TexasCHLforum.com

sjfcontrol wrote:

WildBill wrote:I agree that it might not be the best thing to say, but an LEO construing this as a blanket consent is wrong and illegal. Thinking that it is not a lie is inconceivable to me. A person can revoke their consent to search at any time and can attach conditions to their search, such as requiring a warrant or presence of an attorney.

Let me pose a question. Let's say you needed some money and said "Hey Wild Bill can you give me $20". And I said, "Yes, as long as you pay me back." You would say that I was lying if you didn't pay me and I said that you owed me $20? Is this playing games?

Hmm, I would like to hear that (that you can revoke your permission to search) from either a leo or preferably a lawyer. My bet is it isn't true. Otherwise, when they start to tear your car apart, everybody would revoke permission.
The thing is, by saying "Yes, if...", you're playing games with the officer. If you mean NO, say NO. Then it's not subject to interpretation.

And it really DOESN'T make any sense to say "Yes, if you get a warrant.", since if the officer has a warrant, he doesn't need your permission anymore. And he knows that. Therefore the statement is not only subject to interpretation, but is irrelevant.

Will I do? When asked for consent, you may grant it as unlimited or you may grant a limited consent (for example, you can search the passenger area but not the trunk). You may also revoke consent at any time.

The trick is that the SCOTUS has always ruled that your assertion of your rights must be unequivocal and clear. If you say "yes but", it may be taken as not clear. If you stop the search, you must also be clear. So I always advise people to be clear and state "I am not giving consent for any searches" or words very similar to that. Anything less may not be clear and this also communicates that you ar ento interfering with what they do if they search anyway.

This also goes for talking. If you just say nothing, they can keep asking you questions for as long as they want (most recent case on this was this exact problem). If you answer some questions, you can be questioned. You must say "I am not answering any questions without my lawyer present" or words to that effect.

The best advice is to get with a good attorney and get to know him before you come across this type of situation, then do what he advises. You don't need to put him on retainer (though it is not a bad idea if you can afford it), but you should know who you will call when something does happen.

speedsix wrote:I don't know why TXDPS would say consult your local law enforcement...it's a STATE law that we notify them each time they ask for ID...as some have said, it's simplest to hand over ID/Dr.Lic and CHL when requested...and let him take it from there.

Just a fine point that might clarify this a little. There is no state law requiring you to verbally inform the officer of anything. The law requires you to produce both the CHL and the ID/TXDL when asked, and then only if you are actually armed.

I agree that telling him is good advice, just as I agree that producing both even when you are not armed is also good advice, even though not legally required.

One of my (many) complaints about the way our laws are written is that you are required to produce the CHL, and the officer has the legal authority to disarm you, but you are not required to answer his question of whether or not you are carrying. Remembering that this is an academic discussion of what the law requires and not advice for behavior on the street, have you ever wondered what happens to a person who tries to obey the law but is not going to be cooperative other than that? He is stopped for something and asked for his DL. He gives up both his DL and his CHL. The officer asks if he is carrying and he states that he does not answer any questions from police without his lawyer, other than those required by law.

Besides the eventual ticket for whatever the stop was originally for, what authority does the cop have to do any more? How does he legally justify the search to see if there is a weapon to disarm the person?

wgoforth wrote:Still no definitive answer...note it says to contact local LEO's to find their practice in their jurisdiction...

Wildbill really had the correct answer. There is no legally required procedure and each officer has his own tastes on how he wants people to respond. So, I usually tell people to do what Excaliber told you: dome lights on if it is dark, hands on steering wheel, and le t the officer know before you move. My reasoning is that if you start moving before the officer gets there, he might get nervous about what you are squirming around and reaching for. If you don't have it ready, he might be irritated at taking the time, but at least he won't be feeling threatened. So, do you want the officer irritated that you could not read his mind, or irritated and feeling threatened by your motions? An officer feeling threatened is dangerous, an officer feeling irritated is probably just a ticket instead of a warning (though this type of officer probably doesn't write too many warnings anyway )