TexasCHLforum.com

gigag04 wrote:Their intent has little bearing on what courts have decided is a GTG detention. The judge I dealt with explicitly stated that rarely to LEOs have the luxury of operating with 100% of the information surrounding a situation. However, as testified by me, he beilieved that it clearly was enough to stop and investigate further.

There are conflicting cases in the court of appeals in TX regarding the issue, however the difference came to the officer's ability to understand the returns given by the database and deduct reasonable conclusions on that information.

The list of folks who have to conduct their lives with less than 100% information is long and distingished; LEOs are not unique in that context.

However, LEOs are unique in that my liberty (and maybe my life) depends on what he does with that (100-X)% information he does have.

That missing percentage can be rationalized into a subjective opinion that carries the full weight of the law. You need only go to traffic court one time to see how that turns out.

The database is inaccurate to some degree, as stated by you, in a different post.

It is possible that the more inaccurate the database is shown to be, the more leeway a police officer will actually have with the court in supporting a decision that further investigation is appropriate. It works in the police's favor that the database has flaws.

If the database were 100% accurate; a police officer (might) have a smaller chance of convincing the court that he/she had a "reasonable suspicion" to stop the vehicle, if the database shows no issues with insurance.

The intent of the legislature is still the key to this issue.

If, as you state, that the intent is not considered by the courts (and by extension, the police), the database is of little use.
Just stop whomever you want and go from there....it's all about "reasonable suspicion" and 51% anyway, right?

If the legislature really intended this to be an adjunct tool, for use when other situations are already in play (circumstances that warrant a police stop); then, in my opinion, both the police and the courts are wrong...actually very wrong that it's use is "reasonable" as the primary reason to stop a vehicle and detain a citizen.

Then, it's just a fishing expedition for evidence of a crime, when none is apparent. Nothing "reasonable" about that.

Blackstone said "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer".

You really should opt in favor of the likely innocence of the citizen than the likely guilt of the citizen, if you have incomplete facts. Since <51% of the citizenry are criminals, then the "reasonable" conclusion is "likely innocence".

While getting criminals off the streets makes society more comfortable (for a short while); it must be done in such a way as not to trample or abuse the innocent citizens to accomplish that job.

Yeah, it's tough....but no one said maintaining a society where liberty is paramount was easy.

LabRat

I did further digging and it appears that the insurance database was not intended by the Texas legislature to be used FOR a stop, but rather used if a stop for other reasons was initiated.

Here is the link I found: http://www.texassure.com/Press10208.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The verbiage I'm seeing is this:
"“AFTER a vehicle is pulled over, the TexasSure database is a fantastic tool that helps law enforcement identify those who are driving without insurance—or with an expired or phony insurance document,” said DPS Lt. Louis Sanchez."
(emphasis of "after" is mine - LabRat)
"Here’s how it works: during a traffic stop, law enforcement officers may use the license plate and/or VIN of a vehicle to submit a query to the new database through the Texas Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (TLETS)."

So it would appear to me that the insurance would be checked IF the vehicle were stopped for another reason, but not for just checking the vehicle.

To use the database as the reason for the initial stop is scary since, at best given as gigag04 states, its not 100% accurate....not even 99% accurate...maybe only 95% accurate. That means that 1 in 20 drivers could be stopped based on faulty information.

I'm going to write the TexasSure folks in Austin to see how it was intended to be used.
Will let you know what I find out.

LabRat

powerboatr wrote:he probably thought OMG someone is driving a vibe, better pull em over to see if they are embarrassed

sorry

your description of the event makes me nervy, sounds like a "i was bored so i pulled over a guy"
maybe it near end of shift and he was killing time so he wouldn't get caught up in another call for service

No prob. I'm not embarrassed...I've owned 3 Vibes over the years....they're a Toyota Matrix with Pontiac trimmings.
I've found them to be reliable with pretty good (but not great) gas mileage.

It was between 0630 and 0700 hrs, so maybe he was the overnight shift getting off at 0700 hrs?
He was with me for about 5 - 6 minutes, max. If he was bored, it ended quickly and he took off.

I didn't eyeball him much when he was beside the car, but I'm sure he gave it the once-over to see if anything was visible.

I answered his questions and volunteered only idle chitchat. He stuck to the "no confirmation on insurance in his database" story. No questions about what firearm I was carrying, where it was or anything.

If he thought I was riff-raff to begin with, he might have probed that topic a bit; but he didn't.

Without further information, I'm putting it down to idle curiosity for the moment. Not what I want to see; but 1 time does not a trend make.

LabRat

LabRat

gigag04 wrote:Odds are your policy covers a number if cars, and not specific vehicles.

Now sure how that could work.

My policy lists all my vehicles - Very specific on the makes, models, VIN, etc.

LabRat

JeepGuy79 wrote:

LabRat wrote:.........He asked for and got my ID - DL and CHL (1st time I've had to show it)..........

He asked you for your CHL at contact?

No, maybe my sentence structure was faulty.

He asked for my ID. (I put a hyphen in there - not the best choice for punctuation)

I gave him my DL and CHL....yes I was armed at the time. He didn't ask for the CHL...probably didn't know I was carrying if previous threads are correct on what's tied to the vehicle plates.

LabRat

Jaguar wrote:So an incomplete database is probable cause for a stop?

If that is the case, the police can stop anyone, anytime they want.

"Sir, I stopped you today because my computer isn't working and don't know if you have insurance."

The officer even said the database is not a legal requirement to have all information, but he justified the stop because it wasn't there and he said that gave him "reasonable suspicion" to pull me over.

I figured the side of the road was no place to debate the topic. I will say the officer was very nice, never asked any other intrusive questions, thanked me for the information. He said "please" and "sir".

Didn't demand or tell me something was my fault.

Me thinks now he was fishing....but I'm not sure what for. I drive a little Pontiac Vibe - nuthin' fancy or fast.

LabRat

jayinsat wrote:were you armed? Were you nervous?

Yes, armed. Not nervous. But I was wondering the whole time what was going on.

LabRat

Was driving to work thru Carrollton on Monday morning.

CPD car pulled up alongside me at a red light. He'd turned behind me back about 1 mile before; but I was not speeding (40 in a 45). Sat at the light till it changed. I moved on and he slid in behind me and lit me up.

Pulled onto a side street. Window down a slight bit, car off, keys on the dash and hands clearly on the steering wheel.

Nice officer. Told me he got a "no confirmation" on insurance on my car.

He asked for and got my ID - DL and CHL (1st time I've had to show it).
He also wanted my Proof of Insurance - gave him that next.

He checked the plate, VIN and then handed it all back to me. No mention on the CHL

Told me he'd never had a "no confirmation" on a car registered to a large insurance company.

I told him I'd check with my agent. He cut me loose and was gone before I could get my ID and Ins. paper re-stowed.

Checked with my insurance agent that afternoon....he was puzzled; state database had everything on my vehicle. So, not sure what it was all about.

But good outcome on the CHL presentation....no issues whatsoever.

Just like it's supposed to go. Would rather not have gotten stopped. But since it was the first time to show my CHL; I was curious as to how I would be treated.

Nice job Carrollton PD.

LabRat