TexasCHLforum.com

Speedsix,

I think you are right about burying the horse. It is one of those points we will just have to agree to disagree about, like reasonable and mature adults.

speedsix wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

speedsix wrote:...I feel all better now...I was plumb upset thinking that I could be punished for doing right when everyone else was doing wrong...makes no sense at all...

No - but it is possible to get a speeding ticket dismissed under the "reasonable and prudent" element. You just have to convince the judge/jury. Now - if it is snow/sleet/slick and someone is driving the speed limit, but it is not reasonable, I could articulate a speeding ticket (or reckless driving). Just have to prove up that element. It works both ways.

...both of those possibilities at least make sense...the first 'cause any break we can get is a good one...the second one 'cause 90% of the drivers'll agree that you'd drive slower than posted in bad conditions...even if they really don't and are the ones running us off the road....
...thanks for clarifying...

So, if you accept that this term, which is not defined in the Transportation Code, can work for either side of the limit, perhaps you could explain why the second term could not work the exact same way? I do agree with what GigAg said, and the same works for the impeding law. If it is normal for people to do ten over and they would beat a speeding ticket for it, then it would be impeding to go only five over and have a stack of cars behind you.

speedsix wrote:http://law.onecle.com/texas/transportat ... 63.00.html and "normal and reasonable" does NOT mean above the posted speed limit.

I beg to differ, sir. Considering the way Texas speed laws are written, normal and reasonable has nothing to do with the posted limit. Remember that the speed limit is what is "reasonable and prudent", and the posted limit is only a prima facie case of reasonable and prudent. This is a slightly different term than normal and reasonable, which clearly implies maintaining the flow of traffic (as defining normal) as long as it is reasonable. If the traffic flow is higher than the posted limit (as it quite often is in Texas), I could see a ticket for impeding while you were technically speeding (at least a prima facie case).

To me, a much more important question is if it is possible to impede traffic if there is another lane for them to go around you. I have always been taught that to write an impeding ticket, I would need to show that some cars were being held up by the traffic. This is almost impossible on a multi-lane highway. I could write the impeding ticket then only if they were going slower than the posted minimum speed, as noted in subsection (b) of the section you quoted (545.363 of the Transportation Code for any who are looking for it).

I will agree that our speed limit laws (both maximum and minimum) are poorly worded for enforcement and are generally applied by enforcing the signs.

I may be wrong, but I think it occurred at one of the national parks. I have vague memories of an NRA sticker on the car and a copy of the American Rifleman magazine on the front seat. At least, that was what I was thinking of (besides the earlier post about TSRA stickers) when I put that in the list.

MasterOfNone wrote:I have no problem with LE generating revenue by ticketing people who have legitimately violated an ordinance.

I have major problems with police generating revenue, even from people who have broken the law. As someone who has written more tickets than I can count, and made pretext stops more often than I can count, I really have a problem with police being tax collectors. The purpose of the law is supposed to be safety, and the purpose of police is supposed to be safety. Any time we think of the police as generating revenue, we have perverted the concept of laws and police.

I don't have a problem with enforcing laws by means of fines. It seems like a reasonable penalty for minor infractions, what Texas calls a class C misdemeanor. But looking at them as revenue results in things like red light cameras, points on licenses with excessive surcharges for multiple violations, and police using "stealth" cars to try to catch people in the act instead of trying to prevent unsafe actions.

Now, on the subject of pretext stops, I have to agree with both sides of the recent discussion. I know I have made pretext stops, and one in particular sticks out in my mind. Our detectives were following the suspect in a series of burglary and rapes. When they called me, I picked it up and paced him, then stopped him for speeding. It was the excuse needed to delay him and get into his car to look for evidence. It worked and he got a 50 year sentence. This is one example of how pretext stops can work.

But, there is a long history of people being stopped for similar pretexts where the reason the officer wanted to stop the car was because of an NRA sticker or because the driver was Black or Mexican, or similar profiling. This is something we must be on constant vigilance against. And that leaves me with the problem of knowing when to stop a car and when it should not be allowed. The SCOTUS has said that there must be an objective violation of the law for it to be a valid pretext stop. In a case like that, why you decide to stop the car - as opposed to all of the other cars committing the same violation - is irrelevant as long as there was an actual violation. That is an acceptable rule for me until someone comes up with something better.

smtimelevi wrote:Social Security # ? Thats insane, what on earth would they need that for? They gona run your credit? No way id give it to 'em. Id tell him no and ask for a lawyer if he kept badgering me. Ive herd about dps doin this in Arizona too. I wonder whats goin on ?

Just a quick reminder that Texas and Arizona may have different laws. The feds have allowed states to require SSN for dl's, and I do not know if that applies to during a traffic stop or not. I do know Texas laws do not require it, but I am not sure I would extend that to Arizona. I would also probably refuse to provide it there, but I recognize it may mean a trip to jail when I do.