TexasCHLforum.com

cbunt1 wrote:

Jusme wrote:But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

And that works 99% of the time. Unfortunately, that 1% of the time that it doesn't, it can get ugly and expensive. It's been my experience that the very worst possible position from which to mount a defense can be that of actual innocence.

Of course, it's worth keeping in mind that even a "traffic stop" for anything besides open container or speeding in Texas is in fact an arrest, and as such a search can be performed as "Incident to Arrest" -- unless something has changed in the last few years.

That is why I will never (again) ever consent to any search under any circumstances...I will always politely decline. Fortunately, these days I guess I don't give off "that" vibe, but apparently I used to.

Yup and there is also a percentage of the time when you politely decline and the officer has a hissy fit.
Warning: Used of foul language.(Skip to 3:55 if you want to jump straight to the hissy fit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeFFcXx6Go

Javier730 wrote:

cbunt1 wrote:

Jusme wrote:But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

And that works 99% of the time. Unfortunately, that 1% of the time that it doesn't, it can get ugly and expensive. It's been my experience that the very worst possible position from which to mount a defense can be that of actual innocence.

Of course, it's worth keeping in mind that even a "traffic stop" for anything besides open container or speeding in Texas is in fact an arrest, and as such a search can be performed as "Incident to Arrest" -- unless something has changed in the last few years.

That is why I will never (again) ever consent to any search under any circumstances...I will always politely decline. Fortunately, these days I guess I don't give off "that" vibe, but apparently I used to.

Yup and there is also a percentage of the time when you politely decline and the officer has a hissy fit.
Warning: Used of foul language.(Skip to 3:55 if you want to jump straight to the hissy fit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeFFcXx6Go

Yep, he definitely needs another line of work.

But he didn't give the guy a ticket!

rotor wrote:But he didn't give the guy a ticket!

How kind of him.

"<Sigh> I guess thats okay. Yeah I guess that just fine actually. Yeah that'll be fine. "

This guy need to be fired and arrested for official oppression. His department needs to give better psychiatric evaluations.

Javier730 wrote:

"<Sigh> I guess thats okay. I guess that just fine actually. That'll be fine. "

This guy need to be fired and his department needs to give better psychiatric evaluations.

I imagine if this made it to the internet, he no longer works for that department. I'm sure the citizen made a complaint and it didn't take long for the decision to come down from his superiors. I can't imagine what his issues were, but they should have been caught in his psyche eval before he ever hit the streets.

I really hate to say it but I am afraid of rogue officers like this. I know they are a very small percentage but they do exist. There are some that would plant narcotics in your vehicle just to get the arrest. I try to be sure and give all LEOs absolutely NO reason to pull me over.

rotor wrote:But he didn't give the guy a ticket!

That's always been my consolation prize. I've been searched without permission/justification twice in many decades. Both times, no ticket.... Note, both times I deserved the ticket, not the search.

Javier730 wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote: on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

Yeah that's what I was saying, the officer "smelling marijuana" may or may not have been the probable cause used. It is a slippery slope to use that as the only reason because a defense attorney will tear you up in court. He may ask "what does marijuana smell like" and if you give an answer comparing it to something else, then you have just blown your case. I have often times smelled marijuana, or even chemicals used for making meth, when making a traffic stop, but I would then began questioning and ask for a consent to search, most of the times they would either confess to having contraband or would allow the search. I was very aware of individuals rights in this regard when a LEO, and never made an arrest where it would ever come into question. But I agree, if you know that they may find something, don't agree to a search. If they search anyway and find something, it will be a defense to prosecution and the evidence could be thrown out. But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

That usually works.

Unless you don't know something was illegal. Up until recently, Texas did not have knife law pre-emption. If you were pulled over in San Antonio or Corpus Christi on vacation and had a knife in your car that was against city ordinance, would you have known you were doing something illegal? Would the average Texas traveler have known? It's impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through. Even if you are 100% certain you are doing nothing wrong, refusing a search is a good idea.

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote: on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

Yeah that's what I was saying, the officer "smelling marijuana" may or may not have been the probable cause used. It is a slippery slope to use that as the only reason because a defense attorney will tear you up in court. He may ask "what does marijuana smell like" and if you give an answer comparing it to something else, then you have just blown your case. I have often times smelled marijuana, or even chemicals used for making meth, when making a traffic stop, but I would then began questioning and ask for a consent to search, most of the times they would either confess to having contraband or would allow the search. I was very aware of individuals rights in this regard when a LEO, and never made an arrest where it would ever come into question. But I agree, if you know that they may find something, don't agree to a search. If they search anyway and find something, it will be a defense to prosecution and the evidence could be thrown out. But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

That usually works.

Unless you don't know something was illegal. Up until recently, Texas did not have knife law pre-emption. If you were pulled over in San Antonio or Corpus Christi on vacation and had a knife in your car that was against city ordinance, would you have known you were doing something illegal? Would the average Texas traveler have known? It's impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through. Even if you are 100% certain you are doing nothing wrong, refusing a search is a good idea.

I understand what you mean but the last to sentences kind of contradict each other.

In a universe where its impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through, there cannot exist a 100% certainty that one is not doing nothing wrong. Only when the possibility of knowing every law in every jurisdiction exists can there exist a possibility of being 100% certain one is not doing nothing wrong.

But yes, refusing a search is a good idea in my opinion.

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote: on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

Yeah that's what I was saying, the officer "smelling marijuana" may or may not have been the probable cause used. It is a slippery slope to use that as the only reason because a defense attorney will tear you up in court. He may ask "what does marijuana smell like" and if you give an answer comparing it to something else, then you have just blown your case. I have often times smelled marijuana, or even chemicals used for making meth, when making a traffic stop, but I would then began questioning and ask for a consent to search, most of the times they would either confess to having contraband or would allow the search. I was very aware of individuals rights in this regard when a LEO, and never made an arrest where it would ever come into question. But I agree, if you know that they may find something, don't agree to a search. If they search anyway and find something, it will be a defense to prosecution and the evidence could be thrown out. But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

That usually works.

Unless you don't know something was illegal. Up until recently, Texas did not have knife law pre-emption. If you were pulled over in San Antonio or Corpus Christi on vacation and had a knife in your car that was against city ordinance, would you have known you were doing something illegal? Would the average Texas traveler have known? It's impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through. Even if you are 100% certain you are doing nothing wrong, refusing a search is a good idea.

I understand what you mean but the last to sentences kind of contradict each other.

In a universe where its impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through, there cannot exist a 100% certainty that one is not doing nothing wrong. If the possibility of knowing every law in every jurisdiction exists, only then can there exist a possibility of being 100% certain one is not doing nothing wrong.

But yes, refusing a search is a good idea in my opinion.

The contradiction was intentional. Even if you *think* you are 100% covered, there may be some obscure law that you couldn't reasonably know about that could get you in trouble.

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

Jusme wrote:

Javier730 wrote:

mr1337 wrote:

Javier730 wrote: on the Oh wait.

How could one prove that the officer didnt smell marijuana in court? How could you prove what ANYONE did or did not smell at all?

On the same lines, how could you prove that the officer did smell marijuana? As zimmerdesignz said, it happened to his son this year and nothing was found.

That is why an officer "smelling marijuana" alone shouldnt be enough probable cause to search.

Yeah that's what I was saying, the officer "smelling marijuana" may or may not have been the probable cause used. It is a slippery slope to use that as the only reason because a defense attorney will tear you up in court. He may ask "what does marijuana smell like" and if you give an answer comparing it to something else, then you have just blown your case. I have often times smelled marijuana, or even chemicals used for making meth, when making a traffic stop, but I would then began questioning and ask for a consent to search, most of the times they would either confess to having contraband or would allow the search. I was very aware of individuals rights in this regard when a LEO, and never made an arrest where it would ever come into question. But I agree, if you know that they may find something, don't agree to a search. If they search anyway and find something, it will be a defense to prosecution and the evidence could be thrown out. But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

That usually works.

Unless you don't know something was illegal. Up until recently, Texas did not have knife law pre-emption. If you were pulled over in San Antonio or Corpus Christi on vacation and had a knife in your car that was against city ordinance, would you have known you were doing something illegal? Would the average Texas traveler have known? It's impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through. Even if you are 100% certain you are doing nothing wrong, refusing a search is a good idea.

I understand what you mean but the last to sentences kind of contradict each other.

In a universe where its impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through, there cannot exist a 100% certainty that one is not doing nothing wrong. If the possibility of knowing every law in every jurisdiction exists, only then can there exist a possibility of being 100% certain one is not doing nothing wrong.

But yes, refusing a search is a good idea in my opinion.

The contradiction was intentional. Even if you *think* you are 100% covered, there may be some obscure law that you couldn't reasonably know about that could get you in trouble.

I understand. I was joking.

mr1337,

"All the more reason to legalize it."

Huh?

Do you mean if MJ was legalized, it would be ok to drive while intoxicated on it?

Or...?

Booze is legal, but it's not legal to DWI.

mr1337 wrote: Unless you don't know something was illegal. Up until recently, Texas did not have knife law pre-emption. If you were pulled over in San Antonio or Corpus Christi on vacation and had a knife in your car that was against city ordinance, would you have known you were doing something illegal? Would the average Texas traveler have known? It's impossible to know every law in every jurisdiction that one passes through. Even if you are 100% certain you are doing nothing wrong, refusing a search is a good idea.

This.

It is unfortunate that it is the case, but it is. 99.9% of the time an infraction like this will lead an otherwise law-abiding citizen to a verbal warning "Sir, that lockback knife is illegal in San Antonio" but not always.

And while I'd prefer to be able to give the 99% of good officers their discretion, the 1% (or less) spoil the whole applecart.

I really don't have an issue (personally) with "let me have a look" -- but having once been on the wrong side of a bad situation in a small town, I can't afford to risk running into the 1% rogue type, and I'll never allow it again. I won't "STOP" it on the side of the road, but I'll go "on record" with my protest and refusal. And I hate how it makes me deal with the 99% who are good...

The world of constant surveillance, where everyone has a camera, has and will continue to improve that side of the situation, but it is a double-edge sword. I don't think ANY of us really want to have everything we do posted and repeated for the world to see over and over.

Javier730 wrote:

cbunt1 wrote:

Jusme wrote:But the best policy is don't do illegal stuff.

And that works 99% of the time. Unfortunately, that 1% of the time that it doesn't, it can get ugly and expensive. It's been my experience that the very worst possible position from which to mount a defense can be that of actual innocence.

Of course, it's worth keeping in mind that even a "traffic stop" for anything besides open container or speeding in Texas is in fact an arrest, and as such a search can be performed as "Incident to Arrest" -- unless something has changed in the last few years.

That is why I will never (again) ever consent to any search under any circumstances...I will always politely decline. Fortunately, these days I guess I don't give off "that" vibe, but apparently I used to.

Yup and there is also a percentage of the time when you politely decline and the officer has a hissy fit.
Warning: Used of foul language.(Skip to 3:55 if you want to jump straight to the hissy fit)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpeFFcXx6Go

This video and it's companion are fake. They were created by 2 WV Leo's.https://photographyisnotacrime.com/2012 ... ent-viral/