A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

CHL discussions that do not fit into more specific topics

Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton


talltex
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 10
Posts: 782
Joined: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:40 pm
Location: Waco area

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#106

Post by talltex »

C-dub wrote:
SewTexas wrote:minor fender bender = major apb??? really???
It's the "run" part. I think it's a felony.
yep...third degree felony now..."EVADING ARREST OR DETENTION WITH VEHICLE" is the charge. It's a good thing it wasn't a felony back in the early 70's...but then again, I got away...not from a wreck or anything...just trying to keep from getting a speeding ticket...REAL smart, huh? :oops: But times WERE different back then... all the troopers knew us on a first name basis, knew where we lived, who we ran around with, who we were dating, and how many points we scored at the basketball game Teusday night. A few days later I was at the Dairy Queen after a game and he walked in, looked at me and just motioned with his finger for me to step outside and told me "you may have got away, but son, there's only one green and black Challenger in town and I'm not blind...now you're a good kid, but don't you EVER pull that kind of stunt again, understood?" I said "Yes Sir"... he patted me on the shoulder and said "allright then, get on back in there". We became good friends later on and one of my buddies that was with me in the car is married to his daughter. I understand things have changed since then, but I really miss that kind common sense law enforcement that sought to"take care of" and "correct" rather then "punish".
"I looked out under the sun and saw that the race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong" Ecclesiastes 9:11

"The race may not always go to the swift or the battle to the strong, but that's the way the smart money bets" Damon Runyon
User avatar

sjfcontrol
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 9
Posts: 6267
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:14 am
Location: Flint, TX

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#107

Post by sjfcontrol »

jimlongley wrote:
Sangiovese wrote: . . . I think the same would apply while running a serial number. The officer has the right to disarm the OP. And although it's a lousy thing to do, he's probably in the clear for running the serial number... but only if he can do it without extending the stop unless he has PC.
I even have a problem with running the serial number.

Why?

Because I have no way of knowing that that serial number has not now been recorded in a database along with my particulars.

THIS!! :iagree:
Range Rule: "The front gate lock is not an acceptable target."
Never Forget. Image
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 7
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#108

Post by VMI77 »

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.
Last edited by VMI77 on Fri Oct 19, 2012 9:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

SewTexas
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 3509
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 11:52 pm
Location: Alvin
Contact:

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#109

Post by SewTexas »

I wasn't questioning weather a hit-and-run was illegal, but the minor fender bender seemed to be used to stop someone who was obviously not the driver. beige is not yellow, yellow is not beige, it is not 'close enough'

(yes, I know, I'm a sewist, I work in color, I'm a "color perfectionist" according to the Mister)
~Tracy
Gun control is what you talk about when you don't want to talk about the truth ~ Colion Noir
User avatar

v-rog
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 794
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 10:14 am
Location: Grand Prairie, Texas

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#110

Post by v-rog »

gigag04 wrote:
fratermus wrote:
Stripes Dude wrote:Yikes.....careful there big guy.....you may not realize it, but you are starting to prove some of the points you obviously don't agree with.
I was thinking the same thing.
Be nice, but have a plan to kill everyone you meet. Nothing wrong with that

Survive working the hood for a few years and then say something about the above comments.


Until then, I couldn't care less about how you take that.
I totally understand this statement and I agree with it. Two combat tours in Iraq cemented this viewpoint in my mind. All it takes is being shot at multiple times, almost blown-up, and being in constant danger for a prolonged period of time. Go through a violent trauma and then you start to see the world (including the good 'ol US of A) differently and without blinders.

And by the way, there is a difference between having a plan (thought) and carrying it out (action).
_____________________________________________________________________________________
Remember 31 Connollystraße & Benghazi
Faith Under Fire ISBN# 9780307408815
User avatar

03Lightningrocks
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 11454
Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Plano

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#111

Post by 03Lightningrocks »

So... most here seem to agree that some of the issues involved with the O.P.'s original post were out of line. My problem is this. I am real darned hesitant to get involved in a verbal confrontation with an officer who has me pulled over on the side of the road. I do have a limit on how much abuse I will take but an officer giving me the thirty question interrigation is not enough for me to start a debate on who has the toughest daddy.

While having my rights trampled is not something I will let them get away with, stopping them in the process is a whole different matter. What am i going to do? Tell the guy to kiss off and end up going to jail over something insignificant like not wanting to allow them to check the serial number on a gun I know is legal??? I dunno... it is a hard situation at best and it seems to me if I start protesting to much, I might cause them to think I am up to no good.
User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#112

Post by A-R »

someone sent me this via a Facebook page called "Cop Humor" and thought it was relevant enough to this discussion to share - please take in the semi-joking, sarcastic/cynical context it was intended (in other words, don't take it too seriously :cheers2: )
WHY POLICE CAN HARASS PEOPLE.....

This is taken from California e-mail "Community Policing" question-and-answer forum.

The question was: I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to harass people and get away with it? And where can you go for help other than a civil attorney.

And the reply was:

It is not easy. In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.

So, one on duty cop is responsible to harass about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible to harass 20,000 or more people a day.

A ten hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and three fourths of a second to eat a donut AND find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down who we harass.

They are as follows:

Phone: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on weeknights is "The kids next door are having a party.
Cars: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration tabs, and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious then running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.

Runners: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.

Codes: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that offer ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called Codes. The Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, Business and Professions. . . They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people.

After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it because the good citizens who pay the tab like that we keep the streets safe for them. Next time you are in my town, give me a single finger wave. That is a signal that you wish me to take a little closer look at you, and maybe find a reason to harass you.

Looking forward to meeting you.
User avatar

Texas Dan Mosby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:54 pm

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#113

Post by Texas Dan Mosby »

It's "fishing", and it's no good for ANYBODY, citizen or LEO alike.

This approach erodes faith in our LEO's, and encourages LEO's to violate the 4th amendment by "finding" a reason to pull over a vehicle driven by an individual/s that meet a profile [young male, out of state tags, driving on a known "drug corridor" OMG PULL HIM OVER!!!!!!], or "finding" a reason to search their person and vehicle in hopes of finding criminal goods [well, they LOOKED nervous when I interrogated them about drugs/guns, so THAT'S why I searched them.... and their vehicle... but they were "clean"].

Would citizens have a problem with LEO's going house to house looking for ordinance violations, and then interrogating home owners at their front doors? I would.

"Sir, did you know that your mail box violates county law? Are there any illegal goods in your home? How about drugs? Do you have any guns? You look kind of nervous, mind if I take a look in your home? I'm going to have to run the serial numbers of your guns, TV, computers, power tools, and cell phone through our system to make sure they aren't stolen, do you mind if I search you? It's for YOUR safety, and I'm sure you have NOTHING to hide right?"

"Fishing" does more harm than good, as this approach intentionally compromises the integrity of our LEO's, and when citizens lose faith in their police and government, things get.....ugly.
88 day wait for the state to approve my constitutional right to bear arms...
User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#114

Post by A-R »

BIG difference between vehicles and homes and courts have said so.

As for fishing, I dont disagree the serial # search could have been fishing (dont know enough to say for sure, but id say likely at this point) but the stop was legit (OP he admits he was speeding). If LEOs don't ask some basic probing questions when the make a legit stop/contact then when are they supposed to do so in order to catch felons/warrants, drugs, etc?

Oh would you prefer to go back to the good ol days of cops eating donuts and pretty much leaving everyone alone unless the get grossly out of line?

Sangiovese
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 415
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2007 10:34 pm
Location: Fort Worth

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#115

Post by Sangiovese »

A-R wrote:BIG difference between vehicles and homes and courts have said so.

As for fishing, I dont disagree the serial # search could have been fishing (dont know enough to say for sure, but id say likely at this point) but the stop was legit (OP he admits he was speeding). If LEOs don't ask some basic probing questions when the make a legit stop/contact then when are they supposed to do so in order to catch felons/warrants, drugs, etc?

Oh would you prefer to go back to the good ol days of cops eating donuts and pretty much leaving everyone alone unless the get grossly out of line?
As you say, the stop was legit. Asking questions during the stop is also ok. Extending the stop by ten minutes to run a serial number with no probable cause or "reasonably articulable suspicion" is not ok.

Probing questions are fine. Detaining people for longer than is required to issue the citation is not.

Side of the road isn't the place to argue it... a polite but firm letter to the chief would be my response.
NRA Endowment Member. Texas LTC Instructor. NRA certified Pistol & Home Firearm Safety Instructor - Range Safety Officer

Any comments about legal matters are general in nature and are not legal advice. Nothing posted on this forum is intended to establish an attorney-client relationship.
User avatar

E.Marquez
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2781
Joined: Sat Feb 20, 2010 11:48 pm
Location: Kempner
Contact:

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#116

Post by E.Marquez »

Ok assuming the stop was legit.

Asking questions during the stop relative to the infraction observed is ok.

Extending the stop by any amount of time to run a serial number with no probable cause or "reasonably articulable suspicion" is not ok.

Probing questions are fine if they pertain to the specific reason you were detained. Asking questions not specific to the stop is NOT ok.
Detaining people for longer than is required to issue the citation is not ok.

Side of the road isn't the place to argue it... the media, discussion with a lawyer and a polite but firm letter to the chief would be my response.
Companion animal Microchips, quality name brand chips, lifetime registration, Low cost just $10~12, not for profit, most locations we can come to you. We cover eight counties McLennan, Hill, Bell, Coryell, Falls, Bosque, Limestone, Lampasas
Contact we.chip.pets@gmail.com
User avatar

Topic author
Scott in Houston
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 1560
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 11:19 am
Location: Houston

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#117

Post by Scott in Houston »

I have my warning citation, and am considering writing about it to someone in Falls County or where ever is appropriate.
For offenses, it only says, "speeding over 70". Doesn't even give a #. I bet I was doing closer to 73 than 75... anyway, glad it's a warning still, but very upset about my gun being checked. The point made earlier about now having it in some database in particular bothers me.
User avatar

Texas Dan Mosby
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 730
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 3:54 pm

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#118

Post by Texas Dan Mosby »

A-R wrote:BIG difference between vehicles and homes and courts have said so.

I don't agree, because IMO, the type of property is not at issue. The issue is whether we allow our LEO's to circumvent the 4th amendment or not by "fishing" for reasonable suspicion or probable cause that doesn't exist, regardless of the location or property in question.

While some within LEO circles would claim that some of their biggest "busts" on the road were made using this approach, how many times did they detain, interrogate, and search citizens who did nothing more than do 75 in a 70 zone like the OP? How many "big busts" got thrown out of court because the LEO made up an excuse to pull the target over in the first place, and the stop was later proven to be unconstitutional in court? For every "bust" they make, how many citizens did they wrongly suspect, and what kind of impact does that have on citizen-LEO relations?

I don't think it's worth it.

This approach not only encourages our police to circumvent the law, but it rewards them for doing so IF they get away with it, and that is dangerous on many different levels for citizens and LEO's alike. "Fishing" on the road sets an invasive standard that I am not comfortable with, as I don't believe it abides by the law, and it sets the conditions for ignoring the law in other areas of police work. I am of the opinion that it is our duty, as citizens AND LEO's, to nip these things in the bud before they grow out of control, and lend to the destruction of an otherwise "quasi" free society.

That's just my opinion.

Fortunately, I haven't been targeted. Yet. Rest assured, I will voice my concerns to the senior LEO at the station, and my elected representatives, should I be the "victim" of this shoddy police work. I'm sure there's a few constitutional lawyers out there that would be willing to help an old vet explain the concept of the 4th amendment to any uncaring law enforcement agency.

We'll see.
88 day wait for the state to approve my constitutional right to bear arms...
User avatar

A-R
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 13
Posts: 5776
Joined: Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:01 pm
Location: Austin area

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

#119

Post by A-R »

vehicle vs. home makes all the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for "fishing" - again, it's a grey area, fine line, whatever euphemism you like.

Police can ASK you any question they want. You may or may not be required to answer, depending on circumstances. You may feel pressured to answer, but as long as the officer is not using undo influence to force you to answer something you're not required to answer, what has the officer done wrong by asking? Honestly, I've seen car salesman much more high-pressured than what I gather from the description of this incident.

A 10-minute detention is likely within customary time for a traffic stop - and how do any of you know that checking the gun was the ONLY thing the trooper was doing during those 10 minutes? Maybe he was also checking OP's DL, license plate, etc (which is also customary - after all, this is how they caught McVeigh as just one high-profile example).

I know none of us LIKE the idea of the government checking out firearms serial numbers. And I've not one time defended that action (merely stated repeatedly that there COULD have been a legit reason, we just don't know) - but I agree it's unorthodox. The rest of the stop, however, seemed perfectly reasonable and customary and for his cooperation the OP was given no citation for TWO admitted violations of law - speeding and no front license plate.

The key point to remember in all this is that because the roads (most of them anyway) are public utilities and because you MUST be licensed to drive on public roads, you do give up SOME small measure of total leave-me-alone privacy when you venture onto a public road. A car IS NOT the same as a home.

I really think this whole thing boils down to checking the gun serial number and no one would be complaining about any of the rest of these red herrings if not for that one wrinkle.
Post Reply

Return to “General Texas CHL Discussion”