TexasCHLforum.com

WildBill wrote:Here's some posts by Jumping Frog on this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=82&t=47848&p=585269&hil ... ch#p585269" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Thanks, I had forgotten that I posted what essentially is a lawman's version of:
- LEGAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A STOP
- LEGAL ORDERS DURING THE STOP
- SEARCHES AND “FRISKS” OF THE VEHICLE
- FRISK
- PROBABLE CAUSE
- CONSENT
- ADMINISTRATIVE SEARCHES
- PROBATION/PAROLE
- SEARCHES INCIDENT TO ARREST

Here is a case from the US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (which applies to Texas) where acquittal was directed because the defendant was detained for 8 minutes by questioning unrelated to the original traffic offense.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. ROBERT MACIAS, JR.

WildBill wrote:

VeeTee wrote:In such case the proper answer is "Respectfully sir, I most definitely DO mind. I certainly will not try to stop you, but I do NOT consent to a search."

V

I wouldn't say that. I may be over analyzing, but IMO this statement sends "mixed messages".

The essential point he is conveying is he will not consent to the search but he is complying with the LEO's orders.

That puts an arrest for failing to comply off the table. At that point, it is up to the court to determine whether the search was legal or not and whether the orders were lawful or not.

Edited: typo