TexasCHLforum.com

Yesterday evening I was pulled over by Hallettsville Police. I was driving a rental car with Virginia plates. The officer said he pulled me over for failing to stop at a stop sign. No response from me (other than a genuinely surprised look on my face). I handed over my DL and CHL. Are you was armed? Yes, sir. What/where? Revolver in shoulder holster and another in front right pocket. Front pocket? Yes, sir... it's one of those NAA mini-revolvers. Why do you need two revolvers? I hesitated and he offered Just because, huh? Yes, sir. He asked also about my destination, what university department I worked in, my title, etc.

He went off to run my license. Then he came back and told me he wanted to check my weapons to see if they were stolen. So he had me get out and I cooperated in helping him locate and draw both my revolvers, which he carried off to his car, while I got back in. Well, this seemed different from any LEO encounter that I had read about (I confess to not having read about many). After a while, he came back, opened the rear door and told me he was laying both revolvers on the rear car seat, and that I could get them after he left. He had unloaded them. He then told me he was giving me a warning about the stop sign. He thanked me for being cooperative. And that was it. Big relief about the warning. The rest of it was kind of curious.

J.R.@A&M wrote:Yesterday evening I was pulled over by Hallettsville Police. I was driving a rental car with Virginia plates. The officer said he pulled me over for failing to stop at a stop sign. No response from me (other than a genuinely surprised look on my face). I handed over my DL and CHL. Are you was armed? Yes, sir. What/where? Revolver in shoulder holster and another in front right pocket. Front pocket? Yes, sir... it's one of those NAA mini-revolvers. Why do you need two revolvers? I hesitated and he offered Just because, huh? Yes, sir. He asked also about my destination, what university department I worked in, my title, etc.

He went off to run my license. Then he came back and told me he wanted to check my weapons to see if they were stolen. So he had me get out and I cooperated in helping him locate and draw both my revolvers, which he carried off to his car, while I got back in. Well, this seemed different from any LEO encounter that I had read about (I confess to not having read about many). After a while, he came back, opened the rear door and told me he was laying both revolvers on the rear car seat, and that I could get them after he left. He had unloaded them. He then told me he was giving me a warning about the stop sign. He thanked me for being cooperative. And that was it. Big relief about the warning. The rest of it was kind of curious.

Can an LEO do that? Isn't that an illegal search if you refuse? (though you obviously did not refuse)

My first thought is that it was an illegal search! He stopped you for failure to come to a complete stop. What further evidence of failure to come to a complete stop can be found in your concealed weapon. Would you have let him look in the trunk just to see if there were any stolen weapons there?

If you have the chance read Knowles v. Iowa. Disarming for his safety does (Terry Stop) not consent to a further search of your weapons.


Edit: This was also discussed here: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=36937" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Purplehood wrote:Can an LEO do that? Isn't that an illegal search if you refuse? (though you obviously did not refuse)

I'm not sure. I knew he had the general authority to disarm me. Once in possession of your firearm, I don't see anything to stop them from running the serial number or whatever. I had just never heard this stated before. Does that then put you at more risk if you buy a gun from a pawn shop not knowing how it got there?

J.R.@A&M wrote:Does that then put you at more risk if you buy a gun from a pawn shop not knowing how it there?

I think we discussed this before and the consensus was that the pawn shop would already have run a check on the gun. So no, no more risk.

My understanding is that he can move your weapons around but he cannot "search" them without your approval.

Purplehood wrote:My understanding is that he can move your weapons around but he cannot "search" them without your approval.

A strongly worded letter to the officer's superiors might correct the situation for future behavior. He has a right to disarm you, per the CHL statutes, but he doesn't have the right to conduct a "search" without probable cause. Carrying a weapon under the authority of your CHL does not constitute probable cause for a search. If you had NOT had a CHL, and had Texas NOT passed the MPA, then an officer might reasonably question the gun's presence. But you don't have to worry about that here. You have the right, by law, to be armed in your car; and you have the right, by law, to carry a weapon under the authority of your CHL. By law, the officer has no right to conduct a search without probably cause.

I think a strongly worded letter - perhaps even from your attorney - explaining that the po-po are not allowed to violate your 4th Amendment rights willy-nilly might yield some positive results... maybe even an apology from the offending PD.

Paging Dr. Gigag...Dr. Gigag??

Just forget about it.if you want to send a.letter it is your choice.

This isn't the first time this has been reported on this forum.

The Annoyed Man wrote:A strongly worded letter to the officer's superiors might correct the situation for future behavior. He has a right to disarm you, per the CHL statutes, but he doesn't have the right to conduct a "search" without probable cause. Carrying a weapon under the authority of your CHL does not constitute probable cause for a search. If you had NOT had a CHL, and had Texas NOT passed the MPA, then an officer might reasonably question the gun's presence. But you don't have to worry about that here. You have the right, by law, to be armed in your car; and you have the right, by law, to carry a weapon under the authority of your CHL. By law, the officer has no right to conduct a search without probably cause.

I think a strongly worded letter - perhaps even from your attorney - explaining that the po-po are not allowed to violate your 4th Amendment rights willy-nilly might yield some positive results... maybe even an apology from the offending PD.

with TAM completely.

If the OP didn't say anything, that could be considered implied consent.

I'd have at least asked about the possibility of declining, and stated, for the record, that I did NOT consent to any sort of search absent a warrant. I'd have also made sure that I had the voice recorder on my phone going so that I had a record for the record.

On the bright side, he did let you off with a warning.

KC5AV wrote:If the OP didn't say anything, that could be considered implied consent.

I'd have at least asked about the possibility of declining, and stated, for the record, that I did NOT consent to any sort of search absent a warrant. I'd have also made sure that I had the voice recorder on my phone going so that I had a record for the record.

On the bright side, he did let you off with a warning.

I might suspect that was his way of making the OP grateful and relieved, thereby not making any fuss in the first place about the illegal search that he unwittingly consented to.

Don't sound like he thought you were dangerous.

Sec. 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.

Bullwhip, KC5AV, and TAM combined have the correct answer.

The law does not give a peace officer the "general authority" to disarm you. It specifically says he can disarm for safety (yours, his, or others). The officer left the OP in the car with the guns until he decided he wanted to run them for stolen. This is not disarming for safety as the law requires, per the specific statement of the officer.

The officer's statement turns the disarming into a search. Under normal conditions, this should have been prefaced with a request for consent. But, based on the recent SCOTUS decision on Miranda, silence is not an affirmative assertion of your rights. The OP cooperated without declining his consent, so this is now considered consent under the case law. I understand SCOTUS' logic and the prior cases that lead to this, but I still have major problems with the decision and its ramifications. In the case of a search, there might be an argument that the consent was invalid since it was obtained under duress (no request, but an order from an officer to produce in a situation where the OP was clearly not free to leave). The OP could have clearly stated that he did not consent to any searches and not handed the weapons over to the officer. I do not recommend this for a similar situation since I am sure the officer would have reacted badly, possibly by drawing his own weapon and arresting the OP (not a legal arrest, but that is for a different debate). At the very least, a lack of cooperation would almost have guaranteed a ticket for the original stop sign violation.

And finally, the best way to avoid problems like this for the future is to write a letter of complaint to the Chief of Police. If it comes from an attorney and mentions the illegal search and 42 USC 1983 (civil rights violations under the color of law for the non-lawyers and non-cops amongst us), it will have even more effect. The officer will be reprimanded and given further training and the Chief will probably write a letter of apology. But the end result might also be that the next time the officer stops a CHL, there is no longer a presumption that it is a good guy. The officer will know to say he wants the weapons for safety (making the disarming legal) and probably write the CHL a ticket instead of giving him a warning. Some cops, being human, tend to generalize behaviors among groups. If it is a racial group, they get in trouble for profiling but it is not illegal to profile CHLs.

srothstein: "But the end result might also be that the next time the officer stops a CHL, there is no longer a presumption that it is a good guy. The officer will know to say he wants the weapons for safety (making the disarming legal) and probably write the CHL a ticket instead of giving him a warning. Some cops, being human, tend to generalize behaviors among groups. If it is a racial group, they get in trouble for profiling but it is not illegal to profile CHLs".

Sir, I agree with you. However, it's kind of sad (IMHO) to think that there are some Leo's who still feel threatened or insecure regarding
CHL in general.