TexasCHLforum.com

Yeah I generally disagree with that. It seems like you are ignoring the reasonable and prudent part.

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.

He's right. Here.

Sec. 545.351.  MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT. (a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.

That's the wording of the preamble to the speeding subchapter (which is H).

Sec. 545.352.  PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.

So - you get to prove the reasonableness and prudentness to judge/jury deciding the case.

I've never heard of someone using a pretext stop because of an NRA sticker...

Now if it is an NHRA sticker, there is a good chance the driver is intoxicated....

Yeah I posted something similar but it's gone missing

A matter of low importance really.

steveincowtown wrote:

jbirds1210 wrote: Pretext stops can be effective when used properly and are perfectly legal.

I am 100% in agreement that Pretext stops can lead to further results and can be a good thing. What I was questioning is that if an LEO says that a vehicle got his attention, and then he decided on what to stop it for, I think that is disturbing.

In other words, if an officer see me take a wide right turn at 2:30AM at the corner after just leaving a bar. That seems like a pretextual stop.

If an officer sees that I have a "TSRA" sticker in the window that "catches his attention" and he then follows me and looks a reason to stop me...that is what I find disturbing.

Leaving a known crackhouse, leaving a bar, picking up a prostitute, creeping through a neighborhood, I know the vehicle, you name it...all of these things catch my attention.

Most of the people I work with wouldn't know a TSRA sticker if I put on on their work locker.

flintknapper wrote:Percentages?

I'd say 25-40%. It's easy to find people with no/suspended license or no insurance. Warrants are fairly common too. If it's a "slow" night, I can make upwards of 12 stops for a shift. This will usually yield at least 2-3 insurance violations, and an arrest or 2. I am fairly selective on where and which cars I run traffic on. I like to get into drunks, dope, and burglars so I try and work for indicators of such activity.

PvilleStang wrote:
By all means, I don't mean to come off as bashing LEO's. God bless y'all, I work with y'all and wouldn't want to do half the things y'all get stuck doing. That being said, find the people who are solid threats to your community (speeders, aggressive drivers, Oklahomans) and don't be out just to earn the city a dollar. Protect and serve, that's the motto.

Thanks! However, will all due respect, until you actually get training, done the job and made arrests, please don't give instructions on LEOs as to how to do their jobs.

Here are some lesser known violations that I've stopped for and found burglars/dope/stolen property/felony warrants/drunks/Driver's w/o license, insurance:
-wide right turn
-fail to signal within 100 ft of turning
-fail to stop at designated stop point
-white light to the rear (usually cargo light on pickup)
-LP light, tail light, brake light, headlight, etc
-obscured LP
-no front LP


I fully believe that apprehending the above people (burglars etc) is doing good police work and keeping the community safe. Many times when I use one these pretextual stops the vehicle has already gotten my attention.

PvilleStang wrote: And I refer to their pulling people over with FLP and tail light violations looking for bigger issues as the witch hunt (our PD has an officer who often pulls over people for burnt out tail lights looking for warrants, drugs, etc.).

Solid, Supreme Court supported, police work. I may be misreading your tone, but the majority of your post feels like you are some how above traffic enforcement, or the law in general. Again - the misunderstanding may be on my end. If not, I'd be curious as to why the bad taste in your mouth for LE.

What's a witch hunt again? Maybe front LP laws don't apply to those with cool cars. Who knows.