A traffic stop is not an arrest. It is a temporary detention.

If it WERE an arrest, officers would have to mirandize before any ANY questions about the offense.  Questions such as , do you know how fast you were going, do you know why I pulled you over, etc., , or have you been drinking, how much have you been drinking, etc are all questions about the offense.  

If a traffic stop WERE an arrest, you could search the driver beyond Terry via search incident to arrest.  


It is driving me crazy, but I cannot recall the suprement court decision.......I'll look and post it later here.

No shit. That's what I just said.

That is not true. Miranda is not required unless the subject is in custody (meaning under arrest––not detained, not suspected, but already arrested) AND they are being interrogated. If the subject is not arrested AND being interrogated there is no need for Miranda.

Are you thinking of Dickerson VS United States?

...and in Harris County.....and most of the City of Houston....

The only 2 non-arrestable traffic offenses in the State of Texas.....But do you know why?

Because everybody in Texas like to drive fast and drink? (Though not everyone likes to necessarily do them at the same time)

The ole 7-step traffic stop, thank you DPS.....

I would say Yes and NO. No in that if your not questioning them then no Miranda. It really boils down to your local DA. Some DA's want suspects Mirandized as soon as they are no longer free to leave. You have to know how they work.

Well, there is that buuuuuuuuuut, the reason we were given in the academy is that 'it is bad for tourism'.  Arrest a bunch of people passing through the state on their way to either coast when they were speeding and they'll start avoiding Texas....

I do believe that to be a true statement but I dont think thats the legal reason for no arrest on speeding/open container.

Not required info.  We can ask but you don't have to provide it.  If I really want to find it though I can run your plates and on an enhanced return it will give me your SS# assuming the vehicle is registered to you.

To know where to come and get you if your citation turns into a warrant.

Only if you are asking them questions.  I've had homicide detectives tell me to not mirandize if I arrest, detain someone I know they are going to interrogate.  Their thinking was that if they lawyer up then they can't talk to them where as they would have a better chance of not having them lawyer up.

I realize that. I said you dont HAVE to be.

I was just saying that you don't have to be.

My sister was threatened with arrest once for not providing her SS# in a little town between here and Dallas.

My mistake-misunderstanding.

Either the cop was wrong or he was bluffing. There is no legal requirement to provide police with your SSN.

Of course he was bluffing. After he asked her if she wanted to go to jail she replied with, "Are you really going to take me to jail if I don't give you my SSN?" When he replied in the affirmative she told him, well here's my SS card and handed him a business card. She's an attorney.

He changed his mind and gave her a warning for speeding.

Just to muddy up the waters again, I checked today with one of our traffic officers and a Sgt. in the city I work for- I'm in the Public Works Dept.
Both said that if any part of the car is in the intersection, and the light is red, they have ran the red light and will be cited.

As for not having to mirandize unless the person is in custody think about responding to a scene of, say, a murder. you walk up and see someone standing nearby. You ask them "did you kill him?" He says yes and here's the weapon. You didn't mirandize.
What happens?

Jim

Any answer would be admissible in evidence since the person was not in custody and Miranda warnings are only required for the interrogation of persons in custody.. A police officer is free to approach anyone and ask them a question, and absent some other legal reason for detention, the person is free to say nothing and walk away. As for person's in custody, Texas law provides additional requirements above Miranda for a custodial statement to be admissible. As a general rule, with certain exceptions, a confession or statement made in custody has to be in writing and signed by the suspect, or recorded on audio or video.
(former Harris Co. Ass't DA here).

Contrary to popular belief, Texas Law does NOT provide for you to be jailed for most violations of the Transportation Code. If an Officer stops you for a traffic related offense he has two options. Issue a citation and secure your promise to appear, or take you immediately before the magistrate. An Officer is authorized arrest you if you refuse to sign a promise to appear. However, he is not authorized to take you to jail. He must take you immediately before the magistrate (note: Immediately means "right now")  Failure to do so is misconduct of office and the officer is subject to removal from his position.(see section 543.008 below) Most officers do not know this because most departments do not teach their officers that this is State Law. Most Citizens are unaware of their Rights. There is an old adage that if you don't know your Rights, you don't have any.

Caution, Never argue with the officer on the side of the road. This is not the time or place for it. Be courteous!

Learn Your Rights!


TRANSPORTATION CODE

TITLE 7. VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC

SUBTITLE C. RULES OF THE ROAD

CHAPTER 543. ARREST AND PROSECUTION OF VIOLATORS

SUBCHAPTER A. ARREST AND CHARGING PROCEDURES; NOTICES AND PROMISES [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR

Sec. 543.001.  ARREST WITHOUT WARRANT AUTHORIZED.  Any peace officer may arrest without warrant a person found committing a violation of this subtitle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 543.002.  PERSON ARRESTED [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] BE TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE.  (a)  A person arrested for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor shall be immediately taken before a magistrate if:

(1)  the person is arrested on a charge of [Previous Hit] failure [Next Hit] [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] stop in the event of an accident causing damage [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] property; or

(2)  the person demands an immediate appearance before a magistrate or refuses [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] make a written promise [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court as provided by this subchapter.

(b)  The person must be taken before a magistrate who:

(1)  has jurisdiction of the offense;

(2)  is in the county in which the offense charged is alleged [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] have been committed; and

(3)  is nearest or most accessible [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] the place of arrest.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 543.003.  NOTICE [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR REQUIRED: PERSON NOT TAKEN BEFORE MAGISTRATE.  An officer who arrests a person for a violation of this subtitle punishable as a misdemeanor and who does not take the person before a magistrate shall issue a written notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court showing the time and place the person is [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear, the offense charged, the name and address of the person charged, and, if applicable, the license number of the person's vehicle.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 701, Sec. 3, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.


Sec. 543.004.  NOTICE [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR REQUIRED: CERTAIN OFFENSES.  (a)  An officer shall issue a written notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear if:

(1)  the offense charged is speeding or a violation of the open container law, Section 49.03, Penal Code; and

(2)  the person makes a written promise [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court as provided by Section 543.005.

(b)  If the person is a resident of or is operating a vehicle licensed in a state or country other than this state, Subsection (a) applies only as provided by Chapter 703.

(c)  The offenses specified by Subsection (a) are the only offenses for which issuance of a written notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear is mandatory.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 62, Sec. 17.07, eff. Sept. 1, 1999.


Sec. 543.005.  PROMISE [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR; RELEASE.   [Previous Hit] To [Next Hit] secure release, the person arrested must make a written promise [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court by signing the written notice prepared by the arresting officer. The signature may be obtained on a duplicate form or on an electronic device capable of creating a copy of the signed notice. The arresting officer shall retain the paper or electronic original of the notice and deliver the copy of the notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] the person arrested. The officer shall then promptly release the person from custody.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 701, Sec. 4, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.


Sec. 543.006.  TIME AND PLACE OF APPEARANCE.  (a)  The time specified in the notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear must be at least 10 days after the date of arrest unless the person arrested demands an earlier hearing.

(b)  The place specified in the notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear must be before a magistrate having jurisdiction of the offense who is in the municipality or county in which the offense is alleged [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] have been committed.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 543.007.  NOTICE [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR: COMMERCIAL VEHICLE OR LICENSE.  A notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear issued [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] the operator of a commercial motor vehicle or holder of a commercial driver's license or commercial driver learner's permit, for the violation of a law regulating the operation of vehicles on highways, must contain the information required by department rule, [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] comply with Chapter 522 and the federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (Title 49, U.S.C. Section 2701 et seq.).

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. Amended by Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 701, Sec. 5, eff. Aug. 30, 1999.


Sec. 543.008.  VIOLATION BY OFFICER.  A violation by an officer of a provision of Sections 543.003-543.007 is misconduct in office and the officer is subject [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] removal from the officer's position.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 543.009.  COMPLIANCE WITH OR VIOLATION OF PROMISE [Previous Hit] TO [Next Hit] APPEAR.  (a)  A person may comply with a written promise [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court by an appearance by counsel.

(b)  A person who wilfully violates a written promise [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear in court, given as provided by this subchapter, commits a misdemeanor regardless of the disposition of the charge on which the person was arrested.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 543.010.  SPECIFICATIONS OF SPEEDING CHARGE.  The complaint and the summons or notice [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] appear on a charge of speeding under this subtitle must specify:

(1)  the maximum or minimum speed limit applicable in the district or at the location; and

(2)  the speed at which the defendant is alleged [Previous Hit] to [Next Hit] have driven.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

Quoted:
What about refusing to give your SS#



State Law requires you to give your Name, Address and Date of Birth.

Mojo, I love that picture!

That's what I was thinking, I guess it's more like being detained though and not arrested. I don't really know why anyone would make a big deal about signing one any way, it's not an admittance to guilt, I guess some people just want to be dicks about. To each his own though.

Where do you think the magistrate is? In an office attached to the jail. That's what being arrested means––an officer takes you to jail where you wait in line to the see the magistrate.



His statement is perfectly admissible because he was not under arrest at the time you asked him.

From Miranda v. Arizona:



Again, unless the you are interrogating a person already in custody, Miranda doesn't apply. You can ask a suspect who you have not yet arrested any questions you want without Mirandizing him, and his answers are admissible in court.

Of course they are arrestable.  If the person refuses to sign.....

 They are dumbasses too.

They each have over 20 years on the force. Without you knowing anything about them calling them dumbasses is absurd. We are sure of our facts. Is there no possibility that you might be wrong?

Jim

I do know about them.  They seem to think the law is what it is not.

You are NOT sure of your facts.  They are wrong.  You have been shown the law.  If your officers would like to tell us where this magic law is located, I'll apologize.  

They are wrong.  

Txinvestigator is correct and yes they are dumbasses.  I work with officers that believe the same as you dumbassess, I have to correct them also.

Our judge will only meet them in the jail after they have been book in, so yes your arrested.

I thought we went over this. What's the problem here

What facts are those? "I'm right because a friend of mine said so" is not a fact.

The law has been posted here in plain English. That is a fact.

What PD are you asking your questions at?

The problem is that I checked with officers known to me, with many years of experience, who's opinions confirm what I remember being taught. When others tell me that they think exactly what I remember it tends to confirm to me that I was right.
Some here accuse them of being dumbasses and of being wrong while they are the only ones right.
I tend to believe people I know personally to be informed, competant, professional officers over blowhards on the internet.

I'm done with this. Neither side is going to convince the other that they are wrong- both sides believe they are right. Believe what you want- I will.

Jim

I'm not calling them dumbasses but I've met A LOT of Officers who have not looked at the laws since they got out of the academy. A lot has changed in 20+ years, and while that is what you were taught it doesn't mean it's still the same today.

You would probably argue with a street sign and take the wrong road too.

You believe someone who happens to agree with your jacked up memory over the actual law.   Good Grief...

And this BS about the law used to be that way is just that, BS.  I went through the academy in 1983, and the law was the same then as now.  My FATHER went to the DPS academy in the mid 50's, and the law was the same THEN.  

I went through in 84 and I am still here (I worked traffic enforcement for 13yrs) ... Its stll the same as Texinvestigator says...Period!

Instander is the word, and for all intents and purposes you ARE under arrest.  You are NOT free to leave, and you will be processed at the city or county jail..

No, at that point they are being arrested for failure to sign promise to appear, NOT for speeding or having an open container..

Can you show me the arrest title for failure to sign promise to appear.

So you're going to believe what you feel like believing instead of the actual demonstrated truth? Are you a liberal?

There is no offense for failure to sign a promise to appear.  



If the person will not make a written promise to appear an arrest may be made as per section 543.001