TexasCHLforum.com

A-R

Y'all are missing my point on the car salesman, but it's not worth explaining/elaborating.

Frankly this whole thread is tiresome and I should have just taken someone's advice and left it.

But I'll just say that I'd rather not live in the world y'all seem to be envisioning when police are so constrained they can't even ASK questions ... if you don't know your rights well enough to know when you do or don't have to answer a question, that's on you.

If the officer had used any more intimidation than just being there in uniform, I would agree with you. If he'd said "you have to answer me, or else" Id be calling for him to lose his badge. But he didn't do that. He asked, the OP answered - no harm no foul.

A-R

vehicle vs. home makes all the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carroll_v._United_States" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As for "fishing" - again, it's a grey area, fine line, whatever euphemism you like.

Police can ASK you any question they want. You may or may not be required to answer, depending on circumstances. You may feel pressured to answer, but as long as the officer is not using undo influence to force you to answer something you're not required to answer, what has the officer done wrong by asking? Honestly, I've seen car salesman much more high-pressured than what I gather from the description of this incident.

A 10-minute detention is likely within customary time for a traffic stop - and how do any of you know that checking the gun was the ONLY thing the trooper was doing during those 10 minutes? Maybe he was also checking OP's DL, license plate, etc (which is also customary - after all, this is how they caught McVeigh as just one high-profile example).

I know none of us LIKE the idea of the government checking out firearms serial numbers. And I've not one time defended that action (merely stated repeatedly that there COULD have been a legit reason, we just don't know) - but I agree it's unorthodox. The rest of the stop, however, seemed perfectly reasonable and customary and for his cooperation the OP was given no citation for TWO admitted violations of law - speeding and no front license plate.

The key point to remember in all this is that because the roads (most of them anyway) are public utilities and because you MUST be licensed to drive on public roads, you do give up SOME small measure of total leave-me-alone privacy when you venture onto a public road. A car IS NOT the same as a home.

I really think this whole thing boils down to checking the gun serial number and no one would be complaining about any of the rest of these red herrings if not for that one wrinkle.

A-R

BIG difference between vehicles and homes and courts have said so.

As for fishing, I dont disagree the serial # search could have been fishing (dont know enough to say for sure, but id say likely at this point) but the stop was legit (OP he admits he was speeding). If LEOs don't ask some basic probing questions when the make a legit stop/contact then when are they supposed to do so in order to catch felons/warrants, drugs, etc?

Oh would you prefer to go back to the good ol days of cops eating donuts and pretty much leaving everyone alone unless the get grossly out of line?

A-R

someone sent me this via a Facebook page called "Cop Humor" and thought it was relevant enough to this discussion to share - please take in the semi-joking, sarcastic/cynical context it was intended (in other words, don't take it too seriously

)

WHY POLICE CAN HARASS PEOPLE.....

This is taken from California e-mail "Community Policing" question-and-answer forum.

The question was: I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to harass people and get away with it? And where can you go for help other than a civil attorney.

And the reply was:

It is not easy. In California we average one cop for every 2000 people. About 60% of those cops are on patrol, where we do most of the harassing. One fifth of that 60% are on duty at any moment and available for harassing people.

So, one on duty cop is responsible to harass about 10,000 residents. When you toss in the commercial, business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible to harass 20,000 or more people a day.

A ten hour shift runs 36,000 seconds. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and three fourths of a second to eat a donut AND find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. Most cops are not up to it day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down who we harass.

They are as follows:

Phone: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase we use. Then we come out and give special harassment. Another popular one on weeknights is "The kids next door are having a party.
Cars: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars blasting music, cars with expired registration tabs, and the like. It is lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious then running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, are drunk, or have a warrant.

Runners: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.

Codes: When you can think of nothing else to do, there are books that offer ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called Codes. The Penal Code, Vehicle Code, Health and Safety Code, Business and Professions. . . They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people.

After you read the code, you can just drive around for a while until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy smash a car window. Well, the code says that is not allowed. That meant I got to harass this guy. It is a pretty cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well. I seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it because the good citizens who pay the tab like that we keep the streets safe for them. Next time you are in my town, give me a single finger wave. That is a signal that you wish me to take a little closer look at you, and maybe find a reason to harass you.

Looking forward to meeting you.

A-R

the Texas law is general in nature, and requires that the object in question be obstructing the driver's view to be an infraction

the California law, on the other hands, simply states NOTHING on the windshield, but then gives a list of loopholes. So in California, it doesn't matter if the object is affecting your ability to drive at all, if it doesn't fit in the designated box YOU can't have it because THEY said so

http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/d12/vc26708.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A-R

"have a plan to kill everyone you meet" is a pithy quote, I seriously doubt he meant it as a statement of intent to kill

http://en.m.wikiquote.org/wiki/James_Mattis#section_1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A-R

Jaguar wrote:
carlson1 wrote:Bad folks in every bunch. LEO's are no exception, especially if they have the attitude of killing everyone they stop.
To be fair, he said he has "a plan to", not "I plan to". Nothing wrong with having a plan in case something were to hit the fan, it is the same preparedness I have when approached by "panhandlers" or other less desirable folks.

A-R

Steve, I'm aware of Gant but specifically did not reference it because my understanding is it relates to post-arrest search or search "incident to" arrest.

As for the "lunge area" argument, I understand your point as related to Terry-type search, and can see it both ways (good point about the unlocked doors) but this was supposedly a disarm authorized by Texas law (GC 211.207) and not intended as search of the vehicle (nor carried out as such, far as we know). As to the serial # search being the stated articulation for the disarm in the first place? I may have missed that or misunderstood that. I thought that was something done/stated after he'd taken control/possession of handgun.

If the sequence of events was ...
1. Ask OP to step out of vehicle
2. Tell OP he was going to check gun #
3. Retrieve gun
... then I agree with your assessment

However if sequence was ...
1. Exit vehicle
2. Retrieve/secure handgun
3. Oh by the way, I'm going to also check gun # while I'm checking you DL etc
... then I don't see the same problem

Lastly, on the whole "fishing expedition" argument - I guess to some it's fishing, to others it's sizing up a subject

The actual running of the serial # and reasons for that I still don't necessarily agree with troopers actions - but don't know enough detail to say he was wrong to do it.

A-R

powerboatr wrote:
A-R wrote:
bronco78 wrote:
A-R wrote:The vehicle was not "searched" - as I understand it from what OP posted, the officer simply opened whatever compartment contained the gun, removed the gun, proceeded with stop.
actually I think the vehicle was searched
the officer gained entry to the vehicle and then opened the glove box in the center console to remove the firearm
i dont know about anyone else but if i open my truck and lean in to open the center glove box...my eyes pretty much are looking all over the place in periphery and it would be easy for me to see my wife left an empty bag of mms on the floor
did he ask to retrieve your firearm? or did you volunteer the entry by chance

LEO doesn't need to ask to disarm a CHL and temporarily hold onto their handgun during a lawful stop. LEOs have the authority to do this without asking for consent. To do so, they must articulate the reasonable need, but this doesn't have to be articulated to the CHL holder directly (it would need to be articulated in a report, and perhaps later - if feathers were ruffled enough to take further action - to superiors, judges, etc.) ... but we DON'T KNOW what the trooper may have sensed to articulate the need to disarm the OP.

Government Code 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

Any further SEARCH of the vehicle interior and the running of the serial number is a much grayer area. But anyone who thinks a LEO in Texas needs your permission to disarm you should freshen up on their understanding of CHL law.

A-R

bronco78 wrote:
A-R wrote: 1. It's not a fishing expedition, the Texas statute gives LEOs clear authority to disarm a CHL
The statute allows for him to be disarmed, not have his vehicle searched, and not have his property checked against some list of stolen articles. .

What happened is the very deifinition of a LEO fishing expidition.
The officer has no PC or RS that the weapon was stolen,,, it was a traffic stop.. He was not looking for evidence in the vehicle or by running the gun serial number as further evidence of the infraction he was detained for.. as such, the officer was on a fishing expedition for evidence of other crimes... And it's wrong, it's not ethical in my opinion, but it is accepted practice by most law enforcement personal.

Please read the rest of my post, related links, my follow up post and the OP's follow up posts. The vehicle was not "searched" - as I understand it from what OP posted, the officer simply opened whatever compartment contained the gun, removed the gun, proceeded with stop.

The running of the serial # may have been a fishing expedition - I never said it wasn't nor directly discussed this aspect of the original post in any way.

I was merely responding to the "fishing expedition" portion of the other member's post as relates to the authority to disarm and the additional authority to search IF (big if there that I also stated in my previous post) the officer articulates the need to search for officer safety (as described in the links within my original post). Point being, the OP WAS ARMED according to Texas law and Federal case law by having the gun accessible within the passenger compartment of the vehicle, thus retrieving the gun from that location, even "searching" other areas of the passenger cabin, IS legal IF the officer articulates reasonable cause to do so based on Terry v. Ohio, etc.

Do I know what reasonable articulable cause the officer had? NO, I do not. Nor does anyone else KNOW that he didn't have reasonable articulable cause/suspicion. None of this stuff is even close to black-n-white and no one knows enough to call what happened a "fishing expedition" except, possibly, the OP, and likely the trooper.

A-R

To be clear I was only attempting to point out some of the related law and case law. At no point did I defend checking the serial number for stolen, and I think I remember one of the DPS troopers teaching CHL instructor school a few years saying that DPS troopers doing this "should have been corrected" - but my memory is hazy on it.

As to searching/disarming a CHL or anyone who has a weapon during a legal stop, I'm not a lawyer and simply gave links to relevant law/case law. Feel free to actually read all that info. I don't know the particulars and neither does anyone else other than OP and the trooper. Also if you'll re-read what I posted I made clear that trooper would need to justify/articulate the reasons for his actions - which is what some of you now seem to want me to do even though they weren't my actions and I wasn't there.

My point was merely to show that yes, interior of a vehicle CAN be searched without consent given the right circumstances.

A-R

Jim Beaux wrote:
A-R wrote:
OldCannon wrote:"You do not have permission to search my vehicle. Is there anything else you need, officer, or can I go now?"
Did the trooper search the vehicle? Or just disarm the driver/CHL holder? No consent needed to disarm

Government Code 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.
The OP was not armed, his weapon was in the vehicle. Sounds like the trooper was on a fishing expedition for probable cause. Regardless, I would have refused to give consent for him to enter my vehicle. You can bet the trooper was looking in the ash tray and around the interior of the car.

1. It's not a fishing expedition, the Texas statute gives LEOs clear authority to disarm a CHL
2. Armed and carrying are clearly defined in Texas law as "on or about" a person, in other words, "within reach" and by case law as including the "lunge area" of vehicles even when subject is temporarily outside the vehicle. It would be highly dangerous for an officer to obtain weapon from inside vehicle by reaching in while subject is still inside - thus, remove subject, then remove weapon (this is all of course dependent on officer having justification to do this in first place - a grey area)

Citation for case law:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio#section_5" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

n Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032 (1983), the Supreme Court ruled that car compartments could be constitutionally searched if an officer had reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed and dangerous. Thus the compartments are viewed as an extension of the suspect's person. This is known as "frisking the lunge area," as an officer may protect himself by searching any areas the suspect could grab a weapon from

A-R

OldCannon wrote:"You do not have permission to search my vehicle. Is there anything else you need, officer, or can I go now?"

Did the trooper search the vehicle? Or just disarm the driver/CHL holder? No consent needed to disarm

Government Code 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. (a) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

TexasCHLforum.com

Search found 13 matches

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

Re: A "first" when stopped by DPS last night