Checked to see if my guns were stolen...?

[OldCurlyWolf]

Under "TYPE OF SEARCH" he did not check the box for CONSENT, but he did check the box for INVENTORY. I take this to mean that he searched some of the vehicle's inventory, namely my weapons. This looks to me as if he thought he did not need my consent, since he didn't check that box. Else I am misinterpreting this form.

I was under the impression that 'inventory' was only done incidental to arrest.

Inventory only when an arrest or a tow is involved. Otherwise it is an illegal search.

This officer broke several laws and procedures. He deserves at least a reprimand on his record.

[Bullwhip]

Under "TYPE OF SEARCH" he did not check the box for CONSENT, but he did check the box for INVENTORY. I take this to mean that he searched some of the vehicle's inventory, namely my weapons. This looks to me as if he thought he did not need my consent, since he didn't check that box. Else I am misinterpreting this form.

I was under the impression that 'inventory' was only done incidental to arrest.

Inventory only when an arrest or a tow is involved. Otherwise it is an illegal search.

This officer broke several laws and procedures. He deserves at least a reprimand on his record.

If the officer decides to arrest or arrest is required, when is a tow required? Can it be left on private property, or another driver take it if it's legal to drive?

[OldCurlyWolf]

If the officer decides to arrest or arrest is required, when is a tow required? Can it be left on private property, or another driver take it if it's legal to drive?

A tow can be required because of an arrest or because of an abandoned vehicle in a dangerous position or in an area which is marked a tow-away zone or for a few other reasons. Most of which, if not all, require an officer conducted inventory of the vehicles contents, a detailed inventory, which may well take a couple of hours.

Being left on private property is often not legally an option. However if the person happens to make it home before being busted it is going to be almost impossible to do a legal tow on a vehicle that is not a stolen vehicle.

This question, like most of a legal nature, has an answer that comes down to "It Depends".

[HotLeadSolutions]

When you are disarmed and the officer calls in your firearm serial number, he is effectively making a record of your identity and a serialized list of the weapons in your LEGAL control. In my opinion this is just a step away from gun registration. I do not see a reason to allow for this type of behavior. If there is no other element present other than the initial traffic stop, the officer should have no need to disarm you.

[bilgerat57]

I'm not sure I understand what the concern is about running a check on the weapons. The officer is allowed to temporarily disarm you for the duration of the stop. The serial numbers are in plain sight on the weapon, unless you turn over the weapon in it's holster. Either way, the material condition of the weapon is not affected.
As I recall, the stop was initiated because of an alleged traffic offense. The car is not the perpetrator of the offense, but among the first things the officer will do is run a check on the license plate to see if the car is stolen or the owner wanted for any offense. How is one okay but not the other?
Before I get flamed here let it be known, I really really hate for someone else to handle my guns for any reason whatsoever! Doesn't matter if it's a LEO, or my father. If I have to allow it though, I would rather the officer was thorough and professional. From what I could read, it sounds like he was a decent sort. I have had worse experiences......

[Fangs]

I think the part you're leaving out is what has people upset. The officer is allowed to disarm you if he feels it's necessary for his, your, or a 3rd party's safety. Not because he feels like it.


I know it's not recommended to argue with any LEO during a traffic stop. However, if I'm ever in this position, I will fully comply while politely asking if the officer feels it's necessary for one of those three reasons. If he doesn't, or can't give a reason why, then I'll file a complaint after the fact.

[srothstein]

Bilgerat, the problem with the running of the serial number is if they disarm you just to get the pistol to check. They are legally only allowed to disarm you if they have a reason to suspect there might be some danger to someone because you have the weapon. If they disarm you so they can get the serial number, it is really an illegal seizure and search. Also, the serial number is not in plain sight on all weapons. On many revolvers, it is hidden under the crane or grips, for example. Even opening the cylinder on a revolver would make the serial number not in plain view from a simple possession. So there are legal questions about both the disarming and the actual search.

Add in the fact that they can only disarm the CHL legally, and not anyone else legally carrying a gun, and you might see why a CHL is getting a little upset at things. After all, as a retired police officer, I would not surrender my gun to another officer without reason. And while I suspect that the average person carrying under the MPA would go along, there is nothing in the law to allow it or justify it.

As for the license plates, they are clearly in plain view to the public making running them legal. But, with the advance of technology, there have been quite a few people upset about the use of automated license plate readers. ALPR is a system of cameras connected to computers mounted on the car or wireless connection from the car to the computer. They can run a car in about 10 seconds or so (depending on the computer speed) and allow a police officer to drive down a row of parked cars and run every car there (or run every car he passes in a line of cars as he is driving). I do not see the difference between the individual officer running the plates and the camera doing so, but I am aware that many people do feel this is going too far.

I definitely see and agree that an officer should not be running the serial number of every weapon he gets from a CHL just because. But then, I never saw a need to disarm a CHL at a traffic stop either.

[TrueFlog]

Add in the fact that they can only disarm the CHL legally, and not anyone else legally carrying a gun, and you might see why a CHL is getting a little upset at things. After all, as a retired police officer, I would not surrender my gun to another officer without reason. And while I suspect that the average person carrying under the MPA would go along, there is nothing in the law to allow it or justify it.

That's an interesting point about the MPA. So a person who has no CHL and is legally carrying under the MPA cannot be disarmed during a traffic stop, is that what you're saying? That makes sense, I guess, since it would be an illegal search & seizure. If that's the case, then what about a person who does have a CHL and is in his vehicle? I think the general consensus is that such a person is carrying under the authority of MPA and not his CHL. Does that mean he enjoys the same protection against disarmament as a person without a CHL? Or does the authority to disarm a CHL'er apply regardless of what authority (MPA vs. CHL) he's under (similar to the obligation to show his CHL even when in a vehicle)?

[srothstein]

Well, it is a kind of weird situation, TrueFlog. You have to look at the exact wording of the law to see how it works. The first part is under the authority to disarm, which is actually in the Government Code. It says that a peace officer may disarm a license holder under some conditions. None of the conditions say when the person is carrying under the authority of his CHL, just identifies him as a license holder. So, while we most commonly think about traffic stops because that is where 95% or so of the public gets to talk to cops, an LEO has that authority if he happens to be talking to a CHL inside the CHL's own home. I don't see it happening there, but the law gives the LEO that authority. So that is the absolute legal answer to the question.

But more realistically, you have to look at a different section of the law. A CHL is required to identify himself to a peace officer when asked for ID. As a general rule, this combined with the specific authority to disarm means that a CHL is really telling the officer he has a gun. There is a gray area in the law on whether or not the CHL could lie about having it if asked and this has been debated before. But there is no law requiring anyone else to identify themselves as carrying. There is also no law requiring people in general to answer whether they have a gun or not. So, if you don't volunteer the information, how would the officer know to disarm you?

And then you get the really gray area of what happens if a person without a CHL refuses to give the officer his gun. Say that a person is stopped for a traffic offense and has a gun in the car. Under the MPA, he is ok so far. As part of a routine question, the officer asks if the person has a weapon and the guy says yes. He even tells the officers that it is a Colt python revolver in the center console. If the officer asks for the gun and he just says no, what is the LEO going to do?

As a retired officer, I do not have to tell the officer or give him my gun when he asks. I probably would tell him, just as a courtesy. But I am not sure if I would surrender my gun to him. I might offer to exchange guns with him and tell him I don't trust him with a gun if he doesn't trust me with one, just to see what happens. Yeah, I would probably cooperate and let him hold my gun, but I would definitely ask why sometime during the stop. I think I would try to turn it into a learning episode from an old guy to a less experienced cop, but like a lot of other old men, I sometimes get crankier than I should about things. I can see it going bad if I am in the wrong mood or the cop approaches me wrong. The only good sign there is I do know some good defense attorneys who would bail me out.

[jmra]

I wonder what would have happened if when the officer said he wanted to check and see if the guns were stolen the OP would have simply said "thank you but that won't be necessary, I bought them from my local gun store so I can assure you they are not."
That might well have been the end of it. He had already run the DL and knew there were no issues there. If he then insisted that the weapons be surrendered he would be going on record that he had cause to be concerned about either his own safety or the safety of the OP. At some point later he should be made to explain to someone (maybe even a judge) what that cause was.

[4t5]

How about this. You hand the LEO your TXDL and CHL. He asks if you are armed, and you decline to answer any questions.

[TrueFlog]

Well, it is a kind of weird situation, TrueFlog. You have to look at the exact wording of the law to see how it works. The first part is under the authority to disarm, which is actually in the Government Code. It says that a peace officer may disarm a license holder under some conditions. None of the conditions say when the person is carrying under the authority of his CHL, just identifies him as a license holder. So, while we most commonly think about traffic stops because that is where 95% or so of the public gets to talk to cops, an LEO has that authority if he happens to be talking to a CHL inside the CHL's own home. I don't see it happening there, but the law gives the LEO that authority. So that is the absolute legal answer to the question.

But more realistically, you have to look at a different section of the law. A CHL is required to identify himself to a peace officer when asked for ID. As a general rule, this combined with the specific authority to disarm means that a CHL is really telling the officer he has a gun. There is a gray area in the law on whether or not the CHL could lie about having it if asked and this has been debated before. But there is no law requiring anyone else to identify themselves as carrying. There is also no law requiring people in general to answer whether they have a gun or not. So, if you don't volunteer the information, how would the officer know to disarm you?

Thanks for the explanation - very interesting. You note that an officer could disarm a CHL'er in his own home. I think we've discussed elsewhere that a CHL'er is required to have his CHL with him anytime he's carrying, including his vehicle. Does this also extend to the home? If I were to lose my wallet with CHL inside, would it then be illegal for me to carry around the house, on my own property? In that scenario, if an officer approached me in my home and asked for ID, I would be unable to produce my CHL.

As a retired officer, I do not have to tell the officer or give him my gun when he asks. I probably would tell him, just as a courtesy. But I am not sure if I would surrender my gun to him. I might offer to exchange guns with him and tell him I don't trust him with a gun if he doesn't trust me with one, just to see what happens. Yeah, I would probably cooperate and let him hold my gun, but I would definitely ask why sometime during the stop. I think I would try to turn it into a learning episode from an old guy to a less experienced cop, but like a lot of other old men, I sometimes get crankier than I should about things. I can see it going bad if I am in the wrong mood or the cop approaches me wrong. The only good sign there is I do know some good defense attorneys who would bail me out.

Heheh,I like that idea - asking for a trade!

How about this. You hand the LEO your TXDL and CHL. He asks if you are armed, and you decline to answer any questions.

But I think I'll stick with this one. As you observed, if I don't tell him I have a gun, there's no reason for him to fear me or disarm me.

[jdhz28]

The first time I was pulled over after getting my CHL was by a DPS officer, he ran my serial numbers also. I don't carry/buy stolen guns so it was no problem. After he finished he gave me a warning for doing 65 in a 55 and we talked for about 10 minutes behind my truck about my bumper stickers. It was the only time a DPS officer has ever been polite, or acted like I was a person rather than a possible suspect. I left feeling relieved that I had some good LEO's in my area. Had I refused to let him run it, he may not have been so cordial.

[4t5]

...Had I refused to let him run it, he may not have been so cordial.

So what do you think that would happen if you refused the LEO's request to surrender your gun so he could run the S/N?

[pcgizzmo]

...Had I refused to let him run it, he may not have been so cordial.

So what do you think that would happen if you refused the LEO's request to surrender your gun so he could run the S/N?

This is just my opinion and it's been said here before but anytime you refuse to let an officer do something it's not going to go over good for you even if he's in the wrong. It's best to let him do whatever he's going to do then take it up later with his boss or the court system. I don't like it but we have no power whenever an officer pulls us over and asks us to do something. I prefer to think 99% of officers are good well meaning people but there's always that 1%. It's that way with anything I guess.

If I'm pulled over I will do whatever the officer asks of me w/out question because I don't like jail and I don't like getting shot at. If I think they are in the wrong I most certainly will take up with his boss or the courts after the fact. I'm also married to an attorney so at least some of my legal fees would be free.