Midland County Sheriff weighs in on out of state CHLs.

[Heartland Patriot]

So, he thinks he is above the state legislature.

All I can say is he might want to check with DPS and the AG before he goes "shaking them down".

[57Coastie]

I hope the County budget has enough money to cover the successful law suits when he "Shakes them down" without probable cause.

If one assumes that a "shakedown" is a search and/or a seizure, I must ask where the United States Constitution requires that an LEO must have probable cause before he searches and/or seizes, as compared with whether or not he will be able to obtain a warrant from a judge for a search and/or a seizure without probable cause?

This is not an idle question. It is my experience here on this forum that when probable cause may or may not be required is too often misstated by even senior members, thereby risking confusing new members to their possible serious regret.

Jim

[C-dub]

I hope the County budget has enough money to cover the successful law suits when he "Shakes them down" without probable cause.

If one assumes that a "shakedown" is a search and/or a seizure, I must ask where the United States Constitution requires that an LEO must have probable cause before he searches and/or seizes, as compared with whether or not he will be able to obtain a warrant from a judge for a search and/or a seizure without probable cause?

This is not an idle question. It is my experience here on this forum that when probable cause may or may not be required is too often misstated by even senior members, thereby risking confusing new members to their possible serious regret.

Jim

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I know it has been trampled on quite a bit over the years, by all kinds of judges, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me. If this Sheriff wants to shake someone down just because they are doing something he, personally, doesn't like, but is not against the law, I would call that unreasonable and an abuse of his authority.

[Jaguar]

I always thought a "shake down" was a criminal act of coercion or intimidation for personal gain, i.e. extortion.

Seems like the sheriff is guilty of conspiracy to commit a felony.

Either that or he is just the south end of a north bound horse.

[C-dub]

I always thought a "shake down" was a criminal act of coercion or intimidation for personal gain, i.e. extortion.

That's what I thought too, but figured there might be another meaning nowadays.

[Jaguar]

I always thought a "shake down" was a criminal act of coercion or intimidation for personal gain, i.e. extortion.

That's what I thought too, but figured there might be another meaning nowadays.

Maybe so, kids nowadays.

[57Coastie]

I know it has been trampled on quite a bit over the years, by all kinds of judges, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me. If this Sheriff wants to shake someone down just because they are doing something he, personally, doesn't like, but is not against the law, I would call that unreasonable and an abuse of his authority.

Unreasonable? Agreed, C-dub.

Probable cause required if a warrant is not sought. Not necessarily.

That is the distinction drawn by the 4th Amendment, as you have quite correctly pointed out when you quoted the amendment, C-dub, but that distinction is quite often misunderstood here. Misunderstanding that distinction can cause one pain and suffering. That is why I have raised the point here and elsewhere.

Tks, C-dub.

Jim

[C-dub]

I know it has been trampled on quite a bit over the years, by all kinds of judges, but it sounds pretty straight forward to me. If this Sheriff wants to shake someone down just because they are doing something he, personally, doesn't like, but is not against the law, I would call that unreasonable and an abuse of his authority.

Unreasonable? Agreed, C-dub.

Probable cause required if a warrant is not sought. Not necessarily.

That is the distinction drawn by the 4th Amendment, as you have quite correctly pointed out when you quoted the amendment, C-dub, but that distinction is quite often misunderstood here. Misunderstanding that distinction can cause one pain and suffering. That is why I have raised the point here and elsewhere.

Tks, C-dub.

Jim

I'm quite sure that I, too, misunderstand the distinction and its application since it has been interpreted by many different courts over the years.

[scottmeador]

This guy has been sheriff in Midland Co. since I lived there as a kid. He was a big joke even back then.

[zaroffhunts]

Isn't the Midland PD the department that has had death threats against them and their families? And haven't they also had ambush threats and fake calls to places so they could be ambushed?

I just googled it and that is the same PD. Also Fort Stockton was mentioned. The threats mention several people by name. According to the article, the sherrif has not seen these threats.

I'm not saying it's an excuse for his stance, but it sounds like those guys might just be a little bit tightly wound up out there.

I was going to say his blatant disregard for the rule of law and the constitution aren't an excuse for the threats, but if it has been going on as long as scottmeador says, maybe I was wrong.

[tacticool]

I hope the County budget has enough money to cover the successful law suits when he "Shakes them down" without probable cause.

Good way for him to maximize tourism and business to his County! Yea, RIGHT.........

I hope he gets "Shaken down" by adjacent County LEO's when he is in THEIR jurisdiction. Maybe they will find a few things in his car that he should not have!

Better yet......maybe he will get the "Shake down" by DPS!

Of course I know that "Professional Courtesy" will prevail and he can carry on violating "regular" people's rights as he desires. I hope the residents of the County vote him out at the first opportunity.

Now that you mention it, if he has a single honest decent cell in his body, he would be more worried about New York cops carrying in Texas. From what I see in the news, New York LEO gun down a lot more innocent people than Utah or Florida CHL. They also miss more, endangering bystanders. That leads to an obvious conclusion to anyone honest enough to accept the truth.

[wrinkles]

Many of these small south TX towns have started to go the way of.. "If you don't have anything to hide then why complain", "They only do that to keep us safe", "Only liberals sue police officers that are trying to keep us safe." I doubt that anybody would win a case against him.

[bizarrenormality]

Many of these small south TX towns have started to go the way of.. "If you don't have anything to hide then why complain", "They only do that to keep us safe", "Only liberals sue police officers that are trying to keep us safe." I doubt that anybody would win a case against him.

Remember Athens Georgia!

[57Coastie]

Many of these small south TX towns have started to go the way of.. "If you don't have anything to hide then why complain", "They only do that to keep us safe", "Only liberals sue police officers that are trying to keep us safe." I doubt that anybody would win a case against him.

Remember Athens Georgia!

Perhaps a few here should remember Atlanta, Georgia.

Jim

[tommyg]

I have worked around dangerous machinery.. I took my risks and luckily never seriously injured
I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who do risky jobs and complain about the risks
If you can't handle the risks that are part of your job then find another career...
My old nick name was boiler and they did not call me that for nothing
oh yes before I forget the boiler was in one of the worst reform schools in the nation dangerous
machines + dangerous people I did my job and took the risks of getting scalded and stabbed both on a daily basis
a lot of jobs have risks.. don't be a cry baby about it...do your job and do it right