TexasCHLforum.com

knoxknoxrocks wrote:THANK YOU for ALL the tips. It turns out that the officer is in TRAINING. I think he was being ghosted by other officer. I am learning more ins and outs. As far as the Passing Stopped Mark is concerned....i don't care. I will donate to the fine city of Dallas.

Knox - I am happy that you got all of your questions answered. It kind of makes sense if the officer was in training that he might be trying to show off to the training officer. In this case it backfired.

If you don't mind, I have a couple for you.

Why have you had a CHL since May and yet you don't own a gun?

If you don't own a gun why do you keep your CHL in your wallet?

Charles L. Cotton wrote:There has never been a duty to show your CHL unless you are armed. (I recommend doing so anyway.) In 2009, we removed the penalty for failing to display your CHL even if you are armed. If the officer does submit an affidavit to DPS for suspension, his incompetency will be on display for everyone.

Chas.

Love this response. Thank you........

Welcome to the forum! Wow, sorry you had such a nasty first experience. I assure you that is not typical. The chief of police in Dallas seems to be concerned that his officers are relating well to the public and staying within the law. If you don't get anywhere with talking to the officer's superior, try contacting him with details of what happened. Don't let this discourage you from legally carrying or fearing the next officer will act this way. The only time I have been pulled over since carrying, the officer looked my license over but didn't even care to know if I was armed or not. He simply complemented me on getting my license and carrying. And then let me go.

BTW, you are not the only CHL holder I know of that got the license before getting the gun. Get your gun when you are ready and able, carry it when you are comfortable with your knowledge of the laws. Then carry it everywhere that is legal.

knoxknoxrocks, I have had had to show my ID to cops 4 times since getting my CHL. Two involved my car: a stop for an expired inspection sticker, and a stop for a burned out taillight bulb. The other two were related to being asked for ID by a cop relative to a burglar alarm having been set off (one my own house, the other my church). Only one of the cops (expired inspection sticker) asked if I was armed, and where my gun was at the moment, but he seemed otherwise unconcerned. The other three cops just looked at my ID and handed it back to me without comment. The burned out taillight bulb netted me a written warning to get it fixed.

After over 4 years of posting on this forum and hearing others' stories, I think my experiences are fairly typical. Your experience was a lot rougher than most. Don't be discouraged....you just happened to bite the apple with the worm in it.....no big deal. I know it seemed like it at the time, but I'll bet that 2 years down the road and with a lot more experience carrying under your belt, that particular encounter will not seem quite so scary as it must have at the the time.

Oh, and just in case everyone forgot to tell you, A) never consent to a search; and B) never consent to a search.

Keith B wrote:

TeXJ wrote:On the stopping at the line law. There is an interesecting of a secondary road that comes to a primary road, 6 lanes. This secondary road has houses on it. At the stop sign there are huge bushes on both sides. In order to see the traffic you have to pull up into the cross walk to barelly see the oncoming traffic.

Yep, there are a lot of locations where something blocks the view. The law says you must first stop behind the line, THEN you can move forward cautiously to see if it is clear to proceed.

aww yes, thanks for the reminder :D

But after you come to a complete stop at the line, and then start rolling forward to see, you aren't required to stop again if the way is clear.

Also, if you're past the line when the light turns red, the correct action is to continue through the intersection when it's safe, not stop and DEFINITELY NOT back up.

What can happen after you refused consent to search? Can someone point me to where i can learn more about this? Thanks!

rl168 wrote:What can happen after you refused consent to search? Can someone point me to where i can learn more about this? Thanks!

The LEO can request a search warrant from a judge. If it is granted, the police can search. If not, they can't. Google "search warrant" for more information.

Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

As for learning more, I suggest reading at the library on books on 4th Amendment issues for police. This is a subject that there are lots of long courses on, both for police and for lawyers.

The fact that you loudly and specifically refuse to give consent for a warrantless search does not mean they won't still search. But you do want it on tape and on the record that it was not consensual. If they find ( or "find") something in a warrantless search without PC or other legal justification, then whatever they find is not admissable.

rl168 wrote:What can happen after you refused consent to search? Can someone point me to where i can learn more about this? Thanks!

LEO can generally search under a few circumstances:
1. Property owner's consent (consent can be withdrawn at any time)
2. Search incident to arrest or inventory search
3. Exigent circumstances (fire, perp runs into house, shootout, someone is screaming/crying etc)
4. Search Warrant signed by a neutral and detached magistrate
5. Plain View (contraband or illegal items are clearly visible prior to search)
6. Other probable cause (K-9 detects drugs, PC is based upon a reasonable suspicion)
7. many other exceptions to the "general warrant requirement" include Open field doctrine, protective sweeps, terry frisks, service provider exception and more.
If you want to be look up a FISA court and Sneak and Peak warrants. Scary stuff.
It is best to say " I do not consent to this/ or any search" rather than fight, resist, or threaten (even with lawsuit)

Edited to add- this is just off the top of my head.. I have an entire Search and Seizure manual at work (900+ pages). 4th Amendment is a highly litigated area in the law.

I want a Springfield XD 9 but can't get it til I can afford it. Wedding wins over bang bang this time. I'm hoping Santa will bring it to me.

Rex B wrote:The fact that you loudly and specifically refuse to give consent for a warrantless search does not mean they won't still search. But you do want it on tape and on the record that it was not consensual. If they find ( or "find") something in a warrantless search without PC or other legal justification, then whatever they find is not admissable.

This. I realize that police can do a warrantless search under exigent circumstances, but you still want it on record that you do not consent, and let's be honest....some police (by no means "all" or "most," but "some") are not above imagining or inventing "exigent circumstances." These are the minority that give the rest a bad name, but they are out there, and so your best policy as a citizen is to have it on record that you do not consent. That does not mean resist, interfere, or otherwise get obnoxious.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Rex B wrote:The fact that you loudly and specifically refuse to give consent for a warrantless search does not mean they won't still search. But you do want it on tape and on the record that it was not consensual. If they find ( or "find") something in a warrantless search without PC or other legal justification, then whatever they find is not admissable.

This. I realize that police can do a warrantless search under exigent circumstances, but you still want it on record that you do not consent, and let's be honest....some police (by no means "all" or "most," but "some") are not above imagining or inventing "exigent circumstances." These are the minority that give the rest a bad name, but they are out there, and so your best policy as a citizen is to have it on record that you do not consent. That does not mean resist, interfere, or otherwise get obnoxious.

You wouldn't believe some of the Probable Cause Affidavits I have seen. Sometimes it is UNREAL.

srothstein wrote:Correction on search. If the officer asks and consent is denied, he may still search if he has probable cause and a valid exigent circumstance. In most cases, the fact that a car is mobile is enough of an exigent circumstance to justify a search without a warrant.

As for learning more, I suggest reading at the library on books on 4th Amendment issues for police. This is a subject that there are lots of long courses on, both for police and for lawyers.

I was trying for the condensed version. There are lawyers who spend their entire careers on search and seizure issues. I concede to your expertise.