TexasCHLforum.com

chabouk wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Which one these could cause me to get in trouble?
If this was Pennsylvania Ziploc bags
http://www.metafilter.com/80607/You-got ... aphernalia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Theres another case where Matches and a Ziploc bags were considered tools for Meth making and that got the guy a charge.

And your crowbar is a "burglary tool" or "instrument of crime" in some states.

Its just a TOOL

Abraham wrote:If one (me for instance) has nothing illegal in my vehicle - how often in such a scenario where "I give my consent to a search" will there be a horrendous outcome, that is say, they ruin upholstery/create damage, etc.

Wouldn't it be simpler to give consent, be held up on my journey for a bit, and then go about my merry way - none the worse for wear?

Skip to 5:15 but i suggest watching the whole thing if you have not yet done so.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik[/youtube]

Man -- I wish i could talk (or even think) as fast as that guy!

marksiwel wrote:

chabouk wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Which one these could cause me to get in trouble?
If this was Pennsylvania Ziploc bags
http://www.metafilter.com/80607/You-got ... aphernalia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Theres another case where Matches and a Ziploc bags were considered tools for Meth making and that got the guy a charge.

And your crowbar is a "burglary tool" or "instrument of crime" in some states.

Its just a TOOL

Of course it is. But if you encounter the wrong officer at the wrong time, that TOOL is a "burglary tool" or "instrument of crime", and it's up to you and your lawyer to beat the charge.

chabouk wrote:

marksiwel wrote:

chabouk wrote:

marksiwel wrote:Which one these could cause me to get in trouble?
If this was Pennsylvania Ziploc bags
http://www.metafilter.com/80607/You-got ... aphernalia" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Theres another case where Matches and a Ziploc bags were considered tools for Meth making and that got the guy a charge.

And your crowbar is a "burglary tool" or "instrument of crime" in some states.

Its just a TOOL

Of course it is. But if you encounter the wrong officer at the wrong time, that TOOL is a "burglary tool" or "instrument of crime", and it's up to you and your lawyer to beat the charge.

The Penal Code strikes again:

§ 16.01. UNLAWFUL USE OF CRIMINAL INSTRUMENT. (a) A
person commits an offense if:
(1) he possesses a criminal instrument with intent to
use it in the commission of an offense; or
(2) with knowledge of its character and with intent to
use or aid or permit another to use in the commission of an offense,
he manufactures, adapts, sells, installs, or sets up a criminal
instrument.
(b) For the purpose of this section, "criminal instrument"
means anything, the possession, manufacture, or sale of which is
not otherwise an offense, that is specially designed, made, or
adapted for use in the commission of an offense.
(c) An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is one category lower
than the offense intended. An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a
state jail felony.



If I find you at 0330 am looking through car windows at an apartment complex and you have work gloves, a screwdriver, wire cutters, a backpack, and a slim jim you will have problems. None of those are illegal, but put it all together an you have a good Criminal Instrument arrest. I have to prove intent, but it won't be hard, especially if you have a record of BMV.

I won't get into how my agency handles finding "dual purpose" tools in a vehicle during a traffic stop, as that is G-14 super secret squirrel classified, but I will tell you it does not go unnoticed. Again, especially if you are a known burglar.

chabouk wrote:Here's what it boils down to: I will not beg my way out of a ticket, and trying to trade consent for leniency is begging. And there aren't even any guarantees: he can toss your stuff, write you a ticket, and then leave you on the side of the road trying to put your car back the way it was.

If I get a ticket because the officer is irritated that I won't give consent, then I could have gotten the ticket even with consent. That might mess up my day and my bank account, but it would be my fault for committing the traffic violation, not his fault for catching me.

I'm not worried about the irritated officer, I'm worried about the one out there who is dirty. I don't care if it's one in ten or one in a million, it only takes one to mess up your whole life.

This happened to a friend of mine while on a trip. Being naive (at the time), he gave consent, and shortly after ended up picking up his empty luggage and repacking all his things that were strewn about the side of the highway. His word choices in describing LEOs is colorful, to say the least.

The one time I've been asked, I politely declined, and the officer politely handed me my ticket and sent me on my way.

I just finished watching both parts and it is a real eye opener. I think if I should ever find myself going to be "interviewed" it will go something like this:

Police (After reading Miranda): Question?

Me: Officer, I would like to consult with my lawyer before answering any questions.

Police: Why? Are you guilty?

Me: Because I'm not an expert in the law.

EDIT: I also think when my two teenagers get home from school today they are going to watch these videos. A/B students, but like I said, a real eye opener.

chabouk wrote:Here's what it boils down to: I will not beg my way out of a ticket, and trying to trade consent for leniency is begging. And there aren't even any guarantees: he can toss your stuff, write you a ticket, and then leave you on the side of the road trying to put your car back the way it was.

If I get a ticket because the officer is irritated that I won't give consent, then I could have gotten the ticket even with consent. That might mess up my day and my bank account, but it would be my fault for committing the traffic violation, not his fault for catching me.

I'm not worried about the irritated officer, I'm worried about the one out there who is dirty. I don't care if it's one in ten or one in a million, it only takes one to mess up your whole life.

1000%

I either did it or I didn't.

If the officer doesn't have probable cause to search my car, it is none of his business what may or may not be in it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(4th Amendment, U.S. Costitution)

I am squeaky clean but...No warrant, no probable cause, no search. If an LEO "forces" the issue he'll be held accountable by suit. That said, in all of my days (even with long hair and beard) I've had some that were terse but none that were unprofessional.

gigag04 wrote:I won't get into how my agency handles finding "dual purpose" tools in a vehicle during a traffic stop, as that is G-14 super secret squirrel classified, but I will tell you it does not go unnoticed.

Another reason not to consent to a search that's just fishing.

http://www.amazon.com/Come-Back-Warrant ... 923&sr=8-1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sinton wrote:I just finished watching both parts and it is a real eye opener. I think if I should ever find myself going to be "interviewed" it will go something like this:

Police (After reading Miranda): Question?

Me: Officer, I would like to consult with my lawyer before answering any questions.

Police: Why? Are you guilty?

Me: Because I'm not an expert in the law.

EDIT: I also think when my two teenagers get home from school today they are going to watch these videos. A/B students, but like I said, a real eye opener.

Likely *IF* you are mirandized...and decline to waive your rights you will not be asked anything further. You may not even be mirandized when you're arrested. Either case, I would not say anything.

Dragonfighter wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(4th Amendment, U.S. Costitution)

I am squeaky clean but...No warrant, no probable cause, no search. If an LEO "forces" the issue he'll be held accountable by suit. That said, in all of my days (even with long hair and beard) I've had some that were terse but none that were unprofessional.

I fully endorse the 4th amendment and deal with it on a daily basis. Nothing I have suggested violates such. There are a number of other reasons police can get inside your car, constitutionally. LEO can search the lunge area of your vehicle w/o consent if he will release you in it. This is for weapons and officer safety.

If you are arrested and your vehicle will be towed then an LEO must inventory the vehicle to protect the agency and himself (against accusations of theft). This really isn't a search...though contraband found can establish PC. No longer is there an automatic search of the vehicle as of SCUS rulings incident to arrest. (Arizona V. Gant and Chimel V. California)

If you consent.

If there is PC that contraband is present.

If I see something in plain view - thus establishing prima facie PC to search (ie I see a broken crack pipe on the floor board).

All this to say, there are some rough parts of my city but I don't search every car because of whatever. Even I have PC, I will still ask consent because 1 - it's polite and 2 - it's easier on everyone involved. If refused I will still search, but we (my dept) will not leave all your stuff strewn along the road. I know a big organization that I hear of doing that all the time, but that is not how I choose to conduct my business.

If anyone is curious I have a list of SC rulings on major cases that define the modern day implentation of the 4th 5th and 6th amendments. It makes for good reading (until you're required to know it :))

gigag04 wrote:

Sinton wrote:I just finished watching both parts and it is a real eye opener. I think if I should ever find myself going to be "interviewed" it will go something like this:

Police (After reading Miranda): Question?

Me: Officer, I would like to consult with my lawyer before answering any questions.

Police: Why? Are you guilty?

Me: Because I'm not an expert in the law.

EDIT: I also think when my two teenagers get home from school today they are going to watch these videos. A/B students, but like I said, a real eye opener.

Likely *IF* you are mirandized...and decline to waive your rights you will not be asked anything further. You may not even be mirandized when you're arrested. Either case, I would not say anything.

Dragonfighter wrote:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

(4th Amendment, U.S. Costitution)

I am squeaky clean but...No warrant, no probable cause, no search. If an LEO "forces" the issue he'll be held accountable by suit. That said, in all of my days (even with long hair and beard) I've had some that were terse but none that were unprofessional.

I fully endorse the 4th amendment and deal with it on a daily basis. Nothing I have suggested violates such. There are a number of other reasons police can get inside your car, constitutionally. LEO can search the lunge area of your vehicle w/o consent if he will release you in it. This is for weapons and officer safety.

If you are arrested and your vehicle will be towed then an LEO must inventory the vehicle to protect the agency and himself (against accusations of theft). This really isn't a search...though contraband found can establish PC. No longer is there an automatic search of the vehicle as of SCUS rulings incident to arrest. (Arizona V. Gant and Chimel V. California)

If you consent.

If there is PC that contraband is present.

If I see something in plain view - thus establishing prima facie PC to search (ie I see a broken crack pipe on the floor board).

All this to say, there are some rough parts of my city but I don't search every car because of whatever. Even I have PC, I will still ask consent because 1 - it's polite and 2 - it's easier on everyone involved. If refused I will still search, but we (my dept) will not leave all your stuff strewn along the road. I know a big organization that I hear of doing that all the time, but that is not how I choose to conduct my business.

If anyone is curious I have a list of SC rulings on major cases that define the modern day implentation of the 4th 5th and 6th amendments. It makes for good reading (until you're required to know it :))

I was told along time ago that having crumpled up trash in your car is PC because Dealers did that to hide their stuff, is this true? Reason I am asking is, Well I am a messy person and at any given time there is many pieces of trash floating around my car sadly it is a 2005 benz my wife hates me

Having a trashed Benz is not probable cause, but it is a Felony all by itself... Just say'n...

In United States criminal law, probable cause is the standard by which a police officer has the authority to make an arrest, conduct a personal or property search, or to obtain a warrant for arrest. It is also used to refer to the standard to which a grand jury believes that a crime has been committed.

Al la wikipedia

I can't really give a better explanation. Reasonable person doesn't mean a fellow peace officer...it is easy to for us to understand each other's descriptions...it means a jury of 12 people - would THEY believe a person might have committed a crime. That is PC in a nutshell.