Spurred by discussions with Police Monitor Margo Frasier over how frequently black and Hispanic residents are searched during traffic stops in Austin, Police Chief Art Acevedo on Thursday announced a new policy requiring officers to get written consent for vehicle searches.

Details.

Bad policy.

I always thought issues of consent were to be decided on the "totality of the circumstances". Every time that something like this comes up, there is an assumption that the police are wrong, or that people are too dumb to know their rights, or both.

Of course, as a practical matter, a signed consent form helps. What I have noticed, however, is that judges make police department policies "law", and should someone violate the policy (even innocently), then a case gets tossed. DPS regulations have been the focus of many a judicial opinion, with judges citing violations of the policy as a basis, under the law, to suppress evidence. I have long argued with DPS about revising policies that are being abused by the defense, and the courts.

Miranda, and 38.22, are arcane laws that are used solely as a shield by many who are more aware of their rights than the officer reading them. Suppression is a wholly Court fashioned remedy (for Miranda, and adopted by statute in 38.22) that needs to go, for other than the most egregious of error on the part of officers.

I am tired of the assumption that officers (and prosecutors) are "jack booted government thugs" that wish only to trample on the liberty of law abiding citizens. Efforts such as this only give credence to the spurious arguments advanced by various "watchdog" groups who insist that "one bad apple DOES spoil the whole bunch, girl".

End of soapbox...................................................

What, no video cameras and body mics in Austin?

The article says the report found that 1 in 8 stops of blacks resulted in a search, 1 in 10 stops of Hispanics resulted in a search, and only 1 in 28 whites stopped on a traffic violation resulted in a search. But it then noted that the rate of finding contraband was the same for each group.

That fact completely explodes the arguments that the APD is just picking on minorities. That should be the end of discussion. The chief should have told the Namby Pambs where to get off, and he should have told his men: "keep calm & carry on."

Giving in to irrational Namby Pambyism is always a very bad idea.

Dallas, too

6. Enhance the Department’s consensual search policy to include the requirement for a written and/or recorded consent

Implementing this step will create greater public confidence in the consensual searches performed by Dallas Police Officers, protect officers against false allegations of illegal search and bolster court cases where the search is critical to proving the charge.

Details.

This seems like an appropriate place to drop this article:

The Crime Reporting You Never Read

QUOTE: "Implementing this step will create greater public confidence in the consensual searches performed by Dallas Police Officers, protect officers against false allegations of illegal search and bolster court cases where the search is critical to proving the charge."


As a practical matter, written and/or recorded consent is always best. My question is this - what part of the public lacks confidence in the Dallas PD's current practices? The ACLU? There is always a very vocal minority (I mean that term to represent the view, not any specific group) that ends up having its way, with mandates for more and more "proof" that the cops are doing their job right. Soon, the written consent, if not backed up by video recording, will be insufficient. And then, we will have to make sure the recording has not been altered, or "prove" that some officer wasn't on the side, holding a gun on the suspect while the officer recorded consent.

Creating new rights for criminal suspects - the "I am scared you will complain" way........

Here's another interesting article by Heather Mac Donald. http://online.wsj.com/article/...579490354672410.html

Hope you don't have to pay for it.

There are some extremely heavy costs to having the kind of police work that The NYT editorial board approves of.

This would have been the law of the land, had the governor not vetoed SB 1195 in 2005:
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us...xt/html/SB01195F.htm
The governor's veto proclamation:
http://www.lrl.state.tx.us/sca...b1195.pdf#navpanes=0

Boy, for a "law and order" State, we sure have some loons trying to restrict the cops. How many of the inane people supporting this bill had friends or family members nabbed because they gave consent, but, to use the "old con" job - "I didn't put my name to no paper!"

Ugh............................