Beware in Texas: You can be stopped for license plate frame

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

So your attitude that the 4th should be killed even further is typical of people in or near law enforcement, as they tend to get special tretament.

Where did he say that? You're the one that equated getting stopped for an obscured plate with "the nice cop pawing through your underwear drawer".

Tone down the hyperbole a bit and say what you mean to say.

Quote

Where did he say that?

Say what? Several things were said.

Quote

You're the one that equated getting stopped for an obscured plate with "the nice cop pawing through your underwear drawer".

Right, I'll stick with black/white simplistic statements for ya. The points I made were:

1) Pulling over for obscured plate leads to the slippery slope of far worse things like no/limited 4th requirement.

2) Cops tend to get "professional courtesy," which is really corruption with a nice tag.

Debate a point, not the debater.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So your attitude that the 4th should be killed even further is typical of people in or near law enforcement, as they tend to get special tretament.

Where did he say that? You're the one that equated getting stopped for an obscured plate with "the nice cop pawing through your underwear drawer".

Tone down the hyperbole a bit and say what you mean to say.

__________________________________________

I think, it's trolling, at it's worst! Ya' think?


Chuck

That's ok, I forgive you for trolling.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Nah, I don't think he's trolling, per se - he *has* brought up some good arguments...but the overblown emotion is getting in the way of the message.

Point in fact - under the current laws, if I understand them correctly, the police can do a visual search of the driver's vicinity on ANY traffic stop. (Dave, is this correct?)

If that is, in fact, the case...then the law that needs to be fought is the law allowing that search. The 'obscured plate' law has been on the books for at least 20 years - I recall getting pulled over for it when I was around 20.

Quote

but the overblown emotion is getting in the way of the message.

Look past anything you consider emotion, which was very limited, and debate the issues with me.

Quote

Point in fact - under the current laws, if I understand them correctly, the police can do a visual search of the driver's vicinity on ANY traffic stop. (Dave, is this correct?)

In fact even moreso, with the Chimmel bubble, which is a bubble area within the driver's reach.

Quote

If that is, in fact, the case...then the law that needs to be fought is the law allowing that search. The 'obscured plate' law has been on the books for at least 20 years - I recall getting pulled over for it when I was around 20

But the *unreasonable* stop is what predecates the plain view search.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

>It appears you have no idea what we've been talking about.

>a) no front license plate
>b) obscured rears like http://www.ghostplates.com/ontrack.html

I have license plate frames that would violate the Texas law on both my cars (I just checked.) They are the dealer plate frames that partially cover the word "California." A neighbor down the street has plastic covers on his plates that actually obscure far less than my frames do. The one in front is pretty clear, but the back one is yellowed from the sun. (He's the sort who puts vinyl covers on his furniture, too.) They look a lot like the plates on that website, but are more yellowed (more hazy) while more visible from the sides.

I Would be fascinated to hear what crime he's planning to commit.

He's part of an A.Q. terrorist cell planning to speed thru the streets and aggrivate cops everywhere.

[mnealtx 0]

While I somewhat agree with you that a search COULD be construed as an invasion of privacy, I don't believe a vehicle counts as a "person, house, paper or effects" as per the 4th Amendment.

Yes, the police have a right to search the area immediately around the driver (Chimel search) and to pat down the driver (Terry search) to preserve officer safety. In the quick search that I did, I wasn't able to find appeals against those cases.

Since this thread is (supposedly) discussing the fact that the police in Texas can (rightfully,since it is the law) pull you over if your license plate is obscured, perhaps you'd care to make a new thread discussing the 4th Amendment and it's applicability to Chimel/Terry searches?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

While I somewhat agree with you that a search COULD be construed as an invasion of privacy, I don't believe a vehicle counts as a "person, house, paper or effects" as per the 4th Amendment.

Yes, the police have a right to search the area immediately around the driver (Chimel search) and to pat down the driver (Terry search) to preserve officer safety. In the quick search that I did, I wasn't able to find appeals against those cases.

Since this thread is (supposedly) discussing the fact that the police in Texas can (rightfully,since it is the law) pull you over if your license plate is obscured, perhaps you'd care to make a new thread discussing the 4th Amendment and it's applicability to Chimel/Terry searches?

Quote

While I somewhat agree with you that a search COULD be construed as an invasion of privacy, I don't believe a vehicle counts as a "person, house, paper or effects" as per the 4th Amendment.

No, no, no, I'm not saying a vehicle has rights to privacy, I'm saying a person occupying that vehicle does. An unoccupied vehicle probably does have rights to privacy, but very limited. An occupied vehicle has limited rights to privacy, and that is teh issue: What is PC to generate an intrusion into privacy, also, how far can they go?

As for the basic language of papers, etc., don;t get too involved in that, as the word, "Privacy" is no where to be seen in the US Const anywhere, but all kinds of case law has centered around it.

Quote

Yes, the police have a right to search the area immediately around the driver (Chimel search) and to pat down the driver (Terry search) to preserve officer safety. In the quick search that I did, I wasn't able to find appeals against those cases.

I'm not sure what you mean by appeals agaimnst those cases, as the appeal statute has passed by 40 years. Do you mean cases that cited Terry v Ohio or Chimel? BTW, Terry V Ohio isn't a vehicle search precedent, but an officer safety precedent, as you said, is for officer safety. An officer could stop you with just Reasonable Suspicion walking down the sidewalk, which is how they stopped Terry; he was walking back and forth casing a store. So this isn;t a vehicle-related case.

Quote

Since this thread is (supposedly) discussing the fact that the police in Texas can (rightfully,since it is the law) pull you over if your license plate is obscured, perhaps you'd care to make a new thread discussing the 4th Amendment and it's applicability to Chimel/Terry searches?

Rightfully? Statute is nothing compared to case law, so that is to be determined. Again, Terry has nothing to do with this case, Terry is not a vehicle case and only requires RS versus PC with a vehicle stop. And Chimel doesn;t have to do with a vehicel stop either, just a search subsequesnt to stop. I threw in Chimel to to establish what can be done AFTER a stop, but not to determine the validity of the stop.

[Trent 0]

Quote

When I lived in a different state, people in my city started buying frames to put on their plates because thieves would steal the yearly registration stickers (which were on the lower corner of the plate) by using heavy-duty scissors to quickly cut off...

Fortunately, the State of Texas has figured out a way to stop crimes like that. Our registration and inspection stickers are inside our front windshields now. So having a frame to prevent plate-cutting is not an issue.

For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... do you realize a cop, if he's as dishonest as some of you seem to think many cops are, could pull you over and just make up whatever excuse he wanted? You swerved, you were 1mph over, you were 10mph under, thought I saw you litter... it goes on. If someone wants to be dishonest... they will be... this law doesn't "enable" anything.

Oh, hello again!

[efs4ever 3]

Quote

For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... do you realize a cop, if he's as dishonest as some of you seem to think many cops are, could pull you over and just make up whatever excuse he wanted? You swerved, you were 1mph over, you were 10mph under, thought I saw you litter... it goes on. If someone wants to be dishonest... they will be... this law doesn't "enable" anything.

Trent

He has a point, but the fact is that cops will always try to find a reason they can hang their hat on to stop someone. The courts have continued to whittle away at the Constitutions of the U.S. and the State of Texas in an effort to give law enforcement whatever tools they need to get the "bad guy" without much thought about the erosion of rights to the general citizenry.

As I mentioned earlier, these kind of stops are used as a pretext in order to allow a police officer to get closer to the subject to investigate something the officer only has a HUNCH about. e.g. Joe Skydiver seen driving away from a bar at 2 a.m. "Dang, he must be drunk." Joe drives away, and before any bad driving facts are observed he's stopped for the frame that obscures part of the word TEXAS on the plate. Joe has the smell of "alcoholic beverage emitting from his breath, his eyes are bloodshot and his speech is slurred." (This precise language appears in almost all police reports for DWI)

Joe gets invited to perform a series of "tests" that grade his ability to perform ABNORMAL tasks. Then, perhaps, it's off to jail for JOE. Try standing heel to toe for a few minutes SOBER.

I've had two cases where officers swore in reports that they had defendant do and fail the battery of SFST (Standardized Field Sobriety Test). My clients denied having performed ANY SFST. Conveniently, no scene video existed. Client stated that no testing was ever done because he refused. (He followed my pre arrest advice to the T.)

I proved one officer to be lying by getting his squad car generated computer records into evidence. They showed that he was only on the scene for a few minutes; way too short a time period to have administered any such tests. (Not Guilty) So YES, officers can and do LIE.

I always tell my prospective clients not to drive a "Stop ME" car. License plate frame is one of the most innocuous violations that folks don't think of. Expired stickers, tail lights out, license plate light out, headlights out or brake light out (even if one works) are all STOP ME reasons.

OK, back to the rant. Drug prohibition in this country is costing billions due to the aforementioned easing up of Constitutional restraints on cops. I speak from my own personal experience as a criminal defense lawyer in Houston, Harris County, Texas when I complain about this kind of enforcement.

Thousands of people go to jail and prison from Harris County each year for possession of drugs. A very common method of "getting" these perps is for police to sit up on what they call a "known location for narcotics activity" and watch. They see people come and go or stop by a car and talk to someone and then leave. As the suspect leaves the area a call is made to another officer lurking nearby to "make a traffic stop." License plate frame is now added to the list of easy traffic stops.

Once the car is stopped, all occupants are subjected to warrantless searches until finally the rock or baggie is discovered. Off to jail they go to sit, at tax payer expense, for months or YEARS.

The targets are, disproportionately, minorities also.

In these kind of cases it would be just as easy to legitimately send a narc in to make a "buy" and then bust the dealer. Hard to find a violation of the dealer's rights in this scenario, just as long as it is done properly. (Not having the cop be the only witness, i.e. TULIA)

Aside from the fact that I think the "Drug War" is a failure (It's now a war against people who use drugs.) I see prisons full of people who, aside from their bad habits, are not dangerous. Most of them are not robbing or burglarizing to get money to buy dope. (Some are, and they should PAY dearly for that crime if they get caught..)

My message here is that, due to this and similar reductions in our rights agains "unreasonable" searches and seizures, MORE people are going to jail; people who don't need to be in jail. Money is being diverted away from a good system of EDUCATION due to the PRISON BUDGET. They are working on MORE ways to get into your HOME without a warrant also. (Thankfully, the smell of pot emitting from your doorway is not yet a reason for them to bust in.)
Prohibition should have taught us a lesson.

/rant



________________________________

Russell M. Webb D 7014
Attorney at Law
713 385 5676
https://www.tdcparole.com

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Good thing in the UK we can stop any car we like with no other reason than to check its compliance with construction and use regulations and to check driver has neccesary paperwork. We don't even need to find a reason to pull someone over.

It's amazing that you fought so hard against that stuff in 1940.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[shropshire 0]

But we dont have to carry our 'papers'... but the police will give us a 'presenter'... we then have a few days to show up at a police station to show them our licence/registration etc.. Not quite like 1984 as it 1st appears.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,182]

Quote

Quote

When I lived in a different state, people in my city started buying frames to put on their plates because thieves would steal the yearly registration stickers (which were on the lower corner of the plate) by using heavy-duty scissors to quickly cut off...

Fortunately, the State of Texas has figured out a way to stop crimes like that. Our registration and inspection stickers are inside our front windshields now. So having a frame to prevent plate-cutting is not an issue.

For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... do you realize a cop, if he's as dishonest as some of you seem to think many cops are, could pull you over and just make up whatever excuse he wanted? You swerved, you were 1mph over, you were 10mph under, thought I saw you litter... it goes on. If someone wants to be dishonest... they will be... this law doesn't "enable" anything.

Right on. What is needed is a ruling that summary offenses (those that can be tried without indictment) do not entitle the police to go on a fishing expedition with a warrantless search.

Otherwise we're really no better than Stalinist USSR.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Right on. What is needed is a ruling that summary offenses (those that can be tried without indictment) do not entitle the police to go on a fishing expedition with a warrantless search.

If I recall correctly, for those types of offenses you can refuse to sign the ticket and they (used to?) have to get a supervisor come and sign for you. We did that in high school once when a small-town cop was having a bad day and wanted to write 20 of us jaywalking tickets. The supervisor came and told him to take a break and apologized to us.

If the cop NOTICES something or smells alchohol... then they should be required to have audio and video of the stop. If they SEE drugs or smell them... they should have to have taped evidence and maybe another officer on scene. Maybe that'd help a bit?

Oh, hello again!

[efs4ever 3]

Quote

If I recall correctly, for those types of offenses you can refuse to sign the ticket and they (used to?) have to get a supervisor come and sign for you. We did that in high school once when a small-town cop was having a bad day and wanted to write 20 of us jaywalking tickets. The supervisor came and told him to take a break and apologized to us.

If the cop NOTICES something or smells alchohol... then they should be required to have audio and video of the stop. If they SEE drugs or smell them... they should have to have taped evidence and maybe another officer on scene. Maybe that'd help a bit?

Trent

They should be, but when they don't want the jury to see certain things they turn it off. (Like them NOT doing SFST)

Don't sign the ticket you go to jail.

TX legislature passed laws protecting citizens against BS cops but governor Rick Perry vetoed them. Remember that when you vote. Again, see my rant on my web site (lawyerwebb sig line) The details are there.

______________________

Russell M. Webb D 7014
Attorney at Law
713 385 5676
https://www.tdcparole.com

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

When I lived in a different state, people in my city started buying frames to put on their plates because thieves would steal the yearly registration stickers (which were on the lower corner of the plate) by using heavy-duty scissors to quickly cut off...

Fortunately, the State of Texas has figured out a way to stop crimes like that. Our registration and inspection stickers are inside our front windshields now. So having a frame to prevent plate-cutting is not an issue.

For all the wackos who are ADAMANTLY against this law about our plates... do you realize a cop, if he's as dishonest as some of you seem to think many cops are, could pull you over and just make up whatever excuse he wanted? You swerved, you were 1mph over, you were 10mph under, thought I saw you litter... it goes on. If someone wants to be dishonest... they will be... this law doesn't "enable" anything.

Wackos? Keep your personal attacks to yourself.

I have stated that dirty cops, most of them have a degree of this, can just lie, as is their nature. So I have already covered this.

Again, read the thread, this is the framework of a slippery slope.

[Trent 0]

Quote

Wackos? Keep your personal attacks to yourself.

Was I talking to you? And for anyone who's ONLY against this license plate thing... it stands. The problem isn't the law about the frame... it appears to be people's trust of law enforcement.

Quote

I have stated that dirty cops, most of them have a degree of this, can just lie, as is their nature. So I have already covered this.

There are law enforcement officers on this very forum. How about you keep your PA's to yourself?

See how fun it is to play sensitive?

Quote

Again, read the thread, this is the framework of a slippery slope.

Did this slippery slope start when cops were invented? Or how about when any vehicle laws were made? Or or or, how about when they made us REGISTER our cars (the fascists!) Or did the license plate frame thing start the sloping slip 'n slide?

Oh, hello again!

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Good thing in the UK we can stop any car we like with no other reason than to check its compliance with construction and use regulations and to check driver has neccesary paperwork. We don't even need to find a reason to pull someone over.

Yea it's really great. It's just one reason why whole sections of the population think British cops are fucking assholes.

When I drove a car in Britain I was never stopped, on a motorcycle it was a weekly occurance. It's just great Einstein, until you're on the receiving end of the bigoted farts who do the stopping.

Pretty soon in the UK you'll also be able to stop people in the street and demand to see their biometric records. You'll be in pig heaven, unless one day you're the one the fascists don't like the look of.

[masterrig 1]

I have stated that dirty cops, most of them have a degree of this, can just lie, as is their nature. So I have already covered this.

Again, read the thread, this is the framework of a slippery slope.

[Andy9o8 3]

I don’t think most cops are, at their core, dirty or essentially dishonest; no more or less than the general population. I have great respect for the difficult work they do and the risk and stress they are subject to on the job. I want them out there, protecting my family. (I just wish they’d leave me alone when I speed.) I think 99% of them should be told “thank you for your service”, just as most military service-people deserve that. I generally oppose the death penalty; but I might be willing to make an exception for cop-killers.

But a police officer, by definition, is a professional witness (since arrests must be supported in court by officers’ testimony in order to make out the state’s case). And a professional witness – whether it be a doctor who testifies a lot in personal injury cases, an engineer who testifies a lot in products liability cases, or a police officer who testifies a lot in criminal cases – soon learns what is necessary to say (and/or avoid admitting) to support the case of the party on whose behalf he’s testifying – and very often, that means “massaging” the truth.

Back when I used to practice a lot of criminal defense, I litigated a lot of pre-trial motions to suppress evidence, and I tried a lot of drug possession and DUI cases, and a lot of other cases where identification of the perp was a key issue. I always had the best success in court against rookie cops. Why? Not because they “screwed up” in the classical sense, but because they were the MOST honest! – and the honest-to-God truth sometimes puts the nail in the coffin on the prosecution’s case. Rookie cops, before they learn to lie on the witness stand (yes, I know what that’s called) get burned in court doing that a few times, and they learn: say what you need to say to make out the state’s case. And so, for example, the car was “swerving across the center line”, when in fact the driver is simply guilty of DWB (driving while black). And you know what – to hear police officers tell it in court, it’s absolutely AMAZING how much contraband is out “in plain sight”, or “thrown on the ground” (abandoned) by the perp, and how many people freely consent to searches of their vehicles, luggage, apartments, whatever.

Quite frankly, when you practice criminal defense law long enough, you get a very good sixth sense as to what the truth is or is not (as told by anyone: your client, the citizen witness, the cop, anyone). So it’s not too hard to recognize when the cop is lying on the stand. And, unfortunately, it happens a lot – maybe not about everything that occurred, but when it comes to a key element - the cop knows what to say, and what not to say, and avoiding getting the state’s case blown out usually takes priority over being absolutely faithful to “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”.

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

Practicing criminal defense and reading police reports sends chills down my spine.

Tell me about it.

[masterrig 1]

I've known good cops as well as the not so good to the down-right dirty. I've met more, damned good ones. I think, a lot of older cops, may tend to become 'hardened' to the job. they are sick and tired of law breakers getting off or 'probation'. They bust their collective butts, trying to protect the public they swore to protect, only to get it thrown-out on a 'technicality'. They deal with some screaming wife who is being beaten by her drunk husband only to have her turn on the cop when he hauls the drunk hubby away. "He only does that when he gets drunk!" she says with a swollen lip. Cop: "How often does he get drunk?" Beat-up wife: "All the time!" They get to watch some 5th., 6th. time offender, car burglar get an 'extension' on their probation, just walk! They deal with the dregs of society on up to the 'well-to-do' of society and everything in between. They write tickets for speeding to 'good' citizens with the hope, they may have prevented the person from killing themselves. They just plain, put-up with a lot of shit. Over the years, they may 'stretch' the truth or just flat lie, trying to get some baby raper or some low-life drug pusher who dealt dope, mainly to school kids. off the streets. So on and so on. There's not a single living person who has't cheated or lied to some degree. We expect cops to be 'perfect' while we let ourselves slide. It's been this way since the first badge was pinned on and I don't guess, it'll ever change. Folks might 'think' a little bit before condemning cops.


Chuck

[Andy9o8 3]

Quote

a lot of older cops, may tend to become 'hardened' to the job.

It's not just the older cops who lie on the stand to keep the state's case intact, unless the definition of "older" is "past his rookie year." And, sorry, it's not just to put away kids' drug dealers and baby-rapers; it's to support any prosecution.
You're a moral guy. You know right from wrong. You know lawful from unlawful. You start making that kind of moral compromise, you're flirting with a deal with the devil.

The ordinary citizen is held to the following standard: the law is the law, and if you break it, you get prosecuted.
Perjury is a felony in every state in the country. I don't see any exemptions in the perjury statutes for police officers. Perjury by a police officer on the witness stand in a court of law is a form of official corruption. I wish I could get more people to recognize that.

Quote

Folks might 'think' a little bit before condemning cops.

And of course, I'm sure you realize I wasn't condemning cops. I was just pointing out the harsh reality that lying on the stand in court - yes, I mean perjury - is one of the tools in their toolbox.

[1888 0]

All the cops I have ever known have used similar laws to make similar stops & I have known a lot of cops, trust me.

[pirana 0]

Quote

What are the legitimate positives in driving over the speed limit or playing loud music in public? Why shouldn't all those people be arrested, or at least searched? Heck, they're probably committing other crimes.

None. Which is why a person can, and should be ticketed for those things. But not searched. If however, in the process of getting ticketed for those things, evidence of other crimes is found, then they probably will get searched and get the book for that too.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I believe that this law took effect last year, and I have to say that it's the dumbest thing I've ever heard of.

I don't think it's dumb for a cop to be able to read what State a license plate is from, so they can trace it.

However, if it's used as an excuse to abuse people for other reasons, then that will need to be slapped down in court.

Simple solution: Remove the license plate frame, and remove the cop's excuse!

________________________________

Well said!


Chuck

That's way too simple and easy for the whiny-ass crowd that feels strongly about the need to use their cutsie saying license plate frame.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[efs4ever 3]

Quote

been this way since the first badge was pinned on and I don't guess, it'll ever change. Folks might 'think' a little bit before condemning cops.

My rant is more against the machine. Most cops are good. Joe Skydiver is usually pretty safe with his license plate frame. Most people are. If you just happen to slow down or stop in a drug locale that's being watched, you'll see what I'm ranting about, though.

I've been profile stopped several times. Something about my good looks made the officer believe that this cat isn't hauling dope or driving drunk, so I escaped the full monty shake down.

I especially like the warning I got today as I was tooling down Memorial Drive on my bike (My speedo said 55 in a 50) when a cop pulls along side me and gives me a loud speaker blast to slow it down from sixty.
So, in short, it's not all the fault of cops. The law makers who create new crimes and stiffen penalties for malum prohibitum type offenses and the appellate courts who give invasive and unreasonable statutes and police practices the stamp of legality are the biggest cogs in the wheel.

Policy makers will some day realize that prisons and jails are for the most dangerous of society; that a good system of education is more important than spending a few billion a year keeping citizens locked up for their bad habits; that the prohibition of those offenses costs more and does more harm than regulation and control.

__________________

Russell M. Webb D 7014
Attorney at Law
713 385 5676
https://www.tdcparole.com