TexasCHLforum.com

handog wrote: Clearly, nothing more than a power play to remind you that people are nothing more than slabs of meat to the powers that be.

Literally every post you have been throwing up is the same old tired song...

IBTL

If playing games with technicalities in the law is your thing, I suggest a more favorable opponent than an LEO that has stopped you.

After all - isn't the basic underlying principle of the thread that a few unconfirmed LEOs are playing games with technicalities in the law?

Instead of coming up with master plans to get back at these evil troopers, how about both sides play nice until they have a reason not to.

I have yet to see confirmation that this serial number thing is an actual policy.

And I've been a member here since the early days, and I have heard of a scarce few instances of being disarmed.

Crossfire wrote:What does any of this have to do with DPS in Palo Pinto county? This is about the worst case of thread drift I have ever seen!

TBH though, it's been a pretty epic thread.

PMs sent out.

Sorry guys, been busy with preggo wife, work, and finals coming up.

I was going to reply to some of the more relevant responses, but I see this going nowhere good methinks. Ill shoot a few of you a PM and call it good.

bronco78 wrote: Mid week, 2200, vehicle observed with a tail light out, plate run, no hits, insurance shows valid.. Lights go on.. driver turns on dome light, turn signal, and pulls over to a parking lot, window rolled down, music turned off, hands on the steering wheel.. contact made, driver makes eye contact and says "good evening, what can I do for you officer?" You ask for ID and insurance, you are handed DL, CHL, Insurance.

Assuming no embellishment from the LEO, and an honest assessment of the contact.. Can you give us an example of how YOU would articulate RS of a safety concern from a CHL to justify disarming in such a situation, to your department chief, the ADA, or a Judge?

Erik

I would explain how I conduct traffic stops during the night time. In the past, I have stopped and arrested CHL holders for DWI and assault family violence. I was made aware that the violator was carrying a loaded weapon while he was being detained for a violation. While the majority of CHL holders are law abiding citizens, in my training and experience (these words are overused, yes, but relevant) I find it safer to operate roadside by temporarily disarming the violator, as allowed under texas law, to ensure my safety. The location of this stop was a busy roadway, and in a high crime area. My senses are already competing for attention by monitoring the flow of cars for both of our safety, watching the violators movements, reading the DL, INS, listening to the radio, and making sure nobody approaches me from behind. These factors combined with monitoring an armed subject in a vehicle, at night time, while conducting the necessary checks of a traffic stop, present a possible, though remote, increase in danger and a threat to officer safety. As a result, the subject was temporarily disarmed for the remainder of the traffic stop.


...Something like that...all the above is reasonable, and not embellished. While I don't disarm CHL holders, I also don't step back to my vehicle because I can see them better. I do the same thing when I think there is dope in the car, but you wouldn't be able to tell by talking with me because I'm so charming

Oeh, I'm not sure where your probable cause comments are coming from. The ofc only needs to articulate reasonable suspicion that contacting an armed person presents a possible (thus reasonable suspicion) threat to his safety. Any cop worth his salt can at least explain that to a jury.

No PC is needed for Terry frisks, or disarming CHL holders. While I disagree with the practice generally, it is absolutely legal as the laws are written and the courts apply them.

C-dub wrote:

gigag04 wrote:

couzin wrote:I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

I think GigAg has already stated that he wouldn't run the serial number of a gun belonging to a CHL holder, but for an officer that would and then would not be concerned with other items wouldn't that show that they weren't really worried about the gun being stolen in the first place? And if that were the case, what would the real reason be for "running" that serial number?

At some level, as things are written now, because they can.

Stupid I know, but that's how it is. Disarming someone puts the guy's SN in plain view. No way they will eliminate the provision allowing officers to do that, so until something changes, it's stuck.

And yes - the only CHL holders I've disarmed we're drunk and getting arrested for DWI.

couzin wrote:I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

Oehamilton wrote:I'd like to thank everyone for their input in to my experience. I am working on a letter, voicing my concerns. You have helped me greatly. I will be using the complaint affidavit (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/OIG/complaint.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and following their required guidelines. Whom else do you think, if any, should I copy?

Contact the local DPS station, and do some fact finding before firing off a letter. Think about the volume of paperwork the AGs office handles. If possible, get copies of the policies and directives that you want changed. Include them with the complaint.

JALLEN wrote:My first reaction is that officer safety has nothing whatsoever to do with stolen guns.

Most of the guns that kill cops are stolen, but I generally see the point you are trying to make.

JALLEN wrote: If you have a TV in the back seat, do they run that to see if it is stolen? How about a bicycle?

Yup, as often as I can. Cleared about 15 burglaries last Christmas doing this. Obv it's not JUST a tv, there were many other things at work that lead me to believe the property might be stolen. Most interesting thing I checked and got a hit on the SN was a saxophone. Still, not a fan of a routine checking of all guns.

Grapevinebill wrote:What concerns me here is that the State now knows that not only are my handgun, serial number xxxxxx and model # yyy not stolen but who they belong to. Other than the fereral background check the state or federal government has no indication that I own a gun. The background check that happened for my CHL and when I purchase a new gun does not include any information about what I am buying. Is the DPS keeping a log of this information when they run a check to see if its stolen?

When any serial number is run through TCIC/NCIC, you are basically querying a large, national database, looking for a matching record. If a firearm, gps, TV, equipment, has been entered as stolen, lost, etc, then a record will pop up as a match. I'm not sure if or how long queries are stored, but I highly doubt DPS or any other agency, has brought a separate standalone system online just to catalog owners and guns.

And, let me just add that this is not some user friendly Oracle/SAP built interface with very useable data. It is antiquated and cumbersome in many regards, depending on your interface, and ours is one of the better ones...

Jim - we are in agreement. I just wanted it out there that the PC standard appliess to warrantless searches too.

Lots to respond to but I'm pressed for time:

I want to point that all searches, without consent, must be based on Probable Cause, as spelled out in 4A.

If exigent circumstances and PC are both present, then absent consent, a warrantless search may be conducted. Quick examples include a person incident to arrest, or a vehicle before arrest.

The part about handing the LEO a holstered gun is interesting, but not likely since most LEOs don't want people handling guns. And some LEOs even turn that persons carry gun into a puzzle piece.