Lonestarz28

How am i being a dick? I'm just informing people of how it works. And i never said an unmarked wouldn't call a marked uni. That is the exact SOP we use. And when was i ever asked what codes covered any of this? I'll be the first to admit i don't know, I don't know many officers who WOULD know without actually looking it up.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

As usual there is a lot of misinformation regarding the law based on people's opinions, their interpretation of the law, and relying on second or third hand information. I don't have time to go through post by post and point out all the misinformation so I am just going to keep it short and sweet.

The information Dan Stewart posted was from the Texas Transportation Code. It can be used as a defense to prosecution but it is not an affirmative defense and it does not override the Texas Penal Code 38.04, Evading Arrest or Detention.

There is no exemption in the law that says you don't have to pull over for an unmarked vehicle. And that is the key. A lot of people say you don't have to stop, the problem is that there is no exemption in the law that says you can just keep going if you can't see markings. At night there is no way you can tell if a vehicle is marked or not with strobes and LEDs going.

If you run from an unmarked patrol car or refuse to pull over you can and probably will be arrested and charged with a felony. You can try to argue that you didn't think it was a real cop but a judge doesn't have to allow the argument and a jury doesn't have to believe it.

The best tool in this situation is common sense. If you can't tell for certain if it's an actual patrol car, which is most of the time at night, pull over at the first safe opportunity and/or call 911 if you want. But remember, 911 isn't 100% fool proof. Just because the city 911 dispatcher tells you they don't have a car on a traffic stop at a certain location doesn't mean the county or state isn't trying to stop you. DPS more often than not does not use a local dispatch. If 911 says they don't know who is behind you, ask them to send an officer that way. When the officer who stopped you approaches, see what he/she identifies them self as and see if they are wearing the uniform of the agency they identified them self as. If they say Texas DPS and they are wearing a DPS uniform, then common sense says they are a DPS Trooper. If they say DPS and they are wearing blue, common sense says they are lying. If they are in plain clothes, ask for their agency and identification.

Also, it is 100% false that someone in an unmarked car has to call for a marked car. A plain clothes officer also does not have to call for a uniformed officer. That's why departments issue badges and identification.

Handling it any other way can and will land you in jail.

If my wife can handle this and knows the uniform of each and every agency around us, you should be able to handle this. It's not hard.

Dan Stewart

You don't?

....once again, from the State's own website

FARRAKHAN v. THE STATE OF TEXAS
http://www.cca.courts.state.tx.us/OP...PINIONID=16634

For those of you who can't stand to read......the evading charge was overturned specifically because of the Transportation Code I posted the link to.

Maybe MESS should call the courts and tell them how he just FAILED.

Shall we continue?.......

Dan Stewart

Actually, it does override the penal code......

See the link to the Appellate Court's judgement I posted above.

Or, here is an excerpt from the brief:

MESS

iTrader: (5)

Good job dan, run from the next unmarked car you see and tell us how it works out for you

Dan Stewart

No problem MESS.

I just pull over and call 911 on my cell phone.

But, you still FAILED.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

I've read it a year ago and again today. Do you understand what that link actually says? Do you understand that the information in the link does not establish law? Since you seem to believe that this link says that you don't have to stop for an unmarked patrol car, I can only assume that you don't understand what is posted in the link.

All this discusses is whether the original jury should have been able to reduce the TPC charge of evading arrest or detention to the TRC charge of fleeing or eluding.

You do realize that this was an opinion based solely on the facts of this particular case and not a broad decision stating that you don't have to stop for unmarked patrol cars, right?

All this says is that a marked patrol car using lights and a siren is proof that the officer was trying to detain the person and that for the TRC charge it is generally required that a car be marked and have lights and siren. It in no way addresses whether or not you can be charged with the TPC charge of evading arrest or detention if you fail to stop for an unmarked car.

Please re-read the link and try to understand the information. I know legalese can be difficult to understand at times and can easily confuse people. It's an unfortunate by product of our ever evolving legal system in an attempt to offer more concise verdicts. It's hard to read and at times I don't think our judiciary understands half of what they write. But the link you provided does not say what you think it says.

For those of you who are confused on the topic due to so much misinformation, I recommend contacting your DA's Office, speaking with an Assistant DA, and finding out exactly what criteria they use for prosecution. You will probably be surprised to learn that your DA can and will prosecute you for evading arrest or detention if you run from an unmarked car or do not stop within what has been deemed a reasonable distance. You will also find that the majority of cases end in prosecution.

MESS

iTrader: (5)

so you would stop and pull over, good boy

Dan Stewart

Actually it does state what I think it says.

More proof from the appellate court:

HORNE v. TX
http://www.6thcoa.courts.state.tx.us...OpinionID=8829

Scroll on down to the portion where the court issues instruction on how to weigh both the penal and transportation codes.

You will clearly see, in plain english, what guidelines the court sets forth in determining whether either evading or eluding were committed at all.

Fleeing or Attempting to Elude:
Transportation Code § 545.421(a), (b)
1.Defendant operates a motor vehicle. (a)
2.Defendant has willful state of mind. (a)
3.Defendant flees, attempts to elude, or fails to stop. (a)
4.Defendant does the above while a police vehicle is pursuing him or her. (a)
5.Defendant does it after having been given a visual or audible signal to stop. (a)
6.Officer must be uniformed and prominently display badge. (b)
7.Officer's vehicle must be appropriately marked as an official police vehicle. (b)

All seven requirements must be met.

Since you already knew of the Farrakhan judgement, you already knew of this one which specifically cited the precedence set in that case.

You keep stating how much you know about the matter, yet haven't posted one single supporting source citation to back up your argument.

Let's tally the proof:
1-Copy of Trans code section
1-Farrakhan v. TX
1-Horne v. TX

0-Any single shred of evidence contradicting the above

Dan Stewart

Really, post a link to one.

Just one.

Most of those cases would more than likely involve a marked cruiser becoming involved in the pursuit.

Sarge_13

iTrader: (1)

Lets see....6 throws out the argument that an off-duty officer can pull you over and give you a ticket and 7 throws out the argument of an unmarked vehicle.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

I don't have time to go through this case and point out your misunderstandings again. You continue to post links to opinions related to individual cases and fact. Cases that do not establish law. There are literally thousands of these cases per year. Many courts contradict other courts and themselves on a case by case basis. Only those rulings issued by the Texas Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court can render verdicts that change our laws. That has not happened in the matter of unmarked patrol cars. All you are doing is presenting case law that may or may not offer you a defense to prosecution in court. If you don't understand that then nothing anyone posts will be able to educate you. Continue digging through public information and coming to whatever conclusions you choose. Have fun.

You do realize that most county and district courts that render jury verdicts don't post information on websites beyond "guilty" or "not guilty", right? And the ones that do, do not have written opinions. Only those cases that go to the appellate stage have written rulings given because they are rendered by a panel of judges rather than a jury. A jury trial does not have a written ruling because they are not required to give any information other than "guilty" or "not guilty". So you know I don't have a way to post what percentage of evading cases end in prosecution. Of course you know that, that's why you said it. You say that I haven't posted a single link to back my assertions and everyone reading suddenly falls right in line with you. Oh well. I can offer only real life courtroom experience in the matter. I realize that in the age of text messaging and instant gratification that life experience means less than nothing if you don't have a link to a website, but I have better things to do than scour through thousands of cases and legal findings to post on a car website to try to prove information that is common sense and common knowledge to most people.

You win. Do whatever you like. Run from whomever you choose. Stop when you feel like stopping. Just be prepared to live with the consequences. I just wish you wouldn't give misleading advice to those who don't know any better.

For those of you reading, I recommend contacting an attorney and your local DA's Office to make an informed decision on the proper handling of these matters rather than relying on free information given by annonymous strangers on a website. I try to offer life experience to try to keep you out of handcuffs and to keep your name off of one of these appellate court rulings, but do whatever you want. Enjoy.

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

Again, these do not establish law. See the above post. If you truly believe that this establishes law and abolishes the validity of an argument, then I doubt anything can change your mind.

khibbets

iTrader: (1)

I guess you were WRONG. The law does not define what official markings are. Guys...read between the lines. I'm a cop and back when I worked the streets I drove an unmarked Crown Vic and arrested many dumb asses for evading arrest from me. And not one of them got off (that I can remember). I'm really not trying to start **** here, I'm just trying to keep someone from getting arrested because they think they know the law.

rooster99ss

iTrader: (8)

i can't believe you just used Quannell X as an example to win an argument of ANY kind

vette

LS1 tech is full of a lot of other stuff tooo
Thanks Dan,
That is the real thing......

LS1nterceptor

iTrader: (6)

Ya, he should only be used as an example of "what not to do". But don't worry, he didn't win anything using ole 'X. That case established no case law and in no way made any determination of whether you must stop for an unmarked police vehicle.

LS1vazquez

Calm down, I'm not saying you are a dick. I'm just saying you sound like one on the board, especially with the atrocious spelling and the masticated grammar. Ironically enough your not the only cop on LS1tech that makes a complete soup sandwich out of the english language every time they post.

I'm sure your a nice guy, it's just really hard to get lectured on the basics of traffic by someone who doesn't bother to observe the basics of the English language. Remember, it's a two way street and the door does indeed swing in both directions.

CarsandWomen

iTrader: (19)

I think the conclustion we all need to come to is that in the end it is up to the interpritation of the officer, ada, and jury if it comes to that. If the situation warrants, then dont stop, if it does, then stop. if you dont stop, be prepared to explain and defend your actions.

TWS

iTrader: (63)

****, I tried to read this thread and gave up.

Yesterday heading North on the Gulf Freeway to Houston we got passed by a murdered out Crown Vic with limo tint on sides and back. It had a couple anntennae on it. As he was going by I wondered if indeed it was an LEO. As soon as the Crown Vic passed clear of us... I saw the "Exempt" license plate. Sure as hell, it was a cop.

If it hasn't been said enough times already: if someone hooks up red and blue strobes and attempts to act like a cop (ie. pull people over etc.) they will go down hard with the real police catch up to them. PD's take that **** very seriously. If they hear about some idiots going around impersonating LEO's, the real po-po will make it a priority and expend a lot of effort to find and bust the fakers.