Stopped By DPS Today

[Jim Beaux]

Also, you havent been mirandized so your answers are inadmissable against you anyway.

Surprised that this slipped through without comment.

[speedsix]

...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

[srothstein]

I thought I would jump back in with my opinion on several points made in this thread so far.

An officer needs probable cause to make a traffic stop (this point has been disputed but it is what I believe). This can only possibly be true because violating a traffic law is a crime. In fact, in most cases, it is a class C misdemeanor but it can be higher. For example, passing a school bus is a class B (the fine can go over $500) or class A misdemeanor. And any misdemeanor is a crime, as defined by the law.

Any officer can arrest you for any traffic offense with the exception of two. And he can arrest you for those if you decline to sign the ticket - the law only requires that he offer you that option one time. Those two offenses are speeding and having an open container of alcoholic beverage in a car. Any other charge is automatically an arrestable offense and the officer does not have to allow you to sign the ticket. This has been to the SCOTUS in a case from Lago Vista and upheld. Sorry I don't remember the woman's name but she sued the department over being arrested and held in jail for an offense that is not punishable by jail time. She lost big time.

Now, as to whether or not the officer can ask questions, go fishing, or what he needs to know, there are differing facts to consider. One of the first has already been pointed out - you may not know what the officer is looking for or investigating. I have stopped people for traffic offenses that they committed when I was really investigating other crimes. A traffic stop is a perfect way to find out what is really going on. I have found burglars and rapists, among others, by talking with people during a traffic stop.

I generally do not believe in fishing expeditions without some suspicion. I definitely do not believe in violating people's rights. But if I have some suspicion, there is no reason for me to tell you what I am looking for when I ask you questions. So I might ask you where you are coming from or headed. This is valid and reasonable to me. And no, you do not have to answer any of these questions. As a matter of fact, I generally advise everyone to not talk to an officer without a lawyer.

As for the questions and Miranda, the case (Kurtz) that said that a traffic stop was an arrest specifically said that it was not a custodial arrest. Most people do not realize this, but you do not have to be mirandized just because you are under arrest or because a cop is asking you questions. The Miranda case laid out specific rules for when a person must be given a warning. They must be in custody and the officer must be asking questions designed to elicit an incriminating response. Some of the cases that have clarified this include things like the police going to someone's home to ask them questions. the suspect was not in custody so the statements were admissible. Also, freely made statements (called res gestae exclamations) where the officer asks no question or a non-incriminating question (what is your name and the person say they never meant to kill anyone) are admissible. Do not get caught up in what they show ion TV as it is not real law (or real police work or real forensics, but those are separate discussions).

And finally, corpus delicti means the body of the crime. this is the principle that says I must prove in court that you committed each of the required elements of the crime. For example, speeding has the elements of going faster than that speed which is reasonable and prudent, being in a motor vehicle (as defined in the law), and being on a public highway. The important part of this is that I have to prove it in court. I do not have to prove it to make the arrest. I only have to have probable cause to make an arrest, not prove anything. So this concept does apply to traffic law, but it is really irrelevant to the stop or questioning.

[bci21984]

You know you can't bring sense and reasoning into a discussion like this.

[speedsix]

..."fishing", like exploratory surgery...often saves lives...

[anygunanywhere]

The situation would be the culmination of your mood and his. 97.3% of the time youre going to get the attitude you give.

I never said I give the LEO a bad attitude. I can politely refuse to answer. My refusal to answer and exercising my right to not answer is in no way rude.

Anygunanywhere

[pmcdn]

I agree. The fact that the officer was friendly and no tickets were issued tells me that it was a friendly stop. Could have been way worse.

I don't understand the blatant uncooperativeness some people display or would display to a few simple questions. Attitude plays a very large part in roadside encounters with police. They are people just like you. You dont enjoy dealing with disgruntled/irritated/uncooperative people anymore than law enforcement does. He stated the officer wasnt overly nice but was professional. Signing a ticket on the roadside is a privelage. Getting a warning is an even bigger one. There are only a few "traffic" violations that you can't be arrested for. No front plate, and expired reg/insp are arrestable offenses. Why take the chance of your attitude getting you arrested.

Whats to say the officer didnt get a printout in briefing of a VW thats suspected of "insert heinous crime", and his vehicle matched the description. Dps stops the vehicle for "no front plate.". Trooper has the man driving exit the vehicle to get him in view of the dashcam for later review. Trooper asesses that this individual doesnt match the suspect but the vehicle matches. Where are you coming from, where are you going are valid investigative questions to ask. A defiant, even though polite, attitude from you sends red flags up to the officer. So the officer decides to instanter you on the traffic violations and impound the car. You get taken to jail, they dont let guns go to jail. Youve now gotta get out of jail, get your car out of car jail, and jump through the hoops of getting your gun(s) back.

Which is more of an inconvience?

[thenick_ttu]

I generally do not believe in fishing expeditions without some suspicion. I definitely do not believe in violating people's rights. But if I have some suspicion, there is no reason for me to tell you what I am looking for when I ask you questions. So I might ask you where you are coming from or headed. This is valid and reasonable to me. And no, you do not have to answer any of these questions. As a matter of fact, I generally advise everyone to not talk to an officer without a lawyer.

I generally have no problem answering questions such as "where are you going" "where are you coming from" etc. I've always thought those types of questions were used to identify people smuggling drugs, etc. After all, if a driver doesn't have a good answer to those questions, then he's probably up to no good.

But to play devil's advocate, I have a question about the quoted paragraph for all LEOs in this thread... srothstein says that he asks questions and he understands that drivers do not have to answer his question. I'm curious as to an officer's though process if I do indeed decline to answer? Does that make the officer more suspicious or do most officers understand it is a "gray-area" question and usually just move along?

[speedsix]

...the answers to that are about "reading" the person and the individual officer's personality...and it could go many different ways...
...the officer could admit to himself that the person was within his rights, and go to another subject...or he could get his feelings hurt and immediately begin writing a ticket on a violation that he might have let go with a warning...he might start a campaign of finding something wrong to "show" the person, or he might size up the person and realize he/she wasn't likely up to anything and go on and warn them and let them go...attitude and demeanor let him know a lot...and affect his responses...

...about all we can do is start out friendly and respectful, then stand up for our rights as we feel necessary, knowing that there may be consequences if the officer doesn't respond well...all within the law...I'd rather refuse a search of my vehicle, for instance, and risk the officer taking it personally...than to roll over and just play yessir, and hope that all went well...life does have some risks...and we don't always come out well...but it's still better to stand up than to lay down....

...back in the 60s when the only thing we had was NCIC and the link was often down...our perception and whatever info we could get from observation and conversation was about all we had to work with...now, with computers, the officers may know things about me that I don't know myself when they pull me over...

[Jumping Frog]

I view each of these encounters as an opportunity for negotiation and compromise. Someone is going to get a ticket today, but it doesn't have to be me.

[GeekDad]

...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

[ScooterSissy]

...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

I think you should run with that, and let us all know how it goes.

Frankly, every time I have to break for a speeder, slow down for someone running a red light, or swerve to avoid another idiot too busy talking on their phone to look over their shoulder for a bike - I'm an injured party.

[speedsix]

...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

...no, what you SAID was:

" Sorry but no traffic stop is a crime. Look up the rulings and law for corpus delicti
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti#_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is my biggest problem with traffic stops, you are not committing a crime therefore cops have no authority to summon you to court or charge you with anything. If their is no injury their is no crime. And they are not infractions. Class C misdemeanor is considered a crime under Texas penal code. Their I just gave you a solid defense against any and all traffic tickets. But you can't win in local courts, judges dont care about the law they are suppose to up hold they are too busy getting funds added to their pensions per citation. Which also is a conflict of interest. "

...and THAT'S what I took issue with because it is wrong...in Texas, a traffic stop IS a crime...and all that in the second paragraph is not correct, either...you can't take definitions from Wiki or any other source and make them fit in Texas...our law is what it is...other states and Wiki don't control Texas....the "Corpus Delecti" theory doesn't fit here...Texas does it the Texas way...

[GeekDad]

...even citing Wiki, which is not top shelf legal advice, this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; disputes the "fact" that a traffic offense is not a crime...I hope any lawyer telling us that gives refunds...

I just sited wiki to give you a definition. How to actually defend your self in court is a whole other subject.

...the point I was making is that what you stated and used the "Wikilink" to back up is incorrect in Texas law...and even Wiki will tell you that...in Texas, a traffic offense is, in fact, a crime...

That's what I said... In most states a Traffic office is considered a "Infraction" but not in Texas, its considered a Class C Misdemeanor and by Texas Penal code that is a "Crime." That in turn validates my explanation of Corpus Delicti.
The Definition is, Corpus delicti requires at a minimum: 1) The occurrence of the specific injury; and 2) some criminal agency as the source of the injury.
For example:
Homicide - 1.) An individual has died; and 2.) By a criminal act.
Larceny - 1.) Property missing; and 2.) Because it was stolen

So if you committed a "crime" by "Speeding" their is no Corpus Delicti because their is no injury to anyone.

...no, what you SAID was:

" Sorry but no traffic stop is a crime. Look up the rulings and law for corpus delicti
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corpus_delicti#_" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is my biggest problem with traffic stops, you are not committing a crime therefore cops have no authority to summon you to court or charge you with anything. If their is no injury their is no crime. And they are not infractions. Class C misdemeanor is considered a crime under Texas penal code. Their I just gave you a solid defense against any and all traffic tickets. But you can't win in local courts, judges dont care about the law they are suppose to up hold they are too busy getting funds added to their pensions per citation. Which also is a conflict of interest. "

...and THAT'S what I took issue with because it is wrong...in Texas, a traffic stop IS a crime...and all that in the second paragraph is not correct, either...you can't take definitions from Wiki or any other source and make them fit in Texas...our law is what it is...other states and Wiki don't control Texas....the "Corpus Delecti" theory doesn't fit here...Texas does it the Texas way...

What I was saying is simply this... through a Corpus Delicti argument as a defense, traffic stops are not proven crimes because their is no injury. Corpus Delicti is used in Texas... more commonly through for Murders and other similar charges... but it does have application to any Criminal Case. WHICH is why I said that traffic tickets are Class C Misdemeanors, which by definition in the Penal code is a "Crime." Again... the only reason I brought up the fact that other states is due to other states calling traffic violations "infractions" even through their is no Infraction code in their laws... that is a whole other conversation.

And the Wiki link was for the definition... wiki is not a solid source of information, and most colleges will not accept them as a valid source. I know this... so you are reading too much in to the wiki link.

Their are several rulings in Texas about corpus delicti, one of the most recent is a case involving Chrysler Corporation but I can not dig up the site I have used in the past for this info.

[speedsix]

...it's clear what you SAID...and that's what I responded to, quite different from what you claimed you said...or are now saying...
...I'm not "reading too much in to the Wiki link"...I'm merely reading what the link said that you posted to support what your post said, and telling you that it doesn't apply to Texas law...things are different here...and the whole Corpus Delecti argument doesn't work in the traffic area...the offense is against the State...the State is considered "the injured party" when we commit a "victimless" crime...
...the only reason it's important to me is that for someone to say a traffic offense is not a crime, and go on to say what the officer can and can't do and so on, as you did in the post that I replied to, sets someone up to get in a lot of trouble...because the whole argument there is simply not based on accurate facts...and I'm sure neither you nor I want that to happen...