Williamson County :(

[57Coastie]

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

Technically all vehicle operators May or May Not have a valid license. Pulling everyone over is just trying to verify that. Is that ok too?

A very good question, Wienerdogtroy, and it certainly calls into question, in an honest and intelligent fashion, my just prior post on this thread. (I am assuming that when you use "license" in your question you are referring to a "driver's license.)

The protection given by the 4th Amendment is a moving target. More than 200 years have elapsed since its enactment, and our courts, state and federal, at all levels, still struggle with what it means, as is the case with the 2nd Amendment (which, BTW, appears to many to be very clear), and so many others.

The 4th, depending on the circumstances, requires the authorities intending a search and/or seizure to have a range of justifications -- a range going from probable cause (when a warrant is sought), through a reasonable "suspicion," all the way down to the rub -- the search and/or seizure must just be "reasonable."

One's dictionary is not going to help him define, in the multitude of different cases which arise, the meaning of the word "reasonable." The best definition of the word I have seen paraphrases a Supreme Court justice's definition of the word pornographic -- "I can't define the word 'reasonable' for you, but I will know whether or not the search and/or seizure was reasonable when I know all the circumstances."

Helpful definition, isn't it? Subjective to an extreme. The one who has been searched, or the one who did the search, may sincerely and honestly disagree with the Supreme Court if the case gets that far, but so be it.

An uneasy situation for us and LEO's to face, when such a critical right is involved? Yes, of course, but that is the best we, LEOs and judges, all being human beings with all their failings, can do.

So, I will suggest a very bad answer to your very good question, Wienerdogtroy, "Was the search, under the circumstances then at hand, reasonable?"

My opinion, without having that perhaps one additional teeny little missing fact added, is "No."

This is the point where on many forums one gets a response beginning, "But what if...."

I must apologize, if in order, for writing what might appear to be a thesis in an honest effort to answer a simple question. On the other hand, in a law library you can find volumes and volumes of books which have attempted to answer your question.

With real respect, while short and to the point, your question may not be as simple as it appears.

Jim

[mgwerks]

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

Technically all vehicle operators May or May Not have a valid license. Pulling everyone over is just trying to verify that. Is that ok too?

It's a case of Schrödinger's operators license.

[mikedude]

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.

The problem goes back to TX traffic revenue generation from tickets. It is crazy. In a different state before moving here (LEO here as well), I ran plates all the time as well as we had computers in the car. The goal was different as I worked auto theft and recovered stolen cars this way. The plates are there to be ran, and there is no 4th violation. In addition to stolen cars, other states have registration on the rear license plate, and people would fraudulently alter that. Another great reason for the stop. Where I come from (country song) we stopped cars to make felony arrests. Bad guys went to jail and the public was safer. I have never been a "ticket writer." Running for an insurance violation seems petty to me, but hey, what do I know? Each his own. Maybe he does 't have the experiance to know how to find PC for a stop. Now if you have a legit stop, and they have no insurance, that is one ticket that needs to be written. There are so many uninsured people out there its a joke. To me that would be weak PC (probable cause) for a stop and I wouldn't do it. Officers are judged by their arrests; reports and PC. Without good PC, arrests are thrown out. I judge an officer by convictions as well. That goes to good solid police work.

As far as inspecting the guns, it's not hard to justify an inspection as the gun is in plain site. Just for safety reasons alone you could temporarily take the gun during the stop, due to it being a detention. I know if I walk up to a car (as other post) stated and there is an AK on the front seat/floor board, it is possibly going to dictate the stop as I have had guns pulled on me at the car window. You can't what if everything, but 20 years of experience gives me good instincts on who is a good law abiding citizen exercising there 2nd amendment RIGHTS vs. some parolee that has no business carrying the gun.

Sounded like he gave you a break though by not processing the ticket.