TexasCHLforum.com

smoothoperator wrote:The system says it needs to be manually verified and that's what they're trying to do.

By that logic you would be ok if the police stopped you while you were driving a car to manually check to see if you have a DL since they have no other way of verifying since they don't know your name or date of birth... I mean after all it is the law and he is just checking......

I have used the "program" attached to TLETS and it is chocked full of errors, if that is what you want to call it. It does not tell you if some has or doesn't have insurance. It tells you their insurance is confirmed current or you need to manually verify. If they can do that off a system that is not accurate then why can't they pull you over to see if your car's in compliance with a state inspection? In order for a LEO to detain you they must have probable cause. The insurance program does not establish probable cause that you are operating a motor vehicle, it merely notifies the LEO that your insurance status is confirmed or the LEO needs to manually verify. It has everything to do with being presumed innocent, not having to prove your innocent because a computer system said your insurance needs to be manually verified.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

AFCop wrote:TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

AFCop, with all due respect, if you're running random insurance checks on cars as they drive by, and a database which is known by many to often not be current tells you to manually verify, that IS a fishing expedition. I have maintained current and uninterrupted insurance on my vehicles for multiple decades, but what I'm hearing here is that your database may still not be aware of that. Why in Sam Hades must I be stopped to verify something that I, as a responsible and trustworthy citizen, have properly maintained as required by law, just because the system that you are required to depend on is notoriously unreliable? Here's the principle it violates: I am being directed to prove I'm not guilty of something before even being charged with it. See what I mean? It's not right. I'm not accusing you personally of inappropriate actions, but if I were a cop and I was being ordered to use a system that could get me in hot water for using it, I'd be disinclined to want to use it very often.

Perhaps something got lost in translation but I am agreeing with you 100%. The system doesn't always have up to date information, even pertaining to warrants. That's why hit confirmations are required... The system merely states insurance is confirmed or to manually verify. That is all. I wholeheartedly disagree with it being the premise of PC for a stop.

Alf wrote:

OldCannon wrote:Wait, I don't get this: What reasonable cause does he have to think your guns are stolen? Without his statement of probable cause, I doubt I would consent to that search.

His insurance lapsed. Or maybe there was an error in their computer system. That's all the probable cause he needs to assume the car and anything inside is stolen.

If you come back with a warrant (via TLETS) as a LEO I am still required to verify it is still active and whether or not the ORI will come get the individual. If I don't verify and I detain, if the warrant ends up being old I put myself in some hot water.

With regards to insurance, this was a "help" DPS devised to assist with the unneccessary towing of vehicles (in places where it was occurring all the time). My insurance has been the same for the last 8+ years, no lapses and same USAA policy. My wife was involved in MVA where her phone got damaged, being the hi-techies that we are, and our insurance card was electronic (on the phone). The Leon Vally PD Officer who responded indicated the system was down so she got cited for No Insurance. No worries, 15 minutes at the court house and it was dismissed.

TAM - that was my point, this is no different then pulling someone over to check if they have a DL.... The system is not an end all be all, its an assistance tool... A complaint to DPS or his department might square this away....

ETA: How would one articulate PC for stolen stuff IF the only infraction is no insurance? Especially since, if it was reported, it would come back STOLEN on the registration return....

Actually, from a TLETS terminal (slightly better then a MDC) TLETS will tell you if insurance status is confirmed or if you need to manually verify. It is not a flawless system and can be outdated by a couple months. Furthermore, I am not sure if that would be a valid traffic stop, considering the system doesn't say expired or not, merely confirmed or manually verify.