TexasCHLforum.com

nitrogen wrote:If the police don't want to have a problem with this, they shouldn't pull people over in unmarked cars. End of discussion.

Nice in theory, but impratical.

I can see what someone would think that way, but it is just simply not practical.

If marked vehicles and police officers wearing uniforms aren't practical for plain vanilla traffic stops, then LEOs need to be more accepting of people driving someplace safe (well lit, witnesses, etc.) before they pull over.

boomerang wrote:If marked vehicles and police officers wearing uniforms aren't practical for plain vanilla traffic stops, then LEOs need to be more accepting of people driving someplace safe (well lit, witnesses, etc.) before they pull over.

"Plain Vanilla Traffic Stops" were never a qualification in the post I responded to. And there is NO SUCH thing as a plain vanilla traffic stop.

However, I agree with the red, highlighted part.

Apparently, the Republican Ex-Governor of New York State thought it practical for the NY State Police. Granted it was limited to that agency but it was a move in the direction suggested by nitrogen. I am very pro LEO, but I do not see why unmarked cars need to be used for routine traffic violations. I am sure someone will point out most outstanding warrant arrests are made during traffic stops, but the number made by marked cars surely outnumbers that of unmarked cars by a significant difference. See: http://www.snopes.com/crime/warnings/fakecop.asp

Only someone who has never been in LE would use the phrase, "routine traffic stop". There is no such thing.

I could write a dissertation about the use of unmarked vehicles, and why refusing to allow them to make traffic stops is a BAD idea.

TABC agent wants to stop a vehicle whose driver is suspected of underage drinking.

Unmarked cars can better locate and stop the most dangerous nonimpaired drivers, the aggressive driver.

Narcotics car needs to stop a vehicle leaving a high drug dealing area.

on and on and on....

And the next argument is; well, only allow unmarked cars to make stops for specific things. That's fine and good, but how does that affect the issue at hand her, which is how a civilian can know an unmarked car is really the police?

None of those situations apply in the original story, so I don't see the relevance.

Getting back to the original story.

Women have been raped by criminals pretending to be police officers. Suppose their victim realized those teens were not real police officers and feared for her safety. They appeared to have real weapons, so if she shot them I would have to vote not guilty.

boomerang wrote:How does an unmarked vehicle help in any of those situations?

Bad guys see big light rack on top of car with police all over car they act innocent,bad guys think police not around they act accordingly IE sell drugs,do assaults ,robberies etc.

[quote="txinvestigator"]Only someone who has never been in LE would use the phrase, "routine traffic stop".

While I respect the many contributions you have made to this forum, I must point out I never used the phrase "routine traffic stop." I used "routine traffic violations," which has an all-together different connotation. I am fully aware stopping an escaped felon, as an example, for a routine traffic violation, such as not stopping before turning on red, has the inherent danger of being anything but a routine traffic stop. All of which could have been accomplished by a black & White

Unmarked vehicles may help LEO's make more busts, but I still stand by my statement: The use of unmarked cars to pull people over allow fake LEO's to proliferate.

Utilizing the internet, I can go buy gear today to outfit my car with red and blue lights, buy a uniform and even a badge. I can even buy a badge in the same configuration as many local LEO's have, but it'll have different writing on them. (Badge companies will only put certain words on badge with law enforcement credentials. Even then, it's not outside the realm of possibility to fake, I know this for a FACT that it has been done.)

I can buy a uniform, with patches. Within 2 weeks, I can make myself look incredibly official. In fact, I'd be that I'd fool most civillians.

http://www.swps.com/slimlighter-super-led.html
http://www.swps.com/decselcondas.html
http://www.policeone.com/police-product ... /uniforms/
http://www.epolicesupply.com/


In TXI's example: If an unmarked TABC officer sees someone he thinks is underage drinking? He calls a marked vehicle to make the stop, while following the suspect. Seems simple enough to me. He can still be involved, make the arrest even, but a marked vehicle does the initial stop.

TacShot wrote:

txinvestigator wrote:Only someone who has never been in LE would use the phrase, "routine traffic stop".

While I respect the many contributions you have made to this forum, I must point out I never used the phrase "routine traffic stop." I used "routine traffic violations," which has an all-together different connotation. I am fully aware stopping an escaped felon, as an example, for a routine traffic violation, such as not stopping before turning on red, has the inherent danger of being anything but a routine traffic stop. All of which could have been accomplished by a black & White

You may not have used it but I think the term routine traffic stop (even though it is far from routine) is pretty standard in law enforcement circles. I've personally heard it used (and used it myself) by cops during testimony in court.

Here's a quick link and quote I found in google:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/spec ... 9904.story

"A lot of times with a routine traffic stop, you don't know what you're dealing with," said West Allis Police Chief Dean Puschnig. "Everybody was certainly very shocked."

I'd say he qualifies as a member of law enforcement. Not that quotes are always 100% correct, but like I said, I've heard cops use the term.

KBCraig wrote:Oh, and brief aside... is it still true (if it ever was) that TABC revenue agents are authorized to collect importation taxes on the spot, and in lieu of taxes may seize and/or destroy imported alcohol? I read that long ago, but never bothered tracking down if it was legend or fact. Living here in "dry" (like a martini) Bowie County, we have to buy our beer across the street in Texarkana, Arkiesaw. That, or pay the "Sunday tax" (forgot to buy beer on Saturday!) in Domino, the one "wet" spot in Cass County.

In other words, we "import" a lot of untaxed alcohol.

It is kind of a fuzzy area on the tax collection. We are authorized to, and that is what we have the people ont eh bridges to Mexico doing. The reason I was told for not doing it on the state borders is that it woul dnot be cost effective. I think it is more a case of not wanting to irritate people too muhc, which makes sense to me. But the agents do no thave the tax stamps or procedures in place to collect the tax, so they cannot do so in reality.

But, an illicit beverage can be seized on the spot and destroyed or sold alter by the state. It is defined as one manufactired, sold, distributed, possessed, bottled (or a bunch of other things) in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage code or one on which the tax has not been paid.

So, if the office there catches you with that bunch of out of state beer, it can be seized.

nitrogen wrote:If the police don't want to have a problem with this, they shouldn't pull people over in unmarked cars. End of discussion.

The fact that this problem exists is due to poor policy by police departments to use easily counter fitted, unmarked cars.

What about all of those easily counterfeited marked cars? After all, other than the bar on top, how much of the markings can you really see whan a patrol car pulls up behind you? Consider that again at night with the cars headlights on? In reality, you cannot see if the car is marked or not and there are what we call slicktops out there too. These are marked cars but have the lights in the dash and grill instead of overhead.

My personal opinion, BTW, is that you are correct about not using unmarked cars for traffic and I think those stealth marked cars (green on green or gray on silver type cars) are all illegal. I also don't like slicktops.

All of this came about because police started writing tickets for revenue instead of safety. If we were truly safety oriented, we would have the gaudiest marked cars we can patrolling. That way, people will slow down and obey the law more. At least they will think there are more patrol cars because they will see more of them and it has a small deterrence effect. Unmarked cars, stealth marked cars, and slicktops are all designed to catch the eprson in the act. For traffic, that means we want to write the tickets instead of deter and moeny is the only excuse I can see for that.

srothstein wrote: It is kind of a fuzzy area on the tax collection. We are authorized to, and that is what we have the people ont eh bridges to Mexico doing. The reason I was told for not doing it on the state borders is that it woul dnot be cost effective. I think it is more a case of not wanting to irritate people too muhc, which makes sense to me. But the agents do no thave the tax stamps or procedures in place to collect the tax, so they cannot do so in reality.

But, an illicit beverage can be seized on the spot and destroyed or sold alter by the state. It is defined as one manufactired, sold, distributed, possessed, bottled (or a bunch of other things) in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage code or one on which the tax has not been paid.

So, if the office there catches you with that bunch of out of state beer, it can be seized.

The Feds allow 2 each 1 liter bottles to be brought in at the border and into the Cruise terminals, but Texas penalizes its citizens and only allows 1 liter bottles. what will TABC do to someone who brings in two bottles. The 1 bottle limit on only Texans does seem draconian and unfair. My state allows folks from other states two carry off the boat but penalizes us just for being Texans.

Liberty wrote:The Feds allow 2 each 1 liter bottles to be brought in at the border and into the Cruise terminals, but Texas penalizes its citizens and only allows 1 liter bottles. what will TABC do to someone who brings in two bottles. The 1 bottle limit on only Texans does seem draconian and unfair. My state allows folks from other states two carry off the boat but penalizes us just for being Texans.

Our current policy on people with more than the limit is that they are free to return the alcohol out of the state, or find someone in their group (and we have no idea what the group is so it really could be anyone) who will bring it in for them. We only worry that the person bringing in the alcohol is legally allowed to (over 21) and not over the limit. Most of the duty free shops will give the person a refund if we do not allow the purchase in the state, as will msot of the Mexican vendors that are near the border. We generally only seize the liquor if there is no other option available to the person or he decides to just forfeit it. Obviously, this is the working policy and not a written rule, so legally, the TCO could seize it the first time the person walks up.