Search of a CHL holders vehicle

[apowell]

I ran across a thread on TXDPSA.com that had the following scenario:

A couple of years ago, I got stopped twice in a month by 2 different DPS officers. Once I got a warning, and the other I got a ticket. Of course I handed my CHL with my TDL and insurance. One of them only asked me if I had a weapon and where it was located in the vehicle. The other officer asked me if I had a weapon. When I said yes, he proceeded to search the interior of my car until he found it. Then he pulled it out, unloaded it, and asked me questions about the gun- like when and where I purchased it. I forgot they can just search your car like that, and at the time I was upset about it. I think he was just fishing looking for drugs and testing me to see if I was a suspiscious character,etc.

To me this looks like an illegal search.
They do have the legal authority to disarm you, which they did as soon as they removed him from the vehicle, but I wouldn't expect this to grant them the authority to search the vehicle.

GC §411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM. A
peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may disarm a license holder at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual. The peace officer shall return the handgun to the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer, license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation that results in the arrest of the license holder.

There does appear to be an implied authority to take possession of the weapon, even though the dictionary meaning of disarm is to remove your ability to use the weapon which in this case was accomplished by having him exit the vehicle.

I'm making the assumption that they asked him to exit the vehicle. His post didn't cover this, but I would think that an officer would NOT search a vehicle for a gun with the driver still in the car. That would just be dumb.

Any thoughts?

[Kalrog]

If this is the whole truth, then it sure does sound fishy... At least that search and handgun recovery portion of it does.

[prepared_not_paranoid]

Correct or not this is what I think,
I feel the officer has every right to search only the area of the vehicle where the firearm could be within reach from where you are seated or if you are carrying the sidearm that they may disarm you themselves if the officer does not feel comfortable having you hand it over. All the law enforcement officers I have spoken to are very Pro CHL but a close friend of mine who is like a brother said unfortunatley I can not trust anybody out there and I will remove it myself if i decide to. I tried looking it up and the only thing i can come up with so far off the top of my head is,

Art. 1.06. [4] [5] SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.

Having a Firearm, Handgun, Deadly Weapon, etc.. I would think it would give the officer Probable Cause to search for the weapon.

Just my thoughts, let me know what you think....take care

[apowell]

My thought is that you have already announced that you have a licensed weapon. I think it would be silly, but perhaps w/in scope for them to have you exit the vehicle, ask you where it is and retreive it (if they really feel unsafe having you out of the vehicle and a gun still in the vehicle). Having you out of the vehicle then searching the vehicle for the gun is unreasonable to me. It sounds to me like they were using the gun as an excuse to search. Quizing you on how, when and where you got it seems a little out of line as well.

I'll see if I can get the original poster to come over here and provide some more details.

[KBCraig]

The officer does have the statutory authority to disarm you for the duration of the traffic stop.

But, if you've already exited the vehicle and your gun is secured inside, then you're already disarmed!

If pushed, that's how I'd respond: "But officer, I am disarmed! (And oh, by the way, no, you may not enter my vehicle and search for my firearm, nor anything else.)"

Kevin

[boomerd35]

I am the original poster of this incident. The officer did ask me to exit the vehicle. I was standing in front of his patrol car when he went into my vehicle to retrieve the gun. From what I saw, he went right for the weapon and wasn't "searching" around my vehicle. I just didn't like the fact that he didn't ask me before going into my vehicle. I had a CHL renewal class soon after this incident, and when I asked the instructor about this, he acted like the officer had every right. But I forget which provision he referenced (may have been the right to disarm section, I don't remember).

Troy T.

[Greybeard]

Welcome to the forum. ' Hope ya decide to stick around.

[progun47]

I don't see the point of having the car searched after the person showed the officer the CHL and had exited the car. I don't know the law but it just seems wrong, and of no use to the officer. I guess he has the "right" to do the search but I don't see the reason behind it, other than looking foe something else. ie drugs etc

[bauerdj]

In your original post you said he searched the car until he found the gun, now you say he went right to the gun without searching the car (I assume you told him where it was located.) If he just removed the gun without any addittional search I see nothing wrong in his actions, if he searched the car that would be objectionable. As far as the questions re where you bought it that would depend on his manner of asking; he may just have been making 'small talk' rather then meaing it in a serious questioning manner. This one is 'gray' enough that its hard to tell without having been there.

Dave B.

[racer32]

Just a thought...what would happen if you just locked the doors when you got out?

[skerbo]

Correct or not this is what I think,
I feel the officer has every right to search only the area of the vehicle where the firearm could be within reach from where you are seated or if you are carrying the sidearm that they may disarm you themselves if the officer does not feel comfortable having you hand it over. All the law enforcement officers I have spoken to are very Pro CHL but a close friend of mine who is like a brother said unfortunatley I can not trust anybody out there and I will remove it myself if i decide to. I tried looking it up and the only thing i can come up with so far off the top of my head is,

Art. 1.06. [4] [5] SEARCHES AND SEIZURES. The people shall
be secure in their persons, houses, papers and possessions from all
unreasonable seizures or searches. No warrant to search any place
or to seize any person or thing shall issue without describing them
as near as may be, nor without probable cause supported by oath or
affirmation.

Acts 1965, 59th Leg., vol. 2, p. 317, ch. 722, eff. Jan. 1, 1966.

Having a Firearm, Handgun, Deadly Weapon, etc.. I would think it would give the officer Probable Cause to search for the weapon.
Just my thoughts, let me know what you think....take care

He would not have probable cause to search if you have a CHL and say 'yes' when he asks if you are carrying. "Probable cause" means probable cause to believe that you are committing a crime. You are not committing a crime by having a concealed handgun while being a CHL holder.

[therooster]

depends on the officers definition of probable cause...

LEOs can do pretty much what they want. you could possibly fight the "legality" of that situation, if you had lots of time and money. in the end, what would it solve?

i dont understand why people get upset about "unreasonable searches", if you have nothing to hide, whats there to be worried/upset about?

[ElGato]

depends on the officers definition of probable cause...

LEOs can do pretty much what they want. you could possibly fight the "legality" of that situation, if you had lots of time and money. in the end, what would it solve?

i dont understand why people get upset about "unreasonable searches", if you have nothing to hide, whats there to be worried/upset about?

Hey Rooster

I don't have anything to hide either, but I'm afraid that if I don't protect ALL my rights, I might end up without any.

A LEO dosen't have the right to to bend or ignore the law.

[TxFire]

i dont understand why people get upset about "unreasonable searches", if you have nothing to hide, whats there to be worried/upset about?

Because I don't want them to come into my home, my car, or any other property of mine just to check that I have no illegal contraband or such. I want them, LEO's, to follow the law as they expect me to. If they can develope probable cause and get the proper warants, they are welcome to search. If you don't protect your rights, you have none. And by the way I am VERY pro-LEO, I just want it fair for all.

[KBCraig]

i dont understand why people get upset about "unreasonable searches", if you have nothing to hide, whats there to be worried/upset about?

So, you don't mind if your local constabulary drops by to rummage through your garage, just in case you have the makings of a pipe bomb? Or through your wife's bedside table, in case your love life involves a felonious number of "obscene devices"? Or through your daughter's underthings, just to make sure she's not hiding something she shouldn't have?

After all, if you have nothing to hide...

It's for the children.