TexasCHLforum.com

In multiple recent threads, mainly involving discussion of whether you're required to identify yourself to a LEO but also in other topics, I've seen the phrase "probable cause" used in a context that suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of this and other similar terms on the part of the person using it.

I'm neither a lawyer nor legal expert, but I have completed some training/instruction on these topics and, using simple Google search, have found these links that may prove helpful to a better understanding of current differentiation between various police contacts and the level of information necessary for police to legally take certain actions.

In a nutshell:
- probable cause is sufficient for arrest, search, and seizure;
- reasonable suspicion is sufficient for temporary detention, formal investigation, pat down/frisk etc
- mere suspicion or a "hunch" is sufficient for a consensual or voluntary contact

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol ... top-view=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=42007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as specifically related to Texas law about identifying yourself to LEO:

PC 38.02 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GC 411.205 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A-R wrote:In multiple recent threads, mainly involving discussion of whether you're required to identify yourself to a LEO but also in other topics, I've seen the phrase "probable cause" used in a context that suggests a fundamental lack of understanding of this and other similar terms on the part of the person using it.

I'm neither a lawyer nor legal expert, but I have completed some training/instruction on these topics and, using simple Google search, have found these links that may prove helpful to a better understanding of current differentiation between various police contacts and the level of information necessary for police to legally take certain actions.

In a nutshell:
- probable cause is sufficient for arrest, search, and seizure;
- reasonable suspicion is sufficient for temporary detention, formal investigation, pat down/frisk etc
- mere suspicion or a "hunch" is sufficient for a consensual or voluntary contact

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol ... top-view=1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/maga ... e_id=42007" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also as specifically related to Texas law about identifying yourself to LEO:

PC 38.02 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... .htm#38.02" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

GC 411.205 - http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/D ... tm#411.205" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Thanks for the reminder. People tend to use the terms interchangeably, me included.

Chas.

anygunanywhere wrote:
Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Art Acevedo thinks we're doing it wrong:

"If the law requires you to have a CHL in order to open carry, then how do you prohibit officers from checking if you have that CHL in the first place?" he said.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Art Acevedo thinks we're doing it wrong:

"If the law requires you to have a CHL in order to open carry, then how do you prohibit officers from checking if you have that CHL in the first place?" he said.

Acevedo knows the answer. It's the same way LEOs determine if someone has a license to drive - a pretextual stop with RS or PC of another violation of law.

If you plan to open carry in Austin, I'd highly recommend you study "jaywalking" and other areas of law. Because I guarantee there will be a lot of "jaywalking" type pretext stops of anyone open carrying in Austin.

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Art Acevedo thinks we're doing it wrong:

"If the law requires you to have a CHL in order to open carry, then how do you prohibit officers from checking if you have that CHL in the first place?" he said.

Same way as they deal with people with driver's licenses.

From what I hear, there ate already plenty of jaywalking stops around 6th St.

mojo84 wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

anygunanywhere wrote:
Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

Art Acevedo thinks we're doing it wrong:

"If the law requires you to have a CHL in order to open carry, then how do you prohibit officers from checking if you have that CHL in the first place?" he said.

Same way as they deal with people with driver's licenses.

From what I hear, there ate already plenty of jaywalking stops around 6th St.

I go to Austin every now and then and I might just OC if I fancy to. It will not be on 6th Street no reason to go there.

A-R wrote:
If you plan to open carry in Austin, I'd highly recommend you study "jaywalking" and other areas of law. Because I guarantee there will be a lot of "jaywalking" type pretext stops of anyone open carrying in Austin.

No pretext. They already do that stuff... Unfortunately. They call it "traffic safety".

Art makes it sound like they'll do everything in their power to prevent effective OC. That will mean demonstrations, clashes with police asking for ID, and eventual legal challenges...

Even if OC legislation lacks an amendment to prohibit stopping based on OC alone, it really doesn't change the balance of caselaw which has held for years that you can't stop and demand ID without cause (probable cause or reasonable suspicion). They'll do it, but it'll eventually get legally swatted..

cb1000rider wrote:

A-R wrote:
If you plan to open carry in Austin, I'd highly recommend you study "jaywalking" and other areas of law. Because I guarantee there will be a lot of "jaywalking" type pretext stops of anyone open carrying in Austin.

No pretext. They already do that stuff... Unfortunately. They call it "traffic safety".

Art makes it sound like they'll do everything in their power to prevent effective OC. That will mean demonstrations, clashes with police asking for ID, and eventual legal challenges...

Even if OC legislation lacks an amendment to prohibit stopping based on OC alone, it really doesn't change the balance of caselaw which has held for years that you can't stop and demand ID without cause (probable cause or reasonable suspicion). They'll do it, but it'll eventually get legally swatted..

And if it does it will unnecessarily cost innocent folks some $$$ to stay out of jail and fight that nuisance behavior on the part of the department. I wonder how a civil rights violation law suit would go if there is much of that. Maybe a class action law suit.

C-dub wrote:

cb1000rider wrote:

A-R wrote:
If you plan to open carry in Austin, I'd highly recommend you study "jaywalking" and other areas of law. Because I guarantee there will be a lot of "jaywalking" type pretext stops of anyone open carrying in Austin.

No pretext. They already do that stuff... Unfortunately. They call it "traffic safety".

Art makes it sound like they'll do everything in their power to prevent effective OC. That will mean demonstrations, clashes with police asking for ID, and eventual legal challenges...

Even if OC legislation lacks an amendment to prohibit stopping based on OC alone, it really doesn't change the balance of caselaw which has held for years that you can't stop and demand ID without cause (probable cause or reasonable suspicion). They'll do it, but it'll eventually get legally swatted..

And if it does it will unnecessarily cost innocent folks some $$$ to stay out of jail and fight that nuisance behavior on the part of the department. I wonder how a civil rights violation law suit would go if there is much of that. Maybe a class action law suit.

Sue the department and the officer personally. Get a chunk of his retirement and they might start getting a little hesitant about playing that game.

anygunanywhere wrote:

A-R wrote: Also, lawful possession of a firearm including OC is not PC or RS.

And how does anyone who does not know the person carrying know if the firearm is being possessed lawfully?

LaUser wrote: And how does anyone who does not know the person carrying know if the firearm is being possessed lawfully?

The same way we know that the a stranger driving a car has a valid license. (IE - we don't)

I'll probably treat OC just like I would a new firearm that has just been introduced. Let everyone else work out the kinks for a year or two before I jump in with both feet.

jmra wrote:I'll probably treat OC just like I would a new firearm that has just been introduced. Let everyone else work out the kinks for a year or two before I jump in with both feet.

Sounds like a good plan to me! Same here.

A-R wrote: If you plan to open carry in Austin, I'd highly recommend you study "jaywalking" and other areas of law. Because I guarantee there will be a lot of "jaywalking" type pretext stops of anyone open carrying in Austin.

With all due deference to those who live in Austin, I plan to visit your fair city right after visiting Komiefornia. Sorry, my money goes to other places.

And you're right, I don't visit Houston very often either!