Agree. I have a major issue with the most minor of traffic offenses being used as fishing expeditions to harass citizens when the sole motivation of the stop is to HOPE something else is found, as the cop could not care less about the offense that initiated the stop. Abuse of power that has been allowed to be page one of the cop playbook.

Obviously some of the most vocal on this topic are not lawyers. If a cop makes a traffic stop he still must have consent or probable cause to search a vehicle. If, during the course of the stop, he sees a bag of white powder or a 12 year old little girl ties up in the back floorboard, he is supposed to ignore that and just issue a traffic ticket? Obviously not, though some of you are of that mind set.

SW AG80 said:

---

Obviously some of the most vocal on this topic are not lawyers. If a cop makes a traffic stop he still must have consent or probable cause to search a vehicle. If, during the course of the stop, he sees a bag of white powder or a 12 year old little girl ties up in the back floorboard, he is supposed to ignore that and just issue a traffic ticket? Obviously not, though some of you are of that mind set.

---

I think the problem most have is that instead of actually investigating the backlog of real crimes the PD has stacked up in the books, officers spend a substantial amount of time sitting on the road with the sole intention of conducting fishing expeditions whenever they can catch a car driver making the smallest infraction. If their intention truly was traffic safety and they catch something bigger along the way, then so be it. We all know that's not why they set up speed traps though. It's to catch bigger fish, maybe some civil forfeiture, and make some citation money along the way. Otherwise, you'd see cops conducting traffic stops in problematic traffic areas and not wide open low traffic roads with arbitrarily low speed limits. You know where pickings are the easiest.

SW AG80 said:

---

Obviously some of the most vocal on this topic are not lawyers. If a cop makes a traffic stop he still must have consent or probable cause to search a vehicle. If, during the course of the stop, he sees a bag of white powder or a 12 year old little girl ties up in the back floorboard, he is supposed to ignore that and just issue a traffic ticket? Obviously not, though some of you are of that mind set.

---

The point keeps sailing. We dont have a problem with prosecuting kidnapping from a pc search arising from a legit traffic stop. The problem is, there are almost no legit traffic stops. We have a problem with cops stopping everyone for traffic and expecting or relying on that to catch kidnappers. For instance.

At least 95% of traffic stops should never, ever happen. Thats just socialist authoritarian harrassment of citizens. It puts he citizen and the cop in a terrible position and its as unamerican as it gets. Cops should be spending their time investigating kidnappers. Not ****ing with citizens all the time for no good reason.

And some of you are good at being condescending while missing a simple point. The point is having an issue with pulling over people with no interest in the reason they used to pull them over. To the point above, they don't give two squirts about the traffic safety aspect of whether someone used their turn signal or not. They are only using it as an excuse to pull them over and fish for more. And then people get intimidated into giving consent when they shouldn't all the time. Just the situation to begin with is intimidating to a lot of folks and is easily taken advantage of by a cop that otherwise has no probable cause.

It's a form over substance issue to me. The form may covered by checking the boxes, technically, but the substance is that I think it's an inappropriate exercise of power.

, technically, but the substance is that I think it's an inappropriate exercise of power.

The US Supreme Court disagrees with you. The subjective intent of the officer is of no consequence.

Wow... And this thread has, predictably, jumped the proverbial shark.

It has, and I am afraid I helped to derail it. We can all agree that the incident in Houston is horrible and those 2 cops are criminals.

Now, I will get back to looking for places to eat in Clemson and to see which Aggie baseball games I can make this spring.

So what happened?

Officer Goines faked a drug buy for a search warrant and the police shot and killed the homes occupants excuting the fraudulent warrant?

Were drugs found at the house but now they think the drugs are fake?

I read the last two pages and it seems Goines went from a hero to a suspect but I can't tell which crime Goines did?

Fightin_Aggie said:

---

So what happened?

Officer Goines faked a drug buy for a search warrant and they shot and killed the homes occupants?

Were drugs found at the house but know they think the drugs are fake?

I read the last two pages and it seems Goines went from a hero to a suspect but I can't tell which crime Goines did?

---

He lied on an official document. That alone is a felony. His actions lead to the death of two innocent people who likely thought they were the victims of a home invasion, and injuries to five officers. I don't think much more needs to be said.

SW AG80 said:

---

It has, and I am afraid I helped to derail it. We can all agree that the incident in Houston is horrible and those 2 cops are criminals.

Now, I will get back to looking for places to eat in Clemson and to see which Aggie baseball games I can make this spring.

---

I would argue that anybody that kept him employed as a police office given his history and every cop that didn't have their body cam turned on during the raid are at best criminally negligent..

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you now manage a Cinnabon?

---

You're too clever for me. Your retort went right over my head. Can you explain it?

---

He's referring to Saul Goodman from the shows Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul

It's a joke, look up Saul Goodman.

JJMt said:

---

thepriceisright24 said:

---

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Do you now manage a Cinnabon?

---

You're too clever for me. Your retort went right over my head. Can you explain it?

---

He's referring to Saul Goodman from the shows Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul

---

Thanks. I guess my critique of law enforcement hit a little too close to home and struck a nerve with him?

---

Not at all. Your first paragraph sounds exactly like the plot line of the first season of Better Call Saul. He ends up in protection managing a Cinnabon in Nebraska (I think).

Just thought it would be funny. I agree with you whole heartedly.

SW AG80 said:

---

Nosh said:

---

In your professional opinion, what does "very few cops cross the line and do things the wrong way" mean?

---

After giving this alot of thought, I typed out a lengthy and well thought out response. Then it suddenly disappeared. I won't re-type it all. The 2 in Houston in this case are criminals. There are very few of those in law enforcement. I sent a sheriff to prison when I was DA. Another sheriff in Presidio County went to the pen. These 2 were criminals. In the last 10 years 2-5 were prosecuted in the RGV, as was the DA in Brownsville, Of course, I am not counting the ones who get DWIs or even family violence cases. Those don't have anything to do with their profession.

Most of the problems are caused by officers who are not smart enough to know what they are doing is wrong. Felony stupid, like the current Texas Attorney General.

For the ones calling for no more "no knock" warrants, they are certainly over used. But they are absolutely needed. When LE rolls up to a house at 6:00 am of a known Mexican Mafia member with security cameras on every corner of the house, cops might as well be wearing a target as they stand at the door and knock. They do a job I want no part of, and I have accompanied them on search warrants in west Texas, San Antonio and Houston.

---

I have also given this a lot of thought, and I will disagree with your percentages, if not necessarily your statements. I believe Danny Duberstein's response is FAR more accurate...

"I don't think there are a ton of cops that break the law. I do think there are a ton of cops that are willing to turn a blind eye to one that does tho. I do think the us vs them mentality is fostered many places, I do think they'll protect a brother, I do think there is pressure to protect a dept's reputation, and I do think there s pressure to not be a rat. Wrap all that up, and some bad cops like this crew are able to operate for longer than they should and a lot of other cops are aware"

The number of cops who create a completely false affidavit that allows a drug raid on a couple who never committed a crime is small. But, you suggest that every other issue is simple stupidity. It is not. A huge percentage of cases have police who fudge police reports, who do not collect evidence, who steal evidence and money, who inflict beatings on defendants, then charge the defendant with assault, and numerous other transgressions. Every one of the examples I gave are either felony Tampering With Evidence, Tampering With Government Documents, or Official Oppression. The overwhelming majority of police officers AND District Attorneys wink at these crimes as letting criminals know who's in charge.

Who is complicit in this criminal cop culture? Well, certainly, every "good" cop who turns the other way is complicit. Training officers who tell rookies are at fault. Internal Affairs departments who whitewash these incidents are to blame. Police unions, who fight to keep every offense off the officer's record are to blame. District Attorneys who do not fully investigate these claims are to blame, even moreso when they mislead the Grand Jury to no bill the charges. And, last, but not least, the public and news media, who promote hero worship of law enforcement, and who do not demand accountability are to blame.

The stories cops told me while I was an ADA would make your jaws drop. How about the DPS troopers who told me that they are no longer allowed to remain on pursuits when a certain sheriff's department joins in, because of the time that they cornered a fleeing suspect, shot him dead, then picked up incriminating evidence and drove off with it before the homicide and DA investigators arrived? Or the ones who laughed about the beatings they inflicted on arrestees already in handcuffs? No, it is not "very few cops" who cross the line. It is a lot. They have earned the dirty reputation that they have, and those defending them by saying it is very few are doing no one any favors.

HTownAg98 said:

---

SW AG80 said:

---

Obviously some of the most vocal on this topic are not lawyers. If a cop makes a traffic stop he still must have consent or probable cause to search a vehicle. If, during the course of the stop, he sees a bag of white powder or a 12 year old little girl ties up in the back floorboard, he is supposed to ignore that and just issue a traffic ticket? Obviously not, though some of you are of that mind set.

---

Let me tell you a bit about probable cause based on my personal experience. My wife and I were camping last year in a state park with some friends when a park ranger came up to our site. He asked us to turn down the music (which, there aren't quiet hours during the day, there wasn't anyone within 200 yards of our site, and the music wasn't loud) and we apologized and turned it down. He then asked us were is the marijuana, because he said he could smell it coming from our site. This was quite the revelation to us, because none of us smoke weed, and there wasn't anyone around us. So either this guy has the nose of a bloodhound and he's picking it up from another site far away, or he's making **** up. Of course, we didn't consent to a search, but he stated he now had probable cause to search, and there wasn't much we could do. He ended up not searching us then. He comes back later that night and snuck up on us, and again asked where's the weed. By this time we are getting pissed because this has gone to full-blown harassment. Again, we don't consent, he states he has the right to search, but doesn't search. As soon as the sun was breaking, we packed up our stuff and left, because we couldn't be sure this guy didn't plant something on us in the middle of the night, or would do so during a search in the morning. We filed a complaint with the staff and his supervisor, but never heard anything back.

"I smell weed" has become the catch-all for law enforcement to do a warrantless search to go on a fishing expedition.

---

You should've told him he reeked of weed, and asked him how much weed he just smoked, and if he couldn't remember smoking - that was proof he was high.

Not a lawyer and I didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express last night. Would the law of parties apply to the other cops on the scene? It's sent a few people to death row.

Happened to me at A&M with campus police. They pulled me over and said they smelled weed so they could search my vehicle even though I didn't smoke weed, and of course they found nothing, just made me late for an intramural football game, and were able to strip away my constitutional rights just by claiming to smell weed.

Good example of a targeted traffic stop, making right turn into 2nd lane instead of far right lane all just for the pretext of looking for something more serious in a high crime area:

Gateman said:

---

Good example of a targeted traffic stop, making right turn into 2nd lane instead of far right lane all just for the pretext of looking for something more serious in a high crime area:

---

That's unbelievable. Kid most definitely had his constitutional rights violated. Total BS move.

I didn't feel like going to jail that night for "obstruction," or in this case, "giving law enforcement a case of the butthurt feelings."

So when are we going to find out that the cops were shot by "friendly" fire? I saw one photo where the bullet holes looked to originate from the outside of the home, to the right of the front door.

cbr said:

---

Wait, you think its ok that cops harrass people for traffic bull**** because they might catch drugs that way!!!???

THAT IS NOT HOW FREE COUNTRIES WORK


How about - cops dont harass people for bull****, and actually do cop work and find and arrest real criminals instead.

Thats kind of the concept.

---

This is actually how they catch A LOT of criminals. It is totally legal for them to get someone for failure to come to a complete stop, expired registration etc. and from there to see what comes up when they run the plates etc. At every stop light, cops are running plates for expired inspection/registration/warrants etc. as well. I guarantee both you and I have had it happen to us numerous times and never even knew it. Very effective way of patrolling the streets and fighting crime.

What is NOT ok is stopping people with no PC...or violating their basic freedoms once you have them stopped.

Also police are naturally going to keep a closer eye on the driving of a dude in a dropped Cutlass in a high crime neighborhood than a mini-van driving mother in the suburbs. Why wouldn't they?

HTownAg98 said:

---

I didn't feel like going to jail that night for "obstruction," or in this case, "giving law enforcement a case of the butthurt feelings."

---

Luckily one of the few good things Houston has done in recent years is decriminalize weed. It's not even on cops radar down here. Unless you are talking about major trafficking level amounts. Or smoking while driving.

Quote:

---

At every stop light, cops are running plates for expired inspection/registration/warrants etc. as well. I guarantee both you and I have had it happen to us numerous times and never even knew it. Very effective way of patrolling the streets and fighting crime.

---

"license plate bingo".

Boo Weekley said:

---

Luckily one of the few good things Houston has done in recent years is decriminalize weed. It's not even on cops radar down here. Unless you are talking about major trafficking level amounts. Or smoking while driving.

---

Tell that to Mr. Tuttle and Ms. Nicholas...

Gateman said:

---

Good example of a targeted traffic stop, making right turn into 2nd lane instead of far right lane all just for the pretext of looking for something more serious in a high crime area:

---

That was an ******* cop. Everything that cop kept saying about how the kid was nervous and acting suspiciously was total BS. Court for straying into the wrong lane what BS.