Carrollton PD broke my hatch!

[David]

Got an interesting phone call last night from the Commander. After speaking a few minutes. He pretty much told me it sounds like what his guys did was not right. He mentioned will be pulling dash cam video to see how it went down.

I wonder if he can send it to me? I didn't ask him that.

You can get it, but they may make you submit an FOIA request.

[Juiced4v]

Got an interesting phone call last night from the Commander. After speaking a few minutes. He pretty much told me it sounds like what his guys did was not right. He mentioned will be pulling dash cam video to see how it went down.

I wonder if he can send it to me? I didn't ask him that.

[Rick Modena]

Drive around wearing a fedora, problem solved. Everyone will A: Think you're white, and B: Want nothing to do with you regardless.

Fuuuuck, ahahahahahahahaha...

[Forever_frost]

1. Texas Transportation Code Section 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
Subsections "(a)" and "(b)(1)" are the speeding statutes in Texas. Basically, they say that you're "speeding" if you're driving at a rate of speed that is "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing."

2. Texas Transportation Code Section 545.352 PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS.
This statute says that a posted "speed limit" is "prima facie" proof that you're guilty of speeding (i.e., that the speed at which you are traveling is "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing"). "Prima facie" means "sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved" or "at first sight; before closer inspection." In other words, if, upon "closer inspection" there is sufficient evidence that the speed at which you are traveling is NOT "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstances then existing," YOU ARE NOT SPEEDING UNDER TEXAS LAW.

Hence, simply because you're driving 75 in a 60 m.p.h. zone, it doesn't necessarily follow that you're "speeding." If it's not "unreasonable and imprudent under the circumstance then existing" to do so, you can lawfully drive 75 m.p.h. Think about the times you've "gone with the flow" of traffic, even though everyone was going faster than the posted "speed limit." Were all of you being unreasonable?

Thus, there are no speed limits in Texas, in that you can (in certain situations) lawfully drive at a rate of speed greater than what is indicated by the posted speed limit sign. Rather, posted speed limits are the presumptive legal speed for the stretch of roadway to which they pertain... a presumption which can be rebutted by proof that you were driving in a way that was not unreasonable under the circumstances. However, please understand that you can be cited for speeding, and brought to trial, if it's alleged that you were driving above the presumptive legal speed. Whether or not the jury (or, in some cases, the judge) convicts you depends on whether or not they believe you were driving in a "reasonable" manner.


Okay, enough chatter. Here are the statutes:


§ 545.351. MAXIMUM SPEED REQUIREMENT.
(a) An operator may not drive at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the circumstances then existing.
(b) An operator:
(1) may not drive a vehicle at a speed greater than is
reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard for
actual and potential hazards then existing; and
(2) shall control the speed of the vehicle as
necessary to avoid colliding with another person or vehicle that is
on or entering the highway in compliance with law and the duty of
each person to use due care.
(c) An operator shall, consistent with Subsections (a) and
(b), drive at an appropriate reduced speed if:
(1) the operator is approaching and crossing an
intersection or railroad grade crossing;
(2) the operator is approaching and going around a
curve;
(3) the operator is approaching a hill crest;
(4) the operator is traveling on a narrow or winding
roadway; and
(5) a special hazard exists with regard to traffic,
including pedestrians, or weather or highway conditions.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended
by Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 165, § 30.109, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.


§ 545.352. PRIMA FACIE SPEED LIMITS. (a) A speed in
excess of the limits established by Subsection (b) or under another
provision of this subchapter is prima facie evidence that the speed
is not reasonable and prudent and that the speed is unlawful.
Text of subsec. (b) as amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 663, § 2 and Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 739, § 1

http://dallasattorney.com/blog/160-no-speed-limits-in-texas.html

[A_A_G]

You must be from Carrollton....

No such thing as speed limits in Texas.

It's merely a suggestion.

Nope, but I understand what a traffic sign means. And you might want to get your eyes checked btw if the speed limit signs are looking yellow to you.

[helosailor]

Drive around wearing a fedora, problem solved. Everyone will A: Think you're white, and B: Want nothing to do with you regardless.

[SS Junk]

It's merely a suggestion.

Whether it's a suggestion or not it's still up to the cop's discretion to be cited and up to you to make your case. I've seen this argument before in traffic court. Didn't go over so well.

[Baron Von Crowder]

It's merely a suggestion.

what are the tickets for? Not heeding to the suggestion?

[Baba Ganoush]

What are those signs that say "speed limit XX" then?

It's merely a suggestion.

[abecx]

We should get SVO in here to cite some court documents

[Baron Von Crowder]

You must be from Carrollton....


No such thing as speed limits in Texas.

What are those signs that say "speed limit XX" then?

[Baba Ganoush]

Even if the speed limit would have been 40, you were still speeding...

You must be from Carrollton....


No such thing as speed limits in Texas.

[Sean88gt]

Fairly confident a cop can pay you down once removed from a vehicle under Terry v. Ohio.

Only if they believe you to be armed. Further, if they pat you down and can immediately identify some level of contraband, the search goes beyond a simple terry-frisk, and anything found becomes inadmissible/fruits of the poisonous tree.

This. If they can't offer up a reason on that initial stop as a reason to keep you there, they can't keep tacking on reasons to keep you there to buy time for a dog. That "We'll bring in a dog" thing is BS. They're not going to do it, they just want your consent because if they have to ask, they don't have PC and WANT to look.

For future reference, if they are asking, they don't have a reason to look so they want you to give them permission and remove liability for them breaking your stuff.

If they can get a dog there in the time of the regular stop (whatever the fuck that is), they don't have to inform you. Best policy is making them go through the hassle of getting a warrant, every time.

That is a no no. Like I said earlier, either make the decision to arrest prior to search, or let them role.

Also on the whole warrant thing or any coercion .

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) 391 US 543. A claim by officers that "We have a search warrant," or "We'll be back with a search warrant," makes a consequent "consent" involuntary, and invalid. (It would be permissible to say, "If you don't consent, we'll try to get a warrant," since this implies that a refusal of consent will be honored, and that returning with a warrant is not a foregone conclusion.)

There are reasons to do it, but on a no basis stop, the cops are asking for trouble.

If I were of the perma-tan variety, I'd file a racial complaint as well. If nothing more than to fuck his day up.

[Sean88gt]

Don't be a fucking idiot, never consent to a search. What was his probable cause? If he used a headlight out and it wasn't, his PC evaporates. Tell him to feel free to lie to a magistrate to get that warrant, and you'll shove it up his ass in court. I could give you the 4th & 14th analysis, but I think it would bore you

[David]

That is a no no. Like I said earlier, either make the decision to arrest prior to search, or let them role.

Also on the whole warrant thing or any coercion .

Bumper v. North Carolina (1968) 391 US 543. A claim by officers that "We have a search warrant," or "We'll be back with a search warrant," makes a consequent "consent" involuntary, and invalid. (It would be permissible to say, "If you don't consent, we'll try to get a warrant," since this implies that a refusal of consent will be honored, and that returning with a warrant is not a foregone conclusion.)

Might be a no no for you, but it's happening with regularity.