A "first" when stopped by DPS last night

[gigag04]

Seems standard - he lost me on the disarming but its within his right to do so so meh...

The questions might annoy you, but are great tools to lead million dollar cartel cash seizures, dope, and stolen guns. It wasn't anything personal to you, he just has a job he's trying to do to likely provide for his family. What I have found is that a little patience, perspective, and understanding from both parties can make things go much easier.

Just curious...would you lean inside a vehicle to retrieve a gun with a "suspect" 15 feet away if you hadn't searched him first....or even if you had? It seems like a pretty vulnerable position to me, and if the officer is trusting the suspect enough to believe he's got a gun in the center console, and no weapons on his person, then what's the point in retrieving the gun?

Depends. My eyes can pick up things on a person's person that most cannot, based on bulges, clothing drape, and behavior. I pat lots of folks down and even consent search a lot , but sometimes that is a formality, and I know what is there. I also am fairly skilled at giving people I contact the illusion that I am a goofy happy go lucky cop. I get more cooperation, more dope, more intel, and more arrests that way. It is an act for sure, and is even taught in interdiction schools. It is also fun "playing dumb" with people right up until the point that their house of cards come crashing down and the handcuffs go on.

Anybody that I contact who thinks I don't have 3 different ways to kill them in my head is kidding themselves.

I have had many encounters with LEOs that put me on the defensive.

A recent one happened where we called the non-emergency police number to report vandalism in our alley. I live in Allen, northeast of Dallas, and the houses in my neighborhood are 250k-ish, so it's a decent area. Anyway, cop shows up, and immediately runs my wife's license, looking for warrants. Did he have the right to do that?

ORRR...by running her DL through dispatch, it logs her name and contact info in the call, so that when she calls to get the report but has lost her case card, they can find it in CAD with a simple search. Or, that info is logged in the call he leaves your house and gets in a high speed pursuit and sloshes your contact info around the inside of his car and can't find it. He can later pull up the call, and still be able to complete your report (least favorite part of the job). So, yes he has a right to do that because you called him there. You can refuse, but don't be looking for him to take a report from an uncooperative reporting party. Identifying people you contact is fairly simple procedure for officers - there is more going on in the background of how records systems work. Again, its about persective.

We were standing in our driveway, not in or near our car. He then proceeded take the complaint down in a report, and promptly left. By the way, he looked all of 25, so I'm assuming he was just pounding his chest to show us who was in charge.

Seems like more than one of you might have had a bad attitude...but I wasn't there and am not much more than 25 (30)...




In summary to the OP, it may have been fishing, but I don't see anything wrong with that. He was doing his job. He lost me on the disarming, even if a violator were in the car, but that is his choice. I don't think you could argue that were searched, as I think the courts and public opinion about armed individuals encountering police would leave the option to enter a vehicle to secure a weapon up to the officer in the situation.

[mlawler]

When you stepped out of your vehicle you should have turned it off, took the keys with you, and locked your doors.

If he ask why did you do that just as friendly as you can say, "it is a habit."

Once did exactly that! City cop said he wanted to 'secure' my weapon. I got out of the car, hit the lock button on remote, dropped it in my pocket and said 'Secured. Next question?'
Also, lacking probable cause to believe the firearm is stolen, I personally think running the serial number violates reasonable search.

[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.

[fratermus]

1. It's not a fishing expedition, the Texas statute gives LEOs clear authority to disarm a CHL

I don't consider these to be mutually exclusive concepts.

[C-dub]

If you do lock the car and the officer asks for the keys, clearly state that you do not give consent for the search and are handing him the keys simply to obey his orders. Anything else would come under that caution about not arguing with officers on the side of the street.

I was going to ask about this very thing. Thanks for reading my mind Steve.

[Jaguar]

My view is that discretion is a two way street. You have the discretion to answer their general questions or not and the officer has the discretion to ticket you or not. I had a similar situation a couple of weeks ago although he didn't run my gun serial numbers or search the vehicle.

When I was in high school ('86?) coming home from my part time job I was stopped once and they asked to search the entire car so I said ok. I had nothing to hide and I was a teenager vs. two cop cars and several officers. . They searched the trunk, under the seats, everything. In the end they said my car just fit the description of some criminals they were looking for and sent me on my way without the speeding ticket I deserved.

I don't think most LEO's are Buford T. Justice types trying to throw their weight around. I think they are just gathering information and what they get from you, even if not incriminating, might help them connect the dots about something important.

Of course we could all avoid being questioned by just not breaking the law in the first place.

I have to disagree with you, I was pulled over for failure to stop, after I came to a complete stop and waited at the intersection for traffic to go past - http://texaschlforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=83&t=58717" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sometime the cops are wrong.

[Jaguar]

When you stepped out of your vehicle you should have turned it off, took the keys with you, and locked your doors.

If he ask why did you do that just as friendly as you can say, "it is a habit."

Once did exactly that! City cop said he wanted to 'secure' my weapon. I got out of the car, hit the lock button on remote, dropped it in my pocket and said 'Secured. Next question?'
Also, lacking probable cause to believe the firearm is stolen, I personally think running the serial number violates reasonable search.

So how did the rest of the encounter go? I do not see that playing out very well, since you still have "access" to the firearm with the click of a button and a "lunge".

[Stripes Dude]

Anybody that I contact who thinks I don't have 3 different ways to kill them in my head is kidding themselves.

Yikes.....careful there big guy.....you may not realize it, but you are starting to prove some of the points you obviously don't agree with.

[VMI77]

I'm torn between my friendly good nature and my general distrust of anyone asking me questions like that when I know they aren't really interested and not wanting to be taken advantage of or having my rights violated.

In a situation like this, if I do politely refuse the search and the officer knows he is unable to go ahead and search the vehicle anyway, I pretty sure I'm going to get the ticket. So, now, I'm also torn between my desire to stand up for my rights and my desire to not get a ticket I would have little to no chance of fighting successfully.

There must be other factors at work in these stops that result in disarming and fishing.....since I got my CHL I've been armed in every encounter I've had with LE.....I've never been asked to step out of the car, never had the gun mentioned again after being asked if I was armed and answering in the affirmative.....never been asked if it is ok for a search (and never been searched). I've been stopped by both DPS and local LE.... sometimes in known drug corridors.... and have had encounters with the Border Patrol and Game Warden out in the most remote parts of West Texas. Only one stop by the DPS was unmerited....he pulled me over because he thought I had a GPS attached to my windshield....and just said it was his mistake once I handed him my license and CHL and he looked inside the car. So I wonder, am I defying the odds or are the stops that result in disarming the unusual stops?

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

[steveincowtown]

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.



I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

[mlawler]

Jaguar, stop went well. Only reason he stopped me was because he say me make a sudden swerve from right lane to the left. When I pointed out the 2 foot long chunk of broken concrete curb sticking out, his next call to dispatch was to notify road maintenance dept. When my DL came back clear, we shook hands & went our seperate ways.

[fratermus]

Yikes.....careful there big guy.....you may not realize it, but you are starting to prove some of the points you obviously don't agree with.

I was thinking the same thing.

[laked3]

If you are interested in becoming more informed of your fourth and fifth amendment rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, there are some excellent resources that, in my opinion, should be watched as often as once a quarter per year lest we not forget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJ ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlX ... ure=relmfu

Don't be turned off by the acting or presenters in any of the above videos as the advice is universal and sage.

The biggest things I take away from these videos are as follows:

"Officer, I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to any searches."

"Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

If you don't KNOW your rights, you will most certainly give them up unknowingly in an encounter with a LEO. Please remember, it is completely legal for a law enforcement officer to lie to you and try to persuade you to give up your rights using threats and other tactics you deem as bullying or harassing but has been determined as legal by our judicial system. Leave your ego behind and get informed; an LEO doesn't usually care "who you are" or you think you are.

[Charles L. Cotton]

How could you not be turned off by the presenters!? In my classes we discuss both sides of this issue, because I want people to make informed decisions. Their future may well depend upon those decisions.

Chas.

If you are interested in becoming more informed of your fourth and fifth amendment rights as guaranteed by the US Constitution, there are some excellent resources that, in my opinion, should be watched as often as once a quarter per year lest we not forget.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4nQ_mFJ ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqMjMPlX ... ure=relmfu

Don't be turned off by the acting or presenters in any of the above videos as the advice is universal and sage.

The biggest things I take away from these videos are as follows:

"Officer, I know you are just doing your job, but I do not consent to any searches."

"Am I being detained or am I free to go?"

If you don't KNOW your rights, you will most certainly give them up unknowingly in an encounter with a LEO. Please remember, it is completely legal for a law enforcement officer to lie to you and try to persuade you to give up your rights using threats and other tactics you deem as bullying or harassing but has been determined as legal by our judicial system. Leave your ego behind and get informed; an LEO doesn't usually care "who you are" or you think you are.

[VMI77]

I too am inclined to say no to a search, since among other reasons, when my son attended the police academy his class was told never to consent to a search, especially by the DPS. OTOH, I am leery of escalating a stop into a confrontation and exchanging a warning for a ticket, as every time I've been stopped since I got my CHL I've been let go with a warning (except the one time mentioned above I got an apology). So, I would probably say no to a general search, but consent to something more specific or limited, like having a look at my guns in the case of the one post, or checking the serial numbers.

Here my issue with the whole thing. Why is a citizen exercising their rights "escalating" a situation, and an LEO asking a ton of unnecessary questions "good police work."

I think the should there be cooperation and understanding on BOTH SIDES. An LEO should be no more offended by someone exercising their rights then a citizen should be offend by an LEO asking unnecessary questions.


As long as LEO's don't get bent because I won't answers questions, I won't get bent because they ask them.

I rarely encounter LEO's anymore, but I have always respectfully declined to answer questions or let them search my car or come into my home.

Yes, but note your use of the word "should." I think some officers get their backs up at any perceived challenge to their authority. I don't know if I'm dealing with that kind of officer to start with so I consider the extent to which I assert my rights to be a risk assessment of cost and benefit. What price will I have to pay to assert my rights? I agree that things should be as you say, but that's not the way it is. There is a real risk that asserting your rights in every encounter will result in life changing consequences --for the worse.