Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-19-2011, 22:58   #1
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Are Police Vehicle Checkpoints Legal in Texas

Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
I know, but that's a bit different. I bet in GA the permit creates a defense or exception to conduct that is generally illegal.
GA law does not matter, this is a 4th amendment issue. Not that I would hold my breath and believe SCOTUS would uphold their own precedent in Delaware Vs. Prouse, but I would like to see the issue forced.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile [person] and detaining the driver [OC'er] in order to check his driver's [Carry] license and the registration of the automobile [firearm] are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 653-663.

[Moderator Note: This topic was extracted from another thread.]

Last edited by RussP; 12-20-2011 at 12:49..
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:04   #2
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
GA law does not matter, this is a 4th amendment issue. Not that I would hold my breath and believe SCOTUS would uphold their own precedent in Delaware Vs. Prouse.

2. Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver [OC'er] in order to check his driver's [Carry] license and the registration of the automobile [firearm] are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 653-663.
The way the law is written does matter. Stopping a motorist to check for a DL is a 4th amendment violation because driving a car is not illegal. In that case, driving without a license is illegal and the Officer can't make a stop without RAS that the driver has no license (or another crime is being committed, obviously). But, in many states carrying a handgun is illegal. The CHL creates an exception, but the mere presence of the gun gives the cop justification to make an investigative stop.

Of course, the SCOTUS has decided that Police can make suspicionless stops of motorists, under certain conditions. But that doesn't apply to gun carry. In states where OC of a handgun is simply not illegal, then I absolutely agree that making a stop would be a 4A violation.
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.

Last edited by bithabus; 12-19-2011 at 23:07..
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:10   #3
Ftttu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
The way the law is written does matter. Stopping a motorist to check for a DL is a 4th amendment violation because driving a car is not illegal. In that case, driving without a license is illegal and the Officer can't make a stop without RAS that the driver has no license (or another crime is being committed, obviously). But, in many states carrying a handgun is illegal. The CHL creates an exception, but the mere presence of the gun gives the cop justification to make an investigative stop.

Of course, the SCOTUS has decided that Police can make suspicionless stops of motorists, under certain conditions. But that doesn't apply to gun carry. In states where OC of a handgun is simply not illegal, then I absolutely agree that making a stop would be a 4A violation.
The law here in Texas states we can stop a motorist just to check for a dl. That law is what allows us to conduct dl checks. I also use it to stop very young looking drivers.
Ftttu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:11   #4
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftttu View Post
The law here in Texas states we can stop a motorist just to check for a dl. That law is what allows us to conduct dl checks. I also use it to stop very young looking drivers.
I call BS
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:17   #5
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
The way the law is written does matter. Stopping a motorist to check for a DL is a 4th amendment violation because driving a car is not illegal. In that case, driving without a license is illegal and the Officer can't make a stop without RAS that the driver has no license (or another crime is being committed, obviously). But, in many states carrying a handgun is illegal. The CHL creates an exception, but the mere presence of the gun gives the cop justification to make an investigative stop.
In a typical OC state,

Driving is legal, driving without a license is illegal.
Carrying a gun is legal, carrying without a license is illegal.

Not much difference.

The point of the ruling had nothing to do with how the law was written, but with the fact that folks cannot be stopped unless there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that the person or something in plain view on the person is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law.

This precedent has also been upheld for unregulated things, such as just walking down the street. The thinking of the court seems to be if the act can be performed legally, the police have no right to stop you unless they see something illegal about you or whatever it is you are carrying

Like I said earlier, I would be shocked if they followed it instead of making up some make-believe about how toting guns is different.



This has also been upheld to include walking down the street, and many other
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:20   #6
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
I call BS
Actually the law does say that.

However, SCOTUS struck it down 25 years ago but it has never been removed from the books. Not uncommon in Texas as we have many struck down laws still on the books. They only removed sodomy last a few sessions ago even though that was struck down well over a decade ago.

Ftttu is violating the 4th amendment rights of everyone he stops under that law. - See Delaware vs. Prouse, specifically the paragraph I already quoted.

Last edited by RenegadeGlocker; 12-19-2011 at 23:21..
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:21   #7
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
Actually the law does say that.

However, SCOTUS struck it down 25 years ago but it has never been removed from the books. Not uncommon in Texas as we have many struck down laws still on the books. They only removed sodomy last a few sessions ago even though that was struck down well over a decade ago.

Fttu is violating the 4th amendment rights of everyone he stops under that law.
Where is the law?

I agree it is a blatant 4A violation.
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:23   #8
garebel
Senior Member
 
garebel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Metro Atlanta
Posts: 417
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
What is reasonable about stopping a person with ZERO P/C or R/S? If you were driving a car he could not randomly stop you like that.But since you seem to see no problem, I will be sure to point you OCers out to every cop I can find.
Yes he could.
Road blocks /DL checks are not at all uncommon in Atlanta, especially downtown and Buckhead areas.
__________________
What we do in life echoes in eternity

Last edited by garebel; 12-19-2011 at 23:25..
garebel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:28   #9
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
Where is the law?

I agree it is a blatant 4A violation.
In the transportation code.

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:

(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:30   #10
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by garebel View Post
Yes he could.
Road blocks /DL checks are not at all uncommon in Atlanta, especially downtown and Buckhead areas.
Stopping everybody or every 5th car is different from picking people at random. So says SCOTUS.
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:31   #11
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
In the transportation code.

Sec. 521.025. LICENSE TO BE CARRIED AND EXHIBITED ON DEMAND; CRIMINAL PENALTY. (a) A person required to hold a license under Section 521.021 shall:

(1) have in the person's possession while operating a motor vehicle the class of driver's license appropriate for the type of vehicle operated; and

(2) display the license on the demand of a magistrate, court officer, or peace officer.

(b) A peace officer may stop and detain a person operating a motor vehicle to determine if the person has a driver's license as required by this section.
Thanks, I never noticed that. Obviously the Police can't actually stop people to check for a DL in Texas. I hope Ftttu is just a troll.
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:34   #12
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
In GA (and Texas) it looks like this:

Driving is legal. Driving without license is illegal.
Carrying a handgun is illegal. Carrying with a license (or other exception) is legal.
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.

So pretty much it is illegal unless you meet an exemption or have a license.

This is actually more restrictive than CHL law, which if you are CHL licensed, is NONAPPLICABLE.

Last edited by RenegadeGlocker; 12-19-2011 at 23:35..
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:37   #13
RenegadeGlocker
Senior Member
 
RenegadeGlocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Texas
Posts: 8,717
Fun discussion but I have to go (not ignoring any future posts.)
RenegadeGlocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:40   #14
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
Sec. 521.021. LICENSE REQUIRED. A person, other than a person expressly exempted under this chapter, may not operate a motor vehicle on a highway in this state unless the person holds a driver's license issued under this chapter.
That's consistent with my above description. It says if you don't have a license, then driving is illegal. This is very different from saying just "driving is illegal".
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:42   #15
PAGunner
Senior Member
 
PAGunner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sunny South Florida
Posts: 6,450
Quote:
Originally Posted by RenegadeGlocker View Post
In my state State only permit holders may drive cars, and SCOTUS ruled the Police cannot stop you to see if you are a licensed driver. That is what I was getting at.
Police SHOULDN'T be allowed to stop you just because you're driving or just because you're OCing. IDK nor do I care what the courts have ruled about cops stopping OCing, it's simply wrong to stop soeone OCing where it is legal with or without a permit. We don't live in a police state, or at least our founding fathers did not envision a police state, but everyday we lose more and more rights & freedoms, while the government plays an ever growing hand in our personal affairs.

Of course cops stop people in vehicles all the time, with no good reason for the stop. I've been stopped before for no reason and I'm not saying every cop or even a majority of cops pull people over for no reason, but there is a percentage who will, even if that percentage is 1% it is too high.

That's not tinfoil hat talk, that's real talk. Of course, the sheeple will laugh, think people who think like I do are nuts, and our once great nation will continue to slide more and more towards a nanny socialist state, welcome to 1984.
__________________
M&P 40 CORE, M&P FS 40, M&P 40c, M&P 40 Shield
DDM4V1 LW, DDM4V5 LW, SCAR 17s, VEPR 12
PAGunner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:48   #16
Ftttu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
Thanks, I never noticed that. Obviously the Police can't actually stop people to check for a DL in Texas. I hope Ftttu is just a troll.
Why would you think I'm a troll? I state what the law says and someone back that up with statute and I'm a troll? I've been a LEO for over 20 years and I deal with this stuff every day.

If we are conducting an SVC(stationary vehicle check), we ask for dl and for proof of financial responsiblity. If the driver provides that and we don't see any violations or believe there is anything reasonably suspicious to further investigate, we have to let them go. That's the way it should be. Also, we just can't just do our own SVC without having it planned out and approved.
Also with the law stating we may stop and detain for checking for a dl, the district attorney's office doesn't like cases which arise out of stops where the officer states he "just" wanted to check for a dl. Sounds good to me.
Ftttu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-19-2011, 23:53   #17
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ftttu View Post
Why would you think I'm a troll? I state what the law says and someone back that up with statute and I'm a troll? I've been a LEO for over 20 years and I deal with this stuff every day.
In Texas you can't stop a motorist just to check for a DL. As a Peace Officer you should know that. SCOTUS is very clear.

Quote:
If we are conducting an SVC(stationary vehicle check), we ask for dl and for proof of financial responsiblity. If the driver provides that and we don't see any violations or believe there is anything reasonably suspicious to further investigate, we have to let them go. That's the way it should be. Also, we just can't just do our own SVC without having it planned out and approved.
Can you explain what an SVC is? What do you do if the driver declines to provide his DL?
Quote:
Also with the law stating we may stop and detain for checking for a dl, the district attorney's office doesn't like cases which arise out of stops where the officer states he "just" wanted to check for a dl. Sounds good to me.
Remember, that law is unconstitutional. Any evidence you gain from such a stop is inadmissible. And you can face a 1983 suit.
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 00:06   #18
Paul53
Geezer Boomer
 
Paul53's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: W of Pecos, N of Rio Bravo
Posts: 4,153
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
In Texas you can't stop a motorist just to check for a DL. As a Peace Officer you should know that. SCOTUS is very clear.

Can you explain what an SVC is? What do you do if the driver declines to provide his DL?

Remember, that law is unconstitutional. Any evidence you gain from such a stop is inadmissible. And you can face a 1983 suit.
A cop friend once told me that any cop should be able to find cause to stop any given car in less than a minute. I started watching other cars from that point of view and realised that crossing white lines, turning without signals, etc etc are so common that I believed him.
Paul53 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 00:07   #19
bithabus
Senior Member
 
bithabus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 1,040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul53 View Post
A cop friend once told me that any cop should be able to find cause to stop any given car in less than a minute. I started watching other cars from that point of view and realised that crossing white lines, turning without signals, etc etc are so common that I believed him.
Sure, but that's not what Ftttu says he is doing.
__________________
If you don't have weapons then you live according to the mercy of those who do.
bithabus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-20-2011, 00:15   #20
Ftttu
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: West Texas
Posts: 1,249
Quote:
Originally Posted by bithabus View Post
In Texas you can't stop a motorist just to check for a DL. As a Peace Officer you should know that. SCOTUS is very clear.

Can you explain what an SVC is? What do you do if the driver declines to provide his DL?

Remember, that law is unconstitutional. Any evidence you gain from such a stop is inadmissible. And you can face a 1983 suit.
"Stationary vehicle check" is where we put out cones and stop traffic from both directions, not allowing anyone to pass without displaying their DL or proof of financial responsibility. Also, if there are any other violations, we are advised to cite because our SVC's are zero tolerance.
Even though you cite that law, the courts(not knowing which ones) have the opinion that these SVC's are reasonable. I, myself, don't like doing them because I lose my discretion. I still have a heart and I'm one of those who mostly give verbal or written warnings.

To answer the question about if someone doesn't show me their DL, that is an offense in itself-"Failure to Display DL Upon Demand of a Police Officer". We can request a DL/wanted check through dispatch and get a quick return of DL status as you would think. Since the SVC is zero tolerance, the driver would get cited.

Last edited by Ftttu; 12-20-2011 at 00:16.. Reason: spelling
Ftttu is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:30.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,316
397 Members
919 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31