Disarmed AND unloaded by Pearland PD

[jbirds1210]

You know, there's probably a simple solution to the problem...

Perhaps you could get a front plate? I'm not sure if you simply don't have one or if you just never put it on, but it's required by law. With all the money you spent on a CHL, 1911, and the car, it seems to be within your budget to go down to the Tax Office/DoT and pay the small fee to get a new set of plates. If you're obeying traffic laws, you'll save yourself and the officers in your area a lot of time and hassle in stops due to a missing front plate.

Due to the location of your gun during the stop, I don't see a big issue with what the officer did. A gun sitting out (even covered with a towel) is perceived as more readily accessible and a more unusual way to carry, from the perspective of an LEO. If you had it on-body and were disarmed, that may be a different issue and I certainly would have an informal conversation with the officer's supervisor regarding the necessity (or lack thereof) of being disarmed

I have to agree. I hate that you got disarmed.....but I also hate that you continue to provide the police with probable cause to pull you over

[locknload]

05 Mustang GT, Silver with black racing stripes. I know its not unique, but less common than the sebring I drove for years. Never got stopped in that car.

Personally speaking, I think I'd buy a Toyota Camry for late night driving and forego the frequent "visits" with LEO's, saving your time and their High Blood Pressure/Stress. IMHO, you're driving a car that gang-banger/street racer types would love to own, maybe enough to hurt you for it. I'm surprised that you haven't been car-jacked. It's probably a really cool car, though. Care to post a pic? My brother brought an old "Stang" back to life, and it was beautiful, when he finished it. Be careful out there. We don't want to lose any of our members.

[KBCraig]

Why would you file a complaint? I'm not understanding what the office did wrong.

He exceeded his legal authority to disarm. Police only have legal authority to disarm a CHL when they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so for the safety of the officer, the licensee, or a third party.

[chewy555]

Why would you file a complaint? I'm not understanding what the office did wrong.

He exceeded his legal authority to disarm. Police only have legal authority to disarm a CHL when they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so for the safety of the officer, the licensee, or a third party.

How do you see that the officer exceeded his legal authority?

Was it the right thing to do? Maybe not. Was it legal? Yes.

[srothstein]

What Kevin is pointing out is that the disarming may not have been legal. The law states the police can only disarm when they reasonable belive it is necessary. This is called the reasonable man theory and another way of saying it is that the police can only disarm you when a reasonable person in their place would have felt it was necessary for safety.

Are you reasonable? Do you feel it was necessary for safety? If you disagree about the necessity and are a reasonable person, then the legality of the search may be questioned.

As a general rule, I probably cheat on this a little by not teaching my students they have the right to disarm, but I do not feel a policy of disarming any CHL is reasonable or legal. I go with what the SCOTUS said about frisks. There has to be an articulable reason why I felt this stop put me in danger. The mere fact that the man is known to have a gun is not enough, IMHO, especially when countered by the fact that he passed a background check and volunteered the information to me.

Obviously, reasonable people will disagree on the necessity of the disarming in any particular incident, btu I think we all agree that a policy of disarming every CHL an officer comes into contact with is not reasonable or legal.

[austin-tatious]

You know, there's probably a simple solution to the problem...
Perhaps you could get a front plate? I'm not sure if you simply don't have one or if you just never put it on, but it's required by law. With all the money you spent on a CHL, 1911, and the car, it seems to be within your budget to go down to the Tax Office/DoT and pay the small fee to get a new set of plates. If you're obeying traffic laws, you'll save yourself and the officers in your area a lot of time and hassle in stops due to a missing front plate.

The law requires the plate to be visible from the front. It does not have to be mounted on the center of the bumper, it can be placed anywhere it is visible from the front. I drive a '66 mustang with a racing apron and have the front plate mounted with suction cups inside the windshield on the passenger side, lower corner. My neighbor has a nice truck and he sticks his front plate in the same location but no suction cups (he doesn't make right turns as hard as I sometimes do). You can remove the plate when you are showing the car whenever you want, and it does not mess up the appearance of the front of the car (IMHO).

[nedmoore]

No front plate=no laser. I have not had a front plate for years and never received a ticket or been pulled over for it.

[DoubleJ]

No front plate=no laser. I have not had a front plate for years and never received a ticket or been pulled over for it.

dooooooo, you have to do the Dr Evil air-quotes when you say laaaaaser.

[rm9792]

Personally speaking, I think I'd buy a Toyota Camry for late night driving and forego the frequent "visits" with LEO's, saving your time and their High Blood Pressure/Stress. IMHO, you're driving a car that gang-banger/street racer types would love to own, maybe enough to hurt you for it. I'm surprised that you haven't been car-jacked. It's probably a really cool car, though. Care to post a pic? My brother brought an old "Stang" back to life, and it was beautiful, when he finished it. Be careful out there. We don't want to lose any of our members.

I dont get car jacked because the doors and windows are closed and locked. I am also very aware of my surroundings at night. I wont fall for the bump n' stop jack method, just drive off and let them sit there while i find a cop nearby. Pic link: http://www.cardomain.com/ride/3039877
I got into car stereo in High School and never grew out of it. I dont blast in the neighborhoods though, I am courteous with it. When I was growing up we called that "advertising".

[KBCraig]

He exceeded his legal authority to disarm. Police only have legal authority to disarm a CHL when they reasonably believe it is necessary to do so for the safety of the officer, the licensee, or a third party.

How do you see that the officer exceeded his legal authority?

Was it the right thing to do? Maybe not. Was it legal? Yes.

Steve already summarized my point for me, but here's the law itself. Note that there are only two legal cases where a peace officer may disarm a CHL:

Government Code § 411.207. AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM.
(a) 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.


New since 2007:

(b) A peace officer who is acting in the lawful discharge of the officer's official duties may temporarily disarm a license holder when a license holder enters a nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility, if the law enforcement agency provides a gun locker where the peace officer can secure the license holder's handgun. The peace officer shall secure the handgun in the locker and shall return the handgun to the license holder immediately after the license holder leaves the nonpublic, secure portion of the law enforcement facility.
(c) A law enforcement facility shall prominently display at each entrance to a nonpublic, secure portion of the facility a sign that gives notice in both English and Spanish that, under this section, a peace officer may temporarily disarm a license holder when the license holder enters the nonpublic, secure portion of the facility. The sign must appear in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height. The sign shall be displayed in a clearly visible and conspicuous manner.
(d) In this section:
(1) "Law enforcement facility" means a building or a portion of a building used exclusively by a law enforcement agency that employs peace officers as described by Articles 2.12(1) and (3), Code of Criminal Procedure, and support personnel to conduct the official business of the agency. The term does not include:
(A) any portion of a building not actively used exclusively to conduct the official business of the agency; or
(B) any public or private driveway, street, sidewalk, walkway, parking lot, parking garage, or other parking area.
(2) "Nonpublic, secure portion of a law enforcement facility" means that portion of a law enforcement facility to which the general public is denied access without express permission and to which access is granted solely to conduct the official business
of the law enforcement agency.

To sum up: peace officers are only authorized to disarm licensees when they reasonably believe it is necessary for safety; or, when entering a secure law enforcement facility as described in the law.

Disarming CHLs as a matter of course is not authorized by law.

[chewy555]

What Kevin is pointing out is that the disarming may not have been legal. The law states the police can only disarm when they reasonable belive it is necessary. This is called the reasonable man theory and another way of saying it is that the police can only disarm you when a reasonable person in their place would have felt it was necessary for safety.

Are you reasonable? Do you feel it was necessary for safety? If you disagree about the necessity and are a reasonable person, then the legality of the search may be questioned.

As a general rule, I probably cheat on this a little by not teaching my students they have the right to disarm, but I do not feel a policy of disarming any CHL is reasonable or legal. I go with what the SCOTUS said about frisks. There has to be an articulable reason why I felt this stop put me in danger. The mere fact that the man is known to have a gun is not enough, IMHO, especially when countered by the fact that he passed a background check and volunteered the information to me.

Obviously, reasonable people will disagree on the necessity of the disarming in any particular incident, btu I think we all agree that a policy of disarming every CHL an officer comes into contact with is not reasonable or legal.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I did not remember about the reasonable part. I now belive that it was not a legal thing to do then.

[KRM45]

The law requires the plate to be visible from the front. It does not have to be mounted on the center of the bumper, it can be placed anywhere it is visible from the front. I drive a '66 mustang with a racing apron and have the front plate mounted with suction cups inside the windshield on the passenger side, lower corner. My neighbor has a nice truck and he sticks his front plate in the same location but no suction cups (he doesn't make right turns as hard as I sometimes do). You can remove the plate when you are showing the car whenever you want, and it does not mess up the appearance of the front of the car (IMHO).

Careful, you could run into a problem with another section of the code...

§ 547.613. RESTRICTIONS ON WINDOWS. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense that is a
misdemeanor:
(1) if the person operates a motor vehicle that has an
object or material that is placed on or attached to the windshield
or side or rear window and that obstructs or reduces the operator's
clear view; or

[rm9792]

Seems like window tint would fall in this category. This is why my response to the poster about putting on a plate to reduce the stops wont work. It is a pretense, nothing more. If i had a front plate uglying up the front then they would find or fabricate something else. I hang around cops and have been since I was 10 and have yet to meet one who really cares about the front plates being gone. I have been told they actually like it missing because they have a good reason to stop someone they are suspicious about.

[asleepatthereel]

I think they are on the lookout for someone driving a silver Mustang. Seriously. Last week I was pulled over at about 2230 on Dixie Farm Road between Beamer and 45. Its pothole city there, so no way was I speeding. HCSO officer comes up to my open window, looks in and says have a good night. Not even 3 minutes later, Im getting on 45 South and get lit up again, this time by HPD who does basicly the same thing. I was in my silver 06 Mustang GT. I do have a front plate, and wasnt speeding either time.

As far as the officer disarming you goes, maybe if they are looking for a silver Mustang, he was being reasonable in disarming you. Ive lived in Pearland all my life, and until recently was a member of the FD, so I know alot of the officers here, and I can say with all honesty that they are a good bunch of guys and gals. If you were coming into town on 35, just consider the area north of the beltway and the clientel in that area, and it may shed some light on it.

Right or wrong, I would say you came out of it ok, considering he could have written you up.

[austin-tatious]

The law requires the plate to be visible from the front. It does not have to be mounted on the center of the bumper, it can be placed anywhere it is visible from the front. I drive a '66 mustang with a racing apron and have the front plate mounted with suction cups inside the windshield on the passenger side, lower corner. My neighbor has a nice truck and he sticks his front plate in the same location but no suction cups (he doesn't make right turns as hard as I sometimes do). You can remove the plate when you are showing the car whenever you want, and it does not mess up the appearance of the front of the car (IMHO).

Careful, you could run into a problem with another section of the code...

§ 547.613. RESTRICTIONS ON WINDOWS. (a) Except as
provided by Subsection (b), a person commits an offense that is a
misdemeanor:
(1) if the person operates a motor vehicle that has an
object or material that is placed on or attached to the windshield
or side or rear window and that obstructs or reduces the operator's
clear view; or

That's why it's in the lower corner of the passenger side. No obstruction whatsoever. The 3" cowl hood obstructs more than anything but I still have a clear view. Both the plate and hood comply with 547.613. The car does draw attention, but, with 4500 miles since 2 years ago, plenty of LEOs have seen it and no stops yet. However, as has been pointed out by rm9792 and asleepatthereel, it may be the lack of a plate is not the real issue. I should get a silver '06 GT (with racing strips) and see what happens.