TexasCHLforum.com

Abraham wrote:I think a small percentage of CHLers are just dying to be asked for I.D. by an LEO and if not asked, they'll go out of their way to proudly volunteer it - that's kinda lame...

Relax - If an LEO asked you for I.D. show them - if not, chill, you won't get in trouble later for not volunteering your CHL status.

Police are stressed enough keeping up with that they choose to look into without Bubba interrupting them to proudly display his CHL status.

Amen.


We've already got advice from a leo on this thread saying you don't need to do so unless asked.

I imagine that butting in "i've got a CHL and a gun!" is going to get the officer wondering why you're volunteering that info. Nothing like bringing extra police scruitiny upon oneself....

If the officer is questioning the driver of the vehicle, keep your stinking mouth shut. Sit there, pay attention, keep your hands in plain sight and don't make any sudden movements. Its not rocket science. The driver of the vehicle is the subject of the stop, not you. You're a passenger and a bystander until you do something stupid to interject yourself into the interaction.

If the officer asks YOU if you have any weapons, you should advise him you're a CHL holder and have a concealed handgun.

powerboatr wrote:Can I throw some more wax
it seems that more and more troopers are pulling off the road and approaching the passenger side in the name of safety for him/he as well as the occupants of the vehicle.
So if he comes to the passenger side and your the passenger with a concealed item.
one would think in the name of safety he would ask the passenger if the have a firearm or chl as he is now very close proximity to the passenger as the driver hands over their dl and insurance card


me myself and I, as the passenger in this situation, would feel better letting the officer know i was carrying
it makes me feel safer
and i am sure it would the trooper as well as he is standing right next to me....and my firearm would be close to the passenger door out of sight in its holster.

They have a thankless job and there are rotten ones out there, but on the side of the road is not the place IMO to be weeding out the bad ones

The best thing you can do for the Officer's safety is sit there, shut up, keep your hands in plain sight, and pay attention. Answer questions directly asked of you. Let the Officer make the decisions on what he wants to know for his own safety, let him/her do their job.

Put this on the dash and ask him why he's hassling you...



Or just get out and do this:



Here is my actual badge. Cops love it.




Seriously, just remember "concealed means CONCEALED". Never never never never ever volunteer to ANYONE that you're carrying unless it's an LEO who asks you specifically.

My wife didn't know I carried for a full year! She saw me putting my gun on once and asked why. When I told her I had been doing it every day for a year, she just laughed and walked away.

Abraham wrote:I think a small percentage of CHLers are just dying to be asked for I.D. by an LEO and if not asked, they'll go out of their way to proudly volunteer it

That may be true, but I don't that is necessarily the case here. To those of us new to this CHL thing, there are just plenty of questions that come up about the best ways to carry - making sense of what is strictly legal versus what is good form. In many cases they are the same, but there can be differences.

I had the same exact question pop-up in my head (my wife driving while I am carrying) the day I was driving home from my CHL class - plus many more questions. Then, months latter when I think I understand it all much better, I had a police officer taking a statement in my yard. He didn't ask for ID as I expected, but asked for name, DOB, etc. The thought shot through my mind 'is this the same as asking for ID?'. I dismissed the thought for the moment and didn't present my CHL. But I then posted the question here to be sure I was right.

So, I think questioning these scenarios is perfectly natural and even healthy.

RoyGBiv wrote:Would be interesting to hear from a LEO on this, but, if I'm in this situation, I'm likely to volunteer my CHL. It depends on the tone of the stop though.... If the officer is relaxed and it all seems routine, vs. getting stopped by someone who's "having a bad day"...

3 reasons to volunteer it..

1. It avoids possible problems later.... Officer sees it or decides to ask you later, whatever
2. A CHL is proof of a clean criminal record. Maybe does nothing in a traffic stop, but, doesn't hurt.
3. Courtesy... Cops have a thankless enough job... "Officer, I have a CHL and I'm carrying a weapon". If I'm a LEO, I'd appreciate knowing...

1. If it is concealed the officer wont see it. The passenger shouldn't be moving around anyway.
2. No it is not. It means you haven't been caught. LEO should not fall into complacency due to a CHL being present.
3. If you were a LEO, what diference in your life does knowing a CHL is carrying afford you? Non-CHL under MPA dont have to notify, are they any less dangerous? The knowledge that a firearm is present is in and of itself meaningless. A LEO should always assume there is a firearm on every person and stay on guard the entire stop. Knowing the driver has one is useless knowledge, just confirming what you should have already assumed and prepared for upon initiating the stop. Ok, the info comes up on the DL check, still nothing is different. You aren't going to disarm or walk up gun drawn are you?
While I agree that a CHL does give some LEO the feeling the driver is safe it a false assurance. I would train my officers to treat every person as armed and act accordingly (not as a felony stop, but aware of what is going on). If it is so important that the officer knows then why wasn't MPA written to notify upon presentation of the TDL?
Here is a plausible scenario: You make a stop and the driver is CHL but his passenger isn't. Now you know the driver is carrying but you still have no knowledge the passenger has a FN 5-7 he just bought. How are you safer now? The CHL is least likely to be an issue.

There are so many stories about police arbitrarily or routinely disarming CHL that I will not volunteer the information. I will answer a direct question and follow the rule if asked for ID but otherwise concealed = concealed.

ScottDLS wrote:You are not required to identify yourself unless you (not the driver) are "detained". In order to "detain" you the LEO must have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion ("RAS") that you are "party to some ... offense". You are generally not detained just because the person you're riding with was pulled over, unless the RAS exists with respect to you.
[snip]

As GigAg points out, if you are not carrying and asked for ID you are under no obligation to produce or verbally (...yeah...yeah..ORALLY) provide one. However, if you are lawfully detained or arrested, and you provide a false name, you may be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

I wanted to clarify two points that might make a difference in your thinking, either way. The first is one you appear slightly confused on, though you do end up with it correct.

When you are detained (or a witness to a crime), you are not required to produce any identification or answer any questions about who you are. You cannot answer with a false name, date of birth, or address but you do not have to identify at all. The only time you are required to identify is when you are under arrest.

The other more important point is that you are detained when you are the passenger in the car also. For years cops have said the passengers are not truly detained and could get out and walk away at any time. But no one seems to think this is true. A year or so ago, SCOTUS ruled that this is not true and that a passenger is also detained when the car is stopped. The basis for the case was a passenger who tried to argue that the stop was illegal and the state was saying he had no standing for that argument. SCOTUS ruled that the passenger was just as detained as the driver since no normal citizen would feel free to walk away from the police officer in the middle of the stop. This gave him standing to question the original probable cause for the stop.

When combined with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case that ruled a traffic stop was an arrest, it could conceivably have some interesting cases come up in the future.

For now though, I agree with GigAg04. If I stop a car, I want the driver's information and no one else should talk. If I want information from you, I will ask for it. If you start volunteering information, it will ratchet up my attention to both you and the driver. I would not do so, but I could see some officers trying to build a case for interfering with a police officer if you volunteered the information that you have a gun.

srothstein wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:You are not required to identify yourself unless you (not the driver) are "detained". In order to "detain" you the LEO must have a Reasonable Articulable Suspicion ("RAS") that you are "party to some ... offense". You are generally not detained just because the person you're riding with was pulled over, unless the RAS exists with respect to you.
[snip]

As GigAg points out, if you are not carrying and asked for ID you are under no obligation to produce or verbally (...yeah...yeah..ORALLY) provide one. However, if you are lawfully detained or arrested, and you provide a false name, you may be guilty of a class B misdemeanor.

I wanted to clarify two points that might make a difference in your thinking, either way. The first is one you appear slightly confused on, though you do end up with it correct.

When you are detained (or a witness to a crime), you are not required to produce any identification or answer any questions about who you are. You cannot answer with a false name, date of birth, or address but you do not have to identify at all. The only time you are required to identify is when you are under arrest.

The other more important point is that you are detained when you are the passenger in the car also. For years cops have said the passengers are not truly detained and could get out and walk away at any time. But no one seems to think this is true. A year or so ago, SCOTUS ruled that this is not true and that a passenger is also detained when the car is stopped. The basis for the case was a passenger who tried to argue that the stop was illegal and the state was saying he had no standing for that argument. SCOTUS ruled that the passenger was just as detained as the driver since no normal citizen would feel free to walk away from the police officer in the middle of the stop. This gave him standing to question the original probable cause for the stop.

When combined with the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals case that ruled a traffic stop was an arrest, it could conceivably have some interesting cases come up in the future.

For now though, I agree with GigAg04. If I stop a car, I want the driver's information and no one else should talk. If I want information from you, I will ask for it. If you start volunteering information, it will ratchet up my attention to both you and the driver. I would not do so, but I could see some officers trying to build a case for interfering with a police officer if you volunteered the information that you have a gun.

I was confused re: detention of the passenger during a stop of someone else. RAS is still necessary for the (passenger) detention, but the driver may be the cause of it. Also, I believe Texas does not have a "Stop and Identify" statute since its orginal one was struck down in 1979 Brown vs. Texas....because of the lack of a requirement for RAS. Though "Stop and Identify" laws may be enforced in other states Hiibel vs. (...Court of) Nevada, so far as I can tell there is currently not one in Texas. So absent carrying under CHL, passenger is not required to produce identification at all, nor engage in conversation. The identification statute in TXPC 38.02(a) only applies to being arrested...and arguably the Texas case that a traffic stop was an arrest would only apply to the driver...the passenger is only "detained".

The nature of the times is that traffic stops tend to become fishing expeditions. I understand it, but am dismayed. These days I would probably produce ID if "requested", but I don't feel under any obligation to. I certainly would not volunteer my CHL whether carrying or not, unless I was specifically asked for identification and was carrying.

Side note: Recently I was in a minor traffic accident in a parking lot. We called the local PD non-emergency number to ask if they would fill out a report. They asked each of us to produce our DL. We did, then shortly thereafter, I remembered that my 9mm was in my car (I had exited). I handed the LEO my CHL, though technically I was not "carrying". My purpose was to inform the LEO that I was going to retrieve my handgun from the car to take it home (while the car was towed) and I told him this. He said, "Fine, you have a CHL.". I tried to speak quietly as I didn't want to suggest to the other party that I was armed.

So I don't stand on principle every time, but I am resistant to a creeping erosion of our civil rights.

Since someone above mentioned the MPA, I wonder since the advent of the MPA, is asking if there are guns in the car an automatic question at the outset of a traffic stop?