TexasCHLforum.com

I miss a day or two and we get some really interesting discussion going on. Now I just have to chime in. And I both agree and disagree with several people who can't seem to find the middle of the road.

First, I want to agree in part with Dac1842. The law does not say the officer must feel threatened or have a specific reason that this stop is different. He may disarm you any time he reasonably believes it is for the safety of you, him, or someone else. And this means it could very well be his policy to disarm every CHL he stops in a traffic stop since he could reasonably feel this is for his safety. He could feel this way because he was taught in the academy that anyone who is not a cop who has a gun is a danger to all cops. I don't say I agree, but I think the courts would find this reasonable.

But I agree with others that this is not carte blanche to disarm everyone and that it would never be questioned. If you called the supervisor and complained, he would need to explain himself. He would probably be upheld, but he would have to explain himself. And if you filed a civil rights lawsuit, the courts would also second guess his decision. If he made an arrest based on the disarming, the courts would definitely second guess him. This is how we get SCOTUS decisions on what the Fourth Amendment means.

I also agree with him that if you are in a traffic stop and he asks for your weapon, the law does not allow you to refuse. But that is because a traffic stop is a special circumstance where you have already been suspected of a crime ( the traffic violation). And where I agree with others is that you have the legal right to refuse if he states the disarming is for some other reason, such as the statement that started the discussion about wanting the weapon to runt he serial number. That is a search, not a safety thing. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches (not all searches) without a warrant. My call would be that this search is unreasonable. Obviously the courts would second guess me too and might disagree.

And that gets me to my last point about what is a search and what the officer can do once he legally has your pistol. Noting the serial number and running it is a search. The courts ruled this more than once, though i don't think it was firearms. I have slept once or twice since my training classes, so I don't remember the cite, but there was a case where detectives went into a pawn shop to look for stolen property. They found a stereo they wanted to check, so they turned it around to read the serial number and run it. The stereo was on a shelf where customers could see it. The court ruled that turning the stereo around was what made the search illegal, since the serial number was not in plain view to start with. From this, I would say that the officer could runt he serial number of a gun he legally came into contact with if it was not covered or blocked in some way. Given the moving of the gun to his car from you, I think he could turn the gun to read the serial without going wrong, but he could not move something to make the serial visible. In this case, the normal movement of the gun would allow him to see the number without a problem. But if the serial was blocked by something, I don't see that the officer could unobscure it. For example, if the pistol were turned over in a holster, I don't think he could legally remove it from the holster. If it were covered by tape, I don't think he could untape it (though tape might be unusual enough to give suspicion that could rise to probable cause under the right circumstance). And there were some aftermarket grips and all that could cover some serial numbers and I don't think he would be justified in removing them to see the number.

And the most clear cut example of what I think is an illegal search is the case described of people going to the range and the officer wanting to run each number. That is pretty clearly a search that would need to be justified by probable cause. No need for a warrant due to the portability of the car, but it needs to have PC at the very least. Obviously, I am going on the description given and not what the officer might have seen or known.