TexasCHLforum.com

I certainly hope no LEO was offended by anything in this thread. There may be some anti-LEO lurking here, but I think as a rule we members support law enforcement. I would expect the moderators to pounce on inapprpriate LEO attacks as readily as those fake four letter words.

Anygun

Odin wrote:In Texas the police can arrest you for any minor traffic violation except speeding or violation of the open container law. That includes not wearing a seat belt, burned out tail light, etc...

Just because it is so does not make it right.

Anygun

If the state of Virginia has their way then you can expect to be subjected to pretty much anything during a traffic stop.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... ourt_N.htm

WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court case heard Monday that could broadly affect the rights of motorists began when two Virginia police detectives stopped David Lee Moore in 2003 for driving with a suspended license.
Instead of simply writing up a summons and letting him go, they arrested and searched him, finding crack cocaine in a jacket pocket. Moore was convicted of possession with intent to distribute. The Virginia Supreme Court voided the conviction, saying the search was unconstitutional because Virginia law does not give police the authority to arrest drivers for minor violations.

Hearing Virginia's appeal, Chief Justice John Roberts and several other justices appeared sympathetic to state arguments that the evidence could be used anyway.

Stephen McCullough, deputy Virginia solicitor general, emphasized that although Virginia and many other states set a higher standard for arresting drivers for small offenses, the U.S. Constitution allows police to arrest people they believe are engaged in wrongdoing, no matter how trivial. The Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, requires only that officers have "probable cause" to believe a crime is being committed before an arrest and search.

McCullough urged the justices to impose a uniform rule that the Fourth Amendment would have allowed Moore's arrest for a suspended license, so it does not require the cocaine evidence to be suppressed. McCullough said the nation should not have differing constitutional rules based on varying state laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, often a decisive vote, seemed to agree. "I think it is much easier to administer, to have a uniform federal standard, rather than whether or not an officer can arrest in one county for something and not in another county," he said.

Urging the court to rule for Moore, his lawyer Thomas Goldstein said when people engage in activities that do not normally subject them to arrest "they do not have a reduced expectation of privacy," as would people doing something more serious that could lead to an arrest and then search. Goldstein argued that the law restricting arrests for traffic offenses should factor into the Fourth Amendment analysis and said, "We don't want to encourage officers to conduct illegal arrests and search people."

Goldstein invoked the history of the constitutional protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, telling the court, "The notion that the proud men who framed the Constitution would believe it reasonable to go out and arrest someone for a non-arrestable offense and … to further search (him) is an extreme proposition and one that they would not accept."

"But you think they would accept arresting somebody for not wearing a seat belt?" Justice Antonin Scalia interjected. The court in 2001 ruled that people stopped for minor traffic offenses, such as not wearing a seat belt, could be subject to a full-scale arrest. There was no search in that case.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among the justices most skeptical of the state's position, backed by the U.S. Justice Department. When McCullough said an arrest is constitutional if the officers have reason to believe any crime has occurred, Ginsburg countered, "Any crime at all? Jaywalking, for example?"

McCullough responded, "That's correct."

People are all caught up with the Heller case. There are other cases that are eroding our freedoms too.

Anygun

Odin wrote:
Most are. Some aren't, but it's a tiny fraction of a percentage. .

Same with CHLers. Most are great. Some aren't but it's a tiny fraction.

Respect works both ways.

CHLers expect to be treatd as non-threats and not be subject to the whims of LEOs. LEOs want to be treatd with respect by CHLers. I do not know of anyone on this board who would not. I respect LEO, I fully intend to treat any interaction with one in a positive manner.

Just don't disarm me. I will not do anything to make you feel threatened. I expect the same from you.

Anygun

tbranch wrote:
I don't think the probable cause test applies to disarming from my reading of the law. If the CHL tells the LEO that the weapon is in the glovebox and the LEO decides to disarm, then looking in the glovebox for the weapon seems reasonable and anything else found in the glovebox would fall under the "plain view" doctrine.

Tom

I did not say that PC applies to disarming. I stated that questioning the disarming is appropriate. Resisting is not. Questioning events during a stop is not illegal. At least not yet.

If I am stopped for a traffic infraction and if the LEO decides to fish by asking to search my vehicle it is proper for me to ask why even though I will refuse to give permission.

If I am stopped for a traffic infraction and if the LEO disarms me I will politely ask what I did to make him feel it was necessary to disarm me. If he responds with the canned answer that he reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of me, officer, or another individual I will ask what I was doing to make him feel unsafe. The act of being armed does not threaten anyone.

I have to disageree with you here AF. If disarming CHLs made the officers safer then wouldn't you see all officers disarming CHLs and that the actiion would be policy everywhere? In actuality, and I do not have any numbers anywhere to reinforce my statement, most stops involving CHLs do not involve disarming and the act actually exposes all parties to ND due to unnecessary weapon handling.

Yes the correct action is to comply and deal with it later but a polite question why the officer believes it is necessary is allowed just like questioning and denying searches not supported by probable cause.

Anygun