Cops in here - video of kid getting pulled over

[cracker]

The bold is key.

Have you listened to Eddie Craig? He was on AJ's show the other day. Really good guy and incredibly informative.

It's nice to have him on the radio down here.

https://www.ruleoflawradio.com

[Up0n0ne]

Have you listened to Eddie Craig? He was on AJ's show the other day. Really good guy and incredibly informative.

It's nice to have him on the radio down here.

www.ruleoflawradio.com

Yes sir! Heard the broadcast and sent his info to another board member on here.

[03trubluGT]

I'm going to try to get an anwer today as how Texas law applies to these circimstances, but I'm going to make a guess here:

We, as humans, tend to take the "Reader's Digest" version and apply it to how we want or think a decision should go, or how we want it to apply to us.

The link previously provided, on face value, says basically that officers cannot stop just to see if the driver is licensed or the vehicle registered.

What the vast majority of us (myself included) did not do is read the 20 pages that are included in the link.

Buried in the body of the text is this gem:

The patrolman was not acting pursuant to any standards, guidelines, or procedures pertaining to document spot checks, promulgated by either his department or the State Attorney General. The trial court granted the motion to suppress, finding the stop and detention to have been wholly capricious, and therefore violative of the Fourth Amendment. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed.

In Texas, there does exist a statute that provides for the stop and detention of a driver to verify if they are licensed, so, IMHO, this would void the application of this ruling.


Remember guys, officers have to make rapid decisions, and I'll admit that they are not always good. Did anyone notice that the case was argued on January 17, 1979 and decided on March 27, 1979? That's 2 months and 10 days. How would anyone like to be stopped on the side of the road for 70 days for an officer to make a decision???

[03trubluGT]

OK, I met with a prosecutor today that had never seen 521.025(b) and was quite surprised that it existed.

After doing some searching on Westlaw, he found that the statute was "nullified" in 1993 due to State v. Sanchez where the defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint and was found to have 50-100 pounds of marijuana.

The statute was reinacted in 1995 but without any substantive changes.

In State v. Luxon 2007 the courts stated that the law was not enforceable due to 4th Amendment concerns.

He could provide no explanation why it is still on the books. He did say that if the law was re-written to circumvent State v. Sanchez that it could be used again.

He added that none of this precludes any officer from using the statute, but it would mean anything gained (like 50-100 pounds of weed) would be inadmissable in court.

[racrguy]

OK, I met with a prosecutor today that had never seen 521.025(b) and was quite surprised that it existed.

After doing some searching on Westlaw, he found that the statute was "nullified" in 1993 due to State v. Sanchez where the defendant was stopped at a roadblock checkpoint and was found to have 50-100 pounds of marijuana.

The statute was reinacted in 1995 but without any substantive changes.

In State v. Luxon 2007 the courts stated that the law was not enforceable due to 4th Amendment concerns.

He could provide no explanation why it is still on the books. He did say that if the law was re-written to circumvent State v. Sanchez that it could be used again.

He added that none of this precludes any officer from using the statute, but it would mean anything gained (like 50-100 pounds of weed) would be inadmissable in court.

Thanks for checking on this.