Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[racrguy]

Haysus Christo!

This has NOTHING to do with vehicular travel. These guys were pedestrians. You don't need a license to walk.

You're grasping for straws here.

Right, but it all centers around the requirement for ID. I will agree with you that it was a bit of a tangent.

[03trubluGT]

I figured I'd make this it's own post. Here is an article from Police Chief Magazine talking about the same thing we're talking about.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=234&issue_id=32004

Please read the underlined portion, and notice the copyright date at the bottom. I'm still looking through Supreme Court cases, but I haven't found any that disagree with the original case as of yet.

We are not talking about checkpoints here. This is about the legality of an officer in Texas to make a stop and enforce 521.025 TC. Driving on public roads is not a God-given right. You have to be licensed.

[racrguy]

I'm sure the state legislatures ignored this case from 1925 as well.

Thanks for reminding me about a point I wanted to make earlier regarding politicians ignoring the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings. See: Obamacare.

[racrguy]

We are not talking about checkpoints here. This is about the legality of an officer in Texas to make a stop and enforce 521.025 TC. Driving on public roads is not a God-given right. You have to be licensed.

And you didn't follow instructions.

[03trubluGT]

And you didn't follow instructions.

My apologies.

What instructions was that?

[03trubluGT]

Right, but it all centers around the requirement for ID. I will agree with you that it was a bit of a tangent.

Tangent? Yes.

You are trying the smoke and mirrors trick.




You are not required to have ID, unless you are driving a vehicle on a public roadway....

[racrguy]

My apologies.

What instructions was that?

I figured I'd make this it's own post. Here is an article from Police Chief Magazine talking about the same thing we're talking about.

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display_arch&article_id=234&issue_id=32004

Please read the underlined portion, and notice the copyright date at the bottom. I'm still looking through Supreme Court cases, but I haven't found any that disagree with the original case as of yet.

Tangent? Yes.

You are trying the smoke and mirrors trick.




You are not required to have ID, unless you are driving a vehicle on a public roadway....

I'm not trying the smoke and mirrors trick, that was posted to show you that even if you are walking you still don't have to ID without reasonable suspicion. And I'm not arguing that you don't have to have ID, nor the legality of stopping someone that you have reasonable suspicion in stopping. I'm saying you can't stop someone solely for checking their DL/registration without reasonable suspicion. Let's be honest though, if someone is riding dirty odds are their registration is out. Run their plates and if they're expired, BAM, PC for the stop. Did I just have to explain my angle to you? I hope not.

[racrguy]

You haven't proven anything either. as with most laws they are interpreted differently. We have explained to you why you are wrong but you don't want to listen to us. You show us proof where you are correct...

I just wanted to touch on this one a bit, before I lost my train of thought.

Yes, I have provided proof why I am right. You and a Matt have explained why you think I am wrong and given no evidence other than a state statute that is overturned by the ruling I quote. You've never questioned the rules you think apply, so I can understand why you're arguing the point. The breakdown of your argument occurs at the point the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. It doesn't matter how many other courts interpret it, all one needs to do in order to shut those other courts up is cite this ruling.

[03trubluGT]

I just wanted to touch on this one a bit, before I lost my train of thought.

Yes, I have provided proof why I am right. You and a Matt have explained why you think I am wrong and given no evidence other than a state statute that is overturned by the ruling I quote. You've never questioned the rules you think apply, so I can understand why you're arguing the point. The breakdown of your argument occurs at the point the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. It doesn't matter how many other courts interpret it, all one needs to do in order to shut those other courts up is cite this ruling.

I have court coming up next week.

I will run this by a prosecutor and judge and see what the scoop is. There has to be some legal reason that it's still on the books in Texas. When I find out, I'll relay the info.

Until then, this is pretty much beating a dead horse.

[racrguy]

I have court coming up next week.

I will run this by a prosecutor and judge and see what the scoop is. There has to be some legal reason that it's still on the books in Texas. When I find out, I'll relay the info.

Until then, this is pretty much beating a dead horse.

Well, on possible reason is so that people who don't know about the SCOTUS ruling will think the officers are justified in pulling them over, so they don't fight it.

I'm not saying that's the reason, I'm saying it's possible. There may be another law somewhere in the code that strikes this one down, but it's not well known. /shrug

[03trubluGT]

Well, on possible reason is so that people who don't know about the SCOTUS ruling will think the officers are justified in pulling them over, so they don't fight it.

I'm not saying that's the reason, I'm saying it's possible. There may be another law somewhere in the code that strikes this one down, but it's not well known. /shrug

I find it highly doubtful that law schools refuse to teach the 1979 ruling, that the State of Texas thumbs its nose at the SCOTUS ruling, and that police academys teach an illegal statute.

I refuse to believe that it is a huge Southern Conspiracy.

If I ask, and then show them this statute, I belive there has to be a reasonable explanation. There just can't be a SCOTUS ruling that every person in this state refuses to abide by. There are plenty of liberal attorneys and judges, I even know of a judge that refuses to take small amounts of marijuana in plain contempt of the Health and Safety code. You can't tell me that this particular judge wouldn't be whistle blowing from the highest point if this ruling wasn't in some way enforceable.

[racrguy]

Fair enough. Make sure they give you a ruling, I'd like to read it.

[03trubluGT]

Fair enough. Make sure they give you a ruling, I'd like to read it.

Me too. I'm curious to see how this turns out.


I've never actually used the statute because it's too easy to develop righteous PC. I think the only time it could be used is if you see someone who looks 12 driving, it would make sense to be able to stop them on that information alone because 12 is too young to posess a driver's license.

[jewozzy]

Me too. I'm curious to see how this turns out.


I've never actually used the statute because it's too easy to develop righteous PC. I think the only time it could be used is if you see someone who looks 12 driving, it would make sense to be able to stop them on that information alone because 12 is too young to posess a driver's license.

That was the one and only time I used it lol

[racrguy]

Any word from the judge/prosecutor?