Recent encounter with LEO

Gun, shooting and equipment discussions unrelated to CHL issues

Moderator: carlson1

User avatar

Topic author
OnceFired
Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 149
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:33 pm
Location: Texas
Contact:

Recent encounter with LEO

#1

Post by OnceFired »

Short version for those reading on your phone, it went GREAT. Officer Kitchens here in Cedar Park, TX was a pro.

I was driving my wife's minivan that day to pick up my dad & his wife when they came to see us. My son riding shotgun, with my father and his wife in the first row of passenger seats. The rear seats were out, and we had a bit of luggage in there but most of the back was just open.

It was about 7pm and of course dark at this time of year. I had just made a left turn at a stoplight marked "no u-turn" and was just about to enter a shopping center parking lot to finish the U-turn to get to their hotel, which was maybe 1/4 mile back up the street we had just come down.

He lights me up right before the roundabout I was going to use to turn around. I guess he wanted me to pull into the other store parking lot, but I had just passed it while looking at him light me up, and I ended up taking the next driveway which immediately led BEHIND all the stores. Not nearly as nice of a spot for his safety but it was my earliest real opportunity.

I lowered my automatic window with one button push and otherwise kept my hands highly visible on the top of the wheel. I stopped and killed the ignition. My lights were still on. The cruiser highbeams turned on, and of course I got the spotlight right into the driver's side mirror plus the reflection from the other two. In short, we were all WELL ILLUMINATED.

As he approached, he followed proper procedure and was cautious & ready but friendly. He asked me for my license and proof of insurance, and I told him absolutely but I need to let you know I have my concealed carry license and I am currently armed.

He said calmly "Thank you for telling me." And then he asked "Where is it?"

I told him it was on my right hip 5 o'clock position IWB, and my wallet was on my left rear pocket. He said something like "Ok, sounds good" or something like it. What stood out is what he said next: "Don't go for yours and I won't go for mine" - all with a smile on his face.

I told him I would get my wallet out and my son would get the insurance out of the glove box. No one else moved, or talked to the officer or each other except my son to ask me which paper was the right one. Officer Kitchens stayed right where he could see all four of us, calm as can be.

Once I handed him my DL & paperwork, he said "I pulled you over because your center brake light is out, and I'll give you a warning for it."

He went to his car, back in about 2 minutes, with a printout for my warning.

He asked what kind of firearm I had, and I told him I carry my Beretta PX4 Storm. I forget exactly what he said at that point, but he was being interested as well as friendly and courteous. He thanked me, and said have a good night.

Now for the kicker...

In the middle of the cargo area between the two rear passengers was a very long, well constructed heavy black case with aluminum trim, two extra buckle fasteners and a combination lock each end across the front. You know, the exact type you'd check on an airplane. This one happened to have a Savage 308 nestled & cozy inside.

Officer Kitchens had to expect there was a strong likelihood we had at least one additional firearm in the car aside from my pistol. It certainly wasn't a tuba or a trombone, and it was shall we say way over-sized to be a clarinet case. I didn't declare it because it wasn't mine nor did I exert control over it. Nor was it loaded at the time.

BUT, there was a bag on the floor next to it that said "McBride's" on it and plainly visible to me looking into the passenger area inside it were multiple boxes of what was clearly rifle ammo.

Officer Kitchens gets points for:
  • Being calm
  • Understanding the scene in front of him
  • Operating professionally under the circumstances
  • Friendly while still fulfilling his obligation to protect himself
  • Courteous at all times
And, I indeed did get a warning from him, precisely as he said he would do. No more, no less.

Thank you Officer Kitchens. Score another one for the good guys.

Oh, and that darned little bugger of a light bulb is about to be fixed today, too.
Video games are an escape from reality. Gun ownership is for when you can't.
CHL - 07/03/12 submitted, 09/07/12 received
Texas Security Guard Jobs

dlh
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#2

Post by dlh »

Glad it went smoothly for you!

However, if I am stopped I will simply hand the officer my driver's license and conceal carry license with no comment. If the officer asks about the firearm then we can take it from there.

I have talked to fellow conceal-carry folks who told me they were stopped by the police and followed the procedure I just set out. The police did not even ask about their firearms.

Each LEO and each "suspect" are different of course. But I think "the better course" is not to verbally inform the officer of your handgun---that is what the conceal carry license does when you hand it to him or her.

dlh
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.
User avatar

Charlies.Contingency
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:58 pm
Location: South Central Texas

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#3

Post by Charlies.Contingency »

Third light being out? Last I checked, it wasn't required, and not even necessary for your vehicle inspection. I know it can be used as a fishing tactic for "Defective Lighting" or whatever it may be now, but I don't recall it being a ticket-able offense to not have a third tail light, at least on a truck. My truck didn't have a third tail light, until I added across the top 6 red lights, all for stop, and three for each side's turn signal. Here are the relevant codes, sorry to get off track, but I thought I would address it. :tiphat:
Sec. 547.322. TAILLAMPS REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, pole trailer, or vehicle that is towed at the end of a combination of vehicles shall be equipped with at least two taillamps.

(b) A passenger car or truck that was manufactured or assembled before the model year 1960 shall be equipped with at least one taillamp.

(c) Taillamps shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle:

(1) at a height from 15 to 72 inches; and

(2) at the same level and spaced as widely apart as practicable if a vehicle is equipped with more than one lamp.

(d) A taillamp shall emit a red light plainly visible at a distance of 1,000 feet from the rear of the vehicle.

(e) If vehicles are traveling in combination, only the taillamps on the rearmost vehicle are required to emit a light for the distance specified in Subsection (d).

(f) A taillamp or a separate lamp shall be constructed and mounted to emit a white light that:

(1) illuminates the rear license plate; and

(2) makes the plate clearly legible at a distance of 50 feet from the rear.

(g) A taillamp, including a separate lamp used to illuminate a rear license plate, must emit a light when a headlamp or auxiliary driving lamp is lighted.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 547.323. STOPLAMPS REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer shall be equipped with at least two stoplamps.

(b) A passenger car manufactured or assembled before the model year 1960 shall be equipped with at least one stoplamp.

(c) A stoplamp shall be mounted on the rear of the vehicle.

(d) A stoplamp shall emit a red or amber light, or a color between red and amber, that is:

(1) visible in normal sunlight at a distance of at least 300 feet from the rear of the vehicle; and

(2) displayed when the vehicle service brake is applied.

(e) If vehicles are traveling in combination, only the stoplamps on the rearmost vehicle are required to emit a light for the distance specified in Subsection (d).

(f) A stoplamp may be included as a part of another rear lamp.

Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.


Sec. 547.324. TURN SIGNAL LAMPS REQUIRED. (a) Except as provided by Subsection (b), a motor vehicle, trailer, semitrailer, or pole trailer shall be equipped with electric turn signal lamps that indicate the operator's intent to turn by displaying flashing lights to the front and rear of a vehicle or combination of vehicles and on that side of the vehicle or combination toward which the turn is to be made.

(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a passenger car or truck less than 80 inches wide manufactured or assembled before the model year 1960.

(c) Turn signal lamps:

(1) shall be mounted at the same level and spaced as widely apart as practicable on the front and on the rear of the vehicle; and

(2) may be included as a part of another lamp on the vehicle.

(d) A turn signal lamp shall emit:

(1) a white or amber light, or a color between white and amber, if the lamp is mounted on the front of the vehicle; or

(2) a red or amber light, or a color between red and amber, if the lamp is mounted on the rear of the vehicle.

(e) A turn signal lamp must be visible in normal sunlight at a distance of:

(1) at least 500 feet from the front and rear of the vehicle if the vehicle is at least 80 inches wide; and

(2) at least 300 feet from the front and rear of the vehicle if the vehicle is less than 80 inches wide.
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors.
ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.

WTR
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#4

Post by WTR »

I have never complained about a righteous traffic stop. However , the last 3 times I have been pulled over were bogus fishing expeditions.
User avatar

RoyGBiv
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 9580
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2011 11:41 am
Location: Fort Worth

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#5

Post by RoyGBiv »

That was a fishing stop.
Glad it went well.

AFAIK, the third light being out is not an infraction.
I am not a lawyer. This is NOT legal advice.!
Nothing tempers idealism quite like the cold bath of reality.... SQLGeek
User avatar

Charlies.Contingency
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 3
Posts: 808
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2014 4:58 pm
Location: South Central Texas

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#6

Post by Charlies.Contingency »

RoyGBiv wrote:That was a fishing stop.
Glad it went well.

AFAIK, the third light being out is not an infraction.
Just a fishing tactic. I always liked calling them courtesy stops, to let unsuspecting drivers know that they have a light out. I'm not the type that believe in "finding something" or fishing. If they're not wanted, and the car isn't stolen, let em' know a light isn't working, and let em' go.
Sent from Iphone: Please IGNORE any grammatical or spelling errors.
ALL of my statements are to be considered opinionated and not factual.

FastCarry
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 441
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:16 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#7

Post by FastCarry »

Charlies.Contingency wrote:If they're not wanted, and the car isn't stolen, let em' know a light isn't working, and let em' go.
That would be a definition of a fishing stop, and unlawful. You can't be pulled over randomly or without having committed an offense.

If a 3rd light out is probable cause, I screwed. Mine is out on a bmw and I not among the type who can pay for a visit to a German garage.

And correct, it is not an item of inspection.

EEllis
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1888
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#8

Post by EEllis »

Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.


and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.

EEllis
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1888
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#9

Post by EEllis »

FastCarry wrote:
Charlies.Contingency wrote:If they're not wanted, and the car isn't stolen, let em' know a light isn't working, and let em' go.
That would be a definition of a fishing stop, and unlawful. You can't be pulled over randomly or without having committed an offense.

If a 3rd light out is probable cause, I screwed. Mine is out on a bmw and I not among the type who can pay for a visit to a German garage.

And correct, it is not an item of inspection.
I guess you screwed

dlh
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 2
Posts: 872
Joined: Tue Aug 18, 2015 12:16 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#10

Post by dlh »

EEllis wrote:Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.


and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.
The two cases you cite are unpublished opinions and have no precedential value. See T.R.A.P. 47.7

dlh
Please know and follow the rules of firearms safety.
User avatar

SA_Steve
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2014 9:59 pm
Location: San Antonio, north central hills

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#11

Post by SA_Steve »

All the 'let's play lawyer' in the world has nothing to do with having to endure the hassle of a traffic stop, or more discomfort and expense if you want to push your luck.
You may have the last word.

EEllis
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1888
Joined: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:54 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#12

Post by EEllis »

dlh wrote:
EEllis wrote:Montes v.State, No. 08-13-00060-CR (Tex.App.-El Paso 2015)

The issue was whether the Statute that speaks to working tail lights was satisfied if the mandatory two were working or if it covered the additional lights that were present in this case. The Defendant’s vehicle had four tail lights, two more than are required, and one of them was out. Court held that the transportation code section applies to “all” light on vehicle and therefore the single light not working did constitute a traffic violation.


and more specificly

Starrin v. State, 2005 WL 3343875 (Tex.App.—Fort Worth 2005, no pet.).

Stop was based on observation that one of the three brake lights on the defendant's vehicle was out. Defendant argued on appeal that Texas law requires only two functioning brake lights. The Court finds that federal standard requires three brake lights for cars of a certain width and takes judicial notice of the fact that the car in question fits those dimensions and holds the stop was lawful.
The two cases you cite are unpublished opinions and have no precedential value. See T.R.A.P. 47.7

dlh
So the fact that someone has been found guilty of exactly what's be stated as not an offense has no value? It may not be controlling precedence but certainly means it's a valid stop.
User avatar

TexasJohnBoy
Banned
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 1999
Joined: Sun Mar 22, 2015 4:21 pm
Location: North Texas

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#13

Post by TexasJohnBoy »

Thanks for publishing a good encounter with LEO. These days all we hear about are bad encounters and we all know that is not all that happens. I'd say you handled it well.
TSRA Member since 5/30/15; NRA Member since 10/31/14

srothstein
Senior Member
Posts in topic: 1
Posts: 5311
Joined: Sat Dec 16, 2006 8:27 pm
Location: Luling, TX

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#14

Post by srothstein »

Perhaps a more controlling decision is Hiein v. North Carolina. The SCOTUS ruled that the police may misinterpret the law and make a valid traffic stop for having a tail light out that was not required. This was decided by 8-1 vote in Dec. 2014. In this case, the car was stopped because one of the taillights was out, even though one was working. The NC Supreme Court threw the case out after deciding that the NC law only requires one working taillight where it says "a tail lamp".

It is just another case where I disagree with SCOTUS.
Steve Rothstein

WTR
Banned
Posts in topic: 4
Posts: 1931
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 10:41 pm

Re: Recent encounter with LEO

#15

Post by WTR »

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Thanks for publishing a good encounter with LEO. These days all we hear about are bad encounters and we all know that is not all that happens. I'd say you handled it well.
I grew up with LEOs and the judicial system......mostly good......some the underside of the belly. I do have respect for them. Unfortunately, a few of my my last encounters (traffic) the LEO has been arrogant, dismissive and confrontation. However, when I have called the Law out on two occasions, they have been as polite as they could possible be.
Post Reply

Return to “General Gun, Shooting & Equipment Discussion”