A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

[E.Marquez]

[ I did not read that from Gigs post at all, and I DO READ from yours that you are predisposed to find fault in any post that does not agree with your personal position on the topic.

In any case,, it is Texas law.. don't like it, don't whine about what is ethically and legally allowable under that law, get from behind your keyboards and do something about it..

I personally do not have an issue with the way the law is written, nor the flexibility it gives LEO's.., to do the job tasked with.. Like any other abuse of power, should it come to that where a LEO abuses that flexibility in the law.. then we can deal with THAT case individually.

You may be right...wouldn't be the first time I've been called hard headed or argumentative...but personally, I see a huge difference in "ethically" and "legally"...legally being what the law says can be done...ethically being how the individual applies it.

Fair enough

But if you will, did you read my example above? Where arresting some one for "just failing to signal" is a legal, and ethical thing? If you doubt such examples exist, Id suggest a few week ends of ride along in a larger city, or area with known bangers, drug traffickers.

[emcee rib]

Guess who ended up winning the feud, if there really was one.

I'm going to play the odds and guess the side with more guns and "muscle" won the feud.

[srothstein]

In a situation where "the rumor going around was there was a feud between her and the PD for awhile, which is why she was arrested instead of cited...guess who won the feud". IF that was the case, is there anyone who DOESN'T see that as totally WRONG?

Actually, I am one who does not see it as totally wrong. Consider it this way. The law makes some action a crime. The law specifically states that an officer may arrest for the crime. The law then says the officer may, at his discretion, release the arrested person if the person signs a ticket promising to appear in court. The law only gives the officer guidance on when to not allow the ticket in cases like this. In this case, the fact that the woman committed the crime was not disputed and she even agreed to pay the ticket. What factors would make it right to book her? Obviously, the officer should not release her if he thinks she won't appear in court, right? And if he has had prior contact with her, he may know that she is the type to fight with the police and not show up in court (not saying he did or did not know or believe this, just a supposition). I can see how the officer booking the woman was the only reasonable thing to do.

Now, we add that the officer does not like the woman. They have had a running series of disagreements for some time. After one argument with her, the officer says that if he ever catches her again, he is cutting her no breaks at all and throwing every possible charge at her that is legal. The officer does not go out of his way to catch her or stop her. One day, he sees her commit a violation and stops her for it. He handled the situation in according with the law. How can that be "totally wrong"?

Now, I can see it as a possible abuse of the discretionary authority given to the officer. I am not 100% sure that it is, which is why I said possible abuse. In this case, I am not even sure that there was a feud going on which is why i indicated it was rumor. I would need way more information before I could say it was or was not an abuse of the officer's discretion.

But it is important to remember that I made my post to show that this was legal and had been done in Texas. I was responding to someone who thought the officer would be ridiculed and the case laughed out of court over this application of the law. The court's certainly did not see it as an abuse of the officer's authority or of the law. Nor were the original charges dismissed or affected by the case. It can and has happened in texas and is entirely within the law.

[talltex]

In a situation where "the rumor going around was there was a feud between her and the PD for awhile, which is why she was arrested instead of cited...guess who won the feud". IF that was the case, is there anyone who DOESN'T see that as totally WRONG?

Now, I can see it as a possible abuse of the discretionary authority given to the officer. I am not 100% sure that it is, which is why I said possible abuse. In this case, I am not even sure that there was a feud going on which is why i indicated it was rumor. I would need way more information before I could say it was or was not an abuse of the officer's discretion.

Your points are well made and I understand there could be other issues at play, and given all of those conditions, I can see where it would not be "totally wrong". I made my comment based on the idea that the only reason it happened was because of personal animosity between her and the officer, and with the disclaimer "IF that was the case..." I probably over react and read too much into some statements sometimes. Although it was 30+ years ago, I've done more than weekend ride alongs. I worked 2 years for a Sheriff's department while finishing my college degree, in a force of about 15 deputies. Out of that group, there were 2 guys that I witnessed abuse their position a number of times. They were verbally abusive to people and would intimidate and threaten them with a night in jail for an imagined "smirk" on their face, then later laugh about how they "really put the fear of God into that boy". At the time I was 20 years old and a new kid there and I didn't say or do anything about it. I felt guilty at the time and for years afterward for not speaking up and trying to stop it, and I'm sure that affects my perception of comments sometimes.

[WildBill]

Although it was 30+ years ago, I've done more than weekend ride alongs. I worked 2 years for a Sheriff's department while finishing my college degree, in a force of about 15 deputies. Out of that group, there were 2 guys that I witnessed abuse their position a number of times. They were verbally abusive to people and would intimidate and threaten them with a night in jail for an imagined "smirk" on their face, then later laugh about how they "really put the fear of God into that boy". At the time I was 20 years old and a new kid there and I didn't say or do anything about it. I felt guilty at the time and for years afterward for not speaking up and trying to stop it, and I'm sure that affects my perception of comments sometimes.

It's amazing how long those memories and feelings stay around.

[gringo pistolero]

It's amazing how long those memories and feelings stay around.

I wrote about my bad experience on page 9. I already forgave them, but I will never forget, and I can't trust them or their agency until they change their ways.

[WildBill]

It's amazing how long those memories and feelings stay around.

I wrote about my bad experience on page 9. I already forgave them, but I will never forget, and I can't trust them or their agency until they change their ways.

I can't find the post you are referring to.

[C-dub]

If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

I will be fairly happy to put up with your laughter since you will also have to put up with mine. The judge won't be laughing and neither will my peers. Just so you know, this has already been done and fought all the way to SCOTUS. In the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, an officer arrested a woman for failing to have her children in a seat belt and booked her into the jail. Atwater was released on bond and later paid the $50 fine for the ticket. She then filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer and the city claiming that arresting a person for an offense that is punishable only by a fine is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. District Court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of the city. Fifth Circuit affirmed that the case had no merit. SCOTUS said it had no merit also.

Makes me wonder if she were really arrested for failing to put her kids in seat belts or some hissy-fit or inappropriate remark that the officer decided to teach her a lesson over.

[WildBill]

Makes me wonder if she were really arrested for failing to put her kids in seat belts or some hissy-fit or inappropriate remark that the officer decided to teach her a lesson over.

As with most appeals, the judges decide a case based on their personal beliefs about justice and the law. Then have their clerks write the legal decision that supports their initial views. In this case, the decision was not unanimous. There were three dissenting justices.

In this case the court sided with the police. The court's decision was partially based on the premise that this type of arrest was not common and would not lead to further abuse by the police [my interpretation]: "Noticeably absent from the parade of horribles is any indication that the "potential for abuse" has ever ripened into a reality. In fact, as we have pointed out in text, there simply is no evidence of widespread abuse of minor-offense arrest authority.

[jamullinstx]

Steve, this is a good example of what is wrong with our legal system, sorry to say.

If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

I will be fairly happy to put up with your laughter since you will also have to put up with mine. The judge won't be laughing and neither will my peers. Just so you know, this has already been done and fought all the way to SCOTUS. In the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, an officer arrested a woman for failing to have her children in a seat belt and booked her into the jail. Atwater was released on bond and later paid the $50 fine for the ticket. She then filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer and the city claiming that arresting a person for an offense that is punishable only by a fine is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. District Court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of the city. Fifth Circuit affirmed that the case had no merit. SCOTUS said it had no merit also.

And the only one left laughing was the officer. The rumor going around was that Atwater and the PD had been in a feud for a while, which is why she got arrested instead of cited. Guess who ended up winning the feud, if there really was one.

I will be the first to admit that this appears to be an abuse of the discretion the officer has under the law, but Texas law explicitly makes traffic violations crimes (class C misdemeanors). And Texas law explicitly says an officer may arrest for these offenses. There are only two cases where the discretion has been reduced. If the ticket is for speeding or for having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, the officer must offer the chance to sign the ticket first. But he only has to offer that one time and then he can arrest for those offenses too. So the moral of the story is to not argue with officers about traffic offenses when they stop you. He is the one deciding if you continue on your way or not.


For those concerned, you may read the actual case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=99-1408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ddstuder]

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

Gosh you have me totally pegged. I'll move this to the top of my to do list. Right after working full time at night to support my growing family and finishing my engineering degree.

I find outsider opinions on how to best to engage the criminal element are usually well informed, productive suggestions that all of us dumb cops could learn from and really make a difference.

Cheers, expert

I doubt any one here is questioning your treatment of criminals. However, your treatment of CITIZENS may be another issue!!

The fact that you refer to US as OUTSIDERS is enough!

[mojo84]

For many in our society, the end justifies the means. I've encountered a couple police officers and deputies that believe if innocent citizen's rights have to be infringed upon occassionally so that they might discover a criminal or criminal activity, so be it. It's a small price to pay.

Needless to say, I disagree with this attitude. If you stop me for a broken taillight, then give me a ticket or warning for the broken tail light. If you happen to see something suspicious that leads you to believe there may be something criminal going on, then by all means, pursue it. Otherwise, don't stop me for the taillight with the expectation and hope that you will find something more. What happened to being presumed innocent until proven guilty or there is reasonable suspicion that the person is a criminal breaking other laws?

When I happen upon a police officer, I don't expect or hope to see donut crumbs on his or her shirt. However, if I happen to see them, I laugh to myself and think that figures. I also don't expect every LEO with which I come in contact to be an overzealous cop that is looking to flex his muscles and show just how much authority he has.

[PArrow]

Maybe I missed the post here, by why did you tell him you were carrying? Texas law allows you to carry a conceled weapon in your car without a license. I do not present my CHL unless I have a weapon on my person. I see no reason to tell anyone about a gun in the center console LEO or not. And my answer to "may I look" is "Do you have a warrent?". And If asked if you have a gun in the car tell them yes, and again you want to look I want a warent!

The lock the door as you get out is a great idea!!

[sjfcontrol]

Maybe I missed the post here, by why did you tell him you were carrying? Texas law allows you to carry a conceled weapon in your car without a license. I do not present my CHL unless I have a weapon on my person. I see no reason to tell anyone about a gun in the center console LEO or not. And my answer to "may I look" is "Do you have a warrent?". And If asked if you have a gun in the car tell them yes, and again you want to look I want a warent!

The lock the door as you get out is a great idea!!

By law, if you have a handgun "On or about your person", and you are a CHL licensee, you must provide your Concealed Handgun License along with your ID when asked for ID by a magistrate or peace officer. It makes no difference if the handgun is on your person, or in the console.

(The penalty has been removed for failure to display, so all he could really do is yell at you for not providing it.)

[PArrow]

I'll give you the on or about your person, but if the gun is in the center console of your car and you are standing at the back bumper I don't believe it's "on or about your person. About would imply within easy reach.