Respect our DPS and Troopers

Most CHL/LEO contacts are positive, how about yours? Bloopers are fun, but no names please, if it will cause a LEO problems!

Moderators: carlson1, Keith B

User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#31

Post by The Annoyed Man »

chuck j wrote: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;
The problem is this: searching your vehicle 4-5 times a day won't reduce crime, will it? You're not a criminal. Believe me, I DO understand what you are saying, and I DO believe that you are saying it with nothing but the best intent. The problem is that this is the same pretzel-logic used by gun-control advocates to argue that society would be made safer if the law-abiding would willingly submit to further infringements, without addressing the fact that their new infringements won't disarm criminals, only the law-abiding.

So we are back to the difficult choices that police have to make......and this is why they get paid more than I do. But the ONE choice they are not allowed is to make is the choice to violate their oath to uphold the laws and the Constitution. In order for them to remain within the confines of that oath, they MUST meet the minimum standards of Terry. So, unless you are driving drunk or recklessly, or waaaay too slow (35mph on the interstate), or speeding, or failed to use your turn signal to indicate a lane change, there is an obvious safety issue with your vehicle, or something like that, then they have ZERO reason to pull you over. And once they pull you over, (with, or without good reason) the fact that they don't like your tatoos or the length of your hair is NOT an articulate reason to search your vehicle without your permission. They have to be able to SEE something (a crack pipe, a bag of weed, a severed human finger, etc.) in plain view as they look through your window, or smell alcohol on your breath, or some other easy to articulate indicator of criminality. "I didn't like the cut of his jib", or "my spidey sense was tingling" are NOT acceptable in a court room as articulated reasons for rousting your car. They are acceptable reasons for the officer to step up his/her vigilance and to begin looking for reasons to search, but they are not in and of themselves a reason for a search.

Like you, I am a guy who is inclined to cooperate with police in most instances. But I have my own issue with Terry violations. In 1970, TWO YEARS after the Terry decision was handed down, I was in a car driven by a friend, with two other friends, that was pulled over in El Monte in SoCal by LA Co Sheriff deputies, at about 10 p.m. We were on our way home from a party at another friend's house. The driver had broken no laws, and the deputies never even gave us a reason for why they had pulled us over. No tickets were issued. In other words, this was a catch and (maybe) release fishing expedition. We were guilty of nothing more than being 3 long-haired guys and a girl in a car at 10 p.m. After they rousted all of us (and they body searched the woman, without a female officer present), they literally tore the seats out of the car and left them on the sidewalk. They found nothing......because there was nothing to be found. When I politely and respectfully asked one of the deputies - there were about 4-5 of them in on this thing - if they could help us to get the seats back into the car, because we were just kids and we didn't actually know how to put the back seats back together again, his answer was "would you like to take a trip to jail?" On what trumped up charge I have no idea. His answer and his attitude were pure malice, like he was sure that we were getting away with something, when in fact, it was HIM that was getting away with being arrogant. But his answer scared the me - because I most certainly did NOT want to take a trip to county jail (which is operated by LA Co Sheriffs, and which had been under investigation at the time for excessive behavior by jailers.....and the entire department had a reputation for being mean and violent).

I was 18 years old. I didn't know anything back then about the law, or my rights, and I was NOT in a position to challenge 4 or 5 law-breaking deputies on what I thought they could do to me, on a dark street at 10 p.m. That old saying—"nothing good happens after 10 p.m."—well at least back then, and with the LA Co Sheriff's office, it was often the case that nothing good happened after 10 p.m. because the LA Co Sheriff's deputies were involved in it. I remember one friend who was rousted by them. He was a clean kid, not a drug user, and he was arrested for a bag of weed the officers planted on his car when they could find nothing else on him.

So I am of this mind: I love that I have a good police department in my town, and they they have appeared to be - so far as I can tell - aboveboard and honest in all of their dealings with the public. I believe that an orderly society is a desirable thing, and I believe that good policing is part and parcel of having an orderly society. But I ALSO believe that when an officer violates Terry Stop standards because he or she cannot articulate a clearly defined and defensible reason for a search, then that officer's behavior has crossed over into the criminal, and there is no room for criminals on the police force.

When srothstein said above,
srothstein (a retired LEO I might add) wrote:My advice is to not give consent for a search, just as I do not advise speaking to officers more than necessary after a shooting. But it is just my opinion. I also note that in the real world it is often less trouble to consent or talk than it is to stand on your rights. I have problems with this but I recognize the real world and its implications.

I am inclined to agree. I agree with all of it, including the part where he said, "in the real world it is often less trouble to consent or talk than it is to stand on your rights." I am self employed, and so I have some leeway with my time. Thus, if I am on my way to a scheduled meeting with a paying client, then whatever answer gets me out of there ASAP so I can make that meeting is what I am going to do - even if that means submitting to a search. Similarly, as a worship leader, whatever gets me out of there so I am not late to church is what I am going to do. But if I have no particular place to be, then I am going to stand on my rights and force the officer(s) to articulate a reason for searching my vehicle without my consent. As with you, they are not going to find anything. I don't use drugs, so they won't find anything. I'm not a thief, so they won't find any stolen property. My carrying of a firearm is accounted for by my CHL. I keep my vehicle registration and inspection current. I keep it in good working order. The only window tint is from the factory. My car (a 2002 Nissan Pathfinder SE) is bone stock, has no loud exhaust, or booming speakers (which is a pet peeve of mine fit for its own thread), does not blow smoke out of the exhaust pipe, does not have bald tires. I have no prison and/or gang tattoos. I have no criminal record.

And as srothstein outlined in his excellent post, police have to have a reason to pull you over in the first place. I don't drive in such a manner as to give police a reason to pull me over. I have a clean driving record. In short, no cop in his or her right mind would have any reason to be suspicious of me or my vehicle. Therefore, any cop who tries to subject me to a Terry search is not in his or her right mind. So whether or not I cooperate with that search is going to be entirely driven by balancing a stand for my rights against my need to be elsewhere soon.

But even if I consent to a search, it isn't going to be with a smile, and I'm not going to end the encounter with that most STUPID of responses to this kind of abuse: "Thank you, officer (unspoken: for having abused my rights)."
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT
User avatar

The Annoyed Man
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 26852
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 12:59 pm
Location: North Richland Hills, Texas
Contact:

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#32

Post by The Annoyed Man »

pcgizzmo wrote:I never said they were allowed to. I said I would probably profile. We all know it happens and if we were honest I believe most people if they were law enforcement would profile regardless if they were allowed to or legality. We are all guility of it in every day life. That person that doesn't dress just right, talk just right, look the way we would think a responsible citizen would look etc.. We make judgements and we are lying to ourselves we don't think law enforement does it on a regular basis. Since 9/11 I've been standing next to people that had turibns on and women with head coverings and I'll just be honest it makes me nervous. Not because they are bad people. Rationally I know that statistically they are probably not BUT because of the war on terror, my reading of media reports etc.. it's changed my view on things and while that may not be right its the way it is..

Now extrapolate that to people that deal with scum on a daily basis and I don't necessarily agree with it but I understand it. Not to mention I believe their are statistics that profiling in certain situations has a fairly high hit rate. On one had we want to get rid of crime, scum, drugs etc.. but on the other we don't want to be questioned, profiled, searched, etc.. I get it. I don't know what the answer is. How to give law enforment enough leeway to get the bad guy while still protecting the rights of good citizens?
Law enforcement can be a difficult a hard job. There is no getting around that fact. The reason it is hard is that the issues are complex. This is just one reason why law enforcement agencies tend to be so selective and screen so thoroughly those they hire, before they are hired. A good cop tends to actually be more open-minded than your average citizen. Why? Because if he or she is not open-minded, then he or she would find it much more difficult to deal fairly with people whose lifestyles they might not personally endorse. For instance........When I am watching an episode of "Cops" for instance, and I see an experienced male officer treat an aging drag queen who is the victim of domestic abuse with the same deference as he would if that person were his own grandmother, then I am encouraged. I am encouraged because that officer is able to see past his own prejudices to see the humanity of the other person, and to treat that other person with dignity and respect, even if he might not personally endorse that person's life choices. THAT cop is not the one whom I worry about with regard to issues like Terry stops. That cop understands that he or she has been entrusted with serving and protecting the citizenry, of which he or she understands themselves to be a part. The cop that worries me with regard to Terry stops is the cop who comes to believe that being a cop sets him apart from the citizenry, and therefore not subject to the same standards as the rest of us.
b322da wrote:
pcgizzmo wrote:Honestly I don't see the problem of allowing law enforcement to search your car... What is the harm in letting a law enforcement officer search your car if you don't have anything to hide?
Most respectfully, this is a prime example of how an innocent person can cause himself untold suffering. A similar example would be, "What is the harm in responding to law enforcement interrogation if you don't have anything to hide?" Time and again we have seen on this forum, for example, how one should generally keep his mouth shut if interrogated by law enforcement after he legally exercises his right of self-defense against an aggressor. The reasons for that advice should be known by all members here.

The Bill of Rights applies to everyone, not just those who have something to hide. Acquiescing in the transgression of one's right under the Constitution will lead inexorably to the end of that right.

Jim
Jim and I often find ourselves on opposite sides of some issues, but he is wise and kind, and this is very good advice. As a nation, it seems to me like we have been far less likely to defend our rights with vigor, and far more likely to acquiesce to violations of the same for the past 50 years or so than ever before in our history. I could write an extended essay on why I think this is so, but that's food for another topic. Let's just take it as a given for the moment. As we know from losses of the right to keep and bear arms, these violations become incrementally institutionalized in the law, and incrementally applied against those of us who would seek to exercise those rights. And thus, we must today have a license to carry that which the Constitution guarantees to be free against infringement. Equally so, the victories to reverse those losses come incrementally and drag out over the years.

Ever since technology has enabled law enforcement to access previously private communications (telephone wiretaps, for instance), we have been in a battle against the incremental dismantling of the 4th Amendment's wall of protection. At least, that is my thesis. Jim is one or two years older than I am ( ;-) ) and I would be curious to know if his observations parallel mine. I acknowledge that this is in part because criminals have sought to use those same technologies to both increase their own "productivity" and to defend themselves against law enforcement's intrusions into their affairs. The fallout out though is that the rest of us who are law-abiding end up being negatively affected in our own transactions with law enforcement. It is also part of my thesis that as the law-abiding increasingly feel these incremental violations of their rights by law enforcement, the relationship between the law-abiding and law enforcement becomes increasingly adversarial. And that is bad for an orderly society.
“Hard times create strong men. Strong men create good times. Good times create weak men. And, weak men create hard times.”

― G. Michael Hopf, "Those Who Remain"

#TINVOWOOT

b322da
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 5
Posts: 707
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 9:34 am
Location: College Station, Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#33

Post by b322da »

The Annoyed Man wrote:...Jim is one or two years older than I am ( ;-) ) and I would be curious to know if his observations parallel mine....
I hate to say it TAM, but I am in complete agreement with your general proposition. I may differ here and there with your apparent conception of one or more of our rights/liberties/privileges, be they what they may, but, again, in general, we, despite all the sometimes contrasting humor, appear to agree on recent developments happening to my conception of our constitutional liberties.

And I'm not so old -- 4 score and functioning better than a lot of my juniors. :mrgreen:

BTW, to get off the subject, as is my way, I have even just acquired a new handgun, which doubles as an old man car gun and carry gun -- A Bond Arms derringer (Made In Texas), along with a fine fitted holster which rides on the belt outside the WB, and the Bond lies parallel to the belt. For a righty like me I have yet to decide whether as a car gun it is handier on the right, or cross-draw on the left. Different, but an impressive piece of workmanship in stainless steel. Two barrels, one atop the other, mine being one a .410 buckshot, the other .45LC, both loaded with ammo intended for self-defense. Can swap the barrels out quickly for a .38,.357/.38,.357 enroute from Bond, intended for a little less expensive practice indoors, not being able, as you might expect, to fire buckshot indoors at my favorite range.

http://bondarms.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I have to make a solo round-trip from College Station to North Carolina, to attend a smart car convention, 1000 miles each way, much in the boondocks on exciting back roads, in my exciting little smart car, through several states reciprocal with Texas on CHL, and I think I have found a car gun hard to beat.

Hang in there, youngster. ;-)

Jim
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#34

Post by VMI77 »

I've never been asked either, and funny thing is, when my son went to the police academy, the instructor told the class to never allow DPS to search their vehicle.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#35

Post by VMI77 »

pcgizzmo wrote: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.
Then you should also have no problem with them searching your home any time they want. It would sure make their jobs easier and that seems to be important to you. If you really believe the "I've got nothing to hide nothing to fear" mantra in 2015 then I think no argument is going to convince you otherwise, until you or a loved one actually lives the fallacy.

OTOH, if you've really got nothing to hide, they have nothing to find, so while they're wasting their time searching your vehicle you might wonder how many people with something to hide are cruising by in the fast lane.
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

VMI77
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 6096
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2010 5:49 pm
Location: Victoria, Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#36

Post by VMI77 »

WildBill wrote:
chuck j wrote: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.
I don't know about you Bill, but frankly, I find his attitude more than a little suspicious? Several times a day? Who is Chuck running decoy for? Just what kind of nefarious activity might he be facilitating by attempting to misdirect search efforts away from likely suspects? I think Chuck may need to be brought in for questioning. His home and any other property certainly need to be searched to be sure he's not aiding and abetting something illegal. "rlol"
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."

From the WeaponsMan blog, weaponsman.com
User avatar

Texas_Blaze
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 454
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2013 4:55 pm

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#37

Post by Texas_Blaze »

I bought a used truck once and a few months later found a joint in between the driver seat and center console when cleaning it. I bought it at a dealership in Dallas in 2003. I will not consent to searches.
Distinguished author of opinions and pro bono self proclaimed internet lawyer providing expert advice on what you should do and believe on all matters of life.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#38

Post by jmra »

Texas_Blaze wrote:I bought a used truck once and a few months later found a joint in between the driver seat and center console when cleaning it. I bought it at a dealership in Dallas in 2003. I will not consent to searches.
When I was in the military we were strongly urged to bring any used vehicle we purchased by security so they could let the dogs do a run through. That advice saved a number of service men a lot of head ache.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member

Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#39

Post by Cedar Park Dad »

jmra wrote:
Texas_Blaze wrote:I bought a used truck once and a few months later found a joint in between the driver seat and center console when cleaning it. I bought it at a dealership in Dallas in 2003. I will not consent to searches.
When I was in the military we were strongly urged to bring any used vehicle we purchased by security so they could let the dogs do a run through. That advice saved a number of service men a lot of head ache.
Thats a brilliant idea.
User avatar

Jim Beaux
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 1356
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2012 11:55 pm

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#40

Post by Jim Beaux »

Back in the mid 1970's, my West Virgina redneck step father bought a repo'ed 73 El Camino from his credit union. He drove it for 4-5 months before I bought it.

After a few months I found a cellophane wrapper from a pack of cigarettes in the above the door seat belt envelope full of seeds! Possession was a big deal back then.
“In the world of lies, truth-telling is a hanging offense"
~Unknown

Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#41

Post by Cedar Park Dad »

Respectfully, to play devil's advocate...why?
Respect is earned. Having a badge and a gun just means you have a badge and gun (vs. my bright red CHL sash). It doesn't mean you deserve any more respect than anyone else.
User avatar

jmra
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 8
Posts: 10371
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:51 am
Location: Ellis County

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#42

Post by jmra »

Cedar Park Dad wrote:Respectfully, to play devil's advocate...why?
Respect is earned. Having a badge and a gun just means you have a badge and gun (vs. my bright red CHL sash). It doesn't mean you deserve any more respect than anyone else.
:iagree: Kinda.
I believe everyone deserves my respect (or at least respectful behavior on my part when dealing with them) until they do something to lose it.
Now people must earn my admiration.
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
John Wayne
NRA Lifetime member
User avatar

C-dub
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 13563
Joined: Sat May 16, 2009 7:18 pm
Location: DFW

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#43

Post by C-dub »

Searching my vehicle will do absolutely nothing to catch any criminals. I have also never been asked for consent to be searched and it has been almost two decades since my last speeding ticket. I stop at all stop signs and don't slow roll through right turns on red lights. Other than my truck being practically one of a kind and easily recognizable, I doubt the police are even aware of my existence.

I don't look as cheerful as TAM, but I try not to give anyone a reason to stop me. However, the main reason for my driving habits are to teach my daughter how it should be done. She will be driving in a few short years and needs a good foundation for reference. We're all aware that our kids watch everything we do and will throw it back at us at the least expected time.
I am not and have never been a LEO. My avatar is in honor of my friend, Dallas Police Sargent Michael Smith, who was murdered along with four other officers in Dallas on 7.7.2016.
NRA Patriot-Endowment Lifetime Member---------------------------------------------Si vis pacem, para bellum.................................................Patriot Guard Rider

Cedar Park Dad
Banned
Posts in topic: 6
Posts: 2064
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2013 7:19 am
Location: Cedar Park Texas

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#44

Post by Cedar Park Dad »

C-dub wrote:Searching my vehicle will do absolutely nothing to catch any criminals. I have also never been asked for consent to be searched and it has been almost two decades since my last speeding ticket. I stop at all stop signs and don't slow roll through right turns on red lights. Other than my truck being practically one of a kind and easily recognizable, I doubt the police are even aware of my existence.

I don't look as cheerful as TAM, but I try not to give anyone a reason to stop me. However, the main reason for my driving habits are to teach my daughter how it should be done. She will be driving in a few short years and needs a good foundation for reference. We're all aware that our kids watch everything we do and will throw it back at us at the least expected time.
Teaching mine now. Nothing like a heart attack every 30 seconds. "All right now be aware of the trash can on the right give it room give it some more more now MORE NOW TURNTURNTURN!!!..." :eek6

JSThane
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 610
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 12:07 pm

Re: Respect our DPS and Troopers

#45

Post by JSThane »

As a teenager, I had the local-to-me-then cops stop me and demand I "consent to search." They quite literally told me if I didn't sign it, I wasn't going anywhere unless it was to the station. My crime? Taking a back road to avoid traffic because I was tired and didn't want to endanger anyone (to be fair, I was a bit over the lines, I was so tired; the initial officer stopped on suspicion of DWI). I finally gave in (not knowing any better) and signed the consent form, but told the cop, "Once you find nothing, I want you to tell me what you're looking for." As expected, they found nothing. The very sheepish (and probably scared I'd complain) officer then told me he saw coffee filters in the back seat and thought I was smuggling a meth lab. He totally missed the coffee pot and grounds right next to the filters in the box; I was coming home from a semester at college. Knowing what I know now, there's no way the cops then could have made anything stick, for there was nothing there TO stick. Their threats were empty; they were looking for an "easy bust."

As a law enforcement officer now, I say this: If you've done nothing wrong, DO NOT CONSENT. If you have, and you consent to search, you've just made my job easier. But little things like Constitutional rights aren't there to make my job easier; they're there to keep people from being railroaded like I very nearly was. If I don't catch someone this time around, I'll have another chance. Criminals are dumb. I'll see them again.
Post Reply

Return to “LEO Contacts & Bloopers”