Encounter with Round Rock PD

[speedsix]

...for all the hundreds of times I've heard or read "why can't the police DO something about..........?", and the chagrin or anger expressed when they're told "We can't, our hands are tied by the law or the courts...we'd really like to..." or words to that effect...the "pretextual stop" or suspicion stop justified by a real violation, no matter how small ,is really fair play...
...my Mom launched deep investigations and got convictions often based on something not right about the look on my face or my taking too long to answer...
...my teachers did basically the same...as do bosses...as do wives...it's a way of life...we notice something that, to us and in our area of expertise seems out of place...we have a hunch...we justify it by what's often another reason, and we check it out...that's neither evil or unfair..........unless maybe you're the one being stopped or checked out.............if they catch the one who's just burgled your home...they were smart and efficient...if they catch a serial rapist, they're heroes...it's only if you get caught or punished that it "seems somehow wrong"....
...the "system" and courts have greatly restricted LEOs since the 60s...there was MUCH more opportunity for official oppression and unfair treatment of citizens before that...it's a trade-off...and a balancing act...legislative, executive, and judicial...if they all do their jobs well...we, the people benefit much more...

[gigag04]

Yeah I posted something similar but it's gone missing

A matter of low importance really.

[MasterOfNone]

...I was always amused(not amazed) that no matter what violation I stopped a citizen for, they always had something else that they thought I should be doing...and weren't bashful about telling me so..."Why aren't you out there catching REAL criminals?" and so forth.

People often seem to choose the level of violation that they think is insignificant and expect LE to only enforce those violations just above that level. As long as there murderers on the loose, I guess LE shouldn't be worried about any other crime.

[srothstein]

I have no problem with LE generating revenue by ticketing people who have legitimately violated an ordinance.

I have major problems with police generating revenue, even from people who have broken the law. As someone who has written more tickets than I can count, and made pretext stops more often than I can count, I really have a problem with police being tax collectors. The purpose of the law is supposed to be safety, and the purpose of police is supposed to be safety. Any time we think of the police as generating revenue, we have perverted the concept of laws and police.

I don't have a problem with enforcing laws by means of fines. It seems like a reasonable penalty for minor infractions, what Texas calls a class C misdemeanor. But looking at them as revenue results in things like red light cameras, points on licenses with excessive surcharges for multiple violations, and police using "stealth" cars to try to catch people in the act instead of trying to prevent unsafe actions.

Now, on the subject of pretext stops, I have to agree with both sides of the recent discussion. I know I have made pretext stops, and one in particular sticks out in my mind. Our detectives were following the suspect in a series of burglary and rapes. When they called me, I picked it up and paced him, then stopped him for speeding. It was the excuse needed to delay him and get into his car to look for evidence. It worked and he got a 50 year sentence. This is one example of how pretext stops can work.

But, there is a long history of people being stopped for similar pretexts where the reason the officer wanted to stop the car was because of an NRA sticker or because the driver was Black or Mexican, or similar profiling. This is something we must be on constant vigilance against. And that leaves me with the problem of knowing when to stop a car and when it should not be allowed. The SCOTUS has said that there must be an objective violation of the law for it to be a valid pretext stop. In a case like that, why you decide to stop the car - as opposed to all of the other cars committing the same violation - is irrelevant as long as there was an actual violation. That is an acceptable rule for me until someone comes up with something better.

[MasterOfNone]

I did not mean to imply that generating revenue should be the purpose of law enforcement. But it is a useful side effect of it. And if that revenue helps fund LE and allows it to catch or deter more offenders, then it is a good thing. In a perfect world, all offenders would be caught, and potential offenders would be detered by the certainty of punishment. If citing legitimate offenders results in funding that allows for further enforcement, it seems to be a twofold win.

[PappaGun]

... passed an officer going the opposite direction and looked him in the eye and smiled...

That's something women are better at.

Seems to work.

[pcgizzmo]

[quote="MasterOfNone"
But, there is a long history of people being stopped for similar pretexts where the reason the officer wanted to stop the car was because of an NRA sticker or because the driver was Black or Mexican, or similar profiling.

Ummm.. I can get profiled for having a NRA sticker? Didn't know that one.

[pcgizzmo]

Here's an article and a little info on Westlake. Their ticket revenue is $42,000 per person in the town. You can say that's fighting crime but we really know what it's all about and it's not crime. It's about the all mighty $$$$ and it will continue to happen because we let it. This is a VERY sore subject for me. Sorry for the rant.

That's a lot of money per person in a town. Maybe you need to marry a lawyer to defend you for free.

LOL! Good one.

[gigag04]

I've never heard of someone using a pretext stop because of an NRA sticker...

Now if it is an NHRA sticker, there is a good chance the driver is intoxicated....

[mgood]

Wasn't there a case somewhere a few years ago where some LEOs claimed an NRA sticker was probable cause to search for guns and the courts ruled that it was not?

[srothstein]

I may be wrong, but I think it occurred at one of the national parks. I have vague memories of an NRA sticker on the car and a copy of the American Rifleman magazine on the front seat. At least, that was what I was thinking of (besides the earlier post about TSRA stickers) when I put that in the list.

[ELB]

I may be wrong, but I think it occurred at one of the national parks. ....

Actually, it was a little closer to home, in 1993 (although there may be more than one case, of course).

Estep vs Dallas County et al (including two peace officers). Estep was stopped in Garland for speeding, altho the officers did not tell him this, at least initially. Estep got out of his truck with license and reg in hand, and waited for the officer. The officer asked if he had a gun in the truck. Estep said no and asked why the officer asked, who ignored Estep's question and asked him again. Estep said no, but he had mace on a key chain and showed it to the officer, and asked why he had been stopped, and why the officer was asking about a gun. The officer told him to stay in his vehicle, then went and called for back up.

The officers then put Estep at the rear of his vehicle and one of them searched his truck, over Estep's protest that he did not consent to a search. The officer found a handgun in a case behind the seat, and they arrested Estep for wrongful carrying of a weapon and put him in the patrol car. In Estep's presence, the first officer told the backup officer the reason that he wanted to check for a gun was the NRA sticker on the truck. He also later listed a camouflage jacket as a factor (as well as the mace and the fact that Estep got out of the truck).

The officer also later made some seemingly dubious claims about Estep's actions and words causing the him to suspect danger -- dubious because the officer never searched Estep himself.

The criminal charges against Estep were dismissed when the criminal trial judge suppressed the evidence due to an illegal search.

Estep sued Dallas County and the officers for violation of his constitutional rights, and lower courts sided with the County and dismissed the case. However, the 5th Court of Appeals found Estep could sue and remanded the case back to trial court, altho it removed the second officer from the case. I haven't looked it up to see what happened.

Great line from the majority opinion:
"Indeed, if the presence of an NRA sticker and camouflage gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude he was in danger, half the pickups in the state of Texas would be subject to a vehicle search."

Frankly, I think the officer never believed he was in danger, he just saw the NRA sticker and figured he could pick up an easy gun bust.

http://openjurist.org/310/f3d/353/estep ... texas-f-jc" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[dihappy]

I think the original point was that the RR police (1) exceeded their authority by demanding a ss #, and (2) were not interested in discussing the situation when the author tried to do so with management.

It is often the attitude of the police that leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Yes, they have a job to do, but do it in a professional manner.

Gig's comment: "Thanks! However, will all due respect, until you actually get training, done the job and made arrests, please don't give instructions on LEOs as to how to do their jobs." is a pretty good example of that attitude.

Yes, we the citizens will tell the police departments how to do thier job.. that is the premise the American experience is based upon.

Couldn't have said it better.

[dihappy]

...I was always amused(not amazed) that no matter what violation I stopped a citizen for, they always had something else that they thought I should be doing...and weren't bashful about telling me so..."Why aren't you out there catching REAL criminals?" and so forth...my answer was "Because you have made it necessary for me to stop and deal with you instead because of your speeding, headlight out, or whatever the violation"...it's childish to do wrong, get caught at it, then try to pick apart the officer who stopped you...it's mature to own up , take the warning or ticket, and go on with life...
...attitudes ARE important...an officer will usually respond to one, be it good or bad...with the same...not always, but usually...we should own up to our mistakes and deal with them, instead of lyin' and denyin'...and pointing the blame elsewhere...I've been warned a lot more than written in the last 35 years...because I honestly admit my fault in a friendly, respectful manner, and ask for mercy when I 've sinned...only once did that not get me a warning...in a school zone that I hadn't realized I'd entered...and where it comes to kids, I understand the strictness...cops are people, too, and will treat us with the same respect we extend to them...with few exceptions...

I disagree with saying cops will treat you with the same respect you show them.

Cops should always remain calm and professional, there are a few videos showing cops doing just that.

They shouldn't lose their cool when someone asks a question, or even gets upset. If you can't deal with people, you applied to the wrong job buddy.

How many of us would lose our jobs if we quit acting professional when dealing with a problem customer?

Yes, there are amazing men and women LEOs out there. But the few who somehow got hired with their attitudes and power trips make some of us leary when dealing with any Leo.

[carlson1]

I know for a fact that two departments in East Texas told there officers to step up the citations for revenue.

They needed another patrol SUV and they needed two more slots filled.

That is DEAD wrong! Citations are to be about safety NOT a fund raiser!!!