TexasCHLforum.com

Yum.

- Jim

That's nice. You question my credibility while offering no evidence to show that I am wrong.

If you can show me some cases where people who are not engaged in a crime (felon in possession of a firearm, transporting drugs, illegal alien, etc.) or have outstanding warrants shoot at police during traffic stops, I will eat crow with a smile -- well an embarrassed grin anyway.

- Jim

Xander wrote:Has an LEO ever been killed (or even shot at) by a CHL holder during a traffic stop? Not just in Texas, but anywhere in the country?

I think it's safe to say the answer is No. If this had happened, the drumbeat for the abolition of CHL laws would be impossible to ignore.

About half the states allow unlicensed car carry (as Texas now does). The only people who shoot at cops are career criminals who are wanted or actively engaged in some criminal activity when they are stopped.

- Jim

LedJedi wrote:Disarming someone simply because they are armed and citing a "safety issue" is unfair, unconstitutional and paranoia. If there are TRULY concerns such as intoxication, aggressive behavior, history of violence, etc. then I don't think anyone here would have an issue with a LEO disarming a civilian for the duration of a "scene".

I've seen this twice now and feel compelled to comment.

Someone who is intoxicated is going to be arrested and of course disarmed. Likewise overtly threatening the officer by word or gesture (making a fist, for example).

The heartburn territory is where the officer disarms because of gut feeling. There is the implication that the CHL holder, who has lived his entire life up to that point without committing a felony, and has no misdemeanor for at least five years, is going to shoot a cop over a traffic ticket.

- Jim

This battle has already been lost. Atwater v. Lago Vista, woman arrested (as in cuffs ride, prints, and mug shot) for not wearing a seat belt: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/99-1408.ZS.html

The article refers to Atwater obliquely.

- Jim

dac1842 wrote:AS A FORMER LEO I ALWAYS BELIEVED IN GUN CONTROL, THAT BEING I AM IN CONTROL OF ALL GUNS PRESENT.

How do you deal with roll call?

- Jim

Police officers can handcuff people in custody when they reasonably believe that it is necessary for safety. Probable cause is not required.

Can you imagine how short the career of a police officer would be if he handcuffed every person he stopped for a class C traffic offense?

- Jim

flb_78 wrote:So I should keep my weed in the glovebox with my gun? Then when I am asked to exit the vehicle and the officer opens the glovebox and my weed falls out, I can't be charged with possession because I did not consent to be searched.

No. If you look at the Thornton decision cited above, you would be busted fair and square.

- Jim

pt145ss wrote:Suppose you are stopped for a traffic violation. You are not armed at the time of the stop. You do not disclose your CHL as you are not armed. When the officer runs your DL, the CHL comes back. The officer returns to your vehicle and ask you about the CHL and you tell him/her that you do not have a fimearm...does that give the officer enough probable cause to search the vehicle for a fiearm?

Probable cause is not an issue because it would not be an offense to have a firearm in your vehicle. It's like a Terry stop. It's a safety issue.

Now, IMHO, if the officer found dope while searching for weapons, it might would not be admissible as evidence because the officer did not have probable cause to search for dope. However, the Thornton case that I cited above seems to indicate it might.

pt145ss wrote:Could the officer say that he/she was concerned for their safety and thought it best to search?

Of course. And his superiors would probably take his word for it.

pt145ss wrote:Could it be argued that in this case simply having the occupant exit the vehicle is enough to ensure the officer's safety? Can that argument be applied to the OP as once the occupant has exited the vehicle the occupant no longer has access the the firearm?

Again, that argument can be made; but playing the devil's advocate, I could say that the officer cannot devote 100% of his attention to the arrestee (he has to watch for traffic, maybe write a ticket), and the arrestee could retrieve the weapon within seconds and threaten the officer.

The bottom line here is that if a police officer disarms you, then releases you and gives you back your weapon and ammunition, you have no recourse. His superiors will support him all the way up to the mayor or sheriff. No responsible lawyer would file a case for any cause, and a judge would dismiss it.

P.S.: This explanation of Terry is readable and accurate, according to my understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_v._Ohio

- Jim

We're not talking about a search for contraband that will be used as evidence in a criminal case. We're talking about an officer presumably ensuring the safety of himself and others.

Search and seizure issues almost always boil down to whether evidence is admissible in a criminal case.

There can be no criminal charge in Texas for having a concealed weapon in a vehicle, whether the person has a CHL or not, unless the person is engaged in some other criminal activity.

This is my opinion, based on some 40 years of experience: The police will do whatever they want. If they violate the law, it's a very steep uphill battle to obtain redress. I point to the firearms confiscation in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina as a recent example.

- Jim

We need to talk about the meaning of the word can. The fundamental meaning is to be physically or mentally able to do something. Odin has this right. Police officers can do anything that they are able to do. Their actions may be legal or illegal, and they may or may not suffer the consequences of illegal actions later. Usually not.

Courts have given the police the benefit of the doubt when their actions are intended to ensure the safety of themselves, people in custody, or third parties.

Police have never needed a warrant to search a vehicle. The U.S. Supreme Court decided this issue shortly after the first Model T rolled off the assembly line (Carroll v. U.S.). It took me about ten seconds to come up with a recent ruling that illustrates the kind of case you are asking about, Thornton v. U.S.: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-5165.ZS.html

- Jim