TexasCHLforum.com

That appears to be what their reasoning was. I wonder, does anyone remember back a little while when license plate scanners mounted on police cars hit the news? Those things can scan all the plates it can see and check for outstanding warrants on the registered owner. What is keeping any officer from doing that one plate at a time while driving around? Is that illegal?

parabelum wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I think the stop was still considered illegal. Your remedies are likely civil and determined by state law. If I read the law correctly, in Texas it is legal to resist a false arrest. Don't know if an "illegal" stop is a false arrest, but I for one wouldn't try to fin out...

Right, but your remedy is civil whereas an agency has a criminal case against you.

I believe they both should be criminal under the example case.

I agree, but the court said the outstanding warrant was sufficient to allow the evidence to be admitted. I believe there are other exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree", but this expands them for sure.

ScottDLS wrote:

parabelum wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:I think the stop was still considered illegal. Your remedies are likely civil and determined by state law. If I read the law correctly, in Texas it is legal to resist a false arrest. Don't know if an "illegal" stop is a false arrest, but I for one wouldn't try to fin out...

Right, but your remedy is civil whereas an agency has a criminal case against you.

I believe they both should be criminal under the example case.

I agree, but the court said the outstanding warrant was sufficient to allow the evidence to be admitted. I believe there are other exceptions to the "fruit of the poisonous tree", but this expands them for sure.

Yes, the warrant was not the fruit but the drugs were to be if based on the original stop. The cop could seize illegal contraband but not use as evidence for a crime by the rule. The warrant means he was fugitive. But, If a convict escapes or evades from an adjudicated detention but is later illegally stopped and detained, does the officer let him go or ignore contraband? Now that the whereabouts of the warrant subject is known, although found illegally, does it matter if he's picked up 1 minute later, 1 hour, 1 week....? What's the time limit between detention for that warrant and any contraband found during detention? To me, that's the separation between the bad act of the officer and the warrant of the subject in relation to what he was carrying. To me, the warrant was the tree for the drugs and not the stop, because if it was the stop, then any future stop based on his now known whereabouts would be tainted stops as to evidence.

C-dub wrote:That appears to be what their reasoning was. I wonder, does anyone remember back a little while when license plate scanners mounted on police cars hit the news? Those things can scan all the plates it can see and check for outstanding warrants on the registered owner. What is keeping any officer from doing that one plate at a time while driving around? Is that illegal?

Why would it be illegal?

A warrant is a court order to arrest the individual named. It would be perfectly legal and appropriate to hand out warrants to police every shift and go out and haul those individuals in then and there.

Only the volume of outstanding warrants and the press of other business precludes this approach.

Police use pretense all the time. I'm watching a program right now about a gigantic ruse to lure a suspect out of his home so he could be arrested more safely.

Searches pursuant to arrest are approved, assuming they are done following procedures, as this one presumably was.

Did any one notice the split was "Boys v. Girls?"

As an aside, I have lived my entire life, more than 70 years, without ever once having a warrant issued for my arrest. How hard is it?

ScottDLS wrote:. . . . If I read the law correctly, in Texas it is legal to resist a false arrest.

Only if the arresting officer or person acting at the officer's instructions used excessive force to effectuate the arrest.

Chas.

TPC §9.31(b)(2)&(3) wrote:(b) The use of force against another is not justified:

• (2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);

(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:

• (1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
  
  (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

.

JALLEN wrote:

C-dub wrote:That appears to be what their reasoning was. I wonder, does anyone remember back a little while when license plate scanners mounted on police cars hit the news? Those things can scan all the plates it can see and check for outstanding warrants on the registered owner. What is keeping any officer from doing that one plate at a time while driving around? Is that illegal?

Why would it be illegal?

A warrant is a court order to arrest the individual named. It would be perfectly legal and appropriate to hand out warrants to police every shift and go out and haul those individuals in then and there.

Only the volume of outstanding warrants and the press of other business precludes this approach.

I didn't think it was illegal and that's kinda where I think they were going with what happened in this case. What happened sounds wrong and Charles also thinks so, but now I'm not so sure.

I agree with Justice Thomas on this one.

Had the drugs been found before the warrant was discovered then most likely any drug charges would be thrown out under the "fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine. However, as I understand this case, the drugs were found after the warrant was discovered. L.E. has the right to search and frisk a defendant as part of an arrest due to an outstanding warrant.

Most of the people I argue with over this usually agree that L.E. should not allow a person with a known warrant to go free. Imagine the outrage over that..Uh sir...we discovered you have six outstanding warrants for murder but since we illegally stopped you...well, have a nice day!
...yeah...riiiight.

It was routine in San Diego courtrooms to run names of persons appearing in court, once they had computers. A guy shows up as plaintiff in a small claims case or family law hearing, and ends up riding downtown on some warrant he forgot or didn't know about.

It is staggering how many have warrants out.

It gets ridiculous. One guy, a partner at a prestigious law firm, showed up on a case, and wasn't even a member of the state bar. Oopsies!

I believe the issue here was the police admitted they had no probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain the subject until AFTER they held him, then looked up his warrants. So should the evidence found incident to the detainment be excluded? SCOTUS says no. This is less about an unlawful stop than whether the evidence discovered should be admissible. The problem is that citizens have virtually no recourse for unlawful searches and seizures by police and as I suggested earlier, the standard for a lawful stop is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The exclusion of evidence seized in an unlawful search is the one of the very few things keeping authorities from doing it more often.

ScottDLS wrote:I believe the issue here was the police admitted they had no probable cause/reasonable suspicion to detain the subject until AFTER they held him, then looked up his warrants. So should the evidence found incident to the detainment be excluded? SCOTUS says no. This is less about an unlawful stop than whether the evidence discovered should be admissible. The problem is that citizens have virtually no recourse for unlawful searches and seizures by police and as I suggested earlier, the standard for a lawful stop is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. The exclusion of evidence seized in an unlawful search is the one of the very few things keeping authorities from doing it more often.

But, if we throw a hyperbole at the issue of the warrant overruling the stop, then, it can look different.

Let's say a guard is found shot in an inmates cell and the inmate escaped. A month later the inmate is standing on the sidewalk of some little town in another state and a local PO just happens to not like the way he looks - doesn't look familiar. During the stop, the police find a gun, or, during the stop, the police find he's wanted, take him and and then find a gun. The gun happens to belong to the guard. At the inmate's murder trial, is the gun now inadmissible?

I see the SC as saying the original warrant is a beginning issue for LE, and the illegal stop, which they say is still a cause of action, an intermediated issue. I can see where the issue of petty warrants and the number of them opens a door, but at the same time, as citizens, we are charged with knowing and keeping our business. I can also see as above, if a warrant does not create a prior cause for search and seizure, then a warrant has less teeth during execution.

Long ago the SCOTUS held that drivers cannot be randomly stopped just to see if they have a driver's license. Checkpoints are lawful because they stop every driver to check for a license or for DWI. If contraband or evidence of a crime were found during an unlawful random traffic stop, then the evidence was inadmissible. In my view, the existence of a warrant should not change the long-standing rule. Now, any driver can be stopped unlawfully and, if there is an outstanding warrant, then the vehicle can be "inventoried" incident to arrest. I fear this is just the first domino to fall.

Chas.

It's a weird feeling finding (some) common ground with Sotomayor.

RoyGBiv wrote:It's a weird feeling finding (some) common ground with Sotomayor.

I would like her to repeat this dissent, and then, immediately following explain in light of this how she might agree someone can be on a secret government list, no warrant, but denied another Constitutional right. Some of these liberals have no common ground, as they are grounded in nothing but personal agenda

Unless the law has changed in the last ten years, it is not legal to resist an illegal arrest. If nothing else, it is a public safety issue. I read this as an active warrant is valid and can be served regardless of the reason for the contact with the officer. I would think anything found as a result of that arrest would be valid if it pointed to criminal activity. Although officers sometime use their discretion when executing a warrant, especially class "C" offenses, a warrant is a command from the court to bring the person before a magistrate. A warrant typically does not give options or allow for opinions.

I had several occasions where I made a PC stop and discovered the female violator had an outstanding traffic warrant. She also had one or more small children with her. Not a situation where you would execute that particular warrant. A felony warrant (or maybe some Class "A" or SJF violations) would be a different story.

NTexCopRetired wrote:Unless the law has changed in the last ten years, it is not legal to resist an illegal arrest. If nothing else, it is a public safety issue. I read this as an active warrant is valid and can be served regardless of the reason for the contact with the officer. I would think anything found as a result of that arrest would be valid if it pointed to criminal activity. Although officers sometime use their discretion when executing a warrant, especially class "C" offenses, a warrant is a command from the court to bring the person before a magistrate. A warrant typically does not give options or allow for opinions.

I had several occasions where I made a PC stop and discovered the female violator had an outstanding traffic warrant. She also had one or more small children with her. Not a situation where you would execute that particular warrant. A felony warrant (or maybe some Class "A" or SJF violations) would be a different story.

Chas. pointed out that it is only legal (in Texas) use force to resist an illegal arrest if excessive force is being used to effect the arrest.

On the other hand, there have been cases where deadly force has been found justified when police mistakenly knocked down the wrong door...