TexasCHLforum.com

I'm curious if an LEO on this forum (or attorney) can tell me which law says a Texas police officer can "run the numbers" on your pistol without reasonable suspicion that it's stolen. Just because it's a "Glock" doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

What part of the OP indicated/triggered this part of the law " reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."?

Why did the officer believe it was "necessary" to disarm the driver beyond having him get out of the car? It seems many overlook this important part of the law or am I not reading it properly? Where in the law does it state he can run it to see if it is stolen without probable cause or reasonable suspicion that it may be?

Just seems the officer went too far and overstepped his bound.

A-R wrote: 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)

One heck of a stretch you got going here....If this incident wasnt a fishing expedition explain why it wasnt. How is standing behind the vehicle, a minimum distance of 12 -15 feet, consistent with being "within reach". Also provide the parameters of a lunge area.

Jim Beaux wrote:

A-R wrote: 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)

One heck of a stretch you got going here....If this incident wasnt a fishing expedition explain why it wasnt. How is standing behind the vehicle, a minimum distance of 12 -15 feet, consistent with being "within reach". Also provide the parameters of a lunge area.

100% Fishing Expedition as evidenced by the questions the LEO asked. I am not an LEO, nor do I claim to know what tactics work best but I would never, ever turn my back to a "suspect" on the side of the road and stick my head in a car to look for ANYTHING without another officer being present.

Very, very foolish and the officer is very fortunate he was dealing with a good guy.

OldCannon wrote:I'm curious if an LEO on this forum (or attorney) can tell me which law says a Texas police officer can "run the numbers" on your pistol without reasonable suspicion that it's stolen. Just because it's a "Glock" doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

Most laws restrict actions so there would be a law saying that he "couldn't run the numbers", rather a law giving permission. If the LEO legally has possession of your gun, why would he need reasonable suspicion? He just ran your DL and your car registration and insurance.

OldCannon wrote:I'm curious if an LEO on this forum (or attorney) can tell me which law says a Texas police officer can "run the numbers" on your pistol without reasonable suspicion that it's stolen. Just because it's a "Glock" doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

Just note... he said he was going to check it before he knew what kind of gun it was at all. I just told him it was in the center console. I didn't say what kind, caliber, or style. For all he knew, it would have been a $5000 1911.

The more I think about this, more upset I am getting.

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.

Scott in Houston wrote: The more I think about this, more upset I am getting.

Don't beat yourself up over it; this was certainly a learning experience as you had nothing to hide. As an armchair quarterback we can all say what you should have done but we certainly weren't in your situation. I think as a general rule it's good to always say "No" to any sort of search as it is your right and if you weren't doing anything wrong (other than speeding but 5 mph over can easily be dismissed due to speedometer discrepancies) the LEO had no probable cause. This was a fishing expedition.

Exercise your rights next time (hopefully there won't be a next time ) because the running of the gun to check if it was stolen is bull. I hope a LEO on here can educate me, but what quick check system is out there that can run gun serial numbers?

knotquiteawake wrote:

carlson1 wrote: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."

I like this idea in theory... until I pictured it with my wife still inside ."

Only Aggies get locked inside their cars. Before all the Maroon blooded folks get upset, my dad, a die hard Aggie Class of 1940, told me that joke.

Scott, I had a "different" stop by DPS that I posted. It was different for a other reasons, but I refused to stand in front of the troopers cars when directed to do so. I think it was a rookie. She had me stand three feet in front of her while she held up my TDL and checked back and forth three times to make sure it was me. BTW it was 1 o'clock on a sunny summer day. The picture was only a year old at the time and 64 year olds don't change all that much anyway.
It's a difficult thing to do to stand for your rights when you're thinking maybe you'll get off with a warning. However, for me, I will politely refuse any searches. I would of course comply with the officer taking the weapon, but if he/she did a serial number check I would report him/her. That's an illegal search in my opinion as there was absolutely no cause whatsoever to suspect it's stolen. After experiencing my stop I will never answer any questions that are irrelavent to the stop or CHL/CCW.

Scott in Houston wrote:

OldCannon wrote:I'm curious if an LEO on this forum (or attorney) can tell me which law says a Texas police officer can "run the numbers" on your pistol without reasonable suspicion that it's stolen. Just because it's a "Glock" doesn't constitute reasonable suspicion.

Just note... he said he was going to check it before he knew what kind of gun it was at all. I just told him it was in the center console. I didn't say what kind, caliber, or style. For all he knew, it would have been a $5000 1911.

The more I think about this, more upset I am getting.

Now Scott, dont go gettin yourself tazed!

puma guy wrote:

knotquiteawake wrote:

carlson1 wrote: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."

I like this idea in theory... until I pictured it with my wife still inside ."

Only Aggies get locked inside their cars. Before all the Maroon blooded folks get upset, my dad, a die hard Aggie Class of 1940, told me that joke.

Scott, I had a "different" stop by DPS that I posted. It was different for a other reasons, but I refused to stand in front of the troopers cars when directed to do so. I think it was a rookie. She had me stand three feet in front of her while she held up my TDL and checked back and forth three times to make sure it was me. BTW it was 1 o'clock on a sunny summer day. The picture was only a year old at the time and 64 year olds don't change all that much anyway.
It's a difficult thing to do to stand for your rights when you're thinking maybe you'll get off with a warning. However, for me, I will politely refuse any searches. I would of course comply with the officer taking the weapon, but if he/she did a serial number check I would report him/her. That's an illegal search in my opinion as there was absolutely no cause whatsoever to suspect it's stolen. After experiencing my stop I will never answer any questions that are irrelavent to the stop or CHL/CCW.

I never considered refusing to stand in front of the LEO's car?? Puma could you provide the link to the above encounter?

You were probably on one of our 'drug corridors' - probably driving the 'right' kind of vehicle as well. I know others here are sensitized to such stops and really dislike it - but, they are just doing what they are paid to do. Personally - would just be part of what happens occasionally to any citizen and unless I was abused or demeaned somehow - it wouldn't even be a blip on my radar. JMHO

couzin wrote:You were probably on one of our 'drug corridors' - probably driving the 'right' kind of vehicle as well. I know others here are sensitized to such stops and really dislike it - but, they are just doing what they are paid to do. Personally - would just be part of what happens occasionally to any citizen and unless I was abused or demeaned somehow - it wouldn't even be a blip on my radar. JMHO

Highway 6 near Marlin in a 4 door (fairly pricey) white German sedan.
I've driven this route for 25 years since going to school in Waco. I'm not sure whether it's considered a 'corridor' for drug running, but wow, do I not fit the profile.

Then, once he came to my door and saw me decked out in college football fan gear and carrying a CHL... it's very odd.

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.

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.