Williamson County :(

[fickman]

If I understand correctly, the system returns a status of either:

1. Insurance positively confirmed automagically
OR
2. Insurance not positively confirmed automagically (would require manual verification)

That is a WORLD away from "driver confirmed to be uninsured". You can't even get there from here. The officer likely has a misunderstanding of the information he's being provided.

[GeekDad]

If I understand correctly, the system returns a status of either:

1. Insurance positively confirmed automagically
OR
2. Insurance not positively confirmed automagically (would require manual verification)

That is a WORLD away from "driver confirmed to be uninsured". You can't even get there from here. The officer likely has a misunderstanding of the information he's being provided.

And does not create PC.

[Deltaboy]

I hate when LEO's get bored and go fishing.

[57Coastie]

...that IS a fishing expedition....

Sometimes they catch a fish, AM.

Does not a person commit a Class C misdemeanor if the person operates a motor vehicle in Texas without financial responsibility established for that vehicle? Is that not a "crime?" Is a fishing expedition per se illegal in Texas? Is scanning license plates in Texas an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amdt.? Whether the system is in fact "notoriously unreliable" (a very broad and undemonstrated statement) may be one of those legal questions for a trial judge after the defendant attempts to prove it, when he goes to trial after being arrested and charged. It may be a question for appellate judges if one is convicted. (I'll stick my neck out and speculate that in fact the system's alleged reliability, or unreliability, if you prefer, is "notoriously unknown" by an overwhelming percentage of Texans. I'll stick it out further by speculating that there are indeed those here on this very forum who never heard of its reliability or unreliability, before this thread, or a predecessor here, came along.)

These rhetorical questions quotes you, AM, only because you mention fishing expeditions -- one of the issues here. In fact it is addressed to all those who tend time and again to confuse legal questions with the fact that they do not like something. The fact that they do not like something does not make it illegal, even if it offends their sense of justice, even though they may think an LEO, a DA, or the Texas legislature, or all the above, are "tyrants," to quote another commentator here.

My comments are particularly directed to those whose automatic and unthinking reaction to too many such questions is "I, the tough macho guy that I am, would refuse to permit the search without a warrant. So there!" As one who was a federal LEO for more than 20 years I can guarandarntee that this is a very good way to get the law tested, since "macho man" just volunteered to be the test case.

This is intended not to be critical, but rather to perhaps someday be helpful to macho man when the rubber hits the road, when he is called upon to fish or cut bait.

Jim

[RoyGBiv]

At what point do you draw the line, Jim?
Where does "Fishing" become "Tyranny"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
tyr·an·ny
   [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

[57Coastie]

At what point do you draw the line, Jim?
Where does "Fishing" become "Tyranny"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
tyr·an·ny
   [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

One place where I draw the line, RoygBiv, is at the point where I am prepared to go to jail if I resist. It is called passive resistance. Like the black lady did at the lunch counter. I do not draw the line at the point where I am offended, but not convinced it is worth being convicted of a crime which will stand up all the way through the system.

I, for example, once disobeyed a superior's order, his being a federal LEO, which, under the circumstances, may have been a crime, my having concluded that the order was clearly illegal. Had he brought charges against me I would undoubtedly have gone to trial, and could have been convicted of a felony. I simply had to disobey him, and I told him why I was compelled to do so. On reflection he did not prefer charges. A difficult decision to make on the spot, without time to consult with anyone else, particularly a lawyer.

Jim

[speedsix]

...two things weaken the legal system...LEOs who want to operate outside their rights and do things they don't have legal authority to do, and citizens who are too timid to tell them "No"...it's not about "macho"...it's about standing up for your rights...if an LEO's outside his boundaries and being oppressive, and he's not called on it...he'll get worse until he IS called on it...if we citizens roll over and submit to harassment and illegal searches, we dribble away our rights...
...BOTH elements have responsibility in keeping the system running properly...

[The Annoyed Man]

...that IS a fishing expedition....

Sometimes they catch a fish, AM.

Does not a person commit a Class C misdemeanor if the person operates a motor vehicle in Texas without financial responsibility established for that vehicle? Is that not a "crime?" Is a fishing expedition per se illegal in Texas? Is scanning license plates in Texas an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amdt.? Whether the system is in fact "notoriously unreliable" (a very broad and undemonstrated statement) may be one of those legal questions for a trial judge after the defendant attempts to prove it, when he goes to trial after being arrested and charged. It may be a question for appellate judges if one is convicted. (I'll stick my neck out and speculate that in fact the system's alleged reliability, or unreliability, if you prefer, is "notoriously unknown" by an overwhelming percentage of Texans. I'll stick it out further by speculating that there are indeed those here on this very forum who never heard of its reliability or unreliability, before this thread, or a predecessor here, came along.)

I'm well aware of that. And radar/laser guns catch speeders, and red light cameras catch people running red lights. But the difference is that the radar/laser gun catches someone in flagrante, as does the red light camera. Furthermore, I want other drivers to be insured, and if they are found not to be insured during a traffic stop, I want them ticketed for it. Why? Because it is in my self-interest that other drivers who share the roads with me be insured. But, the difference between this methodology of scanning license plates for "manual verification" hits on one hand, and radar/laser guns and red light cameras on the other, is that the latter two actually catch you in the act, while the reliability of the insurance scans does two things: It assumes I am guilty and must be checked, and it is (according to others who have posted in this thread, including at least one LEO who uses the system) not entirely reliable. Where I used the word "notoriously," I should have used "know to be."

Examples:

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.

....and....

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.

These rhetorical questions quotes you, AM, only because you mention fishing expeditions -- one of the issues here. In fact it is addressed to all those who tend time and again to confuse legal questions with the fact that they do not like something. The fact that they do not like something does not make it illegal, even if it offends their sense of justice, even though they may think an LEO, a DA, or the Texas legislature, or all the above, are "tyrants," to quote another commentator here.

My comments are particularly directed to those whose automatic and unthinking reaction to too many such questions is "I, the tough macho guy that I am, would refuse to permit the search without a warrant. So there!" As one who was a federal LEO for more than 20 years I can guarandarntee that this is a very good way to get the law tested, since "macho man" just volunteered to be the test case.

This is intended not to be critical, but rather to perhaps someday be helpful to macho man when the rubber hits the road, when he is called upon to fish or cut bait.

Jim

I think if you check my posting record on these sorts of encounters, particularly just in the last 24 hours, you'll find a number where my counsel has been: A) one might not believe a thing is constitutional, but the law still says it is legal.....so I'm not arguing the legality of these scans, but rather I am arguing the appropriateness of them because they begin to violate the trust between the public and the public servants (as in to protect and to serve); and B) I've always advocated to do exactly what the officer tells you do, even if you are fairly certain that he is not acting within his lawful authority in so doing. It is always less costly to accept the inconvenience of something and get it peaceably straightened out, than it is to put up a fight at the scene.

At what point do you draw the line, Jim?
Where does "Fishing" become "Tyranny"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/tyranny
tyr·an·ny
   [tir-uh-nee] Show IPA
noun, plural tyr·an·nies.
1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

One place where I draw the line, RoygBiv, is at the point where I am prepared to go to jail if I resist. It is called passive resistance. Like the black lady did at the lunch counter. I do not draw the line at the point where I am offended, but not convinced it is worth being convicted of a crime which will stand up all the way through the system.

I, for example, once disobeyed a superior's order, his being a federal LEO, which, under the circumstances, may have been a crime, my having concluded that the order was clearly illegal. Had he brought charges against me I would undoubtedly have gone to trial, and could have been convicted of a felony. I simply had to disobey him, and I told him why I was compelled to do so. On reflection he did not prefer charges. A difficult decision to make on the spot, without time to consult with anyone else, particularly a lawyer.

Jim

It was a rapid transit bus, not a lunch counter, wasn't it?

Look, I'm not prepared to go to jail over someone asking for my insurance card. And if an LEO pulls me over just to see if my insurance is current (it ALWAYS is current) because he got a hit telling him to manually confirm it, I'm not going to like it, and my respect for his agency will have been diminished by some amount for using that system, but I'm going to grind my teeth and comply. Like I previously said, if he asks me for it during the course of having stopped me for committed a moving violation which makes the roads less safe, or during the course of having stopped me for an expired inspection sticker (happened to me once) I'm not going to object. The moving violation deserves a citation, and the expired inspection sticker is plainly visible. It's not something he has to stop me for to confirm whether or not I've been a bad boy.

Here is what I want and expect from police officers, regardless of their agency: trust me, unless I prove myself untrustworthy. Assume I am innocent of wrongdoing, unless I give you clear evidence of wrongdoing. When that is the trust with which a police agency treats me, then I trust them with my personal safety, I trust them to be looking out for my best interests (within the law), and I can trust them to perform the rest of their LEO duties with proper due diligence, and without having to remind them who pays their salaries.

When police agencies—whether at the local, state, or federal level—begin to take liberties with my dignity and respect, then I begin to reciprocate by having less respect for them, and more fear of them, and a commensurate decrease in trust. Is that what you want from the citizens you serve? To fear you? My respect for others is freely given as a condition of my recognizing their humanity. When that confidence is betrayed, I withdraw my respect.

I no longer respect TSA as a legitimate agency. I no longer accept Janet Napolitano as being worthy of my respect because SHE created the culture of abuse that is rained down on air travelers, and now train travelers, and within the next year, highway travelers. But it didn't start out that way. TSA made its bed, and now they are worthy of nothing but contempt. Will I comply if I am required to fly somewhere? Of course I will. But I'll be grinding me teeth the whole way. Whenever one of their thugs terrifies a 6 year old girl and accuses her grandma of passing a gun to the child (this actually happened), TSA's response is "deal with it. Our officer followed our guidelines which are perfect and beyond question." In short, I hate them with an abiding passion.

Each layer of technology which permits police agencies to intrude further into the daily comings and goings of the citizenry is a small step further down that slippery slope. Each little step is always justifiable in some clinically sterile way that leaves out the fact that the agency is dealing with human beings, and not cattle, and it maybe doesn't seem like that big of a deal under the clinical lights. But in the aggregate, they add up absolutely to a very diminished and tarnished version of America from the one I grew up in, where children were not afraid to approach an authority figure when they were lost, and adults were not afraid to ask for help because they didn't fear that the request for help would be interpreted as an invitation to invade their lives.

So yeah, if scanning my license plate puts up a prompt to manually verify my insurance status, which I KNOW to be current, it puts me in the position of having to prove my innocence, rather than an officer of the court having to prove my guilt. That's not right. It may be legal, but it isn't right.

[recaffeination]

Even with its flaws, I get the impression it's got a higher success rate than DWI checkpoints. That is to say, the percentage that are flagged by the system and don't have insurance is probably a lot higher than the percentage of drivers stopped at the DWI checkpoint who are intoxicated. I also think both ae guaranted to beat the TSA track record. If people want to complain about civil right violation, TSA and DWI are bigger problems than the insurance database.

...that IS a fishing expedition....

Sometimes they catch a fish, AM.

Does not a person commit a Class C misdemeanor if the person operates a motor vehicle in Texas without financial responsibility established for that vehicle? Is that not a "crime?" Is a fishing expedition per se illegal in Texas? Is scanning license plates in Texas an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amdt.? Whether the system is in fact "notoriously unreliable" (a very broad and undemonstrated statement) may be one of those legal questions for a trial judge after the defendant attempts to prove it, when he goes to trial after being arrested and charged. It may be a question for appellate judges if one is convicted. (I'll stick my neck out and speculate that in fact the system's alleged reliability, or unreliability, if you prefer, is "notoriously unknown" by an overwhelming percentage of Texans. I'll stick it out further by speculating that there are indeed those here on this very forum who never heard of its reliability or unreliability, before this thread, or a predecessor here, came along.)

These rhetorical questions quotes you, AM, only because you mention fishing expeditions -- one of the issues here. In fact it is addressed to all those who tend time and again to confuse legal questions with the fact that they do not like something. The fact that they do not like something does not make it illegal, even if it offends their sense of justice, even though they may think an LEO, a DA, or the Texas legislature, or all the above, are "tyrants," to quote another commentator here.

My comments are particularly directed to those whose automatic and unthinking reaction to too many such questions is "I, the tough macho guy that I am, would refuse to permit the search without a warrant. So there!" As one who was a federal LEO for more than 20 years I can guarandarntee that this is a very good way to get the law tested, since "macho man" just volunteered to be the test case.

This is intended not to be critical, but rather to perhaps someday be helpful to macho man when the rubber hits the road, when he is called upon to fish or cut bait.

Jim

[speedsix]

Even with its flaws, I get the impression it's got a higher success rate than DWI checkpoints. That is to say, the percentage that are flagged by the system and don't have insurance is probably a lot higher than the percentage of drivers stopped at the DWI checkpoint who are intoxicated. I also think both ae guaranted to beat the TSA track record. If people want to complain about civil right violation, TSA and DWI are bigger problems than the insurance database.

...that IS a fishing expedition....

Sometimes they catch a fish, AM.

Does not a person commit a Class C misdemeanor if the person operates a motor vehicle in Texas without financial responsibility established for that vehicle? Is that not a "crime?" Is a fishing expedition per se illegal in Texas? Is scanning license plates in Texas an unlawful search in violation of the 4th Amdt.? Whether the system is in fact "notoriously unreliable" (a very broad and undemonstrated statement) may be one of those legal questions for a trial judge after the defendant attempts to prove it, when he goes to trial after being arrested and charged. It may be a question for appellate judges if one is convicted. (I'll stick my neck out and speculate that in fact the system's alleged reliability, or unreliability, if you prefer, is "notoriously unknown" by an overwhelming percentage of Texans. I'll stick it out further by speculating that there are indeed those here on this very forum who never heard of its reliability or unreliability, before this thread, or a predecessor here, came along.)

These rhetorical questions quotes you, AM, only because you mention fishing expeditions -- one of the issues here. In fact it is addressed to all those who tend time and again to confuse legal questions with the fact that they do not like something. The fact that they do not like something does not make it illegal, even if it offends their sense of justice, even though they may think an LEO, a DA, or the Texas legislature, or all the above, are "tyrants," to quote another commentator here.

My comments are particularly directed to those whose automatic and unthinking reaction to too many such questions is "I, the tough macho guy that I am, would refuse to permit the search without a warrant. So there!" As one who was a federal LEO for more than 20 years I can guarandarntee that this is a very good way to get the law tested, since "macho man" just volunteered to be the test case.

This is intended not to be critical, but rather to perhaps someday be helpful to macho man when the rubber hits the road, when he is called upon to fish or cut bait.

Jim

...when's the last time you heard of results from a DWI checkpoint in Texas???

[Kabong30]

If people want to complain about civil right violation, TSA and DWI are bigger problems than the insurance database.

People are raped and murdered every day. If people don't want to get punched in the face maybe they should worry about getting rid of rape and murder.

[Originalist]

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]

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.

This is exactly the point I am trying to argue.

[GeekDad]

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.

This is exactly the point I am trying to argue.

[smoothoperator]

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