# Narcotic Checkpoint Pearland



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

Pearland had a narcotic checkpoint set up between the Beltway & Brookside Village on Mykawa yesterday evening. There were about a dozen police cars stopping vehicles in both directions doing random searches. They had the K-9 units there with dogs trying to sniff out the dope. There was an officer standing in the back of a unmarked white Chebby pickup on the side of the road at the Clear Creek bridge that was acting as the 'spotter' advising the units as to which cars looked suspect to stop & check. It was quite a show. I guess I looked like a harmless old man rolling through there in my Expedition. All you stoners beware! :wink:


----------



## FishinFoolFaron (Feb 11, 2009)

I hope they checked residency status also.


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Pearland had a narcotic checkpoint set up between the Beltway & Brookside Village on Mykawa yesterday evening. There were about a dozen police cars stopping vehicles in both directions doing random searches. They had the K-9 units there with dogs trying to sniff out the dope. There was an officer standing in the back of a unmarked white Chebby pickup on the side of the road at the Clear Creek bridge that was acting as the 'spotter' advising the units as to which cars looked suspect to stop & check. It was quite a show. I guess I looked like a harmless old man rolling through there in my Expedition. All you stoners beware! :wink:


lol i wonder what the ratio of hardcore criminal to regular law abiding stoner they catch lol its not like the big time guys arent tipped off just makes me shake my head cant wait till they are doing random house searches prohabition works great dont it lol


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

FishinFoolFaron said:


> I hope they checked residency status also.


I didn't see any INS wagons out there. :ac550:


----------



## bobo33 (Aug 22, 2011)

Send'em my way here between Tomball and Magnolia, we could use a house cleaning; send both wagons...


----------



## frank n texas (Aug 11, 2004)

I am sitting here remembering back in the 1950's in New Orleans when the NOPD would set up random weapons checkpoints around the city...

No one knew where they would be until about 15 minutes before teams of NOPD cars would be dispatched, via radio, to these check points..

Lots of weapons were found and even more drunks were arrested as most checkpoints occured right at midnight...

If a vehicle in line tried to do a U turn he would be chased down by a NOPD vehicle standing by just for that purpose

Very effective program...

Profiling? Not really as all vehicles were stopped going in both directions.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

The 4th Amendment is way overrated anyway. /sarcasm


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

profiling at its best. aint that some BS?


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

frank n texas said:


> If a vehicle in line tried to do a U turn he would be chased down by a NOPD vehicle standing by just for that purpose


when I was in school at Austin, the PD used to setup a flashing sign with all the orange cones around it on the shoulder of I-35 south just past Ben White (71) that said "Police Checkpoint Ahead". If you kept driving there was no police checkpoint.. instead, they sat hidden on the north bound side of 35 and got every car that was dumb enough to u-turn through the grass median... they had a spotter on the Stassney overpass watching it all.. LMAO


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

MEGABITE said:


> The 4th Amendment is way overrated anyway. /sarcasm


x2


----------



## HoustonKid (Dec 29, 2005)

Wow. I cannot believe they had the b*lls to do that. I wonder if it was a man hunt or something else. Seems like road blocks and checkpoints have been found to be unconstitutional.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

They were proud of themselves. They even had a digital sign on the side of the road that read 'Narcotic Checkpoint Ahead'. These Pearland boys are playing hardball.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

HC said:


> Wow. I cannot believe they had the b*lls to do that. I wonder if it was a man hunt or something else. Seems like road blocks and checkpoints have been found to be unconstitutional.


Yup...I agree. You may be able to beat the rap...but aren't going to beat the ride. hwell:


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

Glad they didn't stop my parents. They are convinced that it is okay for them to carry their meds in one of those daily dose medicine containers as long as they are their pills. Fact is, they would have gone to jail. I didn't know they still entrapped people this way. I will have to get after them again to stop doing this and carry their big bag of bottles everywhere they go.


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Why stop there? Why not go door to door?


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

MEGABITE said:


> Why stop there? Why not go door to door?


or let them install prison camp video!This is BS!


----------



## sofa king (Aug 25, 2005)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> They were proud of themselves. They even had a digital sign on the side of the road that read 'Narcotic Checkpoint Ahead'. These Pearland boys are playing hardball.


 With this sign you know the next exit was the main busting spot.hwell:


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

MEGABITE said:


> Why stop there? Why not go door to door?


Oh, I imagine that's coming sooner or later, comrade.


----------



## CaptDocHoliday (Feb 3, 2011)

"Hello Sir, May I look inside your car?"

"HELL NO!"


----------



## TroutAle87 (Dec 8, 2011)

It’s all just practice for Martial Law...


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

sofa king said:


> With this sign you know the next exit was the main busting spot.hwell:


There was a side street going back into Brookside Village past the bridge headed South, but there wasn't any cars pulled over there. They had cars & trucks stopped all along the sides of Mykawa, primarily headed North out of town. The occupants were standing outside the vehicles & PPD was going through them with a fine toothed comb. I wasn't brave enough to start snapping pics.  I looked throuh the truck when I got home & found an empty Twisted Tea can under the back seat. I guess I could have got a ticket for an open container if I had got stopped.


----------



## MapMaster (May 25, 2004)

I have nothing to hide but nobody is searching my truck without probable cause or a warrant. Driving down a road is NOT probable cause. I am not an attorney but I am aware of my constiututional rights that supercede local authority. I will take the ride to prove the point and go further to spend my hard earned money to hire an attorney to sue these over reaching bastards for the constitutional violation.


----------



## flatsfats (May 21, 2004)

MapMaster said:


> I have nothing to hide but nobody is searching my truck without probable cause or a warrant. Driving down a road is NOT probable cause. I am not an attorney but I am aware of my constiututional rights that supercede local authority. I will take the ride to prove the point and go further to spend my hard earned money to hire an attorney to sue these over reaching bastards for the constitutional violation.


You would have spent a lot of time/money in Oklahoma in the 80's. This kinda **** was common practice where I grew up.


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)

yeah our Forefathers would be so proud, funny they were some of the smartest men of thier time and probably today and most of them enjoyed a lil hemp in their pipes lol


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

BigNate523 said:


> yeah our Forefathers would be so proud, funny they were some of the smartest men of thier time and probably today and most of them enjoyed a lil hemp in their pipes lol


Yup...They came to this new land seeking freedom & independence. They found that the Indians had weed. The Indians didn't want to share. They killed the Indians.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

The sign should read "Stop this is a money grab"


----------



## BlueWaveCapt (Jan 8, 2007)

InfamousJ said:


> when I was in school at Austin, the PD used to setup a flashing sign with all the orange cones around it on the shoulder of I-35 south just past Ben White (71) that said "Police Checkpoint Ahead". If you kept driving there was no police checkpoint.. instead, they sat hidden on the north bound side of 35 and got every car that was dumb enough to u-turn through the grass median... they had a spotter on the Stassney overpass watching it all.. LMAO


See...now that's funny!!


----------



## 21tv (May 26, 2004)

"Storm troopers coming get ready...ready...ready"


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Nobody is searching my truck at a checkpoint stop without probable cause.

In Texas, a cop needs _*probable cause*_ _*or your permission*_ to search your vehicle unless an arrest is made. Examples of probable cause in a "narcotic stop" would be he smells marijuana or sees drugs in your vehicle.

Anybody who agrees to such a search voluntarily is guilty of aiding the establishment in the erosion of our civil rights in this country. Never consent to a police search if asked regardless of whether you "have nothing to hide" or you're carrying 100 lbs of pot in your trunk.

"I have nothing to hide" is not a good reason to let the so-called "authorities" have their way with us.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

Nothing like letting them block up traffic.

Pearland does the dumbest stuff like tearing apart every road in and out the town. I remember when Dixe Farm, Culle, Mykawa, Pearland Parkway, and Telephone where all under construction at teh same time. *** now they want to put a road block on on Mykawa. They could just get over there to that corner of Mykawa and Brookside at about 7:30 and do a papers check but I guess they don't have the nutz for that.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

spirit said:


> Glad they didn't stop my parents. They are convinced that it is okay for them to carry their meds in one of those daily dose medicine containers as long as they are their pills. Fact is, they would have gone to jail. I didn't know they still entrapped people this way. I will have to get after them again to stop doing this and carry their big bag of bottles everywhere they go.


Spirit, I haven't ever had any problem doing that, in fact, even TSA doesn't say anything. In my wallet, next to my DL, is a list of all the meds I am prescribed, and the doctors phone number next to them. There's also the number to the pharmacy I use. As long as you have a current prescription for whatever you are carrying, it's legal.

The whole consent issue is about as personal as it gets. Each of us is free to make their own decisions.

Last time DPS stopped me, for speeding, I consented. He even checked my ice chest of snapper and wrote me a warning ticket. With most cops I have run into, courtesy goes a long way and it's a two way street. It saved me 8 hours of dumbo driving. That's just my .02. If I didn't like what was happening in Pearland, I wouldn't go there. Some people don't like LC sitting in the middle of main street running radar. Anyone that pays even the slightest amount of attention can see him plain as day. But, people still get pulled over routinely. Then, they complain LC is a speed trap. It's just a lot easier to stay legal and avoid the whole situation.


----------



## DANO (May 23, 2005)

Maybe they will post the results of said narcotics checkpoint. Would be very interesting learning the percent of people driving that are " legally " medicated.


----------



## bubbas kenner (Sep 4, 2010)

Ans they use to just grow pears in Pearland.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

MapMaster said:


> I have nothing to hide but nobody is searching my truck without probable cause or a warrant. Driving down a road is NOT probable cause. I am not an attorney but I am aware of my constiututional rights that supercede local authority. I will take the ride to prove the point and go further to spend my hard earned money to hire an attorney to sue these over reaching bastards for the constitutional violation.


Relax already..I'm sure you don't have anything to worry about.



reeltimer said:


> The sign should read "Stop this is a money grab"


You lost me at "the"



fishinguy said:


> Nothing like letting them block up traffic.
> 
> Pearland does the dumbest stuff like tearing apart every road in and out the town. I remember when Dixe Farm, Culle, Mykawa, Pearland Parkway, and Telephone where all under construction at teh same time. *** now they want to put a road block on on Mykawa. They could just get over there to that corner of Mykawa and Brookside at about 7:30 and do a papers check but I guess they don't have the nutz for that.


That intersection isn't Pearland. Why don't you vent to the federal government. Local law enforcement can't do anything with aliens.



DANO said:


> Maybe they will post the results of said narcotics checkpoint. Would be very interesting learning the percent of people driving that are " legally " medicated.


It was a successful night. And by successful I mean people went to jail for good drug charges. Not carrying a blood pressure pill in a Mon-Fri pill container. And no money grab was carried out.



bubbas kenner said:


> Ans they use to just grow pears in Pearland.


Until Pearland became full of criminals.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

lol....I bet some big time drug dealers were busted.


----------



## Jolly Roger (May 21, 2004)

Only a few weeks ago a few people were arguing with me and tring to tell everyone on 2cool there were no Random check points in Texas.


----------



## DANO (May 23, 2005)

teeroy said:


> It was a successful night. And by successful I mean people went to jail for good drug charges. Not carrying a blood pressure pill in a Mon-Fri pill container.


Thank you,.... for a job well done & doing a job very few understand !


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

spirit said:


> Glad they didn't stop my parents. They are convinced that it is okay for them to carry their meds in one of those daily dose medicine containers as long as they are their pills. Fact is, they would have gone to jail. I didn't know they still entrapped people this way. I will have to get after them again to stop doing this and carry their big bag of bottles everywhere they go.


Yes, this is a serious problem.

Mont is right too, but you should have them in their original bottles.

This goes for vitamins also, if they can't ID what you've got, they are going to take you in and have it tested.

And probable cause is a thing of the past, if they even try to use it, saying NO, is now probable cause..

A


----------



## JShupe (Oct 17, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> when I was in school at Austin, the PD used to setup a flashing sign with all the orange cones around it on the shoulder of I-35 south just past Ben White (71) that said "Police Checkpoint Ahead". If you kept driving there was no police checkpoint.. instead, they sat hidden on the north bound side of 35 and got every car that was dumb enough to u-turn through the grass median... they had a spotter on the Stassney overpass watching it all.. LMAO


YUP.. how I ever got out of that town without a DUI I will never know. You remember those days don't ya "Flash".


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

lordbater said:


> Yes, this is a serious problem.
> 
> Mont is right too, but you should have them in their original bottles.
> 
> ...


Do you really know someone that's been arrested in a traffic stop for not having their 'scripts in the original bottle? Seriously?


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

I'll gladly go through a random search every once in a while if it keeps even a few thieving, drug heads off the streets.....


----------



## txgoddess (Sep 21, 2007)

DANO said:


> Maybe they will post the results of said narcotics checkpoint. Would be very interesting learning the percent of people driving that are " legally " medicated.


I don't think anyone would be very pleased if I weren't "legally" medicated.


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

Mont said:


> Do you really know someone that's been arrested in a traffic stop for not having their 'scripts in the original bottle? Seriously?


Yes, sort of.. he was in an accident, refused to blow, arrested for 'possible' dui and 2 drug charges. One was a 'sample pack' of Soma, just one in a sealed little plastic bag (not like a drug bag, like a sample the doctor gives out, the other was a Vicodin.. Both were given to him by a friend to try out for back pain, something like a year before or something, he totally forgot they were in his car.

he had to plea on the DUI to drop the drug charges..

he did NOT have a script, so I guess its not really the same thing, so presuming he had a script, he would have been charged for dui, and drug possession, if the scripts were presented then he could have fought the DUI..

Either way he was arrested for drug charges, and the arrest for that doesn't easily go away..

a


----------



## txgoddess (Sep 21, 2007)

Isn't it only illegal if it's a controlled substance, anyway? I mean, nobody is going to arrest you for possession of Viagra, are they?


----------



## tbone2374 (Feb 27, 2010)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> Yup...They came to this new land seeking freedom & independence. They found that the Indians had weed. The Indians didn't want to share. They killed the Indians.


 That would be even more funny, if it wasn't so true!


----------



## DANO (May 23, 2005)

If not, would the "other" 2/3rds emerge ?



txgoddess said:


> I don't think anyone would be very pleased if I weren't "legally" medicated.


----------



## txgoddess (Sep 21, 2007)

DANO said:


> If not, would the "other" 2/3rds emerge ?


I dunno. Want me to stop them so we can find out?


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Supposedly, they were only pulling over people for violations.

Email reply from the Pearland Chief of Police.

Dear Concerned Citizen,

In response to your question as to whether this department was conducting a roadside checkpoint yesterday on Mykawa where they would profile citizens and stop them without probable cause to be questioned an/or searched, the answer is no.

Every vehicle that was stopped on Mykawa Rd. yesterday, in relation to the sign that you saw, was stopped for PROBABLE CAUSE following a violation of the Transportation Code. The ONLY criteria used to determine which vehicles were stopped was the officer's observation of a traffic violation.

In questioning the traffic violator, probable cause may or may not be developed that leads to a search. Pearland Police Officers are very well trained in constitutional interdiction practices. This training has been tested on the streets and in court.

Frequently, the traffic violator has a warrant, which also leads to arrest and search.

We have conducted this operation for years at different locations. The Brazoria County and Fort Bend County District Attorneys' Offices support the constitutionality of the operation as we conduct it. This department has not lost a case that we have filed as a result of these operations. We have been very successful at removing narcotics, as well as intoxicated drivers from our streets.

Thank you for your concerns. Please feel free to contact me if you have further questions.


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

mastercylinder said:


> Then don't be complaining when this someday escalates into them coming to your door asking to search your house.
> 
> LOL........ok......


----------



## DANO (May 23, 2005)

txgoddess said:


> I dunno. Want me to stop them so we can find out?


No !!! You are doing fine. Carry on,...:rotfl:


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

monkeyman1 said:


> x2


X3


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> It was a successful night. And by successful I mean people went to jail for good drug charges. Not carrying a blood pressure pill in a Mon-Fri pill container. And no money grab was carried out.


can we get some of the finest to sit in the FTU parking lot?


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Brete said:


> I'll gladly go through a random search every once in a while if it keeps even a few thieving, drug heads off the streets.....


Then don't be complaining when this someday escalates into them coming to your door asking to search your house. But I guess you won't mind that if you have nothing to hide.

Welcome to the coming police state, ladies and gentlemen.



teeroy said:


> It was a successful night. And by successful I mean people went to jail for good drug charges. Not carrying a blood pressure pill in a Mon-Fri pill container. And no money grab was carried out.


Don't cops have more important things to do than having a dozen units at a checkpoint busting people for possession of drugs? That's not my idea of protecting and serving society. That's my idea of cops _looking like_ they're protecting and serving society.

Why don't y'all concentrate your efforts and resources on real criminals.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

For anybody that wants to know what Pearland Police on a daily basis feel free to see.
http://p2c.pearlandpd.com/dailybulletin.aspx

You might want to check your registration, insurance and outstanding warrants because the police cars are equipped with pretty little cameras that scan license plates and instantly alert the officer that you are breaking the law.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

Texas T said:


> For anybody that wants to know what Pearland Police on a daily basis feel free to see.
> http://p2c.pearlandpd.com/dailybulletin.aspx
> 
> You might want to check your registration, insurance and outstanding warrants because the police cars are equipped with pretty little cameras that scan license plates and instantly alert the officer that you are breaking the law.


awesome.. all those people charged for possession look like winners! drugs should be legalized


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

Texas T said:


> You might want to check your registration, insurance and outstanding warrants because the police cars are equipped with pretty little cameras that scan license plates and instantly alert the officer that you are breaking the law.


Sugar Land PD has those as well. But get this, the SL city council is set to approve 138 stationary license plate recognition cameras all around town as well as 70 surveillance cameras. Talk about Big Brother.


----------



## InfamousJ (May 21, 2004)

MEGABITE said:


> Sugar Land PD has those as well. But get this, the city council is set to approve 138 stationary license plate recognition cameras all around town as well as 70 surveillance cameras. Talk about Big Brother.


Is that monitoring and looking in on private property?


----------



## txjustin (Jun 3, 2009)

MEGABITE said:


> Sugar Land PD has those as well. But get this, the SL city council is set to approve 138 stationary license plate recognition cameras all around town as well as 70 surveillance cameras. Talk about Big Brother.


Wow, I had not heard of that.


----------



## workorfish (Sep 5, 2007)

*Not Exactly*



bubbas kenner said:


> Ans they use to just grow pears in Pearland.


I seem to recall the name Pearland was actually contrived by land speculators in an attempt to get buyers from up north who had never been there. Painting a "rosy" picture so to speak. While there were scattered pear trees planted by early settlers, I do not recall any pear orchards or other such landmarks from which to derive the name. At least that's the story I remember when I grew up there.

In high school there, we knew every policeman by first name; some liked our hot rods (especially Sgt. Anderson with his 440 Interceptor), some knew our parents and others knew us by first name for other reasons that could be linked to the topic of this thread!


----------



## reese (Oct 9, 2005)

So yesterday the site shows 3 people popped on Mykawa ? With how much manpower ?


----------



## BretE (Jan 24, 2008)

mastercylinder said:


> Then don't be complaining when this someday escalates into them coming to your door asking to search your house. But I guess you won't mind that if you have nothing to hide.
> 
> Welcome to the coming police state, ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> ...


----------



## MEGABITE (May 21, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> Is that monitoring and looking in on private property?


http://www.report-software.com/news..._technologies_considered_for_Sugar_Land_.aspx


----------



## gray gost (Jul 8, 2010)

now I now why none of my employees are here!!!


----------



## DannyMac (May 22, 2004)

Just another "cash cow" for the county commissioners!


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

reese said:


> So yesterday the site shows 3 people popped on Mykawa ? With how much manpower ?


That is the ones arresred. They don't show how many were just ticketed.


----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)




----------



## BigNate523 (May 19, 2010)




----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Brete said:


> Nope, not too terribly worried about that.......
> 
> Hey MC, look out.....the sky is falling, the sky is falling......lol


I feel sorry for those who don't see what this society is coming to.


----------



## Gilbert (May 25, 2004)

mastercylinder said:


> I feel sorry for those who don't see what this society is coming to.


x2


----------



## Jamaica Cove (Apr 2, 2008)

It is getting really sad the way the Govt is intruding into our everyday lives. saddest part is the folks that say things like "If you have nothing to hide, so what." Wait until you get arrested on trumped up charges because the PoPo was having a bad day and decided to take it out on you. It has happened and does happen-many innocent folks get charged, spend thousands fighting the charge and sometimes are off to jail. 

Protect your rights-that is why Heroes died-protecting the Constitution for YOU and ME. With the "who cares" attitude, you may find yourself being "turned in" by some Comrade that sets you up because he doesn't like your political beliefs or race, religion, skin color, etc. If you let your rights slowly be peeled away, soon you will have none-think about your right to bear arms-already being eroded due to many folks not giving a darn.


----------



## MapMaster (May 25, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Relax already..I'm sure you don't have anything to worry about.


Citizens that relax and let this kind of activity continue are why we deal with continuous violations of our Civil Liberties. The reach of the Government is OUT OF CONTROL on all levels.


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

who needs a dozen cop cars to find a few drug abusing outlaws. Give me a k9 and another policeman and I am sure I could fill the county jail by riding around and profiling people. No offense to the Pearland police dept but I feel like if this story is true then a lot of time and money was wasted. I support the state troopers and local police depts but i always feel like a lot of money and time is wasted with some of the things they do. I am glad nothing serious happened and all the police were safe that night.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

No sir, I do not consent to a search of my vehicle unless you can show me a search warrant.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

whistlingdixie said:


> who needs a dozen cop cars to find a few drug abusing outlaws. Give me a k9 and another policeman and I am sure I could fill the county jail by riding around and profiling people. No offense to the Pearland police dept but I feel like if this story is true then a lot of time and money was wasted. I support the state troopers and local police depts but i always feel like a lot of money and time is wasted with some of the things they do. I am glad nothing serious happened and all the police were safe that night.


Could it be they needed that many officers to keep up with the volume of tickets written for invalid driver license, no insurance, invalid registration, and warrants outstanding. Look over the Pearland Police link that I posted earlier and see how many criminals are arrested in the average day.

The DWI's, no driver's license, no insurance hit us in our pocketbooks.
I challenge each of y'all to do a ride along with a PPD officer just one night and see how many infractions they use their discretion on and let go on about their business.

Call the PPD and ask to do a ride along, it's free and informative in both directions.


----------



## tentcotter (Oct 23, 2009)

If they were only stopping vehicles with some kind of violation, why put up a narco checkpoint ahead sign? I bet PPD was actually trying to warn innocent drug carriers so they did not accidentally get caught in the vehicle code enforcement dragnet. Yeah, that's it.


----------



## whistlingdixie (Jul 28, 2008)

my neighbor just made detective and i am dying to do a ride along with him.


----------



## Texas T (May 21, 2004)

whistlingdixie said:


> my neighbor just made detective and i am dying to do a ride along with him.


Do it with a patrol officer, more exciting and less sitting around.


----------



## reeltimer (Feb 5, 2010)

Mont said:


> Do you really know someone that's been arrested in a traffic stop for not having their 'scripts in the original bottle? Seriously?


I had a DPS that wanted to arrestt me for having a script that was a year old pain killers that says right on bottle take as needed.

The police need to "serve and protect" not harass and back up traffic.I bet some were there is a state mandate or federal quota involved in this.


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I thought that everybody just UPS'd their drugs these days anyway???


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

reese said:


> So yesterday the site shows 3 people popped on Mykawa ? With how much manpower ?


The intel I got this evening was that they stayed out there until after 0100 this morning & there were 30 arrests, most of which were alcohol related.


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

MapMaster said:


> I have nothing to hide but nobody is searching my truck without probable cause or a warrant. Driving down a road is NOT probable cause. I am not an attorney but I am aware of my constiututional rights that supercede local authority. I will take the ride to prove the point and go further to spend my hard earned money to hire an attorney to sue these over reaching bastards for the constitutional violation.


I would rather consent to letting to let them search my vehicle than having to explain to the Texas Board of Nursing why I was arrested for not doing so. :help:


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

lordbater said:


> Yes, this is a serious problem.
> 
> Mont is right too, but you should have them in their original bottles.
> 
> ...


Any pill that still has markings on it can be identified on the side of the road, using drugs.com. All the drugs are sent to be tested but probable cause is a lower standard than needed for a conviction.



Mont said:


> Do you really know someone that's been arrested in a traffic stop for not having their 'scripts in the original bottle? Seriously?


Here's where officer discretion comes into play.

There's a different between a hidden sandwich baggy filled with several different kinds of pills....and an older lady that has some aliment and she doesn't carry all of her pills in the correct container.

It's generally not hard to tell when you're dealing with a pill head or someone with an addiction problem.



lordbater said:


> Yes, sort of.. he was in an accident, refused to blow, arrested for 'possible' dui and 2 drug charges. One was a 'sample pack' of Soma, just one in a sealed little plastic bag (not like a drug bag, like a sample the doctor gives out, the other was a Vicodin.. Both were given to him by a friend to try out for back pain, something like a year before or something, he totally forgot they were in his car.
> 
> he had to plea on the DUI to drop the drug charges..
> 
> ...


He must have appeared intoxicated in the video.......why else would someone just plea guilty to that if they don't appear impaired in the video?

And why would you refuse to submit to the taking of a specimen? It's the same old story I've read countless times......."My buddy swears he wasn't even drunk and got arrested anyways!" .08 is very easy to achieve without realizing it. And not everyone at .08 is falling down, stumbling drunk.

And TRUST ME when I tell you this....A DWI is ENTIRELY too much work for an officer to deal with when someone isn't intoxicated. Don't be fooled into thinking officers are out there anxious to find DWIs. It's more work than most officers are interested in, even when they come across a good drunk.

And the "pill" situation you described.....if a classic possession of a controlled substance case. Pill, in your possession that you aren't prescribed, is illegal.

Not sure where you were going with that....



InfamousJ said:


> can we get some of the finest to sit in the FTU parking lot?


HPD is spread way too thin to deal with burglaries of vehicles in any particular parking lot.



mastercylinder said:


> Then don't be complaining when this someday escalates into them coming to your door asking to search your house. But I guess you won't mind that if you have nothing to hide.
> 
> Welcome to the coming police state, ladies and gentlemen.
> 
> ...


And where exactly you do find these "real criminals" you speak of? Traffic stops, maybe? Out in plain view perhaps. The guy sitting next to you at the red light.

Nearly everyone I've ever seen with a drug conviction has a burglary or a few thefts on their criminal history as well.

All the criminals have been caught. Well, nearly all of them. I've arrested a very small percent of people who didn't have a criminal record. It's the courts and prisons that keep letting them go.

Each segment of a police department deals with different things. Our detectives are constantly wrapping up cases, typing up affidavits and putting real criminals behind bars. But you don't hear about that kind of stuff because it wouldn't be fun to make a thread about it like this claiming that our 4th amendment is eroding.



MEGABITE said:


> Sugar Land PD has those as well. But get this, the SL city council is set to approve 138 stationary license plate recognition cameras all around town as well as 70 surveillance cameras. Talk about Big Brother.


If you watched the original story they cleared stated that these cameras will not be pointed on anyone's property.

This is what amazes me. EVERYONE WHINES AND MOANS ABOUT THIEVES AND BURGLARS but wants to cry when a camera is gonna be put out there. Criminals blend in with the rest of us. And they do their crimes OUT IN PUBLIC, IN PLAIN VIEW. Like the FTU parking lot.

You're on camera anytime you go somewhere. There's traffic cameras at most big intersections. But now it's a big deal?

You want all the "real criminals" (I guess only certain criminals are real, according to most of you) caught, but don't want the cops to use tools/technology to aide in catching them!!



mastercylinder said:


> I feel sorry for those who don't see what this society is coming to.


As I've said before with the blood draws; The constitution and the 4th amendment is always taken into consideration when making decisions that deal with someone's liberty. Nothing is searched or seized without PROBABLE CAUSE or CONSENT, or except in a rare emergency.

The foundation is there with the 4th amendment. But it's constantly being tested and that's where case law comes into creation. PROBABLE CAUSE has been the same definition of PROBABLE CAUSE since the words were written on the script over 200 years ago. The only thing that has changed is society. And society doesn't have to play by the rules like the cops do. I hate to see when the cops get creative with how they develop their probable cause (legal) and people, like many of you, get up in arms about our "rights." You want criminals arrested, but I'm not sure how you want it done.



MapMaster said:


> Citizens that relax and let this kind of activity continue are why we deal with continuous violations of our Civil Liberties. The reach of the Government is OUT OF CONTROL on all levels.


Not at the local level. PROBABLE CAUSE has had the same meaning since it was first written on a script over two hundred years ago.



reeltimer said:


> I had a DPS that wanted to arrestt me for having a script that was a year old pain killers that says right on bottle take as needed.
> 
> The police need to "serve and protect" not harass and back up traffic.I bet some were there is a state mandate or federal quota involved in this.


You'd lose that bet.

What does an officer do with his free time when he's not responding to a call/emergency aka "serving and protecting"? Is he supposed to sit parked on the side of the road and do nothing? Or what about sitting at the end of a cul de sac?

Then we'd see threads about how officers need to do something and not sit parked in parking lots all the time and how someone's kids' high school is infested with drugs.

It's a losing battle with the uninformed citizenry. But it's hard to someone that's not involved with an agency to understand just how a law enforcement agency works.


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

No question, he was in possession of the pills illegally. 
It was a matter of pleaing on the dui or fight 2 drug charges which he Was guilty of and the dui.

My point was that he didn't think it was a big deal, but it in fact is a big deal.

Sent from my 8086 using Edlin.


----------



## Leo (May 21, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> Is that monitoring and looking in on private property?


no, supposedly just the roads.


----------



## Fishtexx (Jun 29, 2004)

Teeroy, you sir have gained my respect and through your posts have convinced me that you are a good cop. Thank you for all you do, I can only imagine how frustrating your job can be. Thanks for taking the time to debate these perspectives and giving your professional opinion, it is appreciated.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

FISHTEXX said:


> Teeroy, you sir have gained my respect and through your posts have convinced me that you are a good cop. Thank you for all you do, I can only imagine how frustrating your job can be. Thanks for taking the time to debate these perspectives and giving your professional opinion, it is appreciated.


Well thanks... after reading my post it almost sounds rude. Not my intent, but I love a good debate.

I hope to use some of what I have learned to share on here and hopefully shed some insight on the topics such as this one to show that it isn't what everyone thinks it is. It's not the "us" against "them" notion like everyone claims.:smile:


----------



## Wolf6151 (Jun 13, 2005)

Teeroy, you have alot more patience than I do. I'm a LEO as well and every time these threads come up, LEO vs. Citizen Rights, I just ignore them and move on to the next thread. I gave up a long time ago trying to explain the law enforcement profession to those who already have their minds made up that their rights are being lost or violated by LEO's when most don't have a clue what they're talking about. As a LEO your damned if you do and damned if you don't.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I would rather consent to letting to let them search my vehicle than having to explain to the Texas Board of Nursing why I was arrested for not doing so. :help:


Now hold on here, 
Your right to refuse an illegal search and seizure , a right given to you by the 4 th amendment, does not get you arrested. Only a crime gets you arrested. 
They either have a warrant or they don't. And if they don't, you do not have to consent to a search.
No officer , I do not consent to a search of my vehicle , and unless you have a search warrant, I guess I am free to go. 
"is there something is this car you don't want us to see"

Officer, Am I free to go?


----------



## boom! (Jul 10, 2004)

I'm thinking that if you roll past a K9 unit and the dog alerts on your vehicle they already have probable cause and wouldn't need consent????


----------



## BIGMIKE77 (May 2, 2009)

Finally got done reading all the posts and thought i would chime in with my 2.5 cents ... if drugs and guns and wanted felons were taken off the street, i would condone such a "check Point" also, those without insurance will be cited, that is a biggie as i pay for insurance to protect myself from theives and scum and those who do not have insurance. But I would only condone this if a legitimate infraction resulted in a search. And i think they should check everyone for insurance. I know too many people who have gotten hit by someone without insurance and these people are usually the ones who commit the "hit and runs"


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

just eat it!


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

Blk Jck 224 said:


> I would rather consent to letting to let them search my vehicle than having to explain to the Texas Board of Nursing why I was arrested for not doing so. :help:


You can't go to jail for refusing to consent to a search.



FISHTEXX said:


> Teeroy, you sir have gained my respect and through your posts have convinced me that you are a good cop.


I also have a lot of respect for Teeroy. I've never met him, and I know he lives around here somewhere, but he seems like a good guy, and his posts always appear to come from a calm guy with his head on straight.

The same goes for 2cool LEO RockyRaider. Both of these guys seem like decent level-headed guys who aren't all full of themselves just because they happen to wear a badge.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

donf said:


> Now hold on here,
> Your right to refuse an illegal search and seizure , a right given to you by the 4 th amendment, does not get you arrested. Only a crime gets you arrested.


What makes it illegal?









An arrestable offense (a crime) also gets you pulled over...



mastercylinder said:


> You can't go to jail for refusing to consent to a search.
> 
> I also have a lot of respect for Teeroy. I've never met him, and I know he lives around here somewhere, but he seems like a good guy, and his posts always appear to come from a calm guy with his head on straight.
> 
> The same goes for 2cool LEO RockyRaider. Both of these guys seem like decent level-headed guys who aren't all full of themselves just because they happen to wear a badge.


Well thanks, I try to leave a good impression.


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

Where's the illegal alien checkpoint


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

InfamousJ said:


> Is that monitoring and looking in on private property?


That's next year.


----------



## longhorn daddy (Nov 10, 2009)

lordbater said:


> Yes, sort of.. he was in an accident, refused to blow, arrested for 'possible' dui and 2 drug charges. One was a 'sample pack' of Soma, just one in a sealed little plastic bag (not like a drug bag, like a sample the doctor gives out, the other was a Vicodin.. Both were given to him by a friend to try out for back pain, something like a year before or something, he totally forgot they were in his car.
> 
> he had to plea on the DUI to drop the drug charges..
> 
> ...


 Soma is a narco,im sure no doctor gives out sample.


----------



## wish2fish (Mar 1, 2005)

boomgoon said:


> I'm thinking that if you roll past a K9 unit and the dog alerts on your vehicle they already have probable cause and wouldn't need consent????


Yes you would be correct and that is why they do it, to get the probable cause they need.


----------



## donf (Aug 8, 2005)

teeroy said:


> What makes it illegal?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Listen carefully, 
A search without a search warrant is ILLEGAL , you do not have to consent to a search of your home or car without probable cause. 
If you are pulled over at a " checkpoint" , you do not , and should not , consent to a search of your car or your person, 
Because
You are protected from unreasonable search and seizure .


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

donf said:


> Listen carefully,
> A search without a search warrant is ILLEGAL , you do not have to consent to a search of your home or car without probable cause.
> 
> If you are pulled over at a " checkpoint" , you do not , and should not , consent to a search of your car or your person,
> ...


Homes and vehicles are _completely different_ situations when it comes to probable cause and warrants. I've searched _countless_ cars and a few homes. The only warrants I've ever typed is blood warrants. You can even seize someone's blood without a warrant or consent, but that's for another 17 page threads...
You know what they say about skinning cats..

Not sure how to respond to this as it doesn't really make sense:



> you do not have to consent to a search of your home or car without probable cause.


----------



## jamisjockey (Jul 30, 2009)

donf said:


> Listen carefully,
> A search without a search warrant is ILLEGAL , you do not have to consent to a search of your home or car without probable cause.
> If you are pulled over at a " checkpoint" , you do not , and should not , consent to a search of your car or your person,
> Because
> You are protected from unreasonable search and seizure .


Here's what they do:
They detain you until they can scrounge up a K9 to check your car. They then tell you that the dog alerted and tear your car apart on "probable cause".
Happened to me once in CA and once in AZ when I was stationed out west.

I've still never since consented to a vehicle search. Asked once when I lived in Brownsville at the BP check point and I told them no. They got a supervisor who asked me again and I told him no. After some head scratching they sent me on my way.
Asked once again in Utah. Told the officer no, and was told "thanks, here's your warning for speeding, have a nice day". Fishing expedition I suppose.

As to the "if you're not doing anything wrong" crowd....the 4th and 5th amendment are a very thin line between us and a bananna republic.


----------



## Spirit (Nov 19, 2008)

The fdebate over leo's reach and the people's rights is a battle that founded this nation and has raged ever since. As long as there are freedom loving citizens and laws to keep peace for the masses there will be friction over how far reaching those entrusted with enforcing those laws can go. 

I may gripe about some of what the police depts do, and have lots of ideas on how they could do things better, lol, but I have tremendous respect and admiration for the job they do. As long as they don't step over the line.  

Kinda funny to think that back in 1774 or 5, a group of guys was sitting in a tavern up North having basically the same *****fest that we're having here on 2cool 236 yrs later. Thank the good Lord that they - and many others to follow - fought so hard to give us this freedom.


----------



## dbarham (Aug 13, 2005)

:cheers:legalize!!:cheers:


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

Police state, get a job. How many of these officers pass by Home depot where the ILLEGALS hang out every day and do nothing, then set up camp hiding in the bushes on the 9-5 folks (paying their check) rushing to the daycare to pick up their kids?


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Profish00 said:


> Police state, get a job. How many of these officers pass by Home depot where the ILLEGALS hang out every day and do nothing, then set up camp hiding in the bushes on the 9-5 folks (paying their check) rushing to the daycare to pick up their kids?


Your commander in chief wants to grant them amnesty. What's local LEOs to do about it?

I could see it now, a thread on here if people sitting in front of Home Depot were being harassed: "Cops harassin people without probable cause, who are sitting in front of home depot cause they look Mexican!!"


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

I think this has been going on longer than the last 3-4 years.


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

Seems like everyone is assuming the police were stopping vehicles after profiling them and then searching said cars without consent, PC, or warrants. That's crazier than MC drinking all the Kool-Aid.

You all need to stop watching the news. The news is not reality.


----------



## twoiron (Feb 15, 2010)

teeroy said:


> Your commander in chief wants to grant them amnesty. What's local LEOs to do about it?
> 
> I could see it now, a thread on here if people sitting in front of Home Depot were being harassed: "Cops harassin people without probable cause, who are sitting in front of home depot cause they look Mexican!!"


I would hope to think with all of your training you could tell the difference between someone who is sitting outside a store and someone who is Peddling their services or is loitering.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

teeroy said:


> Your commander in chief wants to grant them amnesty. What's local LEOs to do about it?


Well, enforcing some existing laws instead of just spending the majority of their time supplying a lucrative revenue stream would be a good start. The president's wishes for future policy are irrelevant: the laws in place NOW would solve that problem if they were enforced, and enforced in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights..


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> Well, enforcing some existing laws instead of just spending the majority of their time supplying a lucrative revenue stream would be a good start. The president's wishes for future policy are irrelevant: the laws in place NOW would solve that problem if they were enforced, and enforced in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights..


Again, explain What local law enforcement can do about it.

We can arrest them for no DL and call ICE, who does NOT come pick them up on some bus and send tem back "home."


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

teeroy said:


> Again, explain What local law enforcement can do about it.
> 
> We can arrest them for no DL and call ICE, who does NOT come pick them up on some bus and send tem back "home."


Arrest them some more. Sooner or later the pressure gets too hot and they just don't feel comfortable leeching off of the citizens of this country any more. Currently it's just a big game of "hot potato", everybody passing blame to every other agency they can as fast as they can rather than having to deal with a problem they don't want to have to deal with, which also doesn't make them any money... Meanwhile, law abiding citizens, with emphasis on the word "citizens", are the ones that have to deal with the fallout from that little game...


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

dwilliams35 said:


> Arrest them some more. Sooner or later the pressure gets too hot and they just don't feel comfortable leeching off of the citizens of this country any more. Currently it's just a big game of "hot potato", everybody passing blame to every other agency they can as fast as they can rather than having to deal with a problem they don't want to have to deal with, which also doesn't make them any money... Meanwhile, law abiding citizens, with emphasis on the word "citizens", are the ones that have to deal with the fallout from that little game...


The problem is that Pearland (and every other city around here) has a limited budget and only so many jail cells. Who do you really want in them? Illegal Pedro that busts his butt every day doing something ****** won't do or your local crack dealer? If anyone finds my post racist, it's not. It realistic. Big difference.


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

They rather set up a sting on the soccer moms of Pearland with expired tags than deal with illegals, they have the revenu.:biggrin:


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Mont said:


> The problem is that Pearland (and every other city around here) has a limited budget and only so many jail cells. Who do you really want in them? Illegal Pedro that busts his butt every day doing something ****** won't do or your local crack dealer? If anyo ne finds my post racist, it's not. It realistic. Big difference.


The problem is that the crack dealers aren't being arrested either.. The traditional law-enforcement role of police has given way to simple revenue enhancement.. There's crack houses scattered everywhere, and the LEO sitting in his car in front of them is waiting for somebody to run the stop sign.. It's all about revenue, law enforcement is an unwelcome distraction from that task..


----------



## Blk Jck 224 (Oct 16, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> The problem is that the crack dealers aren't being arrested either.. The traditional law-enforcement role of police has given way to simple revenue enhancement.. There's crack houses scattered everywhere, and the LEO sitting in his car in front of them is waiting for somebody to run the stop sign.. It's all about revenue, law enforcement is an unwelcome distraction from that task..


Dam Skippy...He has a much better chance of making it to the house after his shift is over by stopping your drunk arse running stop signs coming home from the bar than messing with crack heads. Those dudes are dangerous!


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

dwilliams35 said:


> The problem is that the crack dealers aren't being arrested either.. The traditional law-enforcement role of police has given way to simple revenue enhancement.. There's crack houses scattered everywhere, and the LEO sitting in his car in front of them is waiting for somebody to run the stop sign.. It's all about revenue, law enforcement is an unwelcome distraction from that task..


I am sure you are right, I have no idea of who got arrested other than what I read on the link that was provided. Perhaps you should invite them over to your house after they make bail. They seemed like such a nice group and all. If you get a ticket for running a stop sign, then you probably had it coming. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was arrested on a speeding charge. Funny how things like that work, isn't it?


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

Mont said:


> I am sure you are right, I have no idea of who got arrested other than what I read on the link that was provided. Perhaps you should invite them over to your house after they make bail. They seemed like such a nice group and all. If you get a ticket for running a stop sign, then you probably had it coming. Remember Timothy McVeigh? He was arrested on a speeding charge. Funny how things like that work, isn't it?


 Okay, so anecdotes about how routine traffic stops led to major arrests should be considered as incontrovertible proof to support the repeal of the fourth amendment. Got it.


----------



## Mont (Nov 17, 1998)

dwilliams35 said:


> Okay, so anecdotes about how routine traffic stops led to major arrests should be considered as incontrovertible proof to support the repeal of the fourth amendment. Got it.


I already told you were right. You win!


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

dwilliams35 said:


> The problem is that the crack dealers aren't being arrested either.. The traditional law-enforcement role of police has given way to simple revenue enhancement.. There's crack houses scattered everywhere, and the LEO sitting in his car in front of them is waiting for somebody to run the stop sign.. It's all about revenue, law enforcement is an unwelcome distraction from that task..


I wish I could wake up one day in your world just to see what it is like.


----------



## Gary (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> I wish I could wake up one day in your world just to see what it is like.


Average American!


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

teeroy said:


> I wish I could wake up one day in your world just to see what it is like.


 So do I. So do a whole lot of other "civilians" that see their rights being chipped away under the cloak of "public safety".


----------



## Profish00 (May 21, 2004)

teeroy said:


> I wish I could wake up one day in your world just to see what it is like.


Who twisted your arm? No one made you sign up. Do you think you need 3 months off like teachers? If you can't cut the mustard, do everyone a favor.

We need some backbone.:cheers:


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

Profish00 said:


> Who twisted your arm? No one made you sign up. Do you think you need 3 months off like teachers? If you can't cut the mustard, do everyone a favor.
> 
> We need some backbone.:cheers:


Not sure what you're talking about...



> So do I. So do a whole lot of other "civilians" that see their rights being chipped away under the cloak of "public safety".


Regardless of what you call it, PROBABLE CAUSE has been PROBABLE CAUSE since the term was created. It hasn't changed. Technology and cops' creativity to help catch criminals have caused some controversy.


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

In Sugar Land refusing to let them search was probable cause, at least when I got my drivers license it was..

A


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

lordbater said:


> In Sugar Land refusing to let them search was probable cause, at least when I got my drivers license it was..
> 
> A


You can be arrested for _anything_ in the Transportation code you can be stopped for, except speeding and open container. Maybe that's what you mean.


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

Well, in the early '90s I was actually told that by refusing to let them search my car that it was probable cause.. and by search they meant pulling my back seat out ('74 convertible bug), spare tire out and leaving them in the road or the ditch when they were done.

SLPD went through to bad times back then..

I wore my hair long and hung out with my 2 best friends who were Mexican, I got my fair share of **** from SLPD for it. The police chiefs daughter was a very good friend of mine and I got away with a lot as well. I have some friends that weren't as lucky..

A


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

lordbater said:


> In Sugar Land refusing to let them search was probable cause, at least when I got my drivers license it was..





lordbater said:


> Well, in the early '90s I was actually told that by refusing to let them search my car that it was probable cause.. and by search they meant pulling my back seat out ('74 convertible bug), spare tire out and leaving them in the road or the ditch when they were done.


Refusing to consent to a request to search your vehicle is _*not*_ probable cause to search your vehicle, nor can you be arrested for refusing. If it were probable cause, why would they even bother asking? That would be a classic "catch 22."

I have heard, however, that there are some unscrupulous cops out there who may try to get you believe that you can be arrested for refusing to consent so that you'll be intimidated into consenting. Don't ever consent.

If you say "no" to a request to search, and the officer has no probable cause, there's nothing he can do.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

mastercylinder said:


> I have heard, however, that there are some unscrupulous cops out there who may try to get you believe that you can be arrested for refusing to consent so that you'll be intimidated into consenting. Don't ever consent.
> 
> If you say "no" to a request to search, and the officer has no probable cause, there's nothing he can do.


Well that officer's case will be shot down if someone is coerced into consenting to a search. Or, their case will be compromised if the detention is too long, but there are legal ways around that which officers trained in interdiction know how to do it.

MC, I know that you know you can be arrested for _almost_ anything. As I said earlier, there's more ways than one to skin a cat.

And oddly enough, most people consent to a search. I can count on one hand the times I've been denied a search of a vehicle and I think all but one has resulted in a search anyways or an arrest. I can tell when I'm dealing the innocent motoring public, for the most part.


----------



## manintheboat (Jun 1, 2004)

The great thing about the coming police state is that they will ALWAYS go after the other guy.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Well that officer's case will be shot down if someone is coerced into consenting to a search. Or, their case will be compromised if the detention is too long, but there are legal ways around that which officers trained in interdiction know how to do it.
> 
> MC, I know that you know you can be arrested for _almost_ anything. As I said earlier, there's more ways than one to skin a cat.
> 
> And oddly enough, most people consent to a search. I can count on one hand the times I've been denied a search of a vehicle and *I think all but one has resulted in a search anyways or an arrest.* I can tell when I'm dealing the innocent motoring public, for the most part.


There is no option for refusal.


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

teeroy said:


> And oddly enough, most people consent to a search.


It's odd to me, too, Teeroy, that most people will consent to a request to search, but most people are intimidated by a police officer, so they'll just take the path of least resistance. Plus, most people don't take the time and effort to know and understand the law and their rights.

It's an understandable human response, and most officers know that and use it to their advantage.


----------



## copperhead (Mar 15, 2005)

FISHTEXX said:


> Teeroy, you sir have gained my respect and through your posts have convinced me that you are a good cop. Thank you for all you do, I can only imagine how frustrating your job can be. Thanks for taking the time to debate these perspectives and giving your professional opinion, it is appreciated.


 With ya Brother. I'm a retired LEO after 20 years on the street and work as a reserve SO deputy. I get tired of people judging us (LEO) when they haven't a clue as to what we do on a daily basis. The job has cost me alot but I wouldn't change anything. Keep up the good work and be careful out there.


----------



## monkeyman1 (Dec 30, 2007)

Surely the LEO's on the board understand that citizens rights are sacred. I for one have nothing personal against any singular LEO. But I do think they overstep many times. While they may take some bad actors off the street with dubious probable cause, the LEO must understand that appreciation of our rights as citizens far outweigh catching a bad guy.


----------



## dwilliams35 (Oct 8, 2006)

copperhead said:


> With ya Brother. I'm a retired LEO after 20 years on the street and work as a reserve SO deputy. I get tired of people judging us (LEO) when they haven't a clue as to what we do on a daily basis. The job has cost me alot but I wouldn't change anything. Keep up the good work and be careful out there.


What you do on a daily basis is why you get the respect you do get just by putting on that badge, whether it is deserved as an individual or not.. What you apparently fail to realize is that having citizens who are cognizant of, and protective of, their own constitutional rights does NOT constitute a lack of support of law enforcement. I for one am a great supporter of law enforcement: in theory, in practice, and in checkbook: That being said, along with the respect given by law abiding citizens, and the additional legal powers and rights, comes a great responsibility to the public, and the burden of being held to a higher standard than those in lesser occupations. While there are few pedestals higher than the one I personally put law enforcement on, that comes along with a great disdain for the actions of LE officers who do not live up to that standard, often by violating their oath to follow the constitution.. There seems to be a terrible move toward Law Enforcement having an adversarial "relationship" with the fourth amendment: a constant search for loopholes in that amendment is no better from the LE perspective as from the opposite side.. The current status quo of searches without warrant, essentially "manufactured" probable cause, intimidation of citizens into waiving their constitutional rights, etc. etc., is certainly in violation of the spirit of the Fourth Amendment (among others if applicable) if not the letter (or the current interpretation thereof)..

We've reached a sad nadir in our nation's history when a citizen's affirmation of and assertion of their own constitutional rights is considered to be an affront to an officer who has sworn to uphold and protect those rights. Waiving your fourth amendment rights against search and seizure should NOT be standard operating procedure in a society which claims to hold such rights dear, and above all, it shouldn't be considered to be the exclusive price of entry to an amicable relationship with an officer as he discharges his duties..


----------



## ATX 4x4 (Jun 25, 2011)

copperhead said:


> With ya Brother. I'm a retired LEO after 20 years on the street and work as a reserve SO deputy. I get tired of people judging us (LEO) when they haven't a clue as to what we do on a daily basis. The job has cost me alot but I wouldn't change anything. Keep up the good work and be careful out there.


Thank you for your service. Seems with these posts regarding police it is the same ~10 members that have a debate over the same stuff. :headknock


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

ATX 4x4 said:


> Thank you for your service. Seems with these posts regarding police it is the same ~10 members that have a debate over the same stuff. :headknock


People must still like to debate the topic. There's not 14 pages for no reason.


----------



## iridered2003 (Dec 12, 2005)

mastercylinder said:


> People must still like to debate the topic. There's not 14 pages for nothing.


i see 3 pages??????


----------



## mastercylinder60 (Dec 18, 2005)

iridered2003 said:


> i see 3 pages??????


I guess you have a 50 posts per page set-up. I have 10. Duh. But I'll make it simpler for you:



> People must still like to debate the topic. There's not 137 posts for no reason.


Is that better, Red? :smile:


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

iridered2003 said:


> i see 3 pages??????


I only see 3 pages


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

137 post....or 1 cop defending the laws and loopholes vs the whole community. 

As far as he Narco check point. When I was stationed in California back in 96-98, the cops had the checkpoints going then. All over town. They had the Interstate shut down with these stops. Talk about a PITA ! I wouldn't doubt to see that kinda stuff here in the future.


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

sea sick said:


> 137 post....or 1 cop defending the laws and loopholes vs the whole community.


Loopholes? LMAO

Cop got to play by the rules. The motoring public doesn't.



sea sick said:


> As far as he Narco check point. When I was stationed in California back in 96-98, the cops had the checkpoints going then. All over town. They had the Interstate shut down with these stops. Talk about a PITA ! I wouldn't doubt to see that kinda stuff here in the future.


Won't happen in Texas.


----------



## fishinguy (Aug 5, 2004)

teeroy said:


> Loopholes? LMAO
> 
> Cop got to play by the rules. *The motoring public doesn't. *
> 
> Won't happen in Texas.


All the tickets and fines I have paid says I disagree.


----------



## sea sick (Feb 9, 2006)

teeroy said:


> Loopholes? LMAO
> 
> Cop got to play by the rules. The motoring public doesn't.
> 
> ...


I feel so much better now,totally relieved ! Thank you sir, you have my vote

I'm not a LEO hater Teeroy, thanks for your service.


----------



## lordbater (May 21, 2004)

I'm no hater either, but the simple fact is that we are turning into a police state. Right the **** under our noses. The LEOs should be the first to recognize this, not defend themselves because they are upholding the law. I know it's not their fault, they are doing their job, but come on, don't ******** me and tell me you don't see it happening...

A


----------



## teeroy (Oct 1, 2009)

lordbater said:


> I'm no hater either, but the simple fact is that we are turning into a police state. Right the **** under our noses. The LEOs should be the first to recognize this, not defend themselves because they are upholding the law. I know it's not their fault, they are doing their job, but come on, don't ******** me and tell me you don't see it happening...
> 
> A


Law enforcement, the legislature and the DA's are going after criminals now like never before making use of the tools in place to try and get a grip on crime (Which is an EPIDEMIC if you haven't noticed), but most of you only see it as a "Police State." Strange...


----------

