TexasCHLforum.com

srothstein wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 10:36 pm

carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:29 pm What would be her probable cause for a search? Because RPBrown had a LTC and was not armed does not articulate that he was committing a crime. When I went to the academy 100 years ago we had weeks of search and seizure law. Most if the TCLOSE (TCOLE Now) test covered search and seizure.

She would not need probable cause if RPBrown consented to a search. And I know a lot of rookies who ask for consent at almost every stop. I had one I was training about 20 years ago that told me he did it because he found a lot of the time there was some small amount of drugs (usually marijuana) in the car and got got an arrest. I pointed out that by waiting for real probable cause, I may only get half the arrests that he did, but they were all people who really deserved a trip to jail.

Rookies seemed to prefer quantity over quality (and I am not exempting myself from when I was a rookie).

On a side note, I am coming out of retirement and going back on patrol soon. Things have changed a lot in the 15 years since I left law enforcement. The town I will be working in is a small town on IH-35 south of San Antonio and the major problem they are concentrating on now is smuggling - large drug shipments or illegal aliens. Now I have to learn a whole new set of cues for who to stop.

Be careful and stay safe. If you work traffic patrol you should get plenty of business. I am up that way a many times a year at my daughter's and also the deer lease. We have a running joke that "it's in the water" for the stupid antics of drivers. My son-in-law is a Captain with Canyon Lake ESD.

carlson1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:29 pm What would be her probable cause for a search? Because RPBrown had a LTC and was not armed does not articulate that he was committing a crime. When I went to the academy 100 years ago we had weeks of search and seizure law. Most if the TCLOSE (TCOLE Now) test covered search and seizure.

Sadly some police aren't up to speed in training and some in common sense and some just iintelligence. I watched a video last night of a visually impaired man walking with his fold up came sticking out of his back pocket because if there's daylight he can get by without it. The female office stops him because she thinks the cane is a firearm and he's illegally he's carrying. He shows her the cane which it obviously was even while in his back pocket and then she demands his ID. Back and forth between the two because he knew his righta and quotes almost verbatim the requirements to have to ID oneself to a PO. He reiterated it several times even after another cop, a sergeant, shows up and tells him he has to ID. Sargent puts him in handcuffs and searches all his pockets and gets his wallet and effects then puts him the car. After they un-cuff him and say "see how simple that was" He wants their names and badge numbers and the sergeant tells the office to arrest him for obstruction. Charges dropped. There will be a big payoff when the guy sues. Both cops violated policy, several laws and the Constitution. I am a huge supporter of the police, belong to a support organization for our local PD and also the PD's citizen patrol group, but I know some cops need to find other work.