she starts in with the 100 questions while still standing behind me were i cannot turn and make eye contact ...
At some point she noticed that i was becoming annoyed, stated that i had an attitude, stated that her posture was for officer safety and that i had been pulled over for rolling through a stop sign. I informed her that " I understand you are extremely uncomfortable with me being armed".

She instructed me to keep my hands on the wheel and took a position behind the passenger side of the cruiser while calling the stop via remote.

...

Got a warning, was told that i did not need to appear, no fine etc, thanked me for keeping my hands on the wheel and that me being armed was "perfectly legal" ... with her hand still on her pistol ... some people are too tense and should not be cops!

Traffic stops are dangerous and there is a certain amount of tension just due to the adversarial encounter....after all, no one wants to be stopped either correctly or incorrectly. As Texas CHLs we keep remembering that a courteous opening into a traffic stop contact is a good way to keep the tension to a minimum.

But I think the police can also be courteous....it has nothing to do with "not being cautious or not being vigilant". Those are 2 totally different concepts. 1 is a state of mental preparedness (calm but alert and vigilant) and the other is the physical manifestation of an failure to mentally prepare (escalation attitude, reaching for her gun, yelling, demanding control, etc.) for an encounter.

I'm originally from North Carolina. The Highway Patrol Troopers are some of the most competent, if not nicest folks you'd ever have to meet in a traffic stop. They smile, they're courteous; "Yes sir", "Yes ma'am", "Here's your ticket." "Please step out of the vehicle", etc. But they will shoot you in a heartbeat if they're forced into it. They're not unprepared, they're not letting their vigilance down, they know what they're doing; period. And it translates into a calm understanding of what is happening and what might have to happen; but only when it's required.

Give the account provided as written, the officer escalated the tension of the encounter because she was unprepared for an a citizen having a firearm. That's what she reacted to, not fumbling for the license or other documents. It appears that she got scared and her flight-or-fight adrenaline kicked into overdrive and you can see the result, posture, voice pitch change and aggressiveness, etc.

It's hard to fathom the idea of being a Texas police officer and not being aware that guns are common given the laws and practices in the state, but I guess it's possible.

This unpreparedness and the subsequent physical reactions are not a good indicator that she is fully trained. Somethings lacking here if this is a common physical response to stress.

Also, given the account of her approach (aggressive driving, speeding, etc.), she may have been carrying a previous problem encounter with her. She needs to remember that Driver #2 right now, doesn't know anything about Driver #1 that happened 5 minutes ago. That problem is hers, not Driver #2's - unless she continues it into the next stop.

This encounter ended well; but did not go well. Her parting with the warning and "being armed is ok" reaction indicates she somewhat came to her senses after her brain processed the event. She may have even been a little embarrassed.

Kudos to the OP for staying calm, taking the de-escalation approach and keeping this situation from getting dicey. The officer benefited even in her panic mode.

LabRat

Return to “Unpleasant encounter with Rosenberg LEO”