Traffic stop while traveling

[EricS76]

Not trying to be rude, just trying to understand.

So the officer says "do you have a gun in your vehicle" and you say " i refuse to answer the question" And he does not have the right to search your vehicle at this time? What if he said "do you have any drugs in your vehicle?" and you say "i refuse to answer the question" Then he does not have the right to search the vehicle then either? I understand that drugs are illegal, but so are guns in some circumstances. Just trying to understand the difference.

[Kalrog]

That is correct - if that is the only evidence that the officer has. Refusal to answer a question or submit to a search is NOT probably cause for a search. If the officer has other PC for a search, (s)he could have been being polite or trying for a consent search insted of having to prove PC in court.

IANAL.

[EricS76]

That is correct - if that is the only evidence that the officer has. Refusal to answer a question or submit to a search is NOT probably cause for a search. If the officer has other PC for a search, (s)he could have been being polite or trying for a consent search insted of having to prove PC in court.

IANAL.

Good info, thanks. So in a routine traffic stop, the officer does not have the right to search solely on refusal to answer. But if he saw a box of ammo, or something gun-related (i.e. holster, the outline of what he precieves to be a gun covered by something), would he then have probable cause to search then?

[KBCraig]

Good info, thanks. So in a routine traffic stop, the officer does not have the right to search solely on refusal to answer. But if he saw a box of ammo, or something gun-related (i.e. holster, the outline of what he precieves to be a gun covered by something), would he then have probable cause to search then?

Eric, I'm not directing this at you personally, but... it's scary how brainwashed Americans have become, into thinking the police can search them "just because".

A "box of ammo, or something gun-related" would not provide probable cause for a search. The outline of a gun would only provide cause, if possessing the gun would be illegal. (A box of ammo would be PC if the searchee was a felon, since felons can't have ammo, either.)

An officer who has stopped you for a traffic violation does not have carte blanch to search you or your vehicle. He has the right to question you about the circumstances which led to the stop. He has the right to engage you in conversation about any subject under the sun, but you're not obliged to repond. He has the right to act upon anything he sees or learns from you.

Absent probable cause, police only have the right to search with your permission. That's why they ask permission! If they have PC, your permission doesn't matter.

Bear in mind that a "vehicle inventory" subsequent to arrest is always possible. And in Texas, the driver can be arrested for every traffic offense except for two.

Kevin

[EricS76]

Good info, thanks. So in a routine traffic stop, the officer does not have the right to search solely on refusal to answer. But if he saw a box of ammo, or something gun-related (i.e. holster, the outline of what he precieves to be a gun covered by something), would he then have probable cause to search then?

Eric, I'm not directing this at you personally, but... it's scary how brainwashed Americans have become, into thinking the police can search them "just because".

A "box of ammo, or something gun-related" would not provide probable cause for a search. The outline of a gun would only provide cause, if possessing the gun would be illegal. (A box of ammo would be PC if the searchee was a felon, since felons can't have ammo, either.)

An officer who has stopped you for a traffic violation does not have carte blanch to search you or your vehicle. He has the right to question you about the circumstances which led to the stop. He has the right to engage you in conversation about any subject under the sun, but you're not obliged to repond. He has the right to act upon anything he sees or learns from you.

Absent probable cause, police only have the right to search with your permission. That's why they ask permission! If they have PC, your permission doesn't matter.

Bear in mind that a "vehicle inventory" subsequent to arrest is always possible. And in Texas, the driver can be arrested for every traffic offense except for two.

Kevin

Thanks for explanation. My interaction with LEOs and the criminal law system has been few and far between, thankfully. Took a criminal law class in college as an elective once but that's about it. And i'm sure this has much to do with my lack of knowledge in this area. Good to see that there are people who do know these things and are willing to share them here.

[tomc]

HighVelocity wrote:

If the driver lies and says no, there is no firearms in the vehicle, then they have committed a crime by lying and therefore are carrying a weapon in the commission of a crime.

Tomneal wrote:

The courts have been consistant.
Lying to law enforcement is a crime.
Them lying to citizens is not a crime.

dolanp wrote:

Certainly don't lie because that could bite you in the rear later. He can't search your car just because you don't want to answer questions and if he does it's time to call a lawyer for real.

I reference these quotes because I was originally motivated to post this thread in responce to a conversation I had on this subject with a recently retired LEO who suggested saying no as an alternative if asked. He said that in Texas there was no legal requirement to tell the truth except when you were under oath (perjury), or even to provide accurate identification except if stopped as a witness. I checked with him again after reading posts saying "don't lie" and he still stands by his claims.

It would seem to me to be an easy way to de-escalate officer suspicion regarding having a firearm rather than saying nothing or giving an evasive answer. IANAL so if the above is bull, could someone cite a statute or code reference that defines this as illegal?

Note that if the stop situation escalated into an arrest, I would strongly consider correcting my statements to the officer.

[Chris]

I recall some good advice: if asked to exit the vehicle, lock it on your way out. "Force of habit, officer. Take a bite out of crime! :) "

At that point, anything in the vehicle is not only out of reach, it's securely locked. Terry would not apply.

Kevin

no, then it would be opened without your consent because you would be placed under arrest for the traffic violation. if you act like a smart azz, the cops will too. not a good idea. there are several ways to get in a car.

i don't see where this big fear of "the man" comes from. when i see a CHL on a traffic stop, i think it's safe to assume i'm not going to have any problems with them.

[gigag04]

i don't see where this big fear of "the man" comes from. when i see a CHL on a traffic stop, i think it's safe to assume i'm not going to have any problems with them.

I thnk the issue is those w/o a CHL, but carrying under HB 823. And I fear the DA and his crazy interpretations of clear laws.

Chris - as a LEO, what do you think your contemporaries will do with "car carry" and HB 823?

-nick

[orc4hire]

[KBCraig]

i don't see where this big fear of "the man" comes from.

What fear? The ones acting out of fear are those who obediently turn out their pockets, open their trunks, and unquestioningly submit to unwarranted, unjustified searches.

Their fear is based on the threat you issued:

no, then it would be opened without your consent because you would be placed under arrest for the traffic violation. if you act like a smart azz, the cops will too. not a good idea. there are several ways to get in a car.

If the violation is speeding or open container, and the motorist is willing to sign the promise to appear, he does not need to fear being arrested. Any police officer who is angered by a motorist not consenting to a search should be feared, especially if he'll "find" an arrestable offense during the stop. Any officer who will lie about failure to signal a lane change, just in order to "inventory" a car subsequent to arrest, is morally and legally indistinguishable from one who plants a felony quantity of drugs.

Kevin