TexasCHLforum.com

dicion wrote:

(1) the handgun is in plain view; or

It doesn't say 'concealed', it says 'in plain view'

If the police looked through the vehicle, and did not see the handgun, then it was not 'in plain view'.
Therefore, he did not violate the statute.

Someone more knowledgable than myself may correct me, but I believe that 'plain view' has a legal definition that an officer must be able to see this item WITHOUT actually searching, or even entering, the vehicle. So even if it was found in a search, it could still be considered not in 'plain view'. Eg, if you can't see it from standing outside a window and looking in, then it is not in 'plain view'.

Excellent point.

I am curious to see how this turns out.

Purplehood wrote:It was adequately concealed if the officers searched the vehicle and found nothing, only to be made aware of it by the OP himself. Come daylight, he might have moved it elsewhere.

I guess I interpreted "clearing" in this context to not be referring to a search of the vehicle. It was a 15-passenger van, and they (reportedly) thought he may have been involved in a drive-by shooting. The "clearing" sounds like it was in order to ensure there were not other people in the large vehicle. The "search" after the gun was pointed out resulted in them easily finding the gun in a rather conspicuous location.

Anyway, point is that, while it may have been adequately concealed for most purposes, this all goes out the window once you get stopped and the cops start looking into the vehicle to find things. It's going to be a tough argument to make, that the gun was concealed, when all that it took to reveal it was a flashlight.

dicion wrote:

stash wrote:Yes get a lawyer quick. What am I missing here? Does not the MPA apply in this case?

Yes it does. You are missing nothing.

If the OP is 100% truthful in his explanation, The fact that they 'cleared' the vehicle and did not notice the gun in and of itself should prove it was properly concealed.

Bingo.

However, if it was not intentionally concealed, like as in covered up, etc., but simply in a location in the vehicle where you are unlikely to see it from outside the car or if the assumption is that the dark of night is what is concealing the gun, then it may be a pretty iffy argument that it was concealed.

From my reading, it sounds like it was not actually "concealed" by a normal definition of concealed, inside the vehicle. It was "tucked back into a thin compartment under the cup holder" and was evident once the police officer shined his flashlight into/towards the compartment, right? So if this is the case, then if it had been broad daylight, the gun would have not been concealed. If I am reading this wrong, and the officer actually had to open a lid or cover over such a compartment before observing the gun, then it may have been concealed.

I look at it this way: if the officer could have observed it in the light of day while looking into the window of the vehicle, then it was likely not concealed. Darkness doesn't equal concealment, does it?

Now, I sincerely hope the OP gets these charges dropped and I would hammer them to recover as much of the cost of this as possible. There was no probable cause for searching the vehicle in the first place, therefore the fruit of such an unlawful search should be thrown out. BUT, one lesson to learn from this is, when you are carrying a handgun in your car, MAKE SURE IT IS CONCEALED. We have this debate on this forum all the time... would this be concealed in my car, etc. I would propose that if it is not actually covered or otherwise not observable AT ALL without removing a cover, opening a lid, or peering under the seat, etc., then it is not really "concealed" enough to cleanly and decisively beat a UCW rap.