As always, a FReep mail will get you on or off this Houston topics ping list.
---
Support Your Houston FReeper Chapter!
---
As always, a FReep mail will get you on or off this Houston topics ping list.
---
Support Your Houston FReeper Chapter!
---
Pooch could have smelled residue from money that had been used earlier by someone else in drug deals or to snort. Did they have the dog sniff YOU or your wallet too?
These dogs are extremely effective tools when used properly; no bark, no contraband; move on. I believe that they start failing long after the residue falls below legal limits.
You did everything right and that takes guts!
Eaker
You did everything right, but it's quite obvious that you were singled out as a possible drugrunner, and the police invented "probable cause" to search your vehicle. You don't have any recourse, and this is just another example of how the crazy War On Drugs is assaulting the rights of innocent citizens.
I'm about to head off to work so I can 40% of my income in taxes. On the way, I will pay tolls so I can get to work.
En route, I expect to see 3 or 4 tax collectors sitting alongside the road waiting to take even more money from me. Of course, they will be sitting right by the change (for no apparent reason) in speed limit from 70 to 60.
Hell, somedays I just want to sit at home all day rather than tolerate all this stuff.
When I read this to Weinie, she went on the warpath!
1) You do "look" like a child of the 60s
2) Your speech impediment to a small town cop could be construed as "nervous behavior".
3)Considering "events" over the weekend...the news of people "stealing" souvenirs from the wreckage site probably was cause for the police to call out all types of police forces...even a drug task force.
4)Sounds as though the drug task force was doing about all they know what to do...PROFILE and harrass.
5) Profiling comes in ALL flavors...be thankful they didn't have any "throw down" drugs....
Do you/did you look suspicious that day?
Did you have luggage, packages or other material in the other seats that was visible above the lower window line?
Was you vehicle 'stuffed'?
Did you have paperwork (bill of lading) showing that you were engaged in the activity you said you were engaged in?
Did you have any paperwork that showed a list of addresses for those whom luggage was being delivered?
Were there identifying tags or labels (of any sort) affixed or attached to the luggage from an airline or from a carrier like UPS or FEDEX?
That is all ...
Northbound on Highway 59, a few miles south of Cleveland, I went past a semi-marked police vehicle (no external emergency lights; a seal on the door) t
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I wonder if they are compliant with TX state law on this.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -§ 721.004. Inscription Required on Municipal and County-Owned Motor Vehiclesc and Heavy Equipment
(a) The office having control of a motor vehicle or piece of heavy equipment owned by a municipality or county shall have printed on each side of the vehicle or equipment the name of the municipality or county, followed by the title of the department or office having custody of the vehicle or equipment.
(b) The inscription must be in a color sufficiently different from the body of the vehicle or equipment so that the lettering is plainly legible.
(c) The title of the department or office must be in letters plainly legible at a distance of not less than 100 feet.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
From:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/tr/tr0072100.html#top
BTW - police are exampt - so are medical examiners and certain magistrates according to code 721.005.
And - the 'code enforcement' guy is exempt too, as shown below, if he is "designated to enforce environmental criminal laws".
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
§ 721.005. Exemption From Inscription Requirement for Certain Municipal and County-Owned Motor Vehicles- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Subsection (a) as amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 66, § 1
(a) The governing body of a municipality may exempt from the requirements of Section 721.004 an automobile when used to perform an official duty by a:
(1) police department;
(2) magistrate as defined by Article 2.09, Code of Criminal Procedure;
(3) medical examiner; or
(4) municipal code enforcement officer designated to enforce environmental criminal laws.
Subsection (a) as amended by Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 140, § 1
(a) The governing body of a municipality may exempt from the requirements of Section 721.004:
(1) an automobile when used to perform an official duty by a:
(A) police department;
(B) magistrate as defined by Article 2.09, Code of Criminal Procedure; or
(C) medical examiner; or
(2) an automobile used by a municipal employee only when conducting an investigation involving suspected fraud or other mismanagement within the municipality.
(b) The commissioners court of a county may exempt from the requirements of Section 721.004:
(1) an automobile when used to perform an official duty by a:
(A) police department;
(B) sheriff's office;
(C) constable's office;
(D) criminal district attorney's office;
(E) district attorney's office;
(F) county attorney's office;
(G) magistrate as defined by Article 2.09, Code of Criminal Procedure;
(H) county fire marshal's office; or
(I) medical examiner; or
(2) a juvenile probation department vehicle used to transport children, when used to perform an official duty.
(c) An exemption provided under this section does not apply to a contract deputy.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts
1997, 75th Leg., ch. 355, § 1, eff. May 27, 1997; Acts 1997, 75thLeg., ch. 46, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1997.
Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, § 17.38, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts
2001, 77th Leg., ch. 66, § 1, eff. May 14, 2001; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 140, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 2001.+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + § 721.006. Operation of Vehicle in Violation of Chapter; Offense
(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) operates on a municipal street or on a highway a motor vehicle or piece of equipment that does not have the inscription required by this chapter; or
(2) uses a motor vehicle that is exempt by rule under Section 721.003, and that use is not expressly specified by the rule.
(b) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not less than $25 or more than $100.
Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, § 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
42 USC § 1983 -- Civil action for deprivation of rights:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.