TexasCHLforum.com

I had a student that was stopped/ticketed for tinted windows. He gave the LEO his CHL (per his training) and the LEO took his gun and ran the serial numbers. That seems a little excessive/invasive too me.

It was a small department. I suggested he call the sargeant and the chief. Maybe complain to DPS.

Did the student agree to the search, or did he verbalize his lack of consent for the search?

??? I don't know. I don't think he had much choice. I'm assuming when he gave the LEO his CHL, the LEO took his gun (officer safety you know) and then went and ran the serial number.

switch wrote:??? I don't know. I don't think he had much choice. I'm assuming when he gave the LEO his CHL, the LEO took his gun (officer safety you know) and then went and ran the serial number.

How did he know the officer ran the SN? Did the officer say "I'm going to run your SN"? If so, that would be the time to say something.

??? I assume so. However, I disagree. On a traffic stop, you should be agreeable (unless they want to search, then you can politely refuse consent if they ask.)

If an LEO tells you he is going to check to see if your gun is stolen are you going to tell him "No you cannot"?

switch wrote:??? I assume so. However, I disagree. On a traffic stop, you should be agreeable (unless they want to search, then you can politely refuse consent if they ask.)

If an LEO tells you he is going to check to see if your gun is stolen are you going to tell him "No you cannot"?

I'm going to ask him if he has probable cause to suspect that they are stolen and then I'm going to tell him that I do not consent and if that doesn't work I'm going to ask that he have his supervisor dispatched. Of course I will be recording at this point.

switch wrote:I suggested he call the sargeant and the chief. Maybe complain to DPS.

I agree. Should something like this happen to me, my philosophy (not that anyone asked) is to put my ego in lockdown, be as cooperative as can be, discretely record as much as possible (name, badge, date, time location, witnesses, etc...) including perhaps cell phone video.

Afterwards, if I feel that my rights were seriously trampled or the officer breached the law or department policy, I can take the collected info to the sergeant, the chief, the DPS, my own attorney, the governor, the press, whatever. But never get into a pissing match with an authority figure busily exercising his or her authority. You won't win in the short term, and piss stains can make it a lot harder to win in the long term.

dogflight wrote:

switch wrote:I suggested he call the sargeant and the chief. Maybe complain to DPS.

I agree. Should something like this happen to me, my philosophy (not that anyone asked) is to put my ego in lockdown, be as cooperative as can be, discretely record as much as possible (name, badge, date, time location, witnesses, etc...) including perhaps cell phone video.

Afterwards, if I feel that my rights were seriously trampled or the officer breached the law or department policy, I can take the collected info to the sergeant, the chief, the DPS, my own attorney, the governor, the press, whatever. But never get into a pissing match with an authority figure busily exercising his or her authority. You won't win in the short term, and piss stains can make it a lot harder to win in the long term.

You can defend your rights and stand your ground respectfully. No need to excrete bodily fluids.

switch wrote:No need to excrete bodily fluids.

LOL

I've had a couple of cops tell me they believe they are obligated to run a check on a gun before they return it once it is in their possession. The reason is that they don't want to return a gun that may be stolen and then have it used in a crime later. Same thing as letting a suspected drunk driver drive on and then they cause an accident.

We debated this vigorously and neither of us changed the other's mind.

mojo84 wrote:I've had a couple of cops tell me they believe they are obligated to run a check on a gun before they return it once it is in their possession. The reason is that they don't want to return a gun that may be stolen and then have it used in a crime later. Same thing as letting a suspected drunk driver drive on and then they cause an accident.

We debated this vigorously and neither of us changed the other's mind.

It may be the departmental policy. IIRC, Fort Worth PD had such a policy in the late 70's /early 80's.

mr1337 wrote:Did the student agree to the search, or did he verbalize his lack of consent for the search?

An officer does not need consent for searching something that is in plain sight. If the gun was handed to him, the serial number is in plain sight.

Now, this is a largely theoretical issue because 99.99% of people will not litigate, but if the gun was handed to an officer while still in a holster, where the holster covered the serial number, then the officer would require either consent or reasonable articulable suspicion ("RAS") to conduct a serial number search by removing the gun from the holster. It would no longer qualify for the "plain sight exception".

As far as the OP, yes, I would lodge a written complaint with the department.

Jumping Frog,

You know more about this than I do.

If, hypothetically speaking, I'm stopped by an LEO and have my pistol holstered in a OWB belted on zippered leather pack, that is, the pistol cannot be seen, and I've not broken any laws, but I was asked for I.D. by an LEO - they have no lawful right to run the SN?

(boy, that was a mouthful...)

Yes?

No?

Following

Past discussions that I learned from:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=60179