DPS

[txinvestigator]

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).

Your point is well taken and true. I was simply referring to a cop getting mad because you refuse a search and impounding the vehicle simply to get a search minus any 'real" reason, as was implied in the post I was responding to.

[txinvestigator]

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.

[KBCraig]

Alright, I dont know what law or laws he was quoting but he seemed very matter of fact about all the answers so Im not going to test him.

That's what he's counting on.

You've just witnessed a professional skill in action: the bluff. Every time you pass a car that's been pulled over in the interstate, and the occupants are sitting on the guard rail while an officer or trooper has all their possessions piled on the ground while he searches the car, chances are they gave consent.

It may not have been informed consent, and may not have been earnest, but they said yes and signed a consent-to-search form, based on bluffs like you just encountered.

Kevin

[anygunanywhere]

This has been an interesting thread, and a lot of the opinions reinforce what I already knew about searches during traffic stops.

It has been a long time since any LEO asked to search my vehicle. I suppose with age, appearance, and to a large degree where I live the subject just has not come up during a stop.

Just a thought, and this suggestion may not sit well with some. I do watch "Cops" when in a bored mood. I understand that they show selected situations for entertainment value, but you can see a lot of instances where you see the LEO's ask the individuals they encounter if they mind if they "take a look in their vehicle?". I have seen them turned down and start with the "What have you got to hide?" and "If you are not doing anything wrong...". Lots of fishing at times.

Knowing your rights and knowing how to handle the situations that you run into helps immensely. I am particularly careful since I drive a lot of rental cars. I always check the trunks, consoles, and glove compartments, but I do not give them as good a look as probably most LEO would if I were to ever consent to a search, which I will not. I have never been stopped while traveling because I take extra care to try to not break any traffic laws. Unfortunately a lot of the places I have to work are not the garden spots of the world. I am slated for Mexico this year and maybe another stint in Canada so I will be without my trusty pistolas.

Anygun

[srothstein]

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.

[TxFire]

I am happy to see "informed consent" mentioned in this thread. This is a term and principal I deal with on the EMS side of my job. So my question to the LEO's is do you get informed consent or just consent when you request a search. I believe there is a HUGE distinction. What does the law "require" regarding consent?

Below are Wikipedia definitions of each:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent

Thanks to all for their input on this. This is a great topic and has been handled very well.

[txinvestigator]

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.

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.

[kw5kw]

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

[txinvestigator]

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

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.

[srothstein]

TxFire,

The question of informed consent is not present for LEO's on searches like it is for medical treatment. I don't have to tell them anything about their right to refuse consent under the law, and can use tricky phrasing (like "mind if I look inside?") to get consent. The only requirements so far are that I cannot use force to get consent, including things that might look like force to a confused and innocent crook. I cannot call for the Swat team to be standing there in full gear when I ask if the crook will consent to a search, nor can I stand there hitting my hand with a nightstick or positions like that that are threatening.

But I can mislead people into almost anything. About the only lie I cannot use is the old, I will go down and get a warrant anyway if you do refuse" line, since that has been taken by the courts as coercion now. The easiest way is to act friendly and ask if there is anything in the car I should be aware of that could hurt me. You can even make it joking like asking if they have a machine gun in their pocket or something like that. After they say no, you ask if they mind if you look inside, just to satisfy yourself on it. The suspect will almost always consent thinking you are friendly and just worried about your safety, but by law he has just consented to a search of the car.

[carlson1]

But I can mislead people into almost anything. About the only lie I cannot use is the old, I will go down and get a warrant anyway if you do refuse" line, since that has been taken by the courts as coercion now. The easiest way is to act friendly and ask if there is anything in the car I should be aware of that could hurt me. You can even make it joking like asking if they have a machine gun in their pocket or something like that. After they say no, you ask if they mind if you look inside, just to satisfy yourself on it. The suspect will almost always consent thinking you are friendly and just worried about your safety, but by law he has just consented to a search of the car.

That is exactly what they ALL do. The answer for me is NO!

[Mithras61]

TxFire,

The question of informed consent is not present for LEO's on searches like it is for medical treatment. I don't have to tell them anything about their right to refuse consent under the law, and can use tricky phrasing (like "mind if I look inside?") to get consent. The only requirements so far are that I cannot use force to get consent, including things that might look like force to a confused and innocent crook. I cannot call for the Swat team to be standing there in full gear when I ask if the crook will consent to a search, nor can I stand there hitting my hand with a nightstick or positions like that that are threatening.

But I can mislead people into almost anything. About the only lie I cannot use is the old, I will go down and get a warrant anyway if you do refuse" line, since that has been taken by the courts as coercion now. The easiest way is to act friendly and ask if there is anything in the car I should be aware of that could hurt me. You can even make it joking like asking if they have a machine gun in their pocket or something like that. After they say no, you ask if they mind if you look inside, just to satisfy yourself on it. The suspect will almost always consent thinking you are friendly and just worried about your safety, but by law he has just consented to a search of the car.

The "mind if I look inside?" line is tricksy. If they answer only "yes" or "no" it could be taken as consent (e.g. - "yes, you may look" or "no, I don't mind"). If stopped and asked this, it might be best if you answer with clarity (e.g. - "I do/do not not mind" or "Yes, I object" or whatever). I'm not recommending for or against a search (although in my case you'd likely find lots of old french fries & such under the back seats - my kids aren't the neatest & I haven't had a chance to clean the car lately... ). What I'm trying to suggest is that you communicate in clear sentences and not just monosyllables.

[stevie_d_64]

Regardless if you say "yes" or "no" to any leading question, to any request to a search, I would always say: (without skipping a beat)

"I do not concent to a search. Am I free to go?"

See...Deep down, I am just not worth for someone to get excited about if I refuse to consent to a search...

Not trying to be mean, or uncooperative, or disrespectful to anyone...

Nor do I expect a free bowl of soup or any special considerations just because I have a CHL either...

[srothstein]

Mithras,

The trickiness of that question is why it is asked that way. Because the officers know that most people will not clearly enunciate and the SCOTUS has already siad any invocation of rights must be clear and unequivocal. That ruling was in response to questions about when a person asked for a lawyer, but the principle will hold.

I always recommend that people be very clear and explicit when authorizing or declining a search. I have always wanted to see a young rookies face when someone says "Yes, you can look inside the passenger area, but not inside the glove box or trunk." The limits are clearly stated and he is going to die of curiousity trying to find a way inside those areas.

[cxm]

I would not see either of these people as good sources of advice on this... both have a "point of view" and they certainly are not on your side.

Bottom line: If you think the Trooper's conduct was improper make the complaint. If you don't think it was improper let the subject die.

FWIW

Chuck

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 will.