TexasCHLforum.com

knljr wrote:I drive a very nicely kept 1987 Porsche 944 Turbo - it's not my daily driver...it's 25 years old with barely 70k miles on it.

I was driving in the middle of a pack of cars going around 5 or so over on a street with stop lights every quarter to half mile in rush hour type traffic.

At one point I look in my rear view and see this motorcycle cop weaving in and out of the traffic to catch up with me and blinks his lights, so I pull over into a Walgreen's parking lot.

First question he asks me is "What year is it?". :( I play along and when he finally asks me for my ID/insurance and I hand him both my ID and CHL. He proceeds to ask if I was carrying and I was not. He asks when was the last time I got a ticket - I replied at least five years ago. He then asks me another half dozen questions about my car, which I answer politely and he proceeds to go back to his putt-putt and write me a ticket for 5 over. At that point, I was like what the heck - and I told him that I saw him way before he saw me and that I was in the middle of a pack of cars and was keeping up with the traffic to which he replied, "Well, that's what happens when you drive the fast car...".

My sister-in-law is an attorney and I told her the story. Long story short, got off scott-free on that one.

My roommate in college had a Jaguar XKE and got stopped for speeding by the Virginia State Police. Like you, he told the officer that he was just moving with the flow of traffic; and the officer responded: some people move with the flow, some people create the flow, and you were creating.

tornado wrote:Not to hijack the thread, but to get it back to a discussion of a previously mentioned odd stop...

VMI77 wrote:he pulled me over because he thought I had a GPS attached to my windshield

Whoa, wait. Where in Texas is that illegal?

OK, now I've looked around and found the state law, and it says:

TRANSPORTATION CODE / TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC / SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD / CHAPTER 547. VEHICLE EQUIPMENT / SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS wrote:Sec. 547.613. RESTRICTIONS ON WINDOWS. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense that is a misdemeanor:
(1) if the person operates a motor vehicle that has an object or material that is placed on or attached to the windshield or side or rear window and that obstructs or reduces the operator's clear view

I thought general consensus was that windshield mounts that didn't block your view were legal in Texas. I've used them low, keeping the GPS (or more recently, the phone) near the dashboard.

So I suppose the LEO thought VMI77 had a GPS attached to the windshield that was obstructing or reducing the driver's clear view.

I've moved away from windshield mounts because they keep falling off in the summer heat. My current mount is a binder clip and two rubber bands. (I skipped step 2.) And I got my wife one that mounts low on the dashboard (because her prindle stick is too close to the vent).

ETA: Why isn't this in "LEO Contacts & Bloopers"?

Obstructing vision was indeed the basis of the stop. Frankly, I don't quite understand why the same device in basically the same position it would be if it was on the window is any less of an obstruction, but as you quote the law, it appears to be written so that a dash mount is ok. It was a surprise to me as well because our other vehicle has a windshield mounted GPS and we've never been stopped for it obstructing our view. Of course, there is the possibility that I was stopped for some other reason and the obstruction reason was a more expedient explanation. But the stop was very brief...he looked at my DL and CHL, asked if I was armed, then said the reason he stopped me was because he thought the GPS was on the windshield, apologized, and went back to his vehicle. I doubt the whole encounter lasted much more that 30 seconds from the time he came up to my window until he returned to his vehicle.

He was professional and courteous and I didn't feel burdened by the stop. In fact, I find the Highway 77 Border Patrol stop to be much more burdensome and intrusive than this brief interlude --and it's always there, a plethora of cameras lined up on the southbound side, and a stop, with sometimes several minutes of delay going north. Also more aggravating, because I'm traveling in my own country and not crossing any international borders, but I'm stopped like I've just been to Mexico, when I've done nothing to warrant it. If this LEO thought he spotted something else and stopped me for it....I'm not particularly bothered because he had a reason and when he saw he was wrong, he apologized and went on his way, all professionally and courteously. And BTW, I've never had an unprofessional contact with the DPS, or local police in Texas, for that matter; but I've had a Connecticut State Trooper come up to my window shouting a mouthful of expletives for a minor traffic violation, attempting to escalate the stop into some kind of major lawbreaking, only to blow off the whole thing as nothing when he discovered the vehicle I was driving had been loaned to me by a friend of his.

carlson1 wrote:Bad folks in every bunch. LEO's are no exception, especially if they have the attitude of killing everyone they stop. No traffic stop is routine and they should be ready for anything that might take place, but exiting the patrol car with the attitude of I am going to kill you is extreme.

All most makes you not want to teach children that the police are their friends. I am an ex State LEO in my other life and my youngest son is a LEO in an East Texas town. I ride out with him ever 45 days. I have never seen the attitude that has been shown here in this thread from any of those fine young men in that department.

I am PRO Police, but it makes me have second thoughts.

I think you're misinterpreting his statement. I thought the phrase came originally from Col. Jeff Cooper, but after a little research all I can find for attribution, besides the Marine officer named by others here (and this phrase precedes the war in Iraq), is that it's one of the Marine "Rules for Gun Fighting."

All it intends is that with any encounter you assess the tactical situation and decide beforehand what you will do if the encounter goes south. This is good advice for anyone, armed or not....especially perhaps if unarmed...but I see it as essential to survival for any LEO stopping strangers in vehicles. If you practice it becomes habitual and will greatly increases your odds of survival when suddenly confronted with the unexpected. It has absolutely nothing to do with any desire or intent to kill anyone.

steveincowtown wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.

I agree, it is very much a personal decision on what exercising a right is worth. What I always find very odd on this board is that when we talk about the 2nd Amendment there are people here who would (literally) give their life for it.

Then, when the subject changes to the 4th Amendment a certain percentage of folks immediately are willing to give up their rights just to keep from upsetting an LEO or because "they have nothing to hide, so why not."

If an LEO gets upset because I am lawfully carrying a weapon and won't give him consent to search that is on him, not me. I always decline respectfully (the sentence usually starts with "Officer, I mean this with no disrespect to you or the job your are trying to do...) and I expect the same respect in return. If an Officer cannot provide that respect he needs to find a new line of work.

For me personally no one right is more important to me than another. The are all my rights and I will exercise them as I see fit.

To each his own though!

For what it's worth, I believe those who think they have "nothing to hide" are refusing to face what the country has become. The person with "nothing to hide" does not exist in reality because the government now takes what isn't hidden and re-interprets it to serve whatever interest it is pursuing. So anything any normal person possesses is something they may try to hang you with. A gas container and empty bottles in your garage? Why you're a potential terrorist. Three guns in your safe? You've got an arsenal. And why does anyone "need" an AK-47? 1,000 rounds of .22 LR? You've got a cache of ammunition. Been reading websites about military tactics? Have a copy of The Constitution in your car? --ever seen the video of how the two LEO's react who find a copy of The Constitution while searching a woman's car? One actually asks the other if it is legal for her to have it.

When I was in the military there was a case off-base where a young man was accused of a horrific crime and the authorities practically ruined his life. The thing is, he didn't do it, and that fact only came out because they eventually caught the guy who did. On the scantiest of evidence the police decided this kid was a likely suspect and simply re-interpreted whatever they found in his home to fit the conclusion that he was guilty --and this, without finding a single thing that was illegal to own or possess. If the guilty party had not been caught --accidentally btw-- this kid would very probably have spent the most of, if not the rest of his life in prison.

The assumption that one has nothing to hide is no smarter than going outside at night by yourself to confront a prowler.

steveincowtown wrote:

VMI77 wrote: I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.

C-dub wrote:I'm torn between my friendly good nature and my general distrust of anyone asking me questions like that when I know they aren't really interested and not wanting to be taken advantage of or having my rights violated.

In a situation like this, if I do politely refuse the search and the officer knows he is unable to go ahead and search the vehicle anyway, I pretty sure I'm going to get the ticket. So, now, I'm also torn between my desire to stand up for my rights and my desire to not get a ticket I would have little to no chance of fighting successfully.

There must be other factors at work in these stops that result in disarming and fishing.....since I got my CHL I've been armed in every encounter I've had with LE.....I've never been asked to step out of the car, never had the gun mentioned again after being asked if I was armed and answering in the affirmative.....never been asked if it is ok for a search (and never been searched). I've been stopped by both DPS and local LE.... sometimes in known drug corridors.... and have had encounters with the Border Patrol and Game Warden out in the most remote parts of West Texas. Only one stop by the DPS was unmerited....he pulled me over because he thought I had a GPS attached to my windshield....and just said it was his mistake once I handed him my license and CHL and he looked inside the car. So I wonder, am I defying the odds or are the stops that result in disarming the unusual stops?

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

gigag04 wrote:Seems standard - he lost me on the disarming but its within his right to do so so meh...

The questions might annoy you, but are great tools to lead million dollar cartel cash seizures, dope, and stolen guns. It wasn't anything personal to you, he just has a job he's trying to do to likely provide for his family. What I have found is that a little patience, perspective, and understanding from both parties can make things go much easier.

Just curious...would you lean inside a vehicle to retrieve a gun with a "suspect" 15 feet away if you hadn't searched him first....or even if you had? It seems like a pretty vulnerable position to me, and if the officer is trusting the suspect enough to believe he's got a gun in the center console, and no weapons on his person, then what's the point in retrieving the gun?