You'll Love What DPS in Palo Pinto County is Doing!!

[gigag04]

Moooooooooom?

a long drawn out version of the word "Mom"....like a child would use when he wanted her to come make somebody play fair....

So it's childish to attempt to stand for your rights and principles? I must have missed the memo.

I knew it wouldn't take long for my light hearted comments to be stretched and twisted to the facist extremes of oppression...


To answer the pointed question...Not at all...but people tell LEOs all the time that we will hear from their attorneys..and strangely, their mother's as well.

If a civil rights violation is occuring, then fine, sue, or contact the FBI. Absent this, LEOs often hear attorney threats, and many come across as sabre rattling.

Those on this board that know me first hand, know my thoughts on over reaching government, and LEOs or any govt officials that push the limits.

[talltex]

Moooooooooom?

a long drawn out version of the word "Mom"....like a child would use when he wanted her to come make somebody play fair....

So it's childish to attempt to stand for your rights and principles? I must have missed the memo.

I knew it wouldn't take long for my light hearted comments to be stretched and twisted to the facist extremes of oppression...

Not from me (this time...lol) ...I got it, and understood what you meant, and took it as you intended...was just trying to explain the phonetic spelling

[Jumping Frog]

I was under the assumption that these types of actions would require a warrant. Being disarmed for safety isn't like when they impound your car after an arrest.

I'd ask under what pretense or probable cause are they conducting an illegal search? And then I'd make sure to get the badge number of the officer I dealt with and tell them to expect a letter from my lawyer.

If they take just the gun from you -- as they are allowed to do by statute for "officer safety" -- then the serial number is in plain sight. They don't need a warrant to investigate something in plain sight. SCOTUS has been very deferential to officer safety in its vehicle-related 4th Amendment decisions.

Where it is more interesting is if you hand it to them still in a holster that covers the serial number. Now the act the removing the gun from the holster would constitute a search, and raise interesting questions.

[E.Marquez]

If they take just the gun from you -- as they are allowed to do by statute for "officer safety" -- then the serial number is in plain sight.

Is that what the law states the LEO can do???/

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.

As that is what the law states.. I assume, an officer would need to be capable of articulating what condition, event or circumstances were present for him to consider the CHL in possession of his gun to be threat?

If I get stopped for a license plate light out.... I pull over as soon as it is safe, roll my window down, turn off my radio, keep my hands on the steering wheel and great the officer with direct eye contact and a verbal salutation....What condition or circumstance exists that the license holder, officer, or another individual needs protection from? The mere presence of a gun? Of which many times will be present anyway under MPA and never announced to the LEO.. or present anyway and never announced by the criminal.
Of the three officers I pal around with,, none of the three are in the “disarm CHL” group, so they really cannot articulate what they would say on a routine and reoccurring basis to justify disarming every CHL’er and checking the gun to be stolen.

[57Coastie]

My understanding is that without probably [sic] cause, it's an illegal search.

Once again I feel obliged to note, with respect, that probable cause is required by the 4th Amendment only when a warrant is sought. Otherwise a search by an LEO must only not be "unreasonable." So long as members of this forum misunderstand the 4th Amendment, and innocently pass their misunderstanding on to other members, they risk a costly and possibly painful experience for themselves and the others they have misinformed. The words in the 4th Amendment are clear and unambiguous, and the 4th deserves the same attention we give the 2nd.

I will not conclude that I am beating a dead horse so long as this misunderstanding is continually repeated by members of this forum. Thus far it has happened twice on this thread. I do not necessarily blame a member for his or her confusion, or sloppy language, if you will. I have had the misfortune of hearing a CHL instructor confuse his whole class with this, so I feel justified in suspecting that there may be other instructors out there equally at fault.

(As usual, I hasten to add that I am not claiming that the search described here was reasonable under the circumstances. I leave that queston up to the eyes of the beholder, the same test used by judges.)

Jim

[AEA]

SOMEHOW....this thread has gotten OFF TRACK........

This thread is NOT about disarming a CHL Holder (for Officer safety).

This thread is about AFTER disarming, the act of the Officer RUNNING OF THE WEAPON SERIAL NUMBER (to check if it's stolen).

Let's try to get it back on track and keep it there.

[A-R]

SOMEHOW....this thread has gotten OFF TRACK........

This thread is NOT about disarming a CHL Holder (for Officer safety).

This thread is about AFTER disarming, the act of the Officer RUNNING OF THE WEAPON SERIAL NUMBER (to check if it's stolen).

Let's try to get it back on track and keep it there.

I respectfully disagree - the two subjects are inherently entwined in this case.

The key question - alluded to earlier - is that Texas law allows LEOs to disarm a CHL in this scenario only for "safety" reasons. If those safety reasons cannot be articulated, then the disarming is not legal under the law. If some department policy exists that states ALL CHLs will be disarmed regardless of safety need, that would violate the letter of the law (have we even determined yet whether such policy actually exists or is just an assumption?)

Otherwise we would need to determine if the LEO in this case had articulable reasonable suspicion to disarm this particular CHL for safety reasons and go from there.

The point is, you can't get to running the serial # without first properly/legally seizing the weapon. If the weapon is properly/legally seized, running the serial # generally would be permissible though not necessarily "proper" (hope the fine line I'm splitting there makes sense)

[Abraham]

Is this disarming scenario a situation where certain officers (or perhaps mandated by their chief) disagree with the CHL and MPA laws and are doing what they can to discourage the public from lawfully carrying?

[Jaguar]

This thread is about AFTER disarming, the act of the Officer RUNNING OF THE WEAPON SERIAL NUMBER (to check if it's stolen).

I believe it is also about disarming, as you cannot run the serial number without disarming. However, for the sake of staying on track I will address only the running of the serial number.

Otherwise a search by an LEO must only not be "unreasonable."

The search must be reasonable.

So the question is, is running the serial number of a firearm (search) during a routine traffic stop reasonable? I know of no case law applying directly to this scenario, but I do know a vehicle search is considered unreasonable without clear and articulable suspicion. Whether that is seeing something in the vehicle or having a dog do its dance, something has to trigger the search to make it reasonable. Of course they can ask to search, and most will say okay, but that is neither here nor there and for the record, I do not consent to searches. For a search of the serial number I would presume there should also be other factors that would lead to some suspicion that would make the search reasonable, e.g., felon in possession, burglary tools in the vehicle, other contraband in the vehicle, or a “stolen gun dog” dancing (okay, the last one probably doesn’t exist.)

Is it reasonable for the DPS to search the serial number of a firearm possessed by a holder of a Texas CHL with no other suspicions? This is a person licensed by the DPS, and now the DPS thinks it would be reasonable to believe that this person is now in possession of a stolen firearm?

I have to do mental gymnastics to get a yes out of this question.

IANAL – maybe that is why I cannot see it being reasonable.

[NEB]

57Coastie, thanks for making that more clear to me.

gigag04, forgive me for being a bit prickly. It had been a long day. Surely you can see how your comment (and tex's followup clarification) could be construed as condescending. It would only be fair turn-around to point out that you stretched and twisted my comment to somehow mean I viewed you as an extreme facist oppressionist.

I can see your point about law officers receiving sabre rattling letters frequently. Perhaps a formal complaint would be more conducive? From your perspective as an officer, what would be the most conducive response?

Back to the question, I would argue that disarming an individual poses a much higher safety risk to all involved than letting well-enough alone. A gun in its holster or in the vehicle of a licensed and background-checked individual isn't going to just spontaneously go off. However, once you put that same weapon into human hands, the chance of an accidental discharge skyrockets. Especially when the officer taking the weapon may be unfamiliar with its particular make.

Another thing to consider from an officer's perspective is the act of disarming itself. I can't imagine an officer requesting the CHL holder to disarm themselves and hand over the weapon. If that is the case, they've just proven that they do not consider the CHL holder a safety threat and the disarming was clearly in violation of the spirit of the law. Also, if the officer WAS concerned about safety, why place yourself within arms reach of someone in order to disarm them?

[68blackbird]

I just spoke with a DPS officer that works off-duty near me. He told me that they have been trained/told NOT to disarm motorists when pulled over for routine traffic stops. "We are not in the business off disarming people, CHl or not"....pretty much a quote. Most likely he said, it was a less experianced officer not brought up to speed on procedures.He told me if that situation happeded to me, I should comply with the officer, but afterwards, report the matter to his/her supervisor so that he'she could be schooled on proper protocal.

[Oehamilton]

To be clear, the officer stated that it was "Policy" to perform a serial number search to determine if the firearm was stolen or not. Fact or fiction as to is it official "Policy", it was stated as to be fact.

[Oehamilton]

And he removed my firearm from my hip...and did have trouble clearing my 1911

[i8godzilla]

When an officer feels his/her safety is threatened, would not one of the first things they do is call for "Back-Up"? Seems all of the stories I hear about being disarmed never have any details about additional units being dispatched. I bet if there was a one page report that needed to be completed--with a narrative of WHY the officer believed is safety was at risk--every time an honest CHL holder is disarmed, in the name of safety, this practice would stop.

[puma guy]

My understanding is that without probably [sic] cause, it's an illegal search.

Once again I feel obliged to note, with respect, that probable cause is required by the 4th Amendment only when a warrant is sought. Jim

I believe you are incorrect in making the statement the 4th Amendment only applies to seeking a warrant.