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

[TexasCajun]

As always on this forum, an interesting and enlightening discussion. Thanks for the detailed discourse on the 4th Ammendment!

Now for my $.02. I find it hard to believe that the Texas DPS is issuing county-by-county policy mandates. So either this "policy" is now statewide - in which case, we should start to see more of this type of occurance depicted on these boards, or the LEO was falling back on an excuse to conduct the excercise - along the lines of "don't get mad at me, my boss says that I have to do this". I'm inclined to believe it's just an excuse. If it's just an excuse, what could possibly be gained by performing routine serial number checks on weapons carried by people who have already undergone extensive background checks? The reasoning could range from pure incompetence to draconian oppression or anywhere in between. I suppose the OP could address the event and rationale for running the serial number with the officer's superiors & let us know what the response is in order to shed some light. Although that may become a rather lengthy and tiresome project.

As far as defining 'reasonable' and 'unreasonable' with regard to LEO searches, I believe that the courts spend the majority of their time on that exact question (what is reasonable/unreasonable) when 4th Ammendment and/or Search-Seizure cases come up.

As I've already expressed on other topics relating to an officer's choice to disarm, the roadside is no place to argue the merits of a LEO's actions. Yes sir/ma'am, No sir/ma'am, and How would you like me to procede? are the most intelligent responses that anyone involved in a traffic stop can use. After the fact is where the why's, how's, and whatfor's can be handled.

[JALLEN]

My first reaction is that officer safety has nothing whatsoever to do with stolen guns.

If you have a TV in the back seat, do they run that to see if it is stolen? How about a bicycle?

I'm prepared to give officers some slack on officer safety, since that is a genuine concern, but running serial numbers to check stolen seems a far stretch.

[flb_78]

Is there a law against covering up the S/N on a gun?

My LCP's S/N is recessed into the frame. I could take some black silicone and fill it in. Im not defacing the S/N, not removing it, just covering it.

I would think that it would be the same as placing a piece of paper over the VIN on the dash of a vehicle. It's easily removable.

[TexasCajun]

Agreed, JALLEN. The idea that DPS is going to find anything as a result of the serial number check on a CHL weapon is pretty preposterous. And yes, it will amount to a waste of everyone's time and probably state resources. For that reason, this would be the first point I'd make with the LEO's superiors AFTER the fact.

[68blackbird]

Not sure everyone saw my post on page 2, where I stated -

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 happended 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.

I bring this back up in referance to posts refering to this being "DPS policy" or not. Again, the DPS officer I talked to confirms this is NOT policy. Your best recourse is to comply and report the incident to higher ups.

In referance to this post -

by NEB » Wed Nov 28, 2012 2:53 pm

My cousin and his wife relayed an experience to me when I saw them on Thanskgiving. They were stopped for 5 mph over (North Texas area), and my cousin was carrying under CHL and duly handed over DL and CHL. The LEO disarmed him, unloaded the firearm, unloaded the magazine, disassembled the firearm, and placed the individual pieces (slide, frame, barrel, recoil spring assembly) on different parts of the vehicle. My cousin was instructed that he could reassemble the weapon after the officer left. My other cousin's husband, who was a detective for years, was livid when he heard the story.

Now I am a pretty easy going fella, but had this happened to me, I would have been furious! I would have the LEO's name and badge # and reported to his superiors...given that, there is a chance I would have been told "we are sorry, that officer will be reprimanded for this", maybe they would, maybe they wouldn't, but at least they would be on notice and hopefully it would stop. LEO's are just a micro-capsule of society, most are honest, right-minded beings, but just as the rest of society, there are and will always be a few who tarnish the rest. My belief is the OP came across an ill-informed or no so polished LEO. I for one resepct all LEO's for the thankless job they do. I would not like the job of walking up to a vehicle in the middle of the night, dark and isolated road, to question someone for whatever offense. If it is a BG, and I mean a REALLY BG, and they don't want to be there, that LEO is in grace danger. Respect all LEO, and report the ones that need it....

[TexasCajun]

Not sure everyone saw my post on page 2, where I stated -
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 happended 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.

I did see that. It's just that I'm a huge fan of hyperbole, and the rest of the first part of my post wouldn't have really worked without it.

[Jaguar]

Not sure everyone saw my post on page 2, where I stated -
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 happended 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.

I did see that. It's just that I'm a huge fan of hyperbole, and the rest of the first part of my post wouldn't have really worked without it.

Now that's funny.

However, each area has their own commander, so it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that Palo Pinto County is going above and beyond as a matter of local policy. Were I the OP, I would definitely look into contacting the supervisor.

[gigag04]

My first reaction is that officer safety has nothing whatsoever to do with stolen guns.

Most of the guns that kill cops are stolen, but I generally see the point you are trying to make.

If you have a TV in the back seat, do they run that to see if it is stolen? How about a bicycle?

Yup, as often as I can. Cleared about 15 burglaries last Christmas doing this. Obv it's not JUST a tv, there were many other things at work that lead me to believe the property might be stolen. Most interesting thing I checked and got a hit on the SN was a saxophone. Still, not a fan of a routine checking of all guns.

[smoothoperator]

When bad apples are allowed to remain, they spoil the whole bushel.

[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.

I did not say that. I would suggest that you read my post again, carefully, focusing on every word, and every thought, one at a time. I said that the 4th Amendment itself requires that probable cause need be had only to obtain a warrant. If a warrant is not obtained, a search need only not be unreasonable.

If you still do not understand, so be it. I cannot do any better.

Jim

I can read well enough to note your condescension. According to your statement probable cause is required only when a warrant is sought per the 4th Amendment. Any other search need only not be unreasonable. In other words warrantless searches require no probable cause.

[JALLEN]

My first reaction is that officer safety has nothing whatsoever to do with stolen guns.

Most of the guns that kill cops are stolen, but I generally see the point you are trying to make.

If you have a TV in the back seat, do they run that to see if it is stolen? How about a bicycle?

Yup, as often as I can. Cleared about 15 burglaries last Christmas doing this. Obv it's not JUST a tv, there were many other things at work that lead me to believe the property might be stolen. Most interesting thing I checked and got a hit on the SN was a saxophone. Still, not a fan of a routine checking of all guns.

Most of the guns that kill officers are not possessed by CHL holders, I venture to guess. In fact I would guess it would be either few or none.

I suppose there are situations where experience leads you to suspect something amiss. I lead a sheltered life, on purpose, never possess stolen goods or drugs or open containers, or illegal machine guns, or anything I'm not supposed to have, etc. On those rare occasions when I am stopped, not even every ten years, the officer is in no more danger than he would be sitting in his favorite doughnut shop, warm and dry. I habitually tell the truth as I know it on all occasions. It is very hard for me to imagine being stopped, my journey delayed, my gun and all my possessions rifled through, all on this officer's completely unjustified wild goose chase based on nothing more than his hope that he might uncover something amiss.

Of course, it has never happened to me, so maybe some of these guys aren't as dumb as they look.

Quick question.... I see references to DPS. Is this the Highway Patrol, or as they say out here, CHP?

[Oehamilton]

Texas Department of Public safety .... Highway Patrol.

[Jaguar]

Not just Highway Patrol, but the same agency that issues the Texas Concealed Handgun License, irony...

[Oehamilton]

I'd like to thank everyone for their input in to my experience. I am working on a letter, voicing my concerns. You have helped me greatly. I will be using the complaint affidavit (http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/OIG/complaint.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) and following their required guidelines. Whom else do you think, if any, should I copy?

[srothstein]

It is nice hearing that, but I am not sure that we are really completely in agreement. The 4th Amendment, REPEAT the 4th Amendment REPEAT does not inherently apply the probable cause standard to warrantless searches -- warrantless searches must only not be unreasonable.

Jim, I agree with both you and Gigag04, which may seem kind of confusing. You are correct that the Fourth only applies probable cause to warrants. Gigag04 is also correct when he says that the Fourth requires probable cause for any search. The difference is that you are basing your statement on the literal wording of the amendment while he is basing it on the amendment as interpreted and applied by the SCOTUS and other courts.

The SCOTUS has ruled that all searches are presumed unreasonable unless there is a warrant. They then clarified that there are exceptions to that rule, such as consent. They have ruled several times since then on what exceptions there are. One of the main exceptions was when there is not time to get a warrant - exigent circumstances.

One of the major exceptions were when something is in plain view of the officer. In that case, they do not need probable cause since it would be unreasonable to expect someone to ignore evidence of a crime that is staring them in the face. However, this is proof that your interpretation of the Fourth is very close to correct. The Terry stop was a major reduction in policy by requiring only suspicion instead of probable cause.

But, as a general rule, probable cause is required for searches based on the court's reading of the Fourth. In this sense, Gigag04 is also correct.


As a further lesson, or to further the confusion, Jaguar is also correct, sort of, and wrong sort of. He stated that the reasonableness is based on the expectation of privacy. This has always been the primary test of a search. Where Jaguar is sort of wrong is that he missed the implications of one of the newest rulings in search. Now, the first question is if the officer is trespassing on one of the four items specifically listed in the Fourth. I don't want Jaguar to feel bad about it, because I missed it also and I had read about the decision. Anyway, in the recent case of US v. Jones about police using a GPS on a car, the SCOTUS redefined what is a search. I read about it in this article and recommend others interested in this area of the law read the article.