TexasCHLforum.com

talltex wrote:In a situation where "the rumor going around was there was a feud between her and the PD for awhile, which is why she was arrested instead of cited...guess who won the feud". IF that was the case, is there anyone who DOESN'T see that as totally WRONG?

Actually, I am one who does not see it as totally wrong. Consider it this way. The law makes some action a crime. The law specifically states that an officer may arrest for the crime. The law then says the officer may, at his discretion, release the arrested person if the person signs a ticket promising to appear in court. The law only gives the officer guidance on when to not allow the ticket in cases like this. In this case, the fact that the woman committed the crime was not disputed and she even agreed to pay the ticket. What factors would make it right to book her? Obviously, the officer should not release her if he thinks she won't appear in court, right? And if he has had prior contact with her, he may know that she is the type to fight with the police and not show up in court (not saying he did or did not know or believe this, just a supposition). I can see how the officer booking the woman was the only reasonable thing to do.

Now, we add that the officer does not like the woman. They have had a running series of disagreements for some time. After one argument with her, the officer says that if he ever catches her again, he is cutting her no breaks at all and throwing every possible charge at her that is legal. The officer does not go out of his way to catch her or stop her. One day, he sees her commit a violation and stops her for it. He handled the situation in according with the law. How can that be "totally wrong"?

Now, I can see it as a possible abuse of the discretionary authority given to the officer. I am not 100% sure that it is, which is why I said possible abuse. In this case, I am not even sure that there was a feud going on which is why i indicated it was rumor. I would need way more information before I could say it was or was not an abuse of the officer's discretion.

But it is important to remember that I made my post to show that this was legal and had been done in Texas. I was responding to someone who thought the officer would be ridiculed and the case laughed out of court over this application of the law. The court's certainly did not see it as an abuse of the officer's authority or of the law. Nor were the original charges dismissed or affected by the case. It can and has happened in texas and is entirely within the law.

steveincowtown wrote:If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

I will be fairly happy to put up with your laughter since you will also have to put up with mine. The judge won't be laughing and neither will my peers. Just so you know, this has already been done and fought all the way to SCOTUS. In the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, an officer arrested a woman for failing to have her children in a seat belt and booked her into the jail. Atwater was released on bond and later paid the $50 fine for the ticket. She then filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer and the city claiming that arresting a person for an offense that is punishable only by a fine is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. District Court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of the city. Fifth Circuit affirmed that the case had no merit. SCOTUS said it had no merit also.

And the only one left laughing was the officer. The rumor going around was that Atwater and the PD had been in a feud for a while, which is why she got arrested instead of cited. Guess who ended up winning the feud, if there really was one.

I will be the first to admit that this appears to be an abuse of the discretion the officer has under the law, but Texas law explicitly makes traffic violations crimes (class C misdemeanors). And Texas law explicitly says an officer may arrest for these offenses. There are only two cases where the discretion has been reduced. If the ticket is for speeding or for having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, the officer must offer the chance to sign the ticket first. But he only has to offer that one time and then he can arrest for those offenses too. So the moral of the story is to not argue with officers about traffic offenses when they stop you. He is the one deciding if you continue on your way or not.


For those concerned, you may read the actual case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=99-1408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A-R wrote:1. It's not a fishing expedition, the Texas statute gives LEOs clear authority to disarm a CHL

I disagree. The questions were a fishing expedition and had nothing to do with the officer's authority to disarm.

2. Armed and carrying are clearly defined in Texas law as "on or about" a person, in other words, "within reach" and by case law as including the "lunge area" of vehicles even when subject is temporarily outside the vehicle. It would be highly dangerous for an officer to obtain weapon from inside vehicle by reaching in while subject is still inside - thus, remove subject, then remove weapon (this is all of course dependent on officer having justification to do this in first place - a grey area)

Citation for case law:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio#section_5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

n Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that car compartments could be constitutionally searched if an officer had reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Thus the compartments are viewed as an extension of the suspect's person. This is known as "frisking the lunge area," as an officer may protect himself by searching any areas the suspect could grab a weapon from

I also disagree with this point, as the case law has since changed. In 2009, in Arizona v. Gant, the SCOTUS ruled that once a person had been removed from the vehicle, there was no longer any legal authority for the police to reenter the car. That case did include the suspect being secured in the patrol car, so it is not exactly on point. But the inside of the car is not generally considered the lunge area when a person is outside the car. In some cars, even under Long, the whole passenger compartment was not friskable if the car was large enough that the driver could not reach the area.

As of right now, I think the disarmed question is a gray area under the law. If the gun is in the car and the person is not, it is certainly arguable that the person has been disarmed. If the car is locked at the same time, as previously suggested, it would almost definitely not be in the lunge area and the person would be considered disarmed. The Gant case specifically allowed for a search if the person could still go for the gun, so without locking the car might not be to gray but is arguable (the disarmed law being different from allowing a search and going in to the car to get the gun to run the serial number is a search, not a safety of the officer question).

Now, having said that I think the cop was wrong and fishing, I will repeat my advice that the side of the street is not the place to argue with the officer, or even question the law. You will not win those arguments and will not enjoy the results. The final result of the OP's stop shows why there are other tactical considerations to consider. He left with a warning and a weird story to tell. That is not a bad result and I certainly cannot fault him. I would not have faulted him if he had politely declined to answer any questions either, nor would I fault him if he had locked the car and declined to give the officer permission to search. All of those are just standing on your rights.

If you do lock the car and the officer asks for the keys, clearly state that you do not give consent for the search and are handing him the keys simply to obey his orders. Anything else would come under that caution about not arguing with officers on the side of the street.