TexasCHLforum.com

Several folks here posted that its a requirement, but without penalty.

If there's no penalty, then there is no crime right?

If there is no crime and police stop someone for no front plate and find, well, let's say something very gruesome (dead body, drugs, illegal aliens, Britney Spears CDs, etc.), a smart defense attorney might try to suppress all the evidence due to the improper stop.
How's that going to look?? How do the police explain that to the family?

The LEO's who will continue to enforce something that's not on the books appears to be selective enforcement to me - it smacks of a police state - not following the law.

Who hasn't heard of incidents (and seen video) where the police arrested someone when they knew full well no crime had been committed? They did it just because they could.

If the police are going to ignore that bit of legislation (intended or not), let's just let the police make up their own laws from now on and arrest everyone that doesn't meet with their approval?
Anyone here for that type of behavior?

If that scenario is carried far enough, then police could be charging folks for carrying a concealed weapon because, back in the day, it was illegal, even though now we have license. But, hey, they used to do, so now they keep doing it?

I think the police should uphold the current law as written, until its changed.
They should not be allowed to enforce what isn't there.
They can complain, just like the rest of us, but they're not so special that the laws don't apply to them.

I'm not beating on the entire police community; but police are a cross-section of the community at-large and are governed by the same laws and law-making process as the rest of us. (or should be).

Did someone in the Legislature get out of control when editing....sure, but it is what it is. And its the legislature's job to fix it if they want to.

This is my opinion and I have never been, am not now, nor never will be, a lawyer.

LabRat