TexasCHLforum.com

Keith B wrote:

hheremtp wrote:

trdvet wrote:The Police do not need probable cause to pull people over.

Really, can you please post the statute that backs this statement up?

Probable cause is needed for arrest. Reasonable suspicion is all that is needed to pull you over.

I stand Corrected, my apologies to all.

I beg to disagree. Probable cause is necessary for any traffic stop. This is clearly seen in SCOTUS and TX Court of Criminal Appeals rulings. A traffic stop is an arrest, as defined by the CCA in the Kurtz decision of 2004. As such, probable cause is clearly necessary for the stop. SCOTUS ruled last year that even the passenger can question the probable cause for the stop since event he passenger would feel they were not free to leave, thus meeting the legal definition of an arrest. If an officer does not need probable cause, just suspicion, how can a passenger question the probable cause?

Many people, including officers, think a traffic stop does not need more than suspicion. But when they talk amongst themselves, they will even ask what the PC for the stop was. Yes, this may be slang and really mean they want to know why the stop was made, but the slang indicates that the basic rule is probable cause. The officers who feel they can stop for reasonable suspicion are wrong and will get eaten alive in court if they try to use that and find something worse. Many of the court cases on crimes and searches start with asking what the officer's probable cause for a stop is.

As just one example of how you need probable cause, ask any officer how they were taught to testify about radar use. First they saw the car approaching at what appeared to be a high rate of speed. This is the probable cause for the search by means of the radar gun that they used to determine the car's speed. This is then the probable cause for the stop. I know that a lot of cops do not actually do things this way, but they were taught to and will probably still testify that way, even if they had the radar running and it beeped at the speed higher than the target, causing them to look up to see which car was speeding.

A traffic stop is an arrest (in Texas) and needs probable cause. The officer must be able to articulate what facts and circumstances led him, as a reasonable person, to believe that a crime was being committed.

Agreed sir.

To take it one step further, often times when a traffic stop leads to an arrest for a higher offense (example DWI, PCS) the defense attorney will call into question the original PC for the stop. If the jury doesn't buy the officer had PC for the stop, then everything found afterwards, even if done so "reasonably" is illegal because the officer did not have a constitutional right to stop the vehicle. The evidence located during PC-less stop is "fruit of the poisonous tree" and not admissible.

Of course, the ultimate citation or arrest does not need to be related to the probable cause. Real life example, an officer I worked with pulled a lady over because she had something large hanging from her rear view mirror that was impeding her vision. When she rolled down her window to greet the officer, it was obvious from the smell and appearance of her eyes, that she had been drinking. She was ultimately arrested for DUI, but that wasn't even suspected when he initiated the stop. But everyone probably knows that already.

T.

gigag04

What's PCS please? Possession of Controlled Substance?

SIA

surprise_i'm_armed wrote:gigag04

What's PCS please? Possession of Controlled Substance?

SIA

Yes.

Kurtz v State

The question in this appeal is whether an officer of the police department of a city has authority to stop a person for committing a traffic offense when the officer is in another city within the same county. We hold that the officer does not have such authority.

He was arrested for DWI.

Brendlin dealt with whether a passenger was seized.

A Peace Officer may detain someone if they have reasonable suspicion, though the detention must be brief. PC is needed for an arrest, search or a warrant.

You can also read Kurtis v State

Thus, its sole contention before this Court is that the officers had reasonable suspicion to stop appellant's vehicle and that the court of appeals applied an improper standard in determining whether the officers' suspicion was reasonable.

Good read here too:
http://www.fellowlawyers.com/index2.php ... f=1&id=819

srothstein wrote:I beg to disagree. Probable cause is necessary for any traffic stop.....

While I don't disagree that probable cause plays into the final arrest factor, and that under Texas law a traffic stop is considered an arrest, I think the courts seem to see it differently. Any time I have been in court for jury selection on DWI or other traffic cases (too frequently lately it seems ), or observing a case that I had personal interest in, the Judges have stated that to perform a traffic stop all the officer needs is reasonable suspicion. To execute the arrest for DWI and issue a ticket or take the person into custody, then he had to have probable cause (i.e. failed field sobriety test or BAC.)

Keith B wrote:

srothstein wrote:I beg to disagree. Probable cause is necessary for any traffic stop.....

While I don't disagree that probable cause plays into the final arrest factor, and that under Texas law a traffic stop is considered an arrest, I think the courts seem to see it differently. Any time I have been in court for jury selection on DWI or other traffic cases (too frequently lately it seems ), or observing a case that I had personal interest in, the Judges have stated that to perform a traffic stop all the officer needs is reasonable suspicion. To execute the arrest for DWI and issue a ticket or take the person into custody, then he had to have probable cause (i.e. failed field sobriety test or BAC.)

This is a little bit off topic, but it happened in Plano. My wife and daughter were stopped this afternoon by a Plano LEO. They had no idea why until the officer told them the right brake light was out. My daughter is "13 month's" pregnant, my wife is a very unthreatening looking grandmother. They were in my daughter's mother in law's car and were furniture shopping for a recliner after leaving the OB-GYN's office. She explained that she traded her van for the MIL's car
because she has two year old twin daughter's and the MIL who was baby sitting wanted to take the babies out.

The officer asked where she lived, odd since it's on her license and then wanted to know what she was doing in Plano if she lived in Grand Prairie. She explained all the above and they had actually pulled into Ashley furniture when they were stopped. His reaction was "You cant fit a recliner in this car". Just wondering, has there been an invasion of the PMAM Gang? (Pregnant Mother and Mom) Did Grand Prairie whup Plano in football ?
He did only write her a warning so it has a happy ending.

puma guy wrote:

Keith B wrote:

srothstein wrote:I beg to disagree. Probable cause is necessary for any traffic stop.....

While I don't disagree that probable cause plays into the final arrest factor, and that under Texas law a traffic stop is considered an arrest, I think the courts seem to see it differently. Any time I have been in court for jury selection on DWI or other traffic cases (too frequently lately it seems ), or observing a case that I had personal interest in, the Judges have stated that to perform a traffic stop all the officer needs is reasonable suspicion. To execute the arrest for DWI and issue a ticket or take the person into custody, then he had to have probable cause (i.e. failed field sobriety test or BAC.)

This is a little bit off topic, but it happened in Plano. My wife and daughter were stopped this afternoon by a Plano LEO. They had no idea why until the officer told them the right brake light was out. My daughter is "13 month's" pregnant, my wife is a very unthreatening looking grandmother. They were in my daughter's mother in law's car and were furniture shopping for a recliner after leaving the OB-GYN's office. She explained that she traded her van for the MIL's car
because she has two year old twin daughter's and the MIL who was baby sitting wanted to take the babies out.

The officer asked where she lived, odd since it's on her license and then wanted to know what she was doing in Plano if she lived in Grand Prairie. She explained all the above and they had actually pulled into Ashley furniture when they were stopped. His reaction was "You cant fit a recliner in this car". Just wondering, has there been an invasion of the PMAM Gang? (Pregnant Mother and Mom) Did Grand Prairie whup Plano in football ?
He did only write her a warning so it has a happy ending.

Don't it make ya jus wanna love em more? No I'm not talking about the PMAM. Even with my wife, Shopping does not ALWAYS = buying or even self delivery for that matter...she says that's what I'm for.

FYI My wife was pulled over this weekend. She was fit to be tied since it was in a school zone and she wasn't speeding. Turns out it wasn't for speeding but for no insurance.

She drives a lease car provided by her employer (out of state) and it turns out the insurance company didn't fax or file the information with the state of Texas. The officer ran her plates in the zone and pulled her over. He looked at her card and everything was fine but he told her to get the company to send over the info to Texas or it could happen again.

No insurance = pulled over.


Might be worth a call to your agent to make sure they don't cause an unnecessary LEO encounter IMHO.

Be safe and be careful.

blackdog8200 wrote:FYI My wife was pulled over this weekend. She was fit to be tied since it was in a school zone and she wasn't speeding. Turns out it wasn't for speeding but for no insurance.

She drives a lease car provided by her employer (out of state) and it turns out the insurance company didn't fax or file the information with the state of Texas. The officer ran her plates in the zone and pulled her over. He looked at her card and everything was fine but he told her to get the company to send over the info to Texas or it could happen again.

No insurance = pulled over.


Might be worth a call to your agent to make sure they don't cause an unnecessary LEO encounter IMHO.

Be safe and be careful.

ReAlly?? If they know if the car is insured, then why do I need to send in proof of insurance when I renew the registration?

sjfcontrol wrote:

blackdog8200 wrote:FYI My wife was pulled over this weekend. She was fit to be tied since it was in a school zone and she wasn't speeding. Turns out it wasn't for speeding but for no insurance.

She drives a lease car provided by her employer (out of state) and it turns out the insurance company didn't fax or file the information with the state of Texas. The officer ran her plates in the zone and pulled her over. He looked at her card and everything was fine but he told her to get the company to send over the info to Texas or it could happen again.

No insurance = pulled over.


Might be worth a call to your agent to make sure they don't cause an unnecessary LEO encounter IMHO.

Be safe and be careful.

ReAlly?? If they know if the car is insured, then why do I need to send in proof of insurance when I renew the registration?

It's the government, don't ask silly questions!

puma guy wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

blackdog8200 wrote:FYI My wife was pulled over this weekend. She was fit to be tied since it was in a school zone and she wasn't speeding. Turns out it wasn't for speeding but for no insurance.

She drives a lease car provided by her employer (out of state) and it turns out the insurance company didn't fax or file the information with the state of Texas. The officer ran her plates in the zone and pulled her over. He looked at her card and everything was fine but he told her to get the company to send over the info to Texas or it could happen again.

No insurance = pulled over.


Might be worth a call to your agent to make sure they don't cause an unnecessary LEO encounter IMHO.

Be safe and be careful.

ReAlly?? If they know if the car is insured, then why do I need to send in proof of insurance when I renew the registration?

It's the government, don't ask silly questions!

The database is too unreliable on the info. Our CA said his office would no longer take cases where the only reason for stop was unconfirmed insurance on the LP return. With me, the DB can save you if you forgot your proof of insurance - however, I still try and see an actual valid copy because of issues in the DB. If you don't have it, but it shows to be confirmed on your LP then I'll cut a break and give the benifit of the doubt.

I will however write NO INS tickets every time that there is no proof, and the DB shows ins to be unconfirmed. 2 years ago I was rear ended by an uninsured motorist and had to have my ins fix the car and go after the other driver. It's a pain. Get insurance.


Off my rant.

puma guy wrote:She explained all the above and they had actually pulled into Ashley furniture when they were stopped. His reaction was "You cant fit a recliner in this car".

I know this is Texas, where everybody has somebody in the family who drives a truck, but still.... he never heard of delivery? That's the only way Ashley does business. You don't buy anything from Ashley and take it home, you pick it out, pay for it, and they pull stock from the warehouse and deliver it the next day.