TexasCHLforum.com

Baytown wrote: Anyway, I enjoyed the discussion on this one.

Glenn

Likewise. If you don't mind, I've got another question for you.

I know that you can check wants & warrants when checking the DL. But how much criminal history is available to you while you're in the field? Do you have to run NCIC separately, and is NCIC authorized in a case like this?

I'm not involved in NCIC at work, but I know it's a hot issue if anyone fails to keep the proper logs, or if they run it outside of the permissable uses. (You DON'T want to get caught checking out a neighbor, or daughter's boyfriend!)

Kevin

Baytown wrote:Good Lord, I am all over the place on this!! I found myself arguing with another officer tonight that if you meet the presumption of travelling, you are off limits.

'Sokay, I often find myself arguing against people who take the position I support, because they've arrived there for the wrong reasons. Or, being agreeable with someone whose position I feel is wrong, because they're applying the right tests, just reaching the wrong conclusion, and I feel they can be "saved".

It should also be remembered that just because a complaint was stamped for UCW, does not mean it was not filed as being a felon in possession of a firearm.

Now you're introducing new stuff to the equation. A person who is prohibited from owning a firearm cannot meet the "travelling" test, and would be UCW. That's why I made the comment about an officer being a sluff if the only charge he could find to file was UCW. As I said, if that's all there is, then he's not UCW per the law, so don't arrest him for that.

That's why I found your hypothetical doper a poor example. If he's involved in drugs, probably dealing, probably casing a convenience store or neighborhood, then there's got to be something legitimate for which to arrest him. Such as, being a felon or other prohibited person in possession of a firearm.

Remember, a "prohibited person" includes someone who is an addict or unlawful user of drugs. You might have a hard time getting the AUSA to take charges over a hot UA, though.

Kevin

Tom wrote:I mildly disagree with the grandmother test case. I think we will be better
served if that case is the street thug, for the very simple reason that if
the law applies to him, then by extension it applies to the other vast
majority of folks, like the grandmother, who never live outside of, or on
the edge of, the law.

Thanks, Tom. That's my point, too: if Granny is the test case, then Baytown could still argue that his hypothetical doper prowling the streets at 0300 was a thug that "most people would want locked up".

Kevin

Baytown wrote:I do not understand how anyone that is a responsible gun owner would support a person who is in a high crime, high drug area, who is associated with drugs and more than likely involved with drug commerce at the time. This is exactly the attitude that is going to lose more rights for us. The average Joe on the street would support these arrests. The average Joe would understand he would not be arrested for having a gun in his car, like these two.

If you support these two, then you are naive. (Not a personal attack on anyone, I am sorry if that offends.)

Example: If a W/M approx 6' 3", 350 pounds, with brown hair has been holding up convenience stores, and an officers on patrol, late at night, rolls up on a car behind a convenience store w/ a person matching that description he will lawfully detain him (I hope). If during that detention he finds a handgun in the car, and does not arrest for the UCW, he is a lazy sluff.

If UCW is all he can find to arrest the guy for, then either he is a lazy sluff, or there is no basis for an arrest. And if there is no basis, then don't arrest him!

The "average Joe" think it's okay to arrest people for being suspicious, because he thinks that's what police already do. Police officers, being sworn to uphold the law and the Constitution, cannot resort to treating arrests as a popularity contest.

(Not a personal attack on anyone, I am sorry if that offends.)

Likewise.

Kevin

Baytown wrote:I would suggest anyone interested in these cases from Baytown should get a copy of the cases under the Freedom Of Information Act and read them.

These two cases are not ones that we as gun owners want to hold up as our "victims" of overzealous cops--trust me.

Why? Did they not meet the presumption of traveling as stated in the law? (Should be easy enough to answer without going through the whole FOIA process.)

If they did, then, yes, I do want to hold them up as victims of overzealousness, no matter what kind of scum they were/are. If they were being scum in a no-scum zone, then charge them with scumminess. If scumminess is not an offense, then don't charge them with something that is also not an offense.

Kevin

Paladin wrote:http://web.baytownsun.com/story.lasso?e ... 7e77ab1aae

But Baytown police spokesman Marvin Currie said neither has the department’s philosophy changed.

“Since [the district attorney’s] office is the one that processes the charges we have to follow his guidelines as to what he wants to accept as charges,� Currie said.

Police are never obligated to arrest someone just because the DA says they're breaking the law. It can be argued that police don't even have to follow guidelines when the DA says to not arrest for a certain offense. After all, they don't work for the DA.

Only two times since the new law took effect did Baytown police arrest a suspect on UCW charges alone. On Nov. 30, a man was arrested for having a handgun stuffed in his pants after police pulled him over for speeding and not wearing a seat belt.

On Dec. 11 a man was arrested after he admitted to having a .45 in his glove box after he was pulled over because his license plate light was out. He was not otherwise breaking the law.

Both men need lawyers. Or, if they had lawyers, they need competent lawyers.

Kevin