Respect our DPS and Troopers

[Lubbock1911]

I truly respect these guys as they show you respect as well. However a couple of years ago I got irritated.
I travel between Lubbock and Dallas on IH 20 almost weekly. I was stopped on a Sunday afternoon just west of Abilene for no reason. I was asked if the two trooper could search my truck to which I said sure thing no problem. I did not regularly carry a gun at that time. Search took about twenty minutes at most

On My trip back to Lubbock I was stopped Eastland and asked to allow a search with I agreed too, no problem. Enjoyed a few minutes with the two Trooper they explained their random traffic stops often turned up drugs or illegals or some sort of illegal activity. I thanked them and said keep up the good work and be safe.

I was stooped a second time that day by a trooper and a man with a DEA coat on. They asked if they could search my truck and I said hell no. The trooper stepped back and called the DEA agent over. He asked to search and I again said no. He looked surprised and asked why. I explained I have already been searched three times in a week.

He laughed and said no kidding. He called the trooper who was standing at the rear of my truck hand on side arm over and said tell him why you refused. The trooper laughed as well. They thanked me and said I'd better stop and pick up a lottery ticket as soon as possible as I was just too lucky. We all laughed. They we really nice guys.

My rights may have been abused but what to heck

[jmra]

In over 35 years of driving (10 years of that involved 100 mile daily commute) I've never been asked by LEO to search my vehicle. Guess I don't fit whatever profile they are looking for.

[Jumping Frog]

I will never consent under any circumstances.

[jmra]

I will never consent under any circumstances.

I don't believe I would ever give consent either.

[chuck j]

Within reason they can search my vehicle any time they like , total waste of time for them though . If it helps catch drug runners , illegals or criminals I'm all for it . I have never been searched before . I have only had one bad encounter with a Highway patrol in Archer county , everyone knew he was a complete jerk . He purposely tried to make you angry , he got a kick out of it . I simply turned the tables on him , he was mad because I was not even though he gave me a seat belt ticket . I even asked him to stay a second while I prayed for him . He was red faced .

[jmra]

Within reason they can search my vehicle any time they like , total waste of time for them though . If it helps catch drug runners , illegals or criminals I'm all for it . I have never been searched before . I have only had one bad encounter with a Highway patrol in Archer county , everyone knew he was a complete jerk . He purposely tried to make you angry , he got a kick out of it . I simply turned the tables on him , he was mad because I was not even though he gave me a seat belt ticket . I even asked him to stay a second while I prayed for him . He was red faced .

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does searching a vehicle of a law abiding citizen help catch drug runners?

[WildBill]

I also respect our DPS Troopers.

[The Annoyed Man]

Within reason they can search my vehicle any time they like , total waste of time for them though . If it helps catch drug runners , illegals or criminals I'm all for it . I have never been searched before . I have only had one bad encounter with a Highway patrol in Archer county , everyone knew he was a complete jerk . He purposely tried to make you angry , he got a kick out of it . I simply turned the tables on him , he was mad because I was not even though he gave me a seat belt ticket . I even asked him to stay a second while I prayed for him . He was red faced .

chuckj, I love the asking him to stay a second while you prayed for him.

Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

A perfect life application example.

That said, I have to ask, how will stopping and searching your vehicle help them catch drug runners, illegals, or criminals? It won't. Google "what is a terry stop", and one of the links you'll get back is the Wikipedia page on it: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop.

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

So, it would appear that DPS troopers (and the DEA) are basing their Terry Stops along I-20 on the improbably notion that, if you are driving on I-20, you must be involved in criminal activity.......and the evidence for your being involved in criminal activity is that you are driving along I-20......

Are you beginning to see the circular reasoning here? It goes like this:

Premise: If you are [insert activity here], you must be involved in criminal activity.
Proof of Premise: The proof of your criminality is that you are [insert activity here].

Now, here are some substitutions for "[insert activity here]" - ALL of which are equally preposterous as evidence of criminality:

1. doing your laundry
2. walking the dog
3. wearing a tie-died t-shirt
4. driving a [insert brand of car here]
5. laughing
6. watching reruns of Mr. Green Jeans
7. attending a Star Trek convention
8. reading the Bible
9. talking to a friend
10. driving along I-20
11. eating a Big Mac
12. etc., etc., etc.

See what I did there? #10 is just as ridiculous a presumption of criminality as any of the other items on the list. It if WERE an indicator of criminality, then police would be duty-bound to stop ALL cars and search them along I-20. And when the word got out and traffic began abandoning the Interstate for the backroads, they would be duty-bound to cover those back roads, and stop and search every single vehicle on those roads.

The fact is, they are fishing. That's all they are doing. And that is unlawful behavior on their part. The sad fact—and I understand why—is that most people will submit to it, simply because they do not want to be detained any longer than the bare minimum. If you lawfully resist being detained, and refuse consent to a search, cops are going to—unlawfully—interpret your refusal of consent as evidence for a Terry stop. And even if they don't find anything.....which they won't as long as your are not engaged in criminal activity....your detention will have lasted about 8 times as long as if you had just submitted. Most people, even people who are aware of these issues and hate how police powers have transmogrified, will simply submit and grit their teeth, because they are already busy and don't have time to devote to the price of making a stand.

Personally, I am one of those who is cooperative, but grits his teeth. I respect Law Enforcement. I do NOT respect the individual officer who is comfortable with violating the limits of a Terry Stop, as defined by the highest Court in the land - a Court whose authority vastly supersedes the authority of any individual police officer. If the Court strictly defines the limits of a Terry Stop, and an individual officer exceeds those limits, that officer has:

1. violated the law; and
2. failed to uphold any oath they might have taken to uphold the Constitution........ALL of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment.

If I have broken the law, then do something about it, and I will accept the consequences. But if I have NOT broken the law, and you (the police officer) cannot point to “specific and articulable facts” as evidence prompting your suspicion of my criminality, then you cannot justify the stop. Period. You have brought shame on your badge, your department, and your personal honor.

I am not one of those guys who follows cops around, trying to make their jobs harder. I actually LIKE having a police force in my town, and I respect my local PD and am appreciative of the great job they do. I count a number of currently serving police officers among my personal friends, as well as among my extended family. I hung out with one of them just last night at a family wedding. (I've posted about him previously here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=74384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) But I have to say that if I am subjected to a fishing expedition like that, and they cannot articulate specific facts for why I am being detained, then I'm going to be recording the transaction on my cellphone.....and yes, I WILL put it on youtube.

[RoyGBiv]

I will never consent under any circumstances.

I don't believe I would ever give consent either.

It's rare that I don't have enough time in my day to refuse an unwarranted search.

If the LEO could articulate some RAS, I might feel differently. Otherwise, polite refusal.

[Abraham]

If I understand the OP's experience correctly, he encountered LEO's going on fishing expeditions because their doing so "might" turn up illegal drugs or whatever.

I thought LEO's could/should only stop and search a citizen innocently going about their business would be for reasonable suspicion/probable cause or whatever the legal term is...?

Isn't this type stop (that is: a "fishing expedition") an offense to the 4th amendment?

Once again, I'm reminded of Nazi Germany and their demand of: Your papers, Schweinhund!!

If I'm right in my opinion and I experience such a stop, I'm going to their superiors and the press, plus of course, "NO YOU DON'T HAVE MY PERMISSION TO SEARCH MY VEHICLE!"

[pcgizzmo]

Honestly I don't see the problem of allowing law enforcement to search your car. I understand the thought process of giving more control to the government than they need to have or are allowd to have under the constitution but law enforcement is faced with a losing battle.

On one hand we want them to stop the drugs, gun running, crime etc.. on the other we don't want any of our rights infringed on. What is the harm in letting a law encforcement officer search your car if you don't have anything to hide?

I have to be honest IF I were a law enforcement officer I would be profiling as much as possible. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat it's probably a rat. I'm not saying the OP looks lke a criminal I'm just saying that it's a numbers game for LE. The more contact they make with the public the better chance they have of running into a real criminal.

[jmra]

Honestly I don't see the problem of allowing law enforcement to search your car. I understand the thought process of giving more control to the government than they need to have or are allowd to have under the constitution but law enforcement is faced with a losing battle.

On one hand we want them to stop the drugs, gun running, crime etc.. on the other we don't want any of our rights infringed on. What is the harm in letting a law encforcement officer search your car if you don't have anything to hide?

I have to be honest IF I were a law enforcement officer I would be profiling as much as possible. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat it's probably a rat. I'm not saying the OP looks lke a criminal I'm just saying that it's a numbers game for LE. The more contact they make with the public the better chance they have of running into a real criminal.

Wow! I typed a long response but I saw it was pointless. I'll just leave it with this:

[The Annoyed Man]

Honestly I don't see the problem of allowing law enforcement to search your car. I understand the thought process of giving more control to the government than they need to have or are allowd to have under the constitution but law enforcement is faced with a losing battle.

On one hand we want them to stop the drugs, gun running, crime etc.. on the other we don't want any of our rights infringed on. What is the harm in letting a law encforcement officer search your car if you don't have anything to hide?

I have to be honest IF I were a law enforcement officer I would be profiling as much as possible. If it looks like a rat, smells like a rat it's probably a rat. I'm not saying the OP looks lke a criminal I'm just saying that it's a numbers game for LE. The more contact they make with the public the better chance they have of running into a real criminal.

I neither look, nor smell like a rat. Actually, I am almost daily told that I look like Santa Claus. Under your ROE, a LEO is allowed to:

• Stop and search anyone with "hispanic" features, on the grounds that he might be smuggling cocaine in from Columbia.
• They can stop anyone wearing "tactical" type clothing on the grounds that they are gun-runners.
• They can stop and frisk anyone wearing a turban on the grounds that they might be a jihadist terrorist (never mind that it is mostly members of an unrelated religion that wear turbans).
• They can stop and frisk anyone with bad teeth on the grounds that they might be running a meth lab.
• etc., etc., etc.

If you don't have anything to hide, why do they need to search your car? If you have not been smoking pot, why should you care if they draw your blood on the roadside and check it? If that is your decision to allow a search of your car, that is fine. But your decision cannot be used as a rational argument for why I should have to allow it. I don't have anything to hide either. I've never been arrested for anything. I've never had a charge against me more serious than a speeding ticket, and it has been 16 years since my last one. None the less, it is MY car, and MY 4th Amendment right that is being challenged if I am subjected to a fishing expedition. We live in an age of slippery slopes. The problem is that the angle of the slope is getting steeper, and those who are not concerned about it are oblivious to those who would pour oil on it.

[chuck j]

Within reason they can search my vehicle any time they like , total waste of time for them though . If it helps catch drug runners , illegals or criminals I'm all for it . I have never been searched before . I have only had one bad encounter with a Highway patrol in Archer county , everyone knew he was a complete jerk . He purposely tried to make you angry , he got a kick out of it . I simply turned the tables on him , he was mad because I was not even though he gave me a seat belt ticket . I even asked him to stay a second while I prayed for him . He was red faced .

chuckj, I love the asking him to stay a second while you prayed for him.

Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

A perfect life application example.

That said, I have to ask, how will stopping and searching your vehicle help them catch drug runners, illegals, or criminals? It won't. Google "what is a terry stop", and one of the links you'll get back is the Wikipedia page on it: http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop.

In the United States, a "Terry stop" is a brief detention of a person by police on reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity but short of probable cause to arrest.

The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person whom they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity; the Court also held that police may do a limited search of the suspect’s outer garments for weapons if they have a reasonable and articulable suspicion that the person detained may be “armed and dangerous”. When a search for weapons is authorized, the procedure is known as a “stop and frisk”.

To have reasonable suspicion that would justify a stop, police must be able to point to “specific and articulable facts” that would indicate to a reasonable person that a crime has been, is being, or is about to be committed. Reasonable suspicion depends on the “totality of the circumstances”, and can result from a combination of facts, each of which is by itself innocuous.

So, it would appear that DPS troopers (and the DEA) are basing their Terry Stops along I-20 on the improbably notion that, if you are driving on I-20, you must be involved in criminal activity.......and the evidence for your being involved in criminal activity is that you are driving along I-20......

Are you beginning to see the circular reasoning here? It goes like this:

Premise: If you are [insert activity here], you must be involved in criminal activity.
Proof of Premise: The proof of your criminality is that you are [insert activity here].

Now, here are some substitutions for "[insert activity here]" - ALL of which are equally preposterous as evidence of criminality:

1. doing your laundry
2. walking the dog
3. wearing a tie-died t-shirt
4. driving a [insert brand of car here]
5. laughing
6. watching reruns of Mr. Green Jeans
7. attending a Star Trek convention
8. reading the Bible
9. talking to a friend
10. driving along I-20
11. eating a Big Mac
12. etc., etc., etc.

See what I did there? #10 is just as ridiculous a presumption of criminality as any of the other items on the list. It if WERE an indicator of criminality, then police would be duty-bound to stop ALL cars and search them along I-20. And when the word got out and traffic began abandoning the Interstate for the backroads, they would be duty-bound to cover those back roads, and stop and search every single vehicle on those roads.

The fact is, they are fishing. That's all they are doing. And that is unlawful behavior on their part. The sad fact—and I understand why—is that most people will submit to it, simply because they do not want to be detained any longer than the bare minimum. If you lawfully resist being detained, and refuse consent to a search, cops are going to—unlawfully—interpret your refusal of consent as evidence for a Terry stop. And even if they don't find anything.....which they won't as long as your are not engaged in criminal activity....your detention will have lasted about 8 times as long as if you had just submitted. Most people, even people who are aware of these issues and hate how police powers have transmogrified, will simply submit and grit their teeth, because they are already busy and don't have time to devote to the price of making a stand.

Personally, I am one of those who is cooperative, but grits his teeth. I respect Law Enforcement. I do NOT respect the individual officer who is comfortable with violating the limits of a Terry Stop, as defined by the highest Court in the land - a Court whose authority vastly supersedes the authority of any individual police officer. If the Court strictly defines the limits of a Terry Stop, and an individual officer exceeds those limits, that officer has:

1. violated the law; and
2. failed to uphold any oath they might have taken to uphold the Constitution........ALL of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment.

If I have broken the law, then do something about it, and I will accept the consequences. But if I have NOT broken the law, and you (the police officer) cannot point to “specific and articulable facts” as evidence prompting your suspicion of my criminality, then you cannot justify the stop. Period. You have brought shame on your badge, your department, and your personal honor.

I am not one of those guys who follows cops around, trying to make their jobs harder. I actually LIKE having a police force in my town, and I respect my local PD and am appreciative of the great job they do. I count a number of currently serving police officers among my personal friends, as well as among my extended family. I hung out with one of them just last night at a family wedding. (I've posted about him previously here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=74384" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) But I have to say that if I am subjected to a fishing expedition like that, and they cannot articulate specific facts for why I am being detained, then I'm going to be recording the transaction on my cellphone.....and yes, I WILL put it on youtube.[/qu


I am certainly not advocating terry searches but I understand the amount of criminal things going on out there . I would be willing to be searched several times a day if it would thin the bad guys out . I drive a 4 cylinder SUV , usually wear overalls I don't look like I have two nickles to rub together and got two spoiled house dogs with me . I hand them a CHL and commercial DL they go back to the cruiser and background check me . Then they just tell me to have a nice day . I honestly don't think they stop many people just for fun . This video shows TOTALLY WRONG police behavior .


" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[WildBill]

I am certainly not advocating terry searches but I understand the amount of criminal things going on out there . I would be willing to be searched several times a day if it would thin the bad guys out . I drive a 4 cylinder SUV , usually wear overalls I don't look like I have two nickles to rub together and got two spoiled house dogs with me . I hand them a CHL and commercial DL they go back to the cruiser and background check me . Then they just tell me to have a nice day . I honestly don't think they stop many people just for fun .

Not me! I find this statement very disturbing.
If you believe this, why don't you flag down the police several times a day and volunteer to be searched?

When they have probable cause, it's part of their job to stop certain people. I don't think LEOs stop people "for fun."
I am not an LEO, but I wouldn't think it would be a "fun" thing to do.