I've been stopped by a cop. What do I do now? STFU!

No disrespect intended, but all lawyers say lawyer up.. I don't think it is always the best way to go. Take PI as an example, the fine is small, the burden of proof is small. You could take several days off work as he reschedules the case. Pay the fee, and still be convicted. Originally Posted by RoundPound

I don't always advise a defendant to lawyer up, and sometimes a defendant can get the same outcome on their case with or without a lawyer.

Members here and those from ASPD before have contacted me for nearly 10 years regarding various criminal matters. If the matter is simple, I don't mind going through the steps I think they need to complete to get the outcome they want. I know of many instances when a member has passed along my advice to another member, and so on. So it may behoove you to befriend a criminal defense attorney.

But if the charge is something above a Class C misdemeanor (which are ticketable offenses punishable by a fine only), and therefore jail time might be at play, I think nearly all defendants should do their best to hire a private lawyer (as opposed to applying for representation by the public defender or a court-appointed lawyer). And just being charged with some Class C misdemeanors (such as public intoxication or possession of drug paraphernalia) can cause a person a lot of trouble with their employer or spouse. Even a very intelligent person can't learn the law by reading statutes (or, god forbid, watching lawyer and cop TV shows and movies). There are many traps for the unwary, and only an experienced criminal lawyer will know them. I often try to undo plea bargains entered into by unrepresented defendants because they didn't understand the collateral consequences of what they were agreeing to.

Regarding your PI (public intoxication) hypothetical: I assume you're not talking about a particular case, but I think if a lawyer defending his client on a PI charge took actions resulting in his client having to take off from work to plead it out, the lawyer wouldn't be doing a good job. All city courts I know of allow a lawyer to plead out an adult defendant without the defendant being present. Also, unless there's aggravating circumstances (such as prior convictions), a PI defendant in the DFW area shouldn't ever be convicted -- At worst, they should get a short, unsupervised, deferred probation that, if successfully completed, would not result in a conviction, and the records regarding the case could be expunged (that is, destroyed). If for some reason a PI defendant wanted a trial and they were convicted, that would be another matter.

You pull up to a woman on HH's and say how's it going. You have not broken any laws at this point. Originally Posted by RoundPound

Actually, in the City of Dallas, and many other surrounding communities, merely being in a public place where it's common knowledge that prostitution takes place could be a crime called "manifestation of prostitution." Here's the City of Dallas code section:

MANIFESTING THE PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN PROSTITUTION.
(a) A person commits an offense if he loiters in a public place in a manner and under circumstances manifesting the purpose of inducing, enticing, soliciting, or procuring another to commit an act of prostitution. Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such purpose is manifested: that such person is a known prostitute or panderer, repeatedly beckons to, stops or attempts to stop, or engages passers-by in conversation, or repeatedly stops or attempts to stop motor vehicle operators by hailing, waving of arms, or any other bodily gesture. No arrest shall be made for a violation of this subsection unless the arresting officer first affords such person an opportunity to explain such conduct, and no one shall be convicted of violating this subsection if it appears at trial that the explanation given was true and disclosed a lawful purpose.
(b) For the purpose of this section, a "known prostitute or panderer" is a person who, within one year previous to the date of arrest for violation of this section, has within the knowledge of the arresting officer been convicted of prostitution, promotion of prostitution, aggravated promotion of prostitution, or compelling prostitution.
(c) The definition of prostitution in the Texas Penal Code shall apply to this section. (Ord. 15247)

Dallas City Code, vol. III, ch. 31, art. I, sec. 31-27, available at:

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.d...efault.htm$3.0

There are many things that the ladies and men do and say at this point to make sure neither are LE. On Bourbon street in NO, it seems to be you touch each other’s privates. Maybe SJ can clear this up for us. Originally Posted by RoundPound

There's a thread on this issue in the Legal Forum:

"How to not get arrested if [you happen] to meet [an] undercover [cop]"

I have a question: if I am asked to step out of my vehicle, should I immediately lock it after exiting to prevent ease of access and search? Does doing so demonstrate that I do NOT consent to search? Originally Posted by Admiral Nelson

Consent to search is an affirmative act -- that is, the detained person must state that they consent to allow their vehicle to be searched. There is no consent to conduct a warrantless search without the statement, be the car door open, closed, locked, or unlocked. If the cop opens a car door and starts a warrantless search without consent, the search is invalid. If he takes your keys from you and opens the locked door, or breaks a window with his nightstick, or affixes a C4 demolition charge to your door, before he conducts a warrantless search without consent, they would also all be invalid searches (although perhaps more entertaining).

Now from a practical matter, I see nothing wrong with locking your door after you exit your vehicle as an implied indicator of non-consent to search, as long as you don't make a provocative statement when you do so, such as "I'm locking my car, so you stay out, flatfoot!" There's nothing wrong with clarity, especially if the cop later lies and says you consented to the search.

If there's contraband (that is, something which the possession of which is per se illegal, like drugs, a bazooka, or Jimmy Hoffa's torso) in plain view in your car, that's another matter (and perhaps the subject of another thread). In brief, suffice it to say that the presence of plain view contraband allows the cops to search your vehicle, so be sure to secure your weapons and body parts in your trunk.

Finally, there is a fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court case which makes clear a warrantless, non-consensual search of a vehicle may only be commenced if there is a reasonable connection between the search and the suspected crime for which the driver was stopped. In other words, a cop can't stop a person for speeding then search their car for drugs. (By "speeding," I mean going over the speed limit, not using amphetamines.) But again, this topic is something to be discussed another day.

Thanks, SJ. Always appreciate you sharing your advice and the benefit of your experience. Now, I think I'll STFU.

SJ, RE the locking of the door of a vehicle.

Although I'm certain no one would be dumb enough to have something illegal in the vehicle that could be seen, wouldn't the "plain sight" issue be reduced by having your windows closed and then closing the door once you exit the vehicle thereby reducing any "plain sight" issues that might arise?

I've been given to understand that as long as the cop doesn't physically get into the vehicle, he or she can stand in an open car door and look around inside just like they can lean over and look into the open bed of a pickup truck as long as they don't touch or move anything.

But leaning into the car and flashing their light in and around the seats and backseat of an open door wouldn't be illegal would it?

Which would seem to me to make the closing of the door upon exit and locking it prudent.

I have been pulled over numerous times by police mainly (I believe), racial profiling.
I drive a very nice car and the assumption is that I am a drug dealer (I guess).
I always get out of those situations when LE learns of my profession.
It pisses me off to always have to explain what I do and (how did you afford this car?)
Whenever I ask, so why did u pull me over? I get reasons like.....you were driving too close to the car in front of you or i didn't see you use your signal light changing lanes....even when I didn't change lanes.
I know that it's not much I can do about it, but a friend of mine got pulled over for the same BS and LE said would he get out of the car and do a field test because LE said he smelled alcohol. My friend said he just used mouthwash and had recently taken cough syrup for a cough. He was unsure of what to do because I had previous read the threads like this and told him to STFU and lawyer up if that ever occurs.
He got arrested for DUI and is going through all this drama and wasn't even drinking.
So I wonder what exact words would you recommend to use. My friend used the (Are you detaining me, am I free to leave line) He said LE got pissed off and thats when his trouble began. Of course he blames me for his arrest.
I fear that eventually I will get asked the question to take a breath alcohol test or field test question so how should I handle it?
It's easy to say you can't beat the ride line but, should u try?
Sorry for any misspellings or grammatical errors as I am typing on my iPhone
Thanks for all your advice and everyone that reads his thread should really look at those YouTube videos referred to above

Chances are you'll only make matters worse by telling him some cock and bull story. (Example: "I stopped to talk to her because she looks like my next-door neighbor.") Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Logan tells me that story works for him all the time..... he he he

1) No disrespect intended, but all lawyers say lawyer up.. I don't think it is always the best way to go.

This a pretty good video of a presentation to a law class by a professor on why you should never to talk to cops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

The second part is a policeman in the class explaining why you should never talk to cops:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE Originally Posted by cowboyesfan

Great videos! Thanks!

Finally, there is a fairly recent U.S. Supreme Court case which makes clear a warrantless, non-consensual search of a vehicle may only be commenced if there is a reasonable connection between the search and the suspected crime for which the driver was stopped. In other words, a cop can't stop a person for speeding then search their car for drugs. (By "speeding," I mean going over the speed limit, not using amphetamines.) But again, this topic is something to be discussed another day. Originally Posted by ShysterJon

Please start that topic.

I am interested in this aspect of handling being stopped by the police who then wish to go on 'fishing expeditions' after stopping you. Additionally, you may wish to cover what recourse the average citizen has when the officer ignores your lack of consent and searches your vehicle anyway---and there are no witnesses to that act to back up your story (or are willing to).

Could you also tell us about requesting blood sample evidence, either voluntary (you have taken no alcohol or drugs) to prove your innocence, or whether it's possible to refuse to provide a sample for whatever reason you wish.

Admiral Nelson at the Con

But if the charge is something above a Class C misdemeanor (which are ticketable offenses punishable by a fine only), and therefore jail time might be at play, I think nearly all defendants should do their best to hire a private lawyer (as opposed to applying for representation by the public defender or a court-appointed lawyer). Originally Posted by ShysterJon

SJ always makes a great deal of sense, and I have the UTMOST RESPECT for him, but that statement is, to put it mildly, less than accurate. First of all, many public defenders are board certified in criminal law. Some public defenders have not guilty jury verdict rates that would put a private lawyer to shame. Secondly, what’s wrong with a court-appointed lawyer? All lawyers on the criminal court appointment wheel maintain private practices. Therefore it is conceivable that a person could mortgage his home only to end up paying for the very same attorney he could have gotten for free had he asked for a court appointed lawyer.

I could name names here of lawyers who accept court appointments, but I don’t want to drag an unwilling person’s name into this debate. Suffice to say, some of upper, top tier attorneys in Dallas take court appointments. The former head of the public defender’s office takes court appointments. Nearly every republican judge thrown out of office two years ago takes court appointments. Nearly all former prosecutors take court appointments. Nearly all former public defenders now in private practice take court appointments. Some lawyers who take court appointments are on the faculty of the local law schools. The remark that a court appointed lawyer is inherently substandard is [respecting SJ] inaccurate.

On the other hand, there are private attorneys who have a reputation for doing nothing other than milking their clients of all their money and then withdrawing from their case. Typically the criminal defense lawyers who do the most advertising are notorious for this behavior. I know of one case where a private attorney charged his client $30,000 and did NOTHING other than pass his case for 1 year before withdrawing.

Shopping for a lawyer is a lot like shopping for a used car. Just because the price low doesn't mean it's a clunker. On the other hand, just because it costs an arm and a leg doesn't mean it won't fall apart a day later.

Skywire- That`s a great point you make. Searching for a good lawyer is so vital and it should begin before you get into trouble. Would like to know a place where you can find info on good,honest and competent lawyers. Any website or forum ?? B'cos a search on Google gives so many lawyers' info that you are totally dazed and dont know who to go with or believe .

SJ- A query regarding consenting to car searches. Does this apply even at the US border entry points too like at El Paso. I was once driving back from El Paso and at the border- the agent sees the DL or some ID of every person and then he asked 1 car to move to the side-asked the occupants to get out and then proceeded to search the car with his colleague and a sniffer dog too. And those occupants were of Hispanic origin-- I am assuming that is relevant here as it`s a border patrol case.

Skywire- That`s a great point you make. Searching for a good lawyer is so vital and it should begin before you get into trouble. Would like to know a place where you can find info on good,honest and competent lawyers. Any website or forum ?? B'cos a search on Google gives so many lawyers' info that you are totally dazed and dont know who to go with or believe .
Originally Posted by delimex007

I wouldn’t hire a lawyer who doesn’t have at least one of the following credentials: former criminal court judge, former prosecutor, former public defender, or board certified in criminal law. Younger attorneys are probably cheaper because they haven’t built up a clientele base.

Misdemeanor offenses are trivial for the aforementioned lawyers.

Avoid lawyers with giant billboards near the courthouse. Avoid lawyers who post bail bonds because, IMHO, that’s an inherent conflict of interest. Avoid lawyers who never go to trial. These lawyers tend to get crappy plea offers from the DA’s.

SJ always makes a great deal of sense, and I have the UTMOST RESPECT for him, but that statement is, to put it mildly, less than accurate. First of all, many public defenders are board certified in criminal law. Some public defenders have not guilty jury verdict rates that would put a private lawyer to shame. Secondly, what’s wrong with a court-appointed lawyer? All lawyers on the criminal court appointment wheel maintain private practices. Therefore it is conceivable that a person could mortgage his home only to end up paying for the very same attorney he could have gotten for free had he asked for a court appointed lawyer.

I could name names here of lawyers who accept court appointments, but I don’t want to drag an unwilling person’s name into this debate. Suffice to say, some of upper, top tier attorneys in Dallas take court appointments. The former head of the public defender’s office takes court appointments. Nearly every republican judge thrown out of office two years ago takes court appointments. Nearly all former prosecutors take court appointments. Nearly all former public defenders now in private practice take court appointments. Some lawyers who take court appointments are on the faculty of the local law schools. The remark that a court appointed lawyer is inherently substandard is [respecting SJ] inaccurate.

On the other hand, there are private attorneys who have a reputation for doing nothing other than milking their clients of all their money and then withdrawing from their case. Typically the criminal defense lawyers who do the most advertising are notorious for this behavior. I know of one case where a private attorney charged his client $30,000 and did NOTHING other than pass his case for 1 year before withdrawing.

Shopping for a lawyer is a lot like shopping for a used car. Just because the price low doesn't mean it's a clunker. On the other hand, just because it costs an arm and a leg doesn't mean it won't fall apart a day later. Originally Posted by sky_wire

OF COURSE there are good, bad, and mediocre private lawyers, court-appointed lawyers, and public defenders. But what you're arguing is: Why hire a bad private lawyer when you can get a good court-appointed lawyer or a public defender for free? The problem with your argument is getting a court-appointed lawyer or a public defender is like a box of chocolates -- you never know what you're going to get -- while a person who prudently shops for a private lawyer knows pretty much what they're going to get. So are you willing to risk your freedom on the county's roulette wheel, or would you rather choose who you want to defend you?

I also know there are many fine lawyers in the Dallas County Public Defender's Office. Many of them have been my friends for years. But I also know with the salary the county pays there are a number of public defenders with the ink barely dry on their law school diplomas. Do you want your lawyer to get on-the-job training working on your criminal case? I can assure you young Buffy or Biff didn't learn how to be a lawyer in law school (although they may have mastered the Rule Against Perpetuities).

All I can do is speak from my personal experiences, having been a private criminal defense lawyer for more than 24 years. I am fortunate that I have never had to rely on court appointments, and I only take one when a judge I know puts the screws on me. I know that lawyers who rely on court appointments have to do a volume business to make a living because the hourly or per case rate the county pays is small. I'm just not a volume business kind of lawyer -- I prefer quality over quantity. I know there are lawyers that can do a great job juggling a lot of cases. But my experience is a lawyer faced with the pressure of moving files oftentimes doesn't have the time to do the best job on each case.

One more point needs to be made. A defendant doesn't merely ask for a court-appointed lawyer or to be represented by the public defender and one is provided. The standards to prove that a person can't afford private counsel are stringent. There's probably not a hobbyist reading this who's going to be eligible for a free lawyer, especially if they pick up a prostitution case. The judge probably won't be sympathetic when you tell her you need to keep money in your hobby account to bang the flavor of the month.

Hey, sky_wire -- Too bad you got the chance to change that invective language before I had time to respond.

Note the key phrase: "prudently shops." If possible, I would write that phrase in bold italics, double underlined.

Allow me to reiterate. I believe prudently shopping includes looking at: former criminal court judges, former prosecutors , former public defenders, or attorneys board certified in criminal law. Younger attorneys from this group are probably cheaper because they haven’t built up a clientele base and they don't have a big law office with lots of overhead.


If you listen to only one thing I say, make it this. AVOID LAWYERS WHO ADVERTISE ON GIANT BILLBOARDS NEAR THE COURTHOUSE. (I know this doesn't include SJ).

Laz, sometimes I think you make a career out of thinking up hypothetical fact situations for me to render opinions. I think I'm gonna start charging you $25 a pop.

Although I'm certain no one would be dumb enough to have something illegal in the vehicle that could be seen, wouldn't the "plain sight" issue be reduced by having your windows closed and then closing the door once you exit the vehicle thereby reducing any "plain sight" issues that might arise? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

Sure, closing your windows and doors should make it more difficult for a cop to see into your car. I didn't take high school physics, but I think metal and glass are thicker than air, except maybe in LA.

I've been given to understand that as long as the cop doesn't physically get into the vehicle, he or she can stand in an open car door and look around inside just like they can lean over and look into the open bed of a pickup truck as long as they don't touch or move anything.

But leaning into the car and flashing their light in and around the seats and backseat of an open door wouldn't be illegal would it? Originally Posted by LazurusLong

I'm not sure what you mean by "stand in an open car door." I think you may mean standing next to the car when the car's door is open. Yes, a cop can do that, and he can use a flashlight to look inside the vehicle. But no, he can't intrude into the vehicle by leaning into the interior or putting his arm or flashlight into the interior. Nor can he get under the car's hood, remove the back of the glove compartment, and furtively peer at you, except on Tuesdays in even-numbered months.

J- A query regarding consenting to car searches. Does this apply even at the US border entry points too like at El Paso. I was once driving back from El Paso and at the border- the agent sees the DL or some ID of every person and then he asked 1 car to move to the side-asked the occupants to get out and then proceeded to search the car with his colleague and a sniffer dog too. And those occupants were of Hispanic origin-- I am assuming that is relevant here as it`s a border patrol case.


The CBP has wide discretion in stopping and questioning you, but the Constitution applies to them as well.

If you travel around West Texas, they have several check points inside the border that you are required to stop at and also roving patrols.

My question was asked in response to the poster who said his friend steps out of the car, closes the door and locks the door, an overt act of denying permission of any sort to visually "search" for objects in plain sight.

You are correct in that I should have been more precise in how I phrased the position of the officer. It should have been as notied that the officer would be standing between the open door and the vehicle itself. So if the officer leans down and breaks the barrier of where a closed door or window would normally be a barrier, that would be considered illegal?