what does the state have to show?

[stephenk]

The link you posted is not the law of Texas. It is a forum based on the "common law" argument that state/federal laws do not apply to anyone.

Since the car is not yours you have no grounds to prevent the officers from searching the car. Since you claim the bag did not belong to you, you cannot assert any right to prevent the officers from looking in the bag.

You were driving a car that didn't belong to you and you had no identification on you. You essentially had no rights to prevent a search.

 

[kaboom]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law please read definition of common law. My constitutional rights are for me, my person, therefore it is irrelvant whose car I was in.

 

[justalayman]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/docs/TN/content/htm/tn.007.00.000521.00.htm#521.025.00

This will tell you that it is a law that you DO need a license....on you..... and show it to the police when requested. Crime committed.

As far as not reading your Miranda warning...if they didn't interrogate you...they didn't need to. You stated you refused to say anything so you exercised your rights and when they arrested you and got you to the station they then read you your rights....then they get to question you and use the results. If you gave them no info before rights given..no harm done for prosecution.

 

[stephenk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law please read definition of common law. My constitutional rights are for me, my person, therefore it is irrelvant whose car I was in.

Unfortunately for you the Supreme Court disagrees with your opinion. Did Wikipedia include that in its definition?

 

[Kane]

It's always been the law in Texas that police can arrest people on class C traffic tickets. In Atwater v. Lago Vista, that rule was challenged. The US SCT said it was just fine. ("On April 24, 2001, the United States Supreme Court gave a green light to police officers to handcuff and arrest individuals for minor offenses.") http://www.theinternetparty.org/supreme_court/index.php?section_type=sup&cat_name=U.S.+Constitution&td=20011010102932&page_sort=1

Atwater was arrested for failing to wear a seatbelt.

And layman is correct - you're required to have a driver's license on you when you drive in Texas.

If the police say they arrested you - either for running a red light or for failing to present a DL - the judge is liable to uphold the search, either as a search "incident to arrest," or as an inventory search.

And the fact that it was not his car does not mean he didn't have a privacy interest. But that's not likely to matter.

 

[kaboom]

I'm aware of that case, however I was not placed under arrest when the illegal search took place.

 

[RedemptionMan]

Then tell it to the judge. I doubt he will think that the search was illegal. What you are dealing with is applicability of the law. You can be detained, sited, and released for minor infractions or if you do not cooperate then you can be arrested for those same offenses. You were caught without a drivers license in somebody elses car and dope was found within that vehicle .... the first two factors alone gave the officers REASONABLE SUSPICION that other criminal acts are present. You argument is stupid....

 

[kaboom]

Stupid hmm I guess thats what it is. Please remember that I have two witnesses who saw the whole thing take place. Is anyone on this site a REAL lawyer?

 

[RedemptionMan]

Stupid hmm I guess thats what it is. Please remember that I have two witnesses who saw the whole thing take place. Is anyone on this site a REAL lawyer?

and you know what your witnesses will not even go to court..... ask your LAWYER that is defending you these questions --OK...

 

[kaboom]

Pardon me do you know these witnesses? Because they both are flabbergasted at the injustice that has occured and both have expressed willingness to take this as far as it goes.

 

[Kane]

I'm aware of that case, however I was not placed under arrest when the illegal search took place.

I think that's your best argument.

It's clear the police can search, incident to a lawful arrest. And that they can make the arrest on a Class C (red light and/or no DL).

It's also clear that the CANNOT search incident to a citation.

What's not clear, is whether they can search in a situation where they could either arrest you, OR give you a citation, but they haven't done either yet.

In other contexts - non-Class C arrests - the courts have said that as long as the police have probable cause to make the arrest, it doesn't matter whether they've actually taken you into custody yet.

But they seem to have shied away from saying that explicitly in the context of a traffic stop.

I suspect there's two reasons for it. 1.) The US SCT has already said that the police cannot do a search on the basis of a citation. If the Texas courts say they can do a search anytime they pull somebody over, they're effectively nullifying that decision. 2.) If they say the police can search anybody anytime they COULD make an arrest, they've effectively subjecting virtually all motorists to searches at any time (since the traffic laws are so numerous and ambiguous that it's practically impossible to drive any length of time without violating one of them).

If it were me I'd argue the police cannot do a search incident to arrest unless they've actually arrested you - at least in the context of Class C offenses. (Clearly that's not the rule in other contexts.) And I'd rely on Knowles v. Iowa. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=97-7597