TexasCHLforum.com

texanjoker wrote:

mojo84 wrote:If all authorities always had good intentions, we wouldn't need the Constitution. He shouldn't have opened the glove box. Getting a peak inside the car when he was putting the magazine and or gun in the back seat was enough. He used it as an opportunity to see what was inside the glove box. Shouldn't have done it.

In addition to what I posted, IF he was doing this to do a search, which I don't believe, if he found anything it would be inadmissible as it was an illegal search. That is basic search and seizure 101 as he had no business in the glove box. That thing about fruit of the poisonous tree comes into play. There is way too much assuming in here when it comes to leos and how they work. I guess he could have just set the gun and magazine in the dirt and asked the driver to not pick it up until he left.

No reason to be condescending. Others have simply stated their opinions and their feelings related to any LEO entering their vehicle with no PC. There have been very reasonable alternatives offered here that would provide safety for the officer and not require vehicle entry and intrusion into the glove box. I doubt any member would be happy to have their weapon placed in the dirt. As far as way too much assuming your assumption he wasn't searching is no different.

mojo84 wrote:Just lay the unloaded gun on or in the car or hand it to the owner with magazine and ammo laying in or on the car with instructions for the owner not to touch it until the officer leaves.

Or hand you the empty revolver and ammo or pistol with mag removed with instructions to get in the vehicle while the officer stands watching at full alert until you drive away.

cb1000rider wrote:What if the alternative is handing back a disassembled weapon?

May work for a pistol, but hard to do that with a revolver

cb1000rider wrote:Legit stop. Very cautious. Sounded reasonably courteous too.
I wonder what happens in one of these stops when opening the glove box produces something warranting additional enforcement... As the open of the glove box was subsequent to "officer safety" I wonder if that gets around the whole search aspect or if anything that might be found would just be ignored in court.

How is opening the vehicle door entering the vehicle and opening the glove box remotely related to officer safety? A dime to a dollar says this officer used it as an excuse to get inside and look around. That's what police do by nature. Disarm me and I'm fine with that, go into my vehicle with no just cause I am not OK with it. The driver could have locked the car with no consequences. The officer had no legal need nor authority to enter the vehicle and if it had been locked he'd have had no recourse other than figure another way to return the weapon.

I have only been stopped once and the weapon was in the console so the trooper just had me get out of the truck. I never really gave it much consideration until your post, but if I was disarmed in the manner you were and the officer said he was going to put it in my vehicle and required access to my vehicle I would absolutely not allow it. I would respectfully suggest he figure out some way to give me back my weapon that he considers safe that didn't involve entry to the vehicle. If he takes it away he can figure out how to give it back. He can hand the unloaded weapon to me to place in my vehicle, then maybe he can place the magazine on the trunk, roof or hood. Better yet unload the mag and hand the cartridges and mag back to me.