Vehicle Search

[Mexican_Hippie]

Some matters the Legislature wants to give LE power to arrest and "let the courts decide" (such as justifiable homicide etc). I agree completely registered Title II items should be an exception rather than a defense, especially since the exception would be so easy to articulate.

Ok, that makes sense. Seems like maybe "defenses" are just overused then.

 

[London]

Not sure what state law is but SC has ruled that any part of the car in your "Immediate grabbable area" is subject to Terry search for officer safety. No RAS or PC needed aside from the officer saying he felt endangered.

 

[Bithabus]

Not sure what state law is but SC has ruled that any part of the car in your "Immediate grabbable area" is subject to Terry search for officer safety. No RAS or PC needed aside from the officer saying he felt endangered.

Are you sure you have that right?

 

[London]

Are you sure you have that right?

Not sure I understand the question here... what right are you referring to?

 

[Bithabus]

Not sure I understand the question here... what right are you referring to?

I meant, are you sure that is correct?

 

[London]

Yes. Feeling endangered is the only RAS necessary for a Terry search. The RAS must be based on "Specific and articulable facts," though in reality these searches are done pretty routinely anyway. In nearly all of my police encounters I've been Terry frisked despite my cooperation and complete lack of threatening demeanor; though one could argue since I didn't state any unwillingness to be searched then I must have been volunteering for such. Anyway, on to the meat of the matter:

"If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment." Please note "Passenger compartment" means any area which is capable of holding passengers- including the driver.

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Bithabus]

Yes. Feeling endangered is the only RAS necessary for a Terry search. The RAS must be based on "Specific and articulable facts," though in reality these searches are done pretty routinely anyway. In nearly all of my police encounters I've been Terry frisked despite my cooperation and complete lack of threatening demeanor; though one could argue since I didn't state any unwillingness to be searched then I must have been volunteering for such. Anyway, on to the meat of the matter:

"If police reasonably suspect the driver or any of the occupants may be dangerous and that the vehicle may contain a weapon to which an occupant may gain access, police may perform a protective search of the passenger compartment." Please note "Passenger compartment" means any area which is capable of holding passengers- including the driver.

Terry v. Ohio - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry stop - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not what I meant. Also disagree with some of what you say here but that's for another thread.

What I meant is, are you sure this is correct: "SC has ruled that any part of the car in your "Immediate grabbable area" is subject to Terry search for officer safety. No RAS or PC needed aside from the officer saying he felt endangered"

Can you cite the case? Would be an interesting read.

 

[London]

My source on the subject is not with me at the moment; I will try to remember to have a look at it when I get a chance. Everything I'm finding online is speaking only about search incident to arrest.

 

[TheDan]

...or they have reasonable suspicion you are armed.

Would handing them your CHL with your DL and insurance give them reasonable suspicion you are armed?

I don't get the reason for having both exceptions and defenses in Texas law in the first place. Why not just make them all exceptions? Is there a good reason I'm missing, because the whole concept seems retarded.

Why not just repeal the law? Then you don't need exceptions or defenses.

 

[San Antone RR]

Why not just repeal the law? Then you don't need exceptions or defenses.

That will be one internet demerit for putting an idea out there that makes sense...

 

[Bithabus]

Would handing them your CHL with your DL and insurance give them reasonable suspicion you are armed?

Another reason to keep the good stuff in the trunk.

Why not just repeal the law? Then you don't need exceptions or defenses.

Agreed, I'd love to see 46.05 repealed.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

I just had a CHL contact today. Gentleman handed his credentials over with his DL, younger guy. I proceeded to ask what he happened to be carrying. Taurus .380, concealed in his back waistband. His inspection sticker appeared tampered with, which was my cause for stop. After explaining to him, he understood, sticker was legitimate after all. The tact in how I handled the stop gave the operator the confidence and trust in my actions. He didn't feel threatened by my presence or inquiries. I completed the stop and we went our seperate ways. Nice guy. I've only run across one CHL holder where we had issues, but was never based on the fact of him being licensed. Just his demeanor and level of sobriety.

 

[bryonbush]

What happens 9 out of 10 times is they will make something up to search the car.

This happens mostly in my experience when there is only one of you with no witnesses to back you up.

Been through it... it sucks, have a record thanks to a lying police officer.


wow i love this..... FYI: every officer now days has cameras in their cars, mics that record what is said, and some even have body cameras. so if you HONESTLY think that they just "make something up to search the car" your theory is off. did it ever occur to you that probable cause must be PROVEN when you go to court? so tell me, if there is nothing illegal to hide and your not acting like their is, then why would officers risk their carreer and risk a civil lawsuit just to search a car? by you saing this, its no different than people blaming lack of gun control when a shooting takes place. 9 out of 10 times the person who does the shooting is crazy. so does that mean that every gun owner is now on the copping block and thrown into the same catigory? i bet 9 out of 10 times, you get mad when you hear a story and wonder why the police DIDNT search the car that had a kidnapped child in it. or search the car that was transporting drugs in it. but when you (most likley) acted in a rude manner to the officer, or gave him a reason to think something illegal is going on, then yes, they will find a way to search and your the one being angry for being searched. its an endless loop. i will be the first to agree that there are crooked cops out there. but luckly with technology now days, if you feel that you have been wonged, then call his inline super and complain and go up the chain if you need to. every incident is at minimum caught on tape. how do you think the bad apples are taken out of the field? enough said on this topic and post.....

 

[Rum Runner]

Edit: (Now irrelevant)

 

[San Antone RR]

We're having a discussion here. The insults and attacks stop.

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

What happens 9 out of 10 times is they will make something up to search the car.

This happens mostly in my experience when there is only one of you with no witnesses to back you up.

Been through it... it sucks, have a record thanks to a lying police officer.


wow i love this..... FYI: every officer now days has cameras in their cars, mics that record what is said, and some even have body cameras. so if you HONESTLY think that they just "make something up to search the car" your theory is off. did it ever occur to you that probable cause must be PROVEN when you go to court? so tell me, if there is nothing illegal to hide and your not acting like their is, then why would officers risk their carreer and risk a civil lawsuit just to search a car? by you saing this, its no different than people blaming lack of gun control when a shooting takes place. 9 out of 10 times the person who does the shooting is crazy. so does that mean that every gun owner is now on the copping block and thrown into the same catigory? i bet 9 out of 10 times, you get mad when you hear a story and wonder why the police DIDNT search the car that had a kidnapped child in it. or search the car that was transporting drugs in it. but when you (most likley) acted in a rude manner to the officer, or gave him a reason to think something illegal is going on, then yes, they will find a way to search and your the one being angry for being searched. its an endless loop. i will be the first to agree that there are crooked cops out there. but luckly with technology now days, if you feel that you have been wonged, then call his inline super and complain and go up the chain if you need to. every incident is at minimum caught on tape. how do you think the bad apples are taken out of the field? enough said on this topic and post.....

Our camera systems for our department are excellent...BUT, SAPD is a prime example of no cameras. Due to recent events though, they have been equiping more vehicles with them. Sad when a camera is necessary to believe an officer or to clarify a situation. I love my camera and don't have a big brother fear about it. It's a shame though too, that some officers out there still exist who create the negative image for our career paths. A LOT of agencies have either no systems, or VERY poor quality. fortunately grants are there to help improve such situations and get some others up to speed.

I am one of the first to say file a complaint on any officer, including myself if they have mistreated. Granted, some people think that getting a ticket for something they did wrong constitutes a full blown federal case, lol. but, if an officer treated you wrong, or violated your writes, more can been done on paper and in person than venting online. Agencies will listen, but it also depends on how the complaint is initially put across. dot the "I's" and cross the "T's" and don't make it appear out of vengeance, but full of fact.

 

[Jason]

Things that happen out of the line of sight of car mounted cameras don't really work all that great... most of the doctoring of what was said were things that happened in the jail house also without microphones. Sorry I brought it up actually all it does is bring me back to very strong feelings of hatred and resentment towards a couple of people that were given positions of authority.

As far as the complaint process, I also feel that it would have been pointless due to the fact that if 5 cops "agree" that you did something and your only witness is you, it is likely going to be bad or worse for you... I would see it as retaliation for what they did to me if I was the "higher ups" and don't think it would have been any better. As far as the situation as a whole is concerned I am pretty much over that it happened, but I will NEVER not want that person to suffer greatly for what they did...

To the 80% that are probably honest 100% of the time, my hat is off to ya... to the rest I hope they get what they deserve...

 

[ChunkyMonkey]

Hey, be honest with ya'. 5 criminals can't keep a lie 100% true. I'd still follow through with the complaint and keep pushing the investigation if everything was accurate as said. Sorry you had the situation you did. If they had done it once, it'll happen again and they'll be served in the end.

 

[txinvestigator]

It was mentioned. Storing in the trunk will circumvent that, also.

10-4, 'twill