TexasCHLforum.com

Aren't you glad you weren't drunk.

Last week of the month....Trying to get the points for the month. I know they say they dont have quotas to fill but a friend of mine that works in a department south of Dallas says they have to get so many "points" per month and each traffic stop is worth so many points regardless if they write a citation or not. Maybe it is the same thing. Maybe they were just trying to ruffle your feathers. I had the same thing happen to me in Rowlette once. I was moving a car I bought from a buddy of mine from his house to mine. No inspection or registration or insurance. I had just picked it up. Anyway they pulled me over 3 times in a 2 and half mile stretch. Crazy! And you know they were talking to each other on the radio. lol

austinrealtor wrote:

gigag04 wrote:the sheer density of popo

I think I have a title for that new cop drama TV script I'm writing

A better one would be "Tag Team Popo!"

This is insane.

Is it clear, in the 18th century the concept of police had not been invented? They had sheriffs and constables who mainly investigated crimes after the fact.

The notion of police officers driving around in cars to stop other citizens driving around in cars started in the Prohibition era. They wanted to catch bootleggers. At the same time we were graced with a series of Supreme Court decisions that made warrantless searches of vehicles legal.

Since then we have gotten the Terry decision that makes warrantless searches legal on suspicion (rather than probable cause). Of course these searches, supposedly for weapons, often reveal a gram of crack or whatever.

The founders of this country and the framers of the constitution were not unimaginative men, but I doubt they imagined this kind of regimentation.

What are you driving these days, Bill? Aside from the headlamp, it sounds like you have an "arrest me" bumper sticker.

I bet the officers were running on a STEP grant, so that explains the sheer density of popo.

I don't know for a fact, but there has been quite a big of traffic enforcement funded by grants around here. The cops are all over I-45 south of Houston.

Lose the hair

Like that would be difficult.

- Jim

I got up this morning and decided to take care of my headlights. When I got into my car I saw a copy of The Police Times on the seat. I forgotten that I had picked in up at the restaurant. I don't know if any of the Sheriffs noticed it or not. By the time I got home last night I didn't even remember about the paper.

It was a little foggy this morning and on the way to Wal-Mart I noticed an SUV with a burned out headlight. He had an NRA decal in his back window. I wondered if he would be pulled over and if was carrying. I did my WallyWalk and per KD5NRH's recommendation bought a pair of Sylvania Xtravision bulbs for $20.44 including tax. Installing them was easy. Getting out the old ones took at little more effort. I am happy that I am now "legal" again. And to answer your question - yes!

To answer the question that some of you asked. Last night, I had a glass of Chardonnay with dinner, so I decided not to carry.

Which agencies were they with? They weren't all Galco Sheriffs, were they?

I can never get those bulbs replaced without a few skinned knuckles and imprecations.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:This is insane.

What are you driving these days, Bill? Aside from the headlamp, it sounds like you have an "arrest me" bumper sticker. - Jim

I am driving a stock Honda Accord. No chrome wheels, LEDs, tinted windows, bumper stickers or NRA decals. Over the last couple of years I have driven the same route dozens of times.

It may explain if I told you where this occurred. It was on West Bayshore Drive [FM 646] on a stretch of a road that follows along the bay. The highway goes from Texas City through Bacliff and basically leads to nowhere [San Leon], except for my destination; Gilhooley's. Gilhooley's is a restaurant that caters mostly to the locals. It's a "dive", but it has "character" and has the best osyters in the county.

I am not certain, but I believe that all of the LEOs were Galveston County Sheriffs. I know that two of them were.

Well, San Leon and Bacliff probably are in the top 10 meth cooking towns in the state, but an Accord is not exactly a cop magnet.

I often wonder why crooks drive such predictable vehicles like Eldos. If they just drove Volvos or Toyotas the cops wouldn't look at them twice.

- Jim

WildBill wrote:I got up this morning and decided to take care of my headlights.

Glad you went during the day.


Jim, I appreciate your post. I would like a police force that focuses on investigation more so than prevention since the latter is impossible without implicating innocent people in potential crimes.

WildBill wrote:I did my WallyWalk and per KD5NRH's recommendation bought a pair of Sylvania Xtravision bulbs for $20.44 including tax.

I've been using Silverstars for years and have been very pleased. I'm sure the Xtravisions will serve you well.

seamusTX wrote:I often wonder why crooks drive such predictable vehicles like Eldos. If they just drove Volvos or Toyotas the cops wouldn't look at them twice.

That must be why I don't get pulled over much. But then again, my car could hardly speed with a set of JATOs.

bnc wrote:Jim, I appreciate your post. I would like a police force that focuses on investigation more so than prevention since the latter is impossible without implicating innocent people in potential crimes.

Thanks.

The police do prevent crimes to some extent.

In the good old days of cops walking the beat they knew who the schlumps were and kept an eye on them. Sometimes I still see phrases like "known to the police."

The problem now is that driving is practically necessary to daily life, unless you're Amish, and driving makes you a rolling candidate for arrests and sometimes very expensive tickets, (even if you are not running illegal drugs and do not have outstanding warrants). A $500 ticket is a week's take-home pay for many people. That is the moral equivalent of a week of unpaid involuntary servitude.

The case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista is obscene.

- Jim

BTW, I have had enough excitement for the week. Tonight am I staying home, eating dinner, reading The Police Times, watching a movie and having some Thin Mints.

WildBill wrote:BTW, I have had enough excitement for the week. Tonight am I staying home, eating dinner, reading The Police Times, watching a movie and having some Thin Mints.

They don't put near enough of those in the box!

WildBill wrote: Thin Mints.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm, Thin Mints ...

(That's the second time I typed that today!)


BTW:

WildBill wrote:

seamusTX wrote: except for my destination; Gilhooley's. Gilhooley's is a restaurant that caters mostly to the locals. It's a "dive", but it has "character" and has the best osyters in the county.

What can you tell me about Noah's Ark restaurant in the same general area?

seamusTX wrote:Is it clear, in the 18th century the concept of police had not been invented? They had sheriffs and constables who mainly investigated crimes after the fact.

Actually, the concept of a police force dates back to the Roman Praetorian Guard. They were on patrol to prevent crime in Rome and the surrounding area. And the Emperor was so afraid of them as a power, that he would only allow one-third in Rome and one-third on duty anywhere at a time. History does show that the Emperors were right to be afraid of the power because it helped lead to the downfall of the empire as the Guard became politically active.

After the fall of Rome, the concept kind of disappeared until Robert Peel in the mid 1800's. That is generally regarded as the birth of modern policing.

We should learn from history. The lessons are plain. Look at how political the chiefs have become. Maybe the founding fathers were aware of some of these dangers when they put the police power at the state level instead of the federal?

The notion of police officers driving around in cars to stop other citizens driving around in cars started in the Prohibition era. They wanted to catch bootleggers. At the same time we were graced with a series of Supreme Court decisions that made warrantless searches of vehicles legal.

Police were on patrol in cars before prohibition. The concept of enforcing laws with stops for searches became popular during prohibition though. If you consider prohibition part of the war on some drugs, it just shows how it has always cost us some of our freedoms and rights. I understand the problem the SCOTUS was faced with though. If I make you get a warrant for every search, the very mobility of an automobile makes it almost impossible to catch the criminal in the act of transporting the illegal goods. But, there is nothing in the Fourth Amendment about exigent circumstances either. I think you and I agree that this is a case where the chosen solution (warrantless search) is worse than the problem it was supposed to solve.

Since then we have gotten the Terry decision that makes warrantless searches legal on suspicion (rather than probable cause). Of course these searches, supposedly for weapons, often reveal a gram of crack or whatever.

My personal opinion was that Terry was one of the worst decisions of all time by SCOTUS. Even if you accept the concept of exigent circumstances as justification for a warrantless search, there is no way I can justify the lowering of the standard from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. Terry was actually pretty restrictive in its decision, requiring the officer to be able to articulate why the pat down was justified int hat case. Its application has been pretty bad though, and there was a further case based on it that was really bad. Int he later case, the SCOTUS ruled on plain feel as legal. Based on Terry, if you feel a gun and can identify it as a gun, you now have probable cause. This case said if you feel a crack rock and can immediately identify it as a crack rock, it is the same thing. But there are so many possible things that feel like rocks while only guns or gun replicas feel like guns.

In both Terry and Dickerson (just looked it up), the rulings are an attempt to allow police to do their jobs. In Terry, the cop turned out to be right, which was a strong argument for the court to allow it. What the court was trying to do was let cops rely on their training and experience to prevent crime. As always, it was a slippery slope and was abused in Dickerson. There the decision went against the cops because the one involved testified that he twisted and manipulated the rock to see what it was. But in so doing, SCOTUS almost told police how to write their reports and testify so it would be legal. All he needs to do is say he immediately recognized the rock as crack (or whatever as contraband) and it becomes legal.

The problem with driving is that there are so many laws now that it is almost impossible for anyone to drive 100% legally all of the time. And so many of the laws are nanny type or just for revenue collection that should never be on the books to begin with.

I am pretty sure you and I agree that we are on a slope towards a police state and it is getting steeper and steeper. I am a firm believer that the question is not if we will have a new revolution, but when.