TexasCHLforum.com

Oehamilton wrote:What's the difference between running a CHL's gun's serial number to make sure his gun is not stolen just because he's a CHL holder verses a black man getting stopped in a white neighborhood just because he's black to make sure he's not a criminal?

The US Constitution makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race or a few other areas. It does not include the decision to carry a firearm in the protected classes.

In all honesty, I agree with your point that there is no reason to assume the gun is stolen and that this is a form of discrimination. I am just pointing out why the argument is not valid the way you made it.

57Coastie wrote:It is nice hearing that, but I am not sure that we are really completely in agreement. The 4th Amendment, REPEAT the 4th Amendment REPEAT does not inherently apply the probable cause standard to warrantless searches -- warrantless searches must only not be unreasonable.

Jim, I agree with both you and Gigag04, which may seem kind of confusing. You are correct that the Fourth only applies probable cause to warrants. Gigag04 is also correct when he says that the Fourth requires probable cause for any search. The difference is that you are basing your statement on the literal wording of the amendment while he is basing it on the amendment as interpreted and applied by the SCOTUS and other courts.

The SCOTUS has ruled that all searches are presumed unreasonable unless there is a warrant. They then clarified that there are exceptions to that rule, such as consent. They have ruled several times since then on what exceptions there are. One of the main exceptions was when there is not time to get a warrant - exigent circumstances.

One of the major exceptions were when something is in plain view of the officer. In that case, they do not need probable cause since it would be unreasonable to expect someone to ignore evidence of a crime that is staring them in the face. However, this is proof that your interpretation of the Fourth is very close to correct. The Terry stop was a major reduction in policy by requiring only suspicion instead of probable cause.

But, as a general rule, probable cause is required for searches based on the court's reading of the Fourth. In this sense, Gigag04 is also correct.


As a further lesson, or to further the confusion, Jaguar is also correct, sort of, and wrong sort of. He stated that the reasonableness is based on the expectation of privacy. This has always been the primary test of a search. Where Jaguar is sort of wrong is that he missed the implications of one of the newest rulings in search. Now, the first question is if the officer is trespassing on one of the four items specifically listed in the Fourth. I don't want Jaguar to feel bad about it, because I missed it also and I had read about the decision. Anyway, in the recent case of US v. Jones about police using a GPS on a car, the SCOTUS redefined what is a search. I read about it in this article and recommend others interested in this area of the law read the article.