This is why you should NEVER NEVER Talk To police....

You're overthinking probable cause. I didn't say probable cause that a crime other than a traffic offense occured. Even for a traffic offense there has to be probable cause. If the officer sees someone speeding - they pull them over on probable cause for the offense of speeding. You keep citing that case over and over, but you're missing the point.

All I've ever said was you need probable cause to arrest or search - that's basic law 101. A motor vehicle exception exists - that's blackletter law. Moreoever, searches incident to arrest are 100% valid - again, blackletter law. You can arrest for any offense other than speeding and open container...so even if the officer doesn't have PC to search for an offense outside of traffic, if they have PC for any other offense they CAN (not saying they will) arrest for it and search incident to that. Or, if they have PC about another offense occuring (for example the Court of Criminal Appeals in Texas has said the smell of marihuana is enough for PC) they can search without a warrant.

 

Actually, they're called pre-textual stops, but (and again, I'm not arguing as to whether this is right or wrong) the Supreme Court has said pre-textual stops are legal. A pre-textual stop is where an officer will pull someone over for a traffic offense because they believe more is going on and want to check it out...you may not like it, but it's legal (as long as there was an actual traffic violation).

 

I wish you all would quit saying that because it is not true. There have been numerous cases across the country where officers with prior criminal records have been hired.

 

I have been pulled over many times due to my personal appearance and the appearance of my car by police who figured I'd be an easy bust. I also worked with police for a couple of years as part of my job and got to know several, so I feel pretty qualified to speak about 'em.

As to searches of your car, technically cops can't search your car without consent. But there is a very simple loophole-- after you've been arrested, your car can be searched for as long as the cop wants. In Texas, you can be arrested for virtually any traffic offense, such as not signaling, not having a front license plate, whatever. ALWAYS consent to a police search of your car. If the cop is asking to search your car, he has already made up his mind that he will be searching your car. If you refuse the search, you will simply be placed under arrest and your car will be searched anyway. That's standard, if not official, procedure. Whether there's anything to be found or not, the decision to get a ticket versus getting a ticket and going to jail is in your hands when a cop asks to search your car. Never will he ask to search your car and then not search it if you say no.

As to the attitude of "never talk to cops," that isn't a good idea, either. The best way to treat officers is by showing them the same respect that you have for yourself. Look a cop in the eye and call him "officer." Be compliant, calm, and accomodating. All cops need is a little respect and courtesy and they will return the same, even if you're black or freak-looking like me. Some cops are on power trips, some need attention, most are just punching a clock. If they feel you're no threat they'll stay comfortable and treat you lightly. That's about the best you can hope for.

 

THERE WAS NOT A TRAFFIC VIOLATION! That is why he stated it was a courtesy stop. He stated that the light being out was NOT illegal. Try again.

 

You just named a bunch of people that are also held to high standards by society, so kudos to you for validating the point. Yes, everyone is held to high standards within their own industry, but society holds police officers to higher standards then janitors.

 

Actually there was a traffic violation:
547.322(g) of the Texas Transportation Code:
A taillamp, including a separate lamp used to illuminate
a rear license plate, must emit a light when a headlamp or auxiliary
driving lamp is lighted.

http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000547.00.htm#547.322.00

Do I really need to try again? I wasn't even arguing with you if that was right or wrong - just telling you what the law is - its actually a very common reason officers stop people.

 

Yes because I live in Arkansas, not Texas and even the officer said THERE WAS NOTHING ILLEGAL ABOUT IT!

 

Hate to break it to you... no license plate light was illegal under Arkansas State Law.

Arkansas Annotated Code.

§ 27-36-215. Drawn vehicles; tail lights

(c)(1)(A) Either a tail lamp or a separate lamp shall be so constructed and placed as to illuminate with a white light the rear registration plate and render it clearly legible for a distance of fifty feet (50') to the rear.

(B) It shall be a violation of this subsection (c) for any other color of light to be displayed around the registration plate or for white light to be excesssively [FN1] used so as to render the registration plate illegible from a distance of less than fifty feet (50').

(2) Any tail lamp or tail lamps, together with any separate lamp for illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.

 

Like I said, the officer said it wasn't illegal. They are supposed to be the leaders of law enforcement and know their stuff, after all they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us, right? He was wrong then or maybe he wasn't as only one of the two lights was out.

 

Dude, I'm not even arguing with you, but just so you know - it's illegal in Arkansas too:

Arkansas Code Title 27-36-215 (c)(2)
Any tail lamp or tail lamps, together with any separate lamp for
illuminating the rear registration plate, shall be so wired as to be lighted
whenever the headlamps or auxiliary driving lamps are lighted.

 

Read my above post.

 

I did - and if I was arguing with you about that point it would be relevant, but I wasn't. I was simply pointing out that stops like that are legal - nothing more nothing less.

 

Perhaps everyone is right. Clearly the law states what the law states. Perhaps the officer could still read the plate and as a "courtesy" stopped the driver because the loss of the second light would result in a clear violation.

 

How was it legal if the plate was still illuminated?

 

Yes but the plate was still illuminated so there really was no violation or need to run the occupant's information, no?

 

Not illegal but a pretty common ruse by criminals trying to avoid their license plate being viewed.

Sometimes they will smear mud...

 

Dude?

 

What you're stating would be an argument for trial on a ticket like that. However, if one of the lights was out and the officer could articulate that the visibility was lowered its still sufficient for probable cause to stop (which is all we're talking about). So you can argue that it was legal until you're blue in the face, but you're missing the point - there was probable cause to stop the vehicle.

 

We got a first degree felony amount of ecstasy off of someone the other day based on a pre-textual stop!