TexasCHLforum.com

Interesting topics to consider, profiling, CC, and making it home alive.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That may be one of the most thoughtful videos on the subject I've ever seen. Cool dude.

I was completely unaware that having tinted windows were probable cause in any state...
Did they even check the tint?

Smart man for sure. I think even if you're not required to let them know you have a firearm in your state, this proves it's probably not a bad idea. I would do it out of respect regardless if they asked or not. That way I don't have to worry about how they might react when and if they find the gun, and I think they would prefer no surprises either. Take the gun out of the equation. Could get you out of a ticket too. This guy ended up with just a warning.

cb1000rider wrote:I was completely unaware that having tinted windows were probable cause in any state...
Did they even check the tint?

The video shows they did check the tint with a tintmeter and found it was noncompliant.

I'm surprised this post hasn't received more comments. It' seems like a long video, but worth the watch. This is my biggest fear if I'm ever pulled over while carrying, this person was treated like a threat simply because he was licensed and carrying. The officer actually told him that if he moved toward his vehicle once they disarmed him it would be perceived as an aggressive move. What is most revealing and frightening is the change in demeanor and attitude as soon as the driver informed the officers he was legally armed. You can hear the voice quiver in one of the officers. Plus they created a situation where they said he can't return to his vehicle but then asked for his insurance. I'm surprised the driver let them search his car.

What about disarming him? This seems like a dangerous maneuver. What if they weren't familiar with this weapon? What if it had discharged while they were disarming him? I appendix carry sometimes and would in no way like a complete stranger that I've never seen handle any firearm, let alone mine, reach in that close and take it from my holster.

I will commend the driver for keeping his cool. I hope I am able to remain as calm as he did even though they treated him like a criminal.

Was this over the top? I would love to hear the LEO perspective. Thanks.

Out of state plates, dark tinted windows... maybe they even saw that he was AA through the front window.
Car probably fits the profile of a trouble maker.

I'm ok with getting pulled for non-compliant tint, but dude was 100% deferential and cooperative, I was a little surprised the LEO kept on the pressure and commanding tone. I don't know what the rate is for making stops on CHL's that self identify then turn out to be BG's? Not suggesting letting down your guard, but, the tone really bothered me after a while.

Re: The gun in the front seat.
Nice trick for getting permission to search without asking for permission to search.

Note to self: If I'm ever in the same position and I'm asked for permission to search my glove box, I'm asking the LEO to retrieve the gun so I can get "my papers" myself. Feel free to bring the dogs if you want to find PC for a search. I've always got enough time for that.

I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

mojo84, I totally agree that they WAY overacted in their actions. They were hassling this guy way beyond any justification. The pat down shouldn't have happened at all. No reason for it. He was cooperating in every way.

When is a pat down justified during a traffic stop? Probable cause? Reasonable suspicion? In this case...of what??

One reason I can think of about the actions of the cops was the younger one was a rookie, and the older one was his 'teacher'. And this was a training session. The other reason is plain old racial profiling.

With all due respect to the officers involved, if you have a problem with a wild party involving lots of illegalities, I believe it would be better to go get a warrant, get as much help as needed, kit up and go do some preventative police work.

Sending everybody out on the highway to stop and search everyone who might fit the profile of the troublemakers racially seems like a good way to end up giving the Feds an excuse to tear up the department and make some lawyers rich at the taxpayers expense. Not to mention that such a tactic is far more likely to end up getting the department a reputation for ducking the troublemakers out there and inviting the real troublemakers into the house.

I realize the officers can't disobey the chief, but I wouldn't put my honor on the line for her poor decision making. Just sayin.

mojo84 wrote:I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

Courts have held that having a gun is more than enough justification for disarming someone in a custodial situation. The pat down however may not be legal or to put it differently since there was little "damage" it would be almost impossible to get the question to a court but if they happened to find something on the guy I would think there was a good chance it would be suppressed. Having a CHL and or legally carrying a gun with a CHL is not grounds for a Terry pat down. They don't pat down everyone who is stopped for tint so what caused this pat down? His color or the CHL? Neither would qualify for RS so I would be very curious as to what the RS was or why the cop thought it was OK. Maybe there was something else we don't know about going on here.

Excaliber wrote: The video shows they did check the tint with a tintmeter and found it was noncompliant.

As much as I don't like it - fair deal then... Nothing to see here.

Either we have certain Rights or we DON'T!

More and more I see our Rights being violated by those in authority and them getting away with it!

Using tinting to go hunting is a bad way to teach a rookie how to work and will develop bad habits that the LEO will use.

EEllis wrote:

mojo84 wrote:I just took the time to watch it. It is an excellent video. I think there are multiple issues with which I have an issue about this stop and subsequent handling by the officers.

This is one example of why I do not like the concept of pretextual stops. The idea using one reason, even though valid, to stop someone for really a different reason, is wrong in my opinion. If his tint appeared to be too dark, then stop him and ticket him for it. But don't just use that as justification for a stop so you can see if there is something else that may be going on.

What did the guy do to make the guy concerned for "officer safety"? I'm not sure what the laws are in Florida but in Texas, I saw nothing that justified or made it necessary to disarm the guy for his or the officers' safety. The cop being a nervous nilly isn't sufficient in my mind. Also, the fact a nearby black family that has a wild Easter party doesn't justify treating all nearby black people as a threat.

I understand a pat down has been deemed legal. However, I do not like it. It comes across as treating someone as a criminal when they really haven't done anything to justify being treated as such. I do not think a cop should put his hands on someone unless he has reason to be suspicious there is some valid reason to believe it is necessary. The fact the guy disclosed his ccw and that he was carrying should have been an indicator of his good faith in dealing with the cops.

I also do not like the idea the cops wouldn't allow him to retrieve his insurance card. The cops were acting like they were outnumbered and the guy had given them a reason to believe he was a threat.

Having too dark of a tint on his windows is illegal and does deserve to be addressed by the cops. However, I do not believe it is such a criminal offense that the guys should have been treated like he was a threat to the multiple officers on the scene.

The cops way overreacted in my opinion. I'm sure some will disagree with me and I am good with that.

Courts have held that having a gun is more than enough justification for disarming someone in a custodial situation. The pat down however may not be legal or to put it differently since there was little "damage" it would be almost impossible to get the question to a court but if they happened to find something on the guy I would think there was a good chance it would be suppressed. Having a CHL and or legally carrying a gun with a CHL is not grounds for a Terry pat down. They don't pat down everyone who is stopped for tint so what caused this pat down? His color or the CHL? Neither would qualify for RS so I would be very curious as to what the RS was or why the cop thought it was OK. Maybe there was something else we don't know about going on here.

So thankful for the correction of my opinion based on the courts. However, my opinion hasn't changed. I don't think the mere presence of a gun should be enough to disarm. The law in Texas requires the officer to believe it necessary for safety. I didn't see anything in the video that would lead a cop to believe it necessary for safety.

In other words, I don't agree that all laws and court decisions are correct.

charliej47 wrote: Either we have certain Rights or we DON'T!

More and more I see our Rights being violated by those in authority and them getting away with it!

Using tinting to go hunting is a bad way to teach a rookie how to work and will develop bad habits that the LEO will use.

Many, many years ago, I was pulled over because I was a white guy leaving a very poor part of a rural town. The town was Marlin, TX if you've ever been there.

My fiance (now my wife) was a teacher there when she was right out of school. I left her place really late one night and was pulled over just as I was turning onto Hwy 6. The local officer said he pulled me over because my license plate light was out. We walked around the back of my truck and my license plate light was working fine. He then gave me the 20 questions about what I was doing there and why I was out so late. I know what he thought I was doing and he was quick to believe my situation and let me go on my way. I understand what he was trying to accomplish, but after thinking about it during my long drive home I was infuriated that he had pulled me over for no reason as it was obvious he lied about my license plate light.

When is it OK for me to give up my rights? The guy in the video was violated.