TexasCHLforum.com

wrt45 wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Not directed at anyone in particular, but in general, I am suspicious of folks who can cite numerous run-ins with the police where they did nothing wrong and the police were completely out of line.

Not to but I was there and it did happen to me. I left my office just after dark, headed south on the highway towards my home. About 2 miles down the road, I was pulled over by an officer who said he had clocked me at 70 in a 50mph zone about 1 mile NORTH of my office.....the opposite direction. When I attempted to explain that he must have the wrong vehicle (driving a maroon LTD.....must be a billion of them on the road) he told me to shut up. He was rude to my wife, who said nothing to him. He gave me the spiel about searching my car, was told no, and then gave me the line about "if you have nothing to hide...." He chose not to pursue the search.

He was new on the job in our community and I hadn't met him yet, so I asked him --trying to be polite -- how he was liking his new community. He told me to shut the *&^% up and informed me that he asked the questions, not me. After he gave me the ticket, I did ask him if he still felt the same way about answering my question. He informed me he was the police officer and he didn't have to answer to me. As I left, I couldn't resist saying to him, "Maybe your boss will feel differently about it when I talk to her." She did, and apparently I wasn't the only person he talked to in that manner. He was painting cars in a body shop soon afterward.

At the time, I was pastor of the largest church in the town. I had credibility that some of his "victims" didn't have, I'm sure.

In my 35 years as a pastor/retired pastor I've had three other equally distasteful encounters with LEOs who were out of line. This experience and one other involved a request to search, both of which were denied without further action. Thats not many, but its too many to dismiss as an aberation. Just my 2cents worth

That is one incident, not numerous times. I am glad you reported the behavior.

Not directed at anyone in particular, but in general, I am suspicious of folks who can cite numerous run-ins with the police where they did nothing wrong and the police were completely out of line.

That said, I digress. This thread was about the right a LEO has to search a vehicle. Asked and answered.

Lets all DRIVE SAFELY!

kauboy wrote:Something similar happened to a friend who got pulled over. He gave consent to a search (cuz he didn't know he had an option) and the officer proceded to tear into his stuff. He opened the trunk and pulled out my frineds luggage and opened it and threw clothes all over the place.
After not finding anything, the officer told him he had to pick it all up and quickly or he would be cited for littering.

Is there any kind of recourse for this behaviour? Do you have to have it on tape or anything? If so, I might start carrying a mini-cam.

Were you there?

skerbo wrote:

jimlongley wrote:"If you've got nothing hide, what's the problem?"

While I would have nothing to hide, and have never really been the direct subject of any search, reasonable or unreasonable (ok there was that time on the New York Thruway with the 7 long guns in the back seat and the Trooper, but that was different and in 1966) I have watched aq couple of searches while I was doing ride alongs with the police in one place or another.

In the more memorable situation a young man was stopped for street racing and was noticed to have several cartons of cigarettes on the front seat of the car. As explained to me later by the officer, the fact that the cartons were not in a bag and were several different brands made him suspicious that they had been stolen, and the kid was under 18.

He received verbal permission from the (17 year old) driver to search the car and he did a thorough search, pulling out the back seat and emptying the contents of the glove box and console and then going through te trunk for good measure. Nothing was found, and the cop wasn't taking the kid's explanation that the cigs were for his mother, brother, and mother's boyfriend at face value, so he finally called the mother to find out if she knew her son was out street racing at that hour.

The mother was very upset - she had sent her son to get cigarettes for her, her boyfirend, and his (the kid's) brother more than an hour before and she wanted to know why he hadn't returned.

The store that sold the underage kid the cigs should have gotten a summons, in my opinion, and maybe mom for something (hey the kid wanted to make the run, he got to horse around in big brother's hot car) and the kid for his traffic violation, but what really bugged me about the whole thing was:

The cop made an absolute mess of the inside of the vehicle - nothing broken or torn, no actual damage, but items strewn all over - and he made absolutely no effort to clean up after himself.

Just for that reason alone I might deny a search - even though I have nothing to hide.

Yeah, same thing happened to me. I was driving on I-10 towards Austin for the weekend. We were in my friend's VW bug and we had our bags in the back seat along with his climbing equipment (rock climber). I get stopped for rolling through a stop sign after getting gas, which I should admit was probably illegal, but at 2am who would have thought it would cause problems. Anyway, we consent to a search and the guy tears through our garment bags and climbing equipment and 15 minutes later gives me a warning for the stop sign and leaves us with 30 minutes of straightening up and repacking before we get back on the road. That kind of irritated me.

PS haha on the word filter for 'irritated' instead of what I originally posted.

Probably illegal? You took a driver's test right? WHen did time of day or your opinion of conditions become allowable to mitigate the law?

You consented to a search but were irritated that he did it?

Mithras61 wrote:

kw5kw wrote:IF you have NOTHING to hide, what's the problem?

Ummm... maybe this:
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

kw5kw wrote:I have nothing to hide... anyone may come and search my vehicle at any time for I have nothing, no drugs, no illegal contraband--nothing, nada, zilch.

I could care less if they look.

Some of us have an expectation of (if not an enumerated right to) privacy, and don't want strangers examining our belongings.

kw5kw wrote:Could be that they have a reason to stop and search my vehicle. Could be that there is an "APB" or something (if they even still have "APB's") out for:

1) a vehicle fitting the description of my vehicle or
2) a description of a person fitting either me or my passenger(s) (assuming I'm driving.) or
3) I did something wrong (a traffic violation) and after questioning me, I give inconsistant answers to questions.

In that case, they should provide the reason and I would be willing to consider or allow it, depending on the specifics.

kw5kw wrote:In any case, I don't drink and drive, heck I rarely drink at home! I don't do illegal drugs. I'm not a member of any gang. Heck, I just don't do illegal--speeding not included in above statement!

Why, as a law-abiding citizen, should I care if these law enforcement officers are doing their job as in 1, 2 or 3 above.

Things go south (IMHO) very quickly when the stopee gets beligerant and starts demanding that the LEO's stop and desist... why? Are they hiding something illegal? Are they a fugitive? Things like this start popping up in my head and I'm not even a lawyer or a LEO.

Just my opinion...
Russ

I understand where you're coming from, but I disagree. I can (and have) politely and courteously asked for reasons WHY they want to search. If it seems reasonable to me, I have allowed it. If it did not, I would decline permission. I would NOT expect that to stop them if they feel they have legitimate reason to search my vehicle, but refusal of permission cannot be construed as probable cause.

bauerdj wrote:And if no contraband is found? I would assume the officer could find himself/herself in serious trouble, would the searchee also have a civil suit for damages?

Dave B.

Thats a good question. If the officer had one of the exceptions to the search warrant requirement then there would be no cause for action against him, even if no contraband was found.

And if the court ruled that no actual exception to the search warrant requirement existed, but the officer acted in good faith and reasonably believed that an exception existed, then there would be no cause.

You would pretty much have to show that the officer knew or should have known that no exception existed and acted anyway.

Remember, many of these ruling take YEARS for the courts to make.

The legal advice in this thread, please pardon my bluntness, it TERRIBLE.

A LEO does not need Probable Cause to search a vehicle, he simpy needs reasonable suspicion. A a protective search of the passenger compartment of a car if an officer possesses ''a reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts . . . that the suspect is dangerous and . . . may gain immediate control of weapons" is allowed. (Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983))

An officer may search a vehicle minus a search warrant also based on several other factors;

1. Search Incident to Arrest ;

2. Inventory Search of an arrested persons vehicle

3. Probable Cause

4. Extigent Circumstances.

5. Plain View

6. Consent

kauboy wrote: I asked a similar question to a Constable's assistant who does ride alongs. I asked about probable cause and what constitutes it. I was informed that if you are pulled over by an officer, that alone could constitute probable cause. And if an officer wishes to search your vehicle, you have no immediate legal recourse. You simply have to let them, and then file a claim/lawsuit/whine session later on. Has anybody else ever gotten a different answer?

nitrogen wrote:He'd like to believe that. It's just not true.

It depends upon what you were pulled over for, but generally it does not constitutue PC. However, he is right about one thing. If an officer decides to search you or your vehicle you have no legal method to stop it on the street.

Texas Law makes this clear;

Texas Penal Code
§9.31. Self-defense.

(b) The use of force against another is not justified:


(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is
being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace
officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or
search is unlawful....

§38.03. Resisting arrest, search, or transportation.

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents
or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer or a person acting
in a peace officer's presence and at his direction from effecting an
arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using
force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that
the arrest or search was unlawful.

rodc13 wrote:A friend raised a question regarding showing the CHL when stopped by an LEO, and I realized I'd never really thought about it. Does this give permission/cause for the officer to conduct a search of the vehicle?

It MIGHT give the officer reasonable suspicion under Terry to search for weapons, based on the totality of the circumstances.

nitrogen wrote:Now what a lot of officers will do is team up. One will ask you to step out of the car, and hope you leave your door open. His partner, while you aren't paying attention, will start to paw through your belongings.

and you base this opinion on what? LEO's cannot just "paw" through your belongings, and I know of none who do so illegally.

nitrogen wrote: If he finds anything, he will either claim it's in plain sight.

Are you saying they will perform an illegal search and then lie about how they discovered it? And you didn't finish your sentence, "either claim its in plain site" or what?

nitrogen wrote:In some places, if you specifically don't tell an officer he doesn't have permission to search, he might search, and it might hold up

. In all places, he does not need permission if he has one of the other exceptions. If not, I don't know of any officer who is willing to risk federal civil rights charges, loss of job and perjury charges to illegally search your vehicle.


Bottom line regarding the initial question of this thread. It really matters not IN THE MOMENT if you believe a LEO has a right to search your vehicle or not. If he asks consent and you don't want to give it, don't give it.

If he does anyway you have no recourse to stop it, AT THAT TIME. If contraband is discovered (I say shame on you and you deserve jail) the courts will decide if the evidence is admissable.

fadlan12 wrote:If anything is open or if you give permission a LEO can look in. if your trunk, glove box , or console is open the officer can search it. roll up windows and shut your doors if asked to step out of vehicle.

Are you suggesting he do that before or after complying?