got pulled over lastnight in the ws6
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Denton
Originally Posted by c5_ls1_6spd
Wrong! Texas law states that a peace officer must have probable cause to warrant a search of the vehicle. No front license plate and illegal exhaust does not warrant a search of the vehicle, which is in clear violation of the Rules and Procedures of the Harris County Sheriff's Dept and the Texas Law.
However, my reasoning for the officer warranting a search of the vehicle is because he either saw your nitrous bottle from the rear window or he saw the nitrous bottle after approaching you. Which evokes the "In clear & plain view" rule.
However, my reasoning for the officer warranting a search of the vehicle is because he either saw your nitrous bottle from the rear window or he saw the nitrous bottle after approaching you. Which evokes the "In clear & plain view" rule.
You can always give them permission to search certain areas. If you don't want them digging through your glovbox or trunk, tell them they can't search there. Unless they have p/c to search the entire car, you can set limits as to where they conduct a search.
Originally Posted by U2SLOW4ME
Um, where did you get your Law degree? A cracker jack box? A Police Officer CAN do a "pat down" of the area within his immediate reach for weapons, without your consent. If your gonna post about the law know what your talking about before hand.
There is a difference between a pat down and a search of a vehicle.
LOL. son, you should have not been falling asleep in class. Open your criminal justice textbook and re read on the search and consent rules. Also re read the post you are rebutting against and stay off the hallucinogens.
A pat down is not a search of the car. An officer cannot go up to an innocent person on the street and just start patting them down.
A pat down is performed when the officer feels for the safety of his life. A patdown can be performed before being detained or before arrest. Often patdowns are performed at the officer's discretion to check for weapons, drugs, etc.
An officer cannot do a search of a personal possesion unless he has probable cause. Probable cause being an immediate threat, drugs or weapons in sight, etc.
A search without consent or probable is a violation of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
If you can't produce a proable cause then you have no case.
Some texts you might want to take a look at are the 2006 version of the Texas Penal and The Texas State Statutes.
Weeks v U.S.
Last edited by c5_ls1_6spd; Mar 31, 2007 at 01:03 PM.
Originally Posted by LS69TA
You can always give them permission to search certain areas. If you don't want them digging through your glovbox or trunk, tell them they can't search there. Unless they have p/c to search the entire car, you can set limits as to where they conduct a search.
who cares about the search anyway??? he got a ticket for the exhaust and the license plate. the plate will get dropped if you fix it and show them, happened to me multiple times. As for exhaust I payed the fine but it went away after that. If it's an illegal exhaust no point to fight it and have them look further into it. Cops have to give tickets to get paid so as far as ********, well sometimes they have to be. Everyone chose to go with illegal parts and everyone takes the risk of a ticket.
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Denton
Originally Posted by c5_ls1_6spd
First off, it's clear you are nieve when it comes to the law.
There is a difference between a pat down and a search of a vehicle.
LOL. son, you should have not been falling asleep in class. Open your criminal justice textbook and re read on the search and consent rules. Also re read the post you are rebutting against and stay off the hallucinogens.
A pat down is not a search of the car. An officer cannot go up to an innocent person on the street and just start patting them down.
A pat down is performed when the officer feels for the safety of his life. A patdown can be performed before being detained or before arrest. Often patdowns are performed at the officer's discretion to check for weapons, drugs, etc.
An officer cannot do a search of a personal possesion unless he has probable cause. Probable cause being an immediate threat, drugs or weapons in sight, etc.
A search without consent or probable is a violation of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
If you can't produce a proable cause then you have no case.
Some texts you might want to take a look at are the 2006 version of the Texas Penal and The Texas State Statutes.
Weeks v U.S.
There is a difference between a pat down and a search of a vehicle.
LOL. son, you should have not been falling asleep in class. Open your criminal justice textbook and re read on the search and consent rules. Also re read the post you are rebutting against and stay off the hallucinogens.
A pat down is not a search of the car. An officer cannot go up to an innocent person on the street and just start patting them down.
A pat down is performed when the officer feels for the safety of his life. A patdown can be performed before being detained or before arrest. Often patdowns are performed at the officer's discretion to check for weapons, drugs, etc.
An officer cannot do a search of a personal possesion unless he has probable cause. Probable cause being an immediate threat, drugs or weapons in sight, etc.
A search without consent or probable is a violation of the 4th amendment of the Bill of Rights.
If you can't produce a proable cause then you have no case.
Some texts you might want to take a look at are the 2006 version of the Texas Penal and The Texas State Statutes.
Weeks v U.S.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Originally Posted by U2SLOW4ME
Well I never said a "pat down" is a "search" of the car. Are you saying it is? I wasn't there, were u? I was making a statement that you can do a "pat down" for weapons. When an Officer is making a traffic stop that person IS lawfully detained so you can pat them down for weapons, he wasn't an innocent citizen walking down the street. I wasn't there, not sure what the Officer was thinking, but obviously he did have probable cause to stop the vehicle. A "pat down" is not a "search" but during a "pat down" you can get probable cause to search ie: gun in the pocket or waistband or stuck between the seat where you can see it without openeing anything. Maybe you should re read what I wrote. I was more stating maybe the Officer was doing a "pat down" of the vehicle and not searching it. Nitrous is not illegal so y would that make the "plain view" come into effect? Maybe my wording of the previous statement was not clear to get my point across.
Also before you detain someone, you perform a pat down search. Not detain and then perform a pat down.
You don't have to be there to actually know what what going on. What you do is take the facts and descriptions that were stated and put them together and analyze them. It's called thinking like an attorney. You keep using this "it's obvious you weren't there defense", if that was the case, every attorney would be out of a job.
Of course the officer had probable cause to stop the vehicle; no front plate and dumped exhaust.
With that being said, please re read your textbooks and if you don't know the law, don't voice your law knowledge.
Originally Posted by SiL3NtXWS6
technically, he is allowed to look inside and underneath, but he cannot open anything. Since fbodies have no trunk, anything in view is fair game, it sucks.
He can only search with-in arms reach with-out consent anything else he needs consent or probable cause.
He can also look from the outside in and if he sees something that would give him probable cause he needs no consent.
He also can search incident to arrest with out consent and can at ANY time search your person for his on your safety.
As far as the "**** the Police" people you make me laugh you guys are always the people when in trouble, your car gets broken into, your house gets broken into or you get assaulted are the first people to call the people you claim to "Hate". Its quite amusing.
None the less you broke the law pay the tickets and shut up.....or put a plate on the front most part of said vehicle and fight the noise violation ticket(exhaust too loud) as said cop had no Db meter to measure if said exhaust was in fact in violation. In the end you will pay more fighting the tickets than just paying them and moving on.
Last edited by hebdog7; Apr 1, 2007 at 11:01 PM.
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Denton
Where in the law does it say you have to have a permit to carry nitrous oxide? It was just added to texas law as a volitile chemical but it is only an offense if it is used to affect the person.
§ 485.011. PERMIT REQUIRED. A person may not sell an
abusable volatile chemical at retail unless the person or the
person's employer holds, at the time of the sale, a volatile
chemical sales permit for the location of the sale.
For sale not possession or transport is ever mentioned.
In texas law Nitrous is only mentioned in Health and safety code and the occupations code for dentists.
§ 485.011. PERMIT REQUIRED. A person may not sell an
abusable volatile chemical at retail unless the person or the
person's employer holds, at the time of the sale, a volatile
chemical sales permit for the location of the sale.
For sale not possession or transport is ever mentioned.
In texas law Nitrous is only mentioned in Health and safety code and the occupations code for dentists.
Teching In
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: San Antonio, TX
hey guys, my next car will most likely be a black ws6, and i am just curious:
do cops really pull you guys over with no provocation? i mean, cops follow me every once in a while, but none of them actually do anything. in fact, i was cruising with a cop the other day at 10mph over (i figured he caught me at 10 over, so i might as well keep going 10 over). nothing happened. i have a I/H/E setup on my car, btw.
do cops really pull you guys over with no provocation? i mean, cops follow me every once in a while, but none of them actually do anything. in fact, i was cruising with a cop the other day at 10mph over (i figured he caught me at 10 over, so i might as well keep going 10 over). nothing happened. i have a I/H/E setup on my car, btw.
Originally Posted by U2SLOW4ME
Where in the law does it say you have to have a permit to carry nitrous oxide? It was just added to texas law as a volitile chemical but it is only an offense if it is used to affect the person.
§ 485.011. PERMIT REQUIRED. A person may not sell an
abusable volatile chemical at retail unless the person or the
person's employer holds, at the time of the sale, a volatile
chemical sales permit for the location of the sale.
For sale not possession or transport is ever mentioned.
In texas law Nitrous is only mentioned in Health and safety code and the occupations code for dentists.
§ 485.011. PERMIT REQUIRED. A person may not sell an
abusable volatile chemical at retail unless the person or the
person's employer holds, at the time of the sale, a volatile
chemical sales permit for the location of the sale.
For sale not possession or transport is ever mentioned.
In texas law Nitrous is only mentioned in Health and safety code and the occupations code for dentists.
Federal Laws & Regulations:
Sec. 2925.33 Possessing nitrous oxide in or on a motor vehicle. [Effective 01/01/1997]
(A) As used in this section, "motor vehicle," "street," and "highway" have the same meanings as in secxtion 4511.01 of the Revised Code.
(B) Unless authorized under Chapter 3719., 4715., 4729., 4731., 4741., or 4765. of the Revised Code, no person shall possess an open cartridge of nitrous oxide in either of the following circumxstances:
(1) While operating or being a passenger in or on a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking;
(2) While being in or on a stationary motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing nitrous oxide in a motor vehicle, a misdexmeanor of the fourth degree.
Here is the excuse i always give the cops about my front license plate. I say that the 4 screw holes were stripped from previous owner and I just need to get them re-drilled. Then i show them my front license plate that i have behind my seat. Worked 3 times so far in the past month. Hope that helps.
TECH Regular
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
From: Arlington,TX
The reason why he searched it was because he told you to leave the door open,( his way around a search warrant ) if you would have gotten out and shut the door and locked it then he wouldn't have been able to do **** without a warrant. Happend to a friend of mine. Lawyer told him next time roll up the windows and lock the doors. If you leave it open then it's not locked and then he doesn't have to get a warrant to search the vechicle.
Staging Lane
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
From: Denton
Originally Posted by c5_ls1_6spd
Federal Laws & Regulations:
Sec. 2925.33 Possessing nitrous oxide in or on a motor vehicle. [Effective 01/01/1997]
(A) As used in this section, "motor vehicle," "street," and "highway" have the same meanings as in secxtion 4511.01 of the Revised Code.
(B) Unless authorized under Chapter 3719., 4715., 4729., 4731., 4741., or 4765. of the Revised Code, no person shall possess an open cartridge of nitrous oxide in either of the following circumxstances:
(1) While operating or being a passenger in or on a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking;
(2) While being in or on a stationary motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing nitrous oxide in a motor vehicle, a misdexmeanor of the fourth degree.
Sec. 2925.33 Possessing nitrous oxide in or on a motor vehicle. [Effective 01/01/1997]
(A) As used in this section, "motor vehicle," "street," and "highway" have the same meanings as in secxtion 4511.01 of the Revised Code.
(B) Unless authorized under Chapter 3719., 4715., 4729., 4731., 4741., or 4765. of the Revised Code, no person shall possess an open cartridge of nitrous oxide in either of the following circumxstances:
(1) While operating or being a passenger in or on a motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking;
(2) While being in or on a stationary motor vehicle on a street, highway, or other public or private property open to the public for purposes of vehicular traffic or parking.
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing nitrous oxide in a motor vehicle, a misdexmeanor of the fourth degree.
OPEN BOTTLE and it is federal law, not state law......Here is something else for you to read that I guess was not covered in your classes.
General. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court
held that a law enforcement officer could
perform a “frisk” of a suspect if, during a lawful
stop, the officer has a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that the suspect might be presently
armed and dangerous. The rationale supporting
the “frisk” of a suspect’s person has been
extended to include vehicles.
Requirements. There are two requirements
for a lawful “frisk” of a vehicle for weapons:
First, a law enforcement officer must have
lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject
of the frisk. Like the investigative detention of
a person, this element requires that the officer
have a reasonable suspicion, based upon
specific and articulable facts, that criminal
activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger
is involved in that criminal activity. The second
requirement is that the officer have a reasonable
belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous
and may gain immediate control of a weapon.
Scope. If reasonable suspicion exists to believe
that the driver or passenger is dangerous and
may gain immediate control of a weapon, a law
enforcement officer may “frisk” that person, as
well as the entire passenger compartment of the
vehicle, including any unlocked container.
However, a law enforcement officer may not
“frisk” the trunk of the vehicle, or any locked
container located in the vehicle’s passenger
compartment.
Terry V/ Ohio is good for officer safety, if somebody even looks like they're up to something, I'll pat them down. Personally, once they're out of the car, I don't see much need to look for weapons in the "lunging zone", or the immediate areas where they could reach to grab a weapon. If they're getting arrested, then we'll search due to the arrest. Once they're out of the car they won't be getting back in unless we're done with them.
We don't have fourth degree misdemeanors in Texas. Only M/C, M/B, M/A. I'm assuming this is talking about pharmaceutical N20?
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of possessing nitrous oxide in a motor vehicle, a misdexmeanor of the fourth degree.
Originally Posted by U2SLOW4ME
OPEN BOTTLE and it is federal law, not state law......Here is something else for you to read that I guess was not covered in your classes.
General. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court
held that a law enforcement officer could
perform a “frisk” of a suspect if, during a lawful
stop, the officer has a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that the suspect might be presently
armed and dangerous. The rationale supporting
the “frisk” of a suspect’s person has been
extended to include vehicles.
Requirements. There are two requirements
for a lawful “frisk” of a vehicle for weapons:
First, a law enforcement officer must have
lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject
of the frisk. Like the investigative detention of
a person, this element requires that the officer
have a reasonable suspicion, based upon
specific and articulable facts, that criminal
activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger
is involved in that criminal activity. The second
requirement is that the officer have a reasonable
belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous
and may gain immediate control of a weapon.
Scope. If reasonable suspicion exists to believe
that the driver or passenger is dangerous and
may gain immediate control of a weapon, a law
enforcement officer may “frisk” that person, as
well as the entire passenger compartment of the
vehicle, including any unlocked container.
However, a law enforcement officer may not
“frisk” the trunk of the vehicle, or any locked
container located in the vehicle’s passenger
compartment.
General. In Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court
held that a law enforcement officer could
perform a “frisk” of a suspect if, during a lawful
stop, the officer has a reasonable and articulable
suspicion that the suspect might be presently
armed and dangerous. The rationale supporting
the “frisk” of a suspect’s person has been
extended to include vehicles.
Requirements. There are two requirements
for a lawful “frisk” of a vehicle for weapons:
First, a law enforcement officer must have
lawfully stopped the vehicle that is the subject
of the frisk. Like the investigative detention of
a person, this element requires that the officer
have a reasonable suspicion, based upon
specific and articulable facts, that criminal
activity is afoot and that the driver or passenger
is involved in that criminal activity. The second
requirement is that the officer have a reasonable
belief that the driver or passenger is dangerous
and may gain immediate control of a weapon.
Scope. If reasonable suspicion exists to believe
that the driver or passenger is dangerous and
may gain immediate control of a weapon, a law
enforcement officer may “frisk” that person, as
well as the entire passenger compartment of the
vehicle, including any unlocked container.
However, a law enforcement officer may not
“frisk” the trunk of the vehicle, or any locked
container located in the vehicle’s passenger
compartment.
The officer's reasoning for searching the vehicle that night was that he saw the nitrous bottle.
Also another key word to pay close attention to is "REASONABLE" suspicion.
Again, meaning if an officer an pulls you over, he cannot search your car unless he has PROBABLE cause. We're back at sqaure one again and going no where with these posts.
Originally Posted by LS69TA
Terry V/ Ohio is good for officer safety, if somebody even looks like they're up to something, I'll pat them down. Personally, once they're out of the car, I don't see much need to look for weapons in the "lunging zone", or the immediate areas where they could reach to grab a weapon. If they're getting arrested, then we'll search due to the arrest. Once they're out of the car they won't be getting back in unless we're done with them.
We don't have fourth degree misdemeanors in Texas. Only M/C, M/B, M/A. I'm assuming this is talking about pharmaceutical N20?
We don't have fourth degree misdemeanors in Texas. Only M/C, M/B, M/A. I'm assuming this is talking about pharmaceutical N20?
That subsection was from the federal laws and regulations. State Laws irons out and converts degrees of a misdemeanor.