TexasCHLforum.com

steveincowtown wrote:If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

There's some truth to that.

Protip - If a Federal Protective Service Officer ever writes you a ticket for exceeding the 5 MPH speed limit in a federal building parking garage then the easiest way to handle it is to mail in the $35 fine when you get your follow-up paperwork in the mail.

If, however, you know how the system works and you want to have some fun, go ahead and accept your court date. You'll show up on the miscellaneous docket of one of the nearest Federal District Courts. Some poor schmuck from the U.S. Attorney's office will have to take the case. That guy will chase you down and do everything short of washing your car for the next year to get you to just the pay the fine and make the case go away. If you refuse, they'll most likely drop the charges right before the docket is called.

Why? I've testified in enough Federal District Courts to know that there's a very high probability that anyone from the U.S. Attorney's office who actually dares to waste the courts time on a $35 speeding ticket will earn a serious reaming from the judge and, worse, that judge will forever remember that attorney as "that idiot who wasted my time on a speeding ticket". No USA or SAUSA is willing to put themselves in that position; they're going to have to go back into that court in the future.

Worst case - you wind up spending $35 to get a priceless few minutes of entertainment. I speak from personal experience.

Protip 2 - The previous advice does not apply to other venues and roads where you can get federal speeding tickets. It especially does not apply to Forest Service tickets for riding your bike too fast on a trail.

steveincowtown wrote:Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

Gosh you have me totally pegged. I'll move this to the top of my to do list. Right after working full time at night to support my growing family and finishing my engineering degree.

I find outsider opinions on how to best to engage the criminal element are usually well informed, productive suggestions that all of us dumb cops could learn from and really make a difference.

Cheers, expert

steveincowtown wrote:

If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

I would hope your not the sort that would lend them self's to needing to be arrested for such a thing

But I suppose if you are that banger, who just left a known crime area, where a report of a shooting and dead guy just came in.. and you failed to signal continuously within 100 ft of turning, allowing an officer to pull you over.... Where he notices a smell of burned gun powder, but in a search, finds no gun.....And decides to arrest you for the infraction that was observed, for a law that is on the books, that the states decided to make an arrest able offence..so that detectives can have a bit of time to find evidence linking you to the death of a 62 year old shop keeper and his niece...

Well then in that case, or many others like it, I hope you enjoy laughing in jail... and making friends.... Pretty sure, the judge, the arresting LEO, or his peers will not share your opinion.

Wisdom comes with age. You can sure tell there are some young opinions being expressed here.

tomtexan wrote:Wisdom comes with age. You can sure tell there are some young opinions being expressed here.

You are absolutely right; on both sides of the badge. I've been on both sides of traffic stops and I see folks headed for serious trouble, again, on both sides of the badge.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

tomtexan wrote:Wisdom comes with age. You can sure tell there are some young opinions being expressed here.

You are absolutely right; on both sides of the badge. I've been on both sides of traffic stops and I see folks headed for serious trouble, again, on both sides of the badge.

Chas.

Absolutely correct

tomtexan wrote:Wisdom comes with age. You can sure tell there are some young opinions being expressed here.

Age doesn't always bring wisdom. Too often, age comes alone.

steveincowtown wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

WildBill wrote:

benenglishtx wrote:Surely I'm not the only one to utilize this strategy, am I?

Probably.

I can keep a straight face while taking someone to jail for failing to signal continuously within 100 ft of turning.

Ask if he has three ways to kill you.

gigag04 wrote:

steveincowtown wrote:Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

Gosh you have me totally pegged. I'll move this to the top of my to do list. Right after working full time at night to support my growing family and finishing my engineering degree.

I find outsider opinions on how to best to engage the criminal element are usually well informed, productive suggestions that all of us dumb cops could learn from and really make a difference.

Cheers, expert

No problem. I may be alone here and forgive me if I am but the continuous theme of you saying things to incite and then telling those that take exception to it that "we don't know the hard streets" or "trying working in the hood" or "cheers expert" is old.

I'll leave this thread to get back on track.

steveincowtown wrote:If an LEO wants to arrest me for failing to signal, I hope he doesn't mind my laughter on the ride, the Judges laughter in court, or his peer's laughter for the next few days at work.

Grow up and don't waste your time, the courts time, or my time. Focus. Find criminals. De-poof chest.

I will be fairly happy to put up with your laughter since you will also have to put up with mine. The judge won't be laughing and neither will my peers. Just so you know, this has already been done and fought all the way to SCOTUS. In the case of Atwater v. City of Lago Vista, an officer arrested a woman for failing to have her children in a seat belt and booked her into the jail. Atwater was released on bond and later paid the $50 fine for the ticket. She then filed a civil rights lawsuit against the officer and the city claiming that arresting a person for an offense that is punishable only by a fine is an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. District Court dismissed the case on summary judgment in favor of the city. Fifth Circuit affirmed that the case had no merit. SCOTUS said it had no merit also.

And the only one left laughing was the officer. The rumor going around was that Atwater and the PD had been in a feud for a while, which is why she got arrested instead of cited. Guess who ended up winning the feud, if there really was one.

I will be the first to admit that this appears to be an abuse of the discretion the officer has under the law, but Texas law explicitly makes traffic violations crimes (class C misdemeanors). And Texas law explicitly says an officer may arrest for these offenses. There are only two cases where the discretion has been reduced. If the ticket is for speeding or for having an open container of alcohol in a vehicle, the officer must offer the chance to sign the ticket first. But he only has to offer that one time and then he can arrest for those offenses too. So the moral of the story is to not argue with officers about traffic offenses when they stop you. He is the one deciding if you continue on your way or not.


For those concerned, you may read the actual case here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... ol=99-1408" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

srothstein wrote: I will be the first to admit that this appears to be an abuse of the discretion the officer has under the law, but Texas law explicitly makes traffic violations crimes (class C misdemeanors).

This right here!

carlson1 wrote:

srothstein wrote: I will be the first to admit that this appears to be an abuse of the discretion the officer has under the law, but Texas law explicitly makes traffic violations crimes (class C misdemeanors).

This right here!

Yep...
I think the post that benenglish made to start with was juvenile...but Gigag's response was equally so. His comment wasn't about whether a person could LEGALLY be taken to jail for failing to properly signal a turn...it was a statement that he could always trump up a charge to "show him who's the boss" if he gave him any "attitude". Any officer could claim any driver failed to properly "signal a turn continously for 100 feet" and any officer who did so maliciously is guilty of abusing their authority. Steve cites the Atwater case to demonstrate that it's legal to arrest someone for a minor violation. In a situation where "the rumor going around was there was a feud between her and the PD for awhile, which is why she was arrested instead of cited...guess who won the feud". IF that was the case, is there anyone who DOESN'T see that as totally WRONG?

talltex wrote:[His comment wasn't about whether a person could LEGALLY be taken to jail for failing to properly signal a turn...it was a statement that he could always trump up a charge to "show him who's the boss" if he gave him any "attitude". Any officer could claim any driver failed to properly "signal a turn continously for 100 feet" and any officer who did so maliciously is guilty of abusing their authority. Steve cites the Atwater case to demonstrate that it's legal to arrest someone for a minor violation. In a situation where "the rumor going around was there was a feud between her and the PD for awhile, which is why she was arrested instead of cited...guess who won the feud". IF that was the case, is there anyone who DOESN'T see that as totally WRONG?

I did not read that from Gigs post at all, and I DO READ from yours that you are predisposed to find fault in any post that does not agree with your personal position on the topic.

In any case,, it is Texas law.. don't like it, don't whine about what is ethically and legally allowable under that law, get from behind your keyboards and do something about it..

I personally do not have an issue with the way the law is written, nor the flexibility it gives LEO's.., to do the job tasked with.. Like any other abuse of power, should it come to that where a LEO abuses that flexibility in the law.. then we can deal with THAT case individually.

bronco78 wrote:[ I did not read that from Gigs post at all, and I DO READ from yours that you are predisposed to find fault in any post that does not agree with your personal position on the topic.

In any case,, it is Texas law.. don't like it, don't whine about what is ethically and legally allowable under that law, get from behind your keyboards and do something about it..

I personally do not have an issue with the way the law is written, nor the flexibility it gives LEO's.., to do the job tasked with.. Like any other abuse of power, should it come to that where a LEO abuses that flexibility in the law.. then we can deal with THAT case individually.

You may be right...wouldn't be the first time I've been called hard headed or argumentative...but personally, I see a huge difference in "ethically" and "legally"...legally being what the law says can be done...ethically being how the individual applies it.