At what point should you STOP talking to an LEO during a traffic stop or at home??

[TallPine]

i would strongly consider what the officer CAN do legally before formulating any pre-formatted response that is likely to piss the officer off. if all i have committed is a simple traffic offense, i'd certainly allow an officer to search my vehicle if i could be sent upon my way in just a few minutes (providing i have nothing to hide) vs. getting put in jail and having my car towed at my expense (and still have nothing to hide).

Pretty much the definition of a Police State ...

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

When you decide you feel uncomfortable answering any other questions, how do you state this effectively to an LEO without getting beat to hell, yelled at, or arrested.

How about, "I'd like to keep the conversation to the reason you stopped me, officer," or, "If I'm not under arrest officer, I'd like to be on my way now."? If he tells you you must stay, then, "In that case, I'm going to insist that I have an opportunity to speak with my attorney before I answer any more of your questions, officer, as is my right under the law." Once you say that, keep your mouth literally shut.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

all i can say is that if you do go about not answering the questions, which is within your rights, dont be surprised that the officer may give you a ticket and not let you off with only a warning.

lots of Texas CHL holders state that alot of officers have given them warnings instead of tickets due to their cooperation and due to their CHL. i would suspect that their propensity to give a warning in lieu of a citation would dimish if you said something like:

Where I live, either they don't like my looks, or they just always give tickets, but whenever I'm stopped, I sir them to death, and they ALWAYS give me a ticket, usually trumped up as to my speed. I know I was going about five miles an hour above the limit when cop stopped me and gave me a ticket for going fifteen miles an hour above the limit, and I had sirred him to death until he said how much I was speeding, and I almost lost it. Fortunately, I just kept my mouth shut after that. I was obviously being railroaded, and no amount of politeness on my part was changing anything.

 

[Kurt S.]

Spreadfire said:

if all i have committed is a simple traffic offense, i'd certainly allow an officer to search my vehicle if i could be sent upon my way in just a few minutes (providing i have nothing to hide) vs. getting put in jail and having my car towed at my expense (and still have nothing to hide).

Well, I suppose Officer Friendly (provided I have nothing to hide) will help me put all my stuff back into my vehicle after he or she has torn up the whole thing every which way but loose, including ripping up carpeting, scattering luggage contents, cutting up tires, etc.

Sure must be nice to be a Class III dealer and be all certified for all that good stuff, huh, Mr Spreadfire?

Now all that said, I've only been stopped twice in the last 27 years for traffic offences, and been through 1 "license check" roadblock in the same period. I have gone through BP "stop" stations several times when visiting out in the Big Bend. Never been asked if I would allow a search. I must look like a good guy (fat short-haired glasses wearing white boy over 50 years old Texas CHP valid hunting licenses). Which I am- I guess. A good guy, I mean.

 

[kungfuhippie]

Some are using the same mentality as "if you give him your wallet he'll just go away." Or, even worse, "Just go limp, you won't get as injured if you don't resist (the rapist)"

What's happened to America? We use to love freedom more than anything, now the illusion of security seams to win.

If you just bend over and spread-um for the cop he'll start to expect it from us all.

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

Exactly, Kungfuhippie.

 

[BigO01]

Well for those of you who think Mr. Policeman is your friend and you have nothing to fear if you've done nothing wrong I strongly suggest you think again !

This past July my son "19" and his friend "18" "who lives diagonal across the street" were both arrested for trespassing and all my son did was walk across the street to visit and then both boys came over to my home . My son finally pleaded guilty because he didn't want to keep going to court and it cost him over $300 , Jake "the neighbor kid" is still fighting it and has so far shelled out $500 to his lawyer !

Here is what happened .

Dave "my son" walked over to Jakes to see what he was doing for the evening and they talked on his front porch while Jakes pizza finished cooking and then he ate and they both came to my home and spent about 45 minutes here looking at somethings on line they were considering ordering . Jake left with some other friend he was expecting to come over after that .

A cop shows up at our door about a half an hour later asking my wife if we had any teenage sons and had they been out of the house . Dave got up and went outside to speak to him and see what he wanted .

It seems the neighbor directly across the street from us and next door to Jake had come home and noticed that her back door screen had a hole in it and she claimed it was cut , also a window facing Jakes house was also cut despite the fact that you would need a ladder or to have one person get on the others shoulders to reach the window ledge . She said she saw two men walking down the street about the same time she noticed all of this and gave a description with the color of the shirt she saw one wearing .

Jake was called on his cell phone and voluntarily came back to talk to the cops .

The Police were told that the window which she claimed had a cut screen they had spent several days putting window Air condition units in and out because they didn't work , and that we had known the previous residents "this women had recently moved in as it is a rental" and had been in the backyard on many an occasion and that the screen door had a tear in it for years .

One of the police took it upon himself to decide the boys were lying and arrest them despite the fact that neither one was even wearing a shirt the color the woman described .

The crime scene officer spoke to me after he looked things over , both of the screens were very old and rusted including the open areas and he started he couldn't even begin to determine when it had happened and he doubted that the damage was new "as in it hadn't happened 3 hours before he got there" he found the screen door frame and window sill and frame etc. filthy yet couldn't find any area recently disturbed , he didn't even bother to take any pictures or take any equipment into the home with him . No finger prints anywhere on anything yet the prosecutor insisted on filing charges .

Both boys spent 8 hours in jail before being released and now as stated my son has a criminal record and Jake is being bled dry by the state for not just rolling over and accepting this BS !

No evidence of a crime nothing broken into , no ones life threatened and two suspects who are both gainfully employed with NO criminal record or motivation to commit a crime at all yet they get railroaded by system !

To top it all of on his "Jakes" last court appearence they tried to arrest him for failure to appear and had issued a warrent for such , if it hadn't been for his lawyer who told them that not only was Jake there HE was there with him they would have locked the kid up again !

So for those of you who smuggly think this kind of thing just happens to criminals and scumbags you better think again !

 

[JLStorm]

Do you have to exit the vehicle if an officer asks you to step out of the vehicle? I dont want to resist if I am not supposed too, but hey if I dont have to leave the safety of my vehicle, I would rather not, especially with all of the recent stories about people impersonating officers and such.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Do you have to exit the vehicle if an officer asks you to step out of the vehicle? I dont want to resist if I am not supposed too, but hey if I dont have to leave the safety of my vehicle, I would rather not, especially with all of the recent stories about people impersonating officers and such.

off the top of my head i do not know the specific case but yes, an officer does have the authority to have the driver and all occupants step out of the vehicle.

in addition, in Texas, you do not have the right to resist a search by an officer, regardless if the search is later found to be illegal. you can be arrested for resisting a search by an officer:

PENAL CODE SECTION 38.03:
RESISTING ARREST, SEARCH, OR TRANSPORTATION. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

(b) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that the arrest or search was unlawful.

(c) Except as provided in Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

(d) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the actor uses a deadly weapon to resist the arrest or search.

note that a conviction for a Class A Misdemeanor will cause the loss of a CHL.

Well, I suppose Officer Friendly (provided I have nothing to hide) will help me put all my stuff back into my vehicle after he or she has torn up the whole thing every which way but loose, including ripping up carpeting, scattering luggage contents, cutting up tires, etc.

actually they have to, they can't leave all of your items strewn about on the side of the road, nor can they "cut up your tires." please provide specific proof of an officer cutting up a tire on a consent vehicle search.

Sure must be nice to be a Class III dealer and be all certified for all that good stuff, huh, Mr Spreadfire?

actually Texas law allows a police officer to arrest me for having the Class III weapons, regardless of whether or not i possess the federal paperwork to legally possess them. there is no "certification" that you speak of. i certainly have to abide by the same laws as you do.

really, people ought to know the law, especially if they want to push the limits of it. im not saying you should just lay down and not exercise your rights, but you ought to know exactly what those rights are, and know what the police can and cannot do. dont take internet wanna-be lawyer advice. read and research the law yourself! just my two cents.

 

[MadMercS55]

When dealing with the Police I generally try to be polite. I was an LEO for several years, and my father still is. Overall I agree with much of what has been posted already. I do not trust Police in general. They will not be entering my house without a warrant. How much cash I'm carrying or where I've been or am going to is none of their business. I will say that my time on the job was a contributing factor to my general lack of trust in most Officers. In the past few years I've had several encounters with the Police, probably about 6 total. 2 I was guilty and admitted such, the most recent being cited for going 75.1mph in a 25mph zone (new tranny in my TransAm and was doing some spirited driving). The other 4 were nothing more than fishing or flexing their "authority". I do not want to talk to the cops, they aren't my friend and I'm not theirs and most times, if they are talking to me, they are trying to jam me up. I provide what is required by PA law and nothing more.

 

[57Coastie]

Spreadfire says,

...in Texas, you do not have the right to resist a search by an officer, regardless if the search is later found to be illegal.

He then quotes from the Texas Penal Code Section 38.03,

A person commits an offense if he intentionally prevents or obstructs a person he knows is a peace officer, or a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, from effecting an arrest, search, or transportation of the actor or another by using force against the peace officer or another.

With respect, I would think that the last clause of Section 38.03 might limit the otherwise general statement earlier in Section 38.03. That is, in Texas it may be an offense to resist a search by an officer only if force is used against the officer or another. It is possible to "resist" a search without the use of force. Refusing consent to a search is "resisting" the search. I know of nothing in the Texas statutes completely overruling the 4th Amendment so as to justify a broad, all-encompassing statement that "you do not have the right to resist a search by an officer."

This is not an irrelevant quibble. It can be the difference in whether or not one has committed a crime if she courteously declines consent to a request to search her vehicle. The more common difficult question here is probably whether or not the search is lawful. Whether or not there is probable cause in a particular case is a very cloudy question, with court decisions going in all directions, and few of us can afford to carry an experienced criminal lawyer along with us at all times.

Our gentle readers must recognize that I am just reading Section 38.03 literally, which can be dangerous without getting advice from that experienced criminal lawyer. (You will have noticed that I do not just say "lawyer"). I have no idea what the courts might have had to say about this issue; I am certainly not that "experienced criminal lawyer;" I am not giving legal advice; and one may not rely on my personal opinion as being legal advice.

Beautiful day down here on the beach in Texas. The horrid icy weather many of you are encountering today did not quite get down to us.

Cheers,

Jim

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

It is possible to "resist" a search without the use of force. Refusing consent to a search is "resisting" the search. I know of nothing in the Texas statutes completely overruling the 4th Amendment so as to justify a broad, all-encompassing statement that "you do not have the right to resist a search by an officer."

and later on...

It is possible to "resist" a search without the use of force. Refusing consent to a search is "resisting" the search.

i think you might be combining the two separate definitions of "refuse" and "resist" actually one larger definition of "resist."

you can of course verbally refuse to allow the search of your vehicle, etc. that is clearly within your rights. i think that is different, however, than resisting physically.

thanks for the clarification though. it appears that if there is any confusion in the definition, it is clearer now.

 

[Sniper X]

My observation

In my opinion, it is a typical example of the "one bad apple" syndrome. But to be accurate, many many bad apples. In other words, I feel that LEO's are getting so jaded by the lawless of our society not only committing crime after crime but lying about everythig asked at a traffic stop or an field interview that those of us who do not commit crimes are now having to pay the price with our having to put up with violations of our rights because of the laws being passed to be able to actually catch, arrest, and convict those who are those who commit the crimes.

Almost all laws passed to be able to confiscate property have been passsed to make it possible for the LEOs and the government to be able to take property away from drug runners, and dealers but those same laws are now effecting those of us who never used drugs, or sold them or trafficked in them. In a way it is a catch 22 for us, wanting the drug dealers and kingpins off the street but being negatively afected by the very laws our enactors enact to make them able to do this very thing. The problem is really the abuse of these laws as they shouldn't pertain to us the law abiding public. I'll bet it is few and far between that we are the victems of most of theese laws but when we are affected by it even thru having to answer how much cash we are carrying or having to tell a cop where we are going that is enough to make most of us jaded against the LEOs and never is this a good thing.

 

[F4GIB]

I was wondering, can you get in trouble for telling a cop to **** off if he's harassing you?

Concivted, no. There was a US Court of appeals case (9th Cir, IIRC) that determined such statements, calmly spoken, are protected speech under the First Amendment. About 3 years ago (involved the FS or NPS cops, IIRC.)

But they can (1) tear your car apart, (2) arrest you for something and/or (3) beat the s**t out of you [I once heard an FBI agent testify that a suspect "fell down the stairs while handcuffed." A later, defense, witness, the property owner, testified that it was a single story building with no stairs.]

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

[I once heard an FBI agent testify that a suspect "fell down the stairs while handcuffed." A later, defense, witness, the property owner, testified that it was a single story building with no stairs.]

care to give us a specific source cite? or was this a fabricated incident?

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

care to give us a specific source cite? or was this a fabricated incident?

Talk about a false dichotomy!!

 

[57Coastie]

Talk about a false dichotomy!!

Erudite!!

PS Look here.

 

[F4GIB]

care to give us a specific source cite? or was this a fabricated incident?

I was a federal prosecutor and then a federal PD at the start of my legal career. It occured in District Court for the Central District of California, sometime in the 1970's.

 

[Marshall]

For a traffic stop, take your ticket and shut up. If you want to talk your lips off go do it in court when fighting the ticket. Even if you're guilty, go to court and tell the judge what all went down. You might have to pay court costs but you'll get your time to speak. Better there than on the street with the cop.

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

57 Coastie your Google Search turned up absolutely nothing pertaining to this specific case. i think you may want to double check your search results?

F4GIB wrote:

I was a federal prosecutor and then a federal PD at the start of my legal career. It occured in District Court for the Central District of California, sometime in the 1970's.

im sure if you were/are an attorney you can certainly provide better information than this. certainly a decade of cases in a Federal District Court is not anywhere near a specific source cite.

not to say it didn't happen, but i'm wondering if it really did. this isn't exactly an accurate source cite, especially from an attorney.

if you are an attorney certainly you can give some of us THR members legal advice. i suspect most criminal defense attorneys DON'T want their clients playing street lawyer with the police during a traffic stop. if they do choose to play street lawyer, they had better know the law. wouldn't you rather defend a client who actually knew the law vs. someone who thought they knew the law and was wrong?

 

[Derby FALs]

That amounts to calling the man a liar...

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

That amounts to calling the man a liar...

not really. notice i never accused him of lying. you did, though.

i am merely asking him for a more specific cite rather than every court case that went through a Federal District court in the span of 10 years.

certainly an attorney knows better than to make such a claim and not have any evidence to support it.

 

[Derby FALs]

Yeah, right...

 

[Spreadfire Arms]

Derby if you don't have anything to contribute to this discussion except to accuse Member A of calling Member B a liar, then maybe you ought not to post anything. that is nothing but inflammatory.

 

[Derby FALs]

that is nothing but inflammatory

You're so sweet.