TexasCHLforum.com

Seems like everybody has calmed a bit ... Does anyone know if internal investigations are ever made public? We had to wait 9 months, and after a grand jury, to hear what the Police found during the Waller case in FTW. Obviously this incident isn't as serious, but the investigation may never be made public. But, is anyone optimistic that we'll know what, if anything, happened here? I don't think we'll find out. The less the public knows, especially in an example like this, the better. That's Government 101.

Abraham wrote:"That's not me talking, that's the law."

What law would that be?

At the beginning of this thread -- Section 411.207: AUTHORITY OF PEACE OFFICER TO DISARM

I hope it isn't the case, but I think this is the last time we will hear publically anyway about this incident. Nothing will happen. As another poster points out, she was told how to get her weapon returned to her and she has it. As for a "crime" being committed -- if it is a crime to block another car in a parking space, stalling for time until Police arrive, if that's a crime, yes, she should have been arrested and her weapon confiscated.
That's not me talking, that's the law. If Officer Hill didn't want to follow the law, then he needs to find another line of work. Based on the parking space crime theory, he didn't follow the law anyway. He either didn't arrest her for committing a crime, justifying the confiscation, OR, there was no crime committed, and he confiscated her weapon and broke the law anyway. Either way it seems, he exercised an extreme error in judgment. Extreme you say? Yes. One could make a case he violated her second, fourth, and probably sixth amendments to the Constitution. As I said, the APD internal unit has it, there will be no more public disclosures of the investigation, Officer Hill will receive no punishment, this incident is done. On another note -- it's Election runoff day, go exercise your right to vote.

Section 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.

Based on this -- I think there is a serious breach of law here -- If the article is accurate and correct. The officer would have determined that Ms. Pickens was a threat to him, to herself, or someone else at the scene. Or he determined that she violated another provision of this subchapter, or committed a violation that resulted in her arrest. She wasn't arrested, that much is clear. So, what gives?

@TexanJoker -- I respect your point about forming an opinion, I don't think I have yet. On the other hand, I don't see the relevance of listening to the 911 call. Calm or excited, she did the city a favor -- two scumbags are in jail because she wanted a closer inspection of a car she thought might fit the description of a hit & run. It's my opinion, -- if the article is accurate and correct, Officer Hill saw an older citizen doing his job, (taking the law in her hands) and he thought he would punish her by confiscating her weapon. She didn't do anything illegal, but by showing him her CHL he knew she might have a weapon, and he took it.

In what I can only call an illegal seizure, an Arlington, Texas police officer seized a CHL holders weapon because the officer said "she was acting like a vigilante". According to an article in the FW Star-Telegram, a disabled woman Amelia Pickens sees a car that fits the description of a car that hit her daughter. She sees the car pull into a grocery store and three people get out. She pulls in behind the car and calls 911. She never confronted the other people, nor did she get out of her car. When officer Phil Hill arrived on the scene, she explained to him why she called 911. The only time a gun was mentioned was when she showed him her TX DL, and CHL. She didn't brandish her weapon, nor even pull it out of her purse. Officer Hill grabbed her purse and seized the weapon telling her, she 'acted like a vigilante'. That she could get hurt, or be put in a situation that she didn't need to be in. Ms. Pickens says she understand securing the gun for officer safety, but a confiscation shouldn't have happened. She says he explained she could get her weapon at a later date, at the police station. The people in the car were arrested. One for possession of a controlled substance, another for an outstanding warrant out of Johnson County. Ms. Pickens said she spoke with the Officers Hills supervisor who said the officer might need "sympathy training". He says he would have returned her weapon right then. Ms. Pickens filed a complaint, and allegedly internal affairs is investigating. According to the article, Hills' supervisor backed up his officer, saying he had the discretion to seize the weapon. However, he is looking at the complaint but couldn't comment further.

A few questions: Can an officer legally confiscate a weapon in a situation like above? Are IA investigations public property? If the seizure is illegal, what charge would the officer face? I seriously doubt he will face anything, including a slap on the wrist.

In my view, when a uniformed member of the government can confiscate a lawfully owned weapon anytime they please, America, much less Texas is done.

Where am I wrong?