warrantless searches and vehicles

[OverEasy]

OK txinvestigator,

I'll bite. I'm curious to know about "Inventorying your vehicle" to have it towed etc, if you have declined to give permission for a search.

I don't have anything to hide, but I don't like being messed with. Maybe now that I have a CHL that won't happen anymore. I've been known to drive some old vehicles with missing front license plates and I don't always signal when I change lanes. I hate to sit in a hot car for 20 mins. and then be told, "your free to go now".

The day I get pulled over on the way to a gun range may turn out real interesting!! "Yes sir, that's ALL mine, no sir, I'm not starting any war"!

Regards, OE

[Renegade]

http://www.fletc.gov/training/programs/ ... entory.pdf

[Stupid]

LEO: What's in your car?
Me: 1 Glock, 1 1911, 1 Keltec carbine, 1 M4 and about 800 rounds in 45, 9mm and 223.
LEO: are you going to a war?
Me: No sir, I am on my way to Sam's club. By the way, don't think that's enough ammo.

[txinvestigator]

OK txinvestigator,

I'll bite. I'm curious to know about "Inventorying your vehicle" to have it towed etc, if you have declined to give permission for a search.

What is your specific question?

[carlson1]

I am not TXI, but the "Inventory" of your vehicle is done after an arrest and your vehicle is being towed. The vehicle is inventoried for the protection of your property and the tow truck company/driver.

[TIN BENDER]

OE,
Why don't you comply with the law then you won't have to concern yourself with such actions.

[OverEasy]

txinvestigator wrote:
" If anyone wants to discuss warrantless searches and vehicles, I would be happy to IN ANOTHER THREAD, so as to keep this one ON TOPIC."
This was in another thread.

I would like to hear what you can tell us about the situation.

It appears that the 4th ammendment doesn't protect your vehicle.(Renegade)

Example: You can get stopped for "nothing" and arrested for "nothing" and your vehicle can be inventoried and towed. If they find "something" in your vehicle it can be used against you. If not, "the charges are dropped" or "you're not the guy" etc. "You're free to go"

So, now you're not arrested, but your vehicle has been searched without your permission. I think they refer to this as "fishing"?

Did I miss anything? Is my understanding of how things work correct?

The only thing that bothers me is: It's just the way things are and you can't do anything about it. And yes, I know that life is not fair. I'm glad that LEOs are trying to get criminals off the streets and to prevent crimes.
Regards, OE

[seamusTX]

Your questions contain a certain bias, but you pretty much have it right.

The police have never needed a warrant to search your vehicle if they stop you and have probably cause for a search. That was settled a long time ago.

There are circumstances where they can search your vehicle without probable cause:

• You are involved in a crash and have to be taken to the emergency room.
• You are involved in a crash and the vehicle is too damaged to drive, and they call for a non-consent tow.
• You don't have proof of financial responsibility and they call for a non-consent tow.
• The vehicle appears abandoned.

There may be others.

If they find contraband in these circumstances, you may or may not be charged, and a good attorney may or may not get the case dismissed.

Please keep in mind that it is not illegal to have a long gun or ammunition in your vehicle. It is generally not illegal to have a handgun.

- Jim

[txinvestigator]

" If anyone wants to discuss warrantless searches and vehicles, I would be happy to IN ANOTHER THREAD, so as to keep this one ON TOPIC."

This was in another thread.

I would like to hear what you can tell us about the situation.

It appears that the 4th ammendment doesn't protect your vehicle.(Renegade)

Example: You can get stopped for "nothing" and arrested for "nothing" and your vehicle can be inventoried and towed. If they find "something" in your vehicle it can be used against you. If not, "the charges are dropped" or "you're not the guy" etc. "You're free to go"

So, now you're not arrested, but your vehicle has been searched without your permission. I think they refer to this as "fishing"?

Did I miss anything? Is my understanding of how things work correct?

The only thing that bothers me is: It's just the way things are and you can't do anything about it. And yes, I know that life is not fair. I'm glad that LEOs are trying to get criminals off the streets and to prevent crimes.
Regards, OE

Of course that is wrong.

There are specific requirements to search a vehicle minus a search warrant. An officer who asks to search your vehicle cannot arrest you simply to gain access to an inventory search. It is called "fishing" and exposes the officer to civil rights violations charges.

I am in, of all places, Albuquerque today, and will be flying to a couple of other locations before I return home late tonight. I will try to post a detailed explanation regarding vehicle searches tomorrow.

[Venus Pax]

I am in, of all places, Albuquerque today, and will be flying to a couple of other locations before I return home late tonight.

My dad & step-mom are going to Albuquerque later this week to visit my brother at the Air Force Base. I hear it's beautiful there, although I've never been.
I know you're probably there on business, but try to enjoy your time there.

[stevie_d_64]

Don't take that left in Albuquerque...

You will not end up where you think you are going...

[stevie_d_64]

While I am respectful to folks here who fall on both sides of the equation in regards to searches of vehicles and other related Law Enforcement encounters...

I have to interject one Steve-ism in this, and I know a few may know I have said something like this before...

While I respect the vehement protection of personal privacy, and have my concerns about the extremely rare incidences of pressure tactics used by .000001% of the general law enforcement community...

I'm of the opinion that in any instance of interaction with Law Enforcement, I am absolutely not going to give them an excuse to even broach the subject...And when that effort fails, I certainly will go on the record of non-consent...But I will not instigate or give any reason to do so...Even if I was loaded to the brim with all that stuff that makes certain people nervous...

I believe that the chances of an encounter by the extreme sides of this pendulum swing are so rare its not even conceivable...

This is always an interesting subject to discuss, and giving "Txi" all the credit in the world for putting up with all "my" guff and puff (over a couple of years) on this issue almost goes unsaid...

And considering that no one "I know" on this forum (or anywhere else) has ever come out and related any kind of "real life" encounter that involves a situation like this, really tells me this is a fight that really is avoidable, if you just don't give a reason to engage...

Standing your ground is all well and good if it ever comes to it, but to me its better to be able to choose that ground first before being forced into it by something "you" do, or say...

But again, this is just my opinion...

And if the reason for this thread is due to this long weekend we have coming up, and the likelyhood of a few of us getting pulled over for whatever reason is greater...

I would fall upon the side that says I am glad there are guys and gals out there watching the roads for us...Holiday weekends stink to no end if you have to work them...

And if my heavy foot gets me some attention...Lets just say I deserve the attention...

[HankB]

If I'm ever asked to consent to a seach, my answer will be "Officer, I've got lawyers in my family, and if they EVER heard that I gave consent to a warrantless search, I'd never hear the end of it."

I'd never give consent, but short of really, REALLY extreme circumstances, I'm not going to fight a cop on the street, either . . . I'd much rather have my lawyer do it in a courtroom.

It makes some sense to have a lockable car vault or strongbox - it may not stop the search, but if the cop has to break into it, he certainly won't be able to plausibly claim that you gave consent . . . this may also come into play if the vehicle is being "inventoried" after arrest or medical emergency. ("The vault was locked and secure - did they really need to break into it, or were they just fishing"? might make a good court argument.)

I like the idea of a bear trap in the trunk under a tarp to deal with unauthorized searches or car burglaries . . . unfortunately, Texas law explicitly prohibits "mechanisms" that may harm or kill, so the person who uses or sets one will likely get in more trouble than the perp.

[seamusTX]

And considering that no one "I know" on this forum (or anywhere else) has ever come out and related any kind of "real life" encounter that involves a situation like this, really tells me this is a fight that really is avoidable,...

I have one, though it is second hand.

I have a friend who was, at the time of the incident, in his 50s, a physician and retired Air Force officer, and, FWIW, white.

He was walking alone to his car in the parking lot of the Kemah Boardwalk after meeting with some people in a restaurant. A Kemah police officer stopped him and asked some questions which led to the LEO asking to search the car. My friend consented. The officer searched the car and didn't find anything. Then LEO called for a drug dog. For some unstated reason it took a long time to get the drug dog. The drug dog also didn't find anything, and my friend was released with only the loss of a couple of hours of his time and his faith in law enforcement.

The LEO told him that the police had a report that a car matching the discription of my friend's car was used in a drug deal.

Now, this is a second-hand version of one person's side of the story, but I've known this guy for years, and I don't think he would get himself into a bad situation by acting suspiciously or shooting his mouth off.

Here's another documented case, from the Second Amendment Foundation:

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that a National Rifle Association sticker on a pickup truck was not enough justification to warrant a police search of the vehicle for a gun.

In a 2-1 decision, the Court found that police in a Dallas suburb did not have probable cause when they searched the truck of JEFFREY L. ESTEP in turned up a pistol shut in a case.

Estep sued three Garland, Texas police officers over the March 29, 1993 search and his subsequent arrest. He had been initially stopped for speeding, according to the court record.

The vehicle also contained a camouflage jacket, according to the court. Estep heard one of the officers tell another officer that he suspected a weapon had been present because of the NRA sticker.

The panel’s majority wrote, “If the presence of an NRA sticker and camouflage gear in a vehicle could be used by an officer to conclude he was in danger, half the pickups in the state of Texas would be subject to a vehicle search.�

- Jim

[OverEasy]

Actually, now that HB 1815 (Motorist Protection Act) has passed, warrantless searches will only be a problem for criminals and just a time wasting nuisance for the rest of us.

I'm just personally bothered by the time wasting part. SeamusTX wrote about the 50ish physician on the Kemah Boardwalk spending a couple of hours with the drug dog. If I'm in my truck, I'm going someplace and I'm most likely expected to be there at a certain time.

If I get pulled over for speeding and I get a ticket, I have no problem with that. I broke the law, my fault, I'll take care of it.

HankB:
"I like the idea of a bear trap in the trunk under a tarp to deal with unauthorized searches or car burglaries . ."
My kind of guy!!
Constitutional infringments gets me going, I can't help it.........,OE