Questionable Search on Live PD.

[anygunanywhere]

Last night I was watching Live PD. A county sheriff from MO pulled over a man for no front plate. I have my own thoughts on such bull scat stops but will not focus on that. The deputy asked the man if he had any weapons and he replied that he was concealed carrying on his right hip.

The deputy replied that if he (citizen) kept his in the holster that he (deputy) would keep his weapon in the holster. I thought "Excellent".

The deputy then asked if he had his carry license. The citizen replied that he did not. The deputy then stated "Then you are carrying under constitutional carry." and the citizen said Yes. I again thought "Excellent!"

Then the deputy said "Do you mind if I run your weapon to see if it is stolen?"and my "ecxcellents" turned to "What the hey?!?!?!?!"

He ordered the citizen out of the car, ten fingers on the fender, disarmed him, unloaded his Ruger LCP.

I turned it off before the end of the show to go night night but did have some thoughts.

What RAS or PC did the deputy have to do such a search? The actions he took directly went counter to the you keep your holstered... garbage he spouted. He also increased the likelihood of a negligent discharge by unnecessarily handling firearms.

I do believe if I am ever presented with this scenario I will say yes I mind. Get a warrant.

[03Lightningrocks]

I don't know the answer to your question but I have watched many things cops do on Live PD and wondered what the heck.

[carlson1]

I watched that same episode and my answer would have been "No sir I don't consent to you running my firearm." Now with that being said he has the right to disarm me and then I guess he gets to do what he wants then.

I am a legal law abiding citizen. I am not consenting to any searches, etc... I have zero to hide, but the answer is still no sir.

[bubba84]

He didnt need a RAS or PC as he had consent.

[Redneck_Buddha]

I watched that same episode and my answer would have been "No sir I don't consent to you running my firearm." Now with that being said he has the right to disarm me and then I guess he gets to do what he wants then.

I am a legal law abiding citizen. I am not consenting to any searches, etc... I have zero to hide, but the answer is still no sir.

That's the problem with so many people. The mentality is "If I'm/you're not doing anything wrong, why shouldn't I/you submit?"

[anygunanywhere]

He didnt need a RAS or PC as he had consent.

I realize the citizen gave consent.

Shouldn’t the normal situation be that there is RAS or PC before a cop wants to search law abiding citizens?

Why did he want to run the weapon? What led him to think it might be stolen? Does the deputy make it a habit of pulling these unnecessary searches on all citizens exercising their 2A rights? The 4A protects against these searches.

[carlson1]

If you have violated no law other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic law I wished Texas would change the part of disarming unless the LEO can show he had some thought of a threat on your part other than a holstered weapon.
We all know the more you handle a firearm the more chances of having a ND.

[anygunanywhere]

If you have violated no law other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic law I wished Texas would change the part of disarming unless the LEO can show he had some thought of a threat on your part other than a holstered weapon.
We all know the more you handle a firearm the more chances of having a ND.

[AJSully421]

If you have violated no law other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic law I wished Texas would change the part of disarming unless the LEO can show he had some thought of a threat on your part other than a holstered weapon.
We all know the more you handle a firearm the more chances of having a ND.

Read TXGC 411.207 and tell me what you think it means?

[carlson1]

If you have violated no law other than a Class C misdemeanor traffic law I wished Texas would change the part of disarming unless the LEO can show he had some thought of a threat on your part other than a holstered weapon.
We all know the more you handle a firearm the more chances of having a ND.

Read TXGC 411.207 and tell me what you think it means?

officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual.

I understand the reading, but the problem is there is not an action just a “belief” and that could be because he was a biker with tattoos. :)

[bubba84]

He didnt need a RAS or PC as he had consent.

I realize the citizen gave consent.

Shouldn’t the normal situation be that there is RAS or PC before a cop wants to search law abiding citizens?

Why did he want to run the weapon? What led him to think it might be stolen? Does the deputy make it a habit of pulling these unnecessary searches on all citizens exercising their 2A rights? The 4A protects against these searches.

The 4th wasn't violated as he had consent.

[chasfm11]

The 4th wasn't violated as he had consent.

Here is the dilemma for the average citizen. We are led to believe that an officer has authority to do as he wishes in a roadside stop. There have been extremists who filmed themselves resisting officers, sometimes lawfully, on the roadside who ended up with greater problems as a result.

There is no training in schools about the real meaning of the Bill of Rights and how those individual rights play out in daily life. I'd bet that less than 5% of the parents ever go into individual rights with their children to that level. I freely admit that I didn't. Thankfully, both of my kids figured it out - one dispatched for the police for 7 years and knows the finer parts of the laws better than I do and the other is a quiet but independent type who respects but doesn't always trust law enforcement.

Through much of my own life, I would have agreed to a search because I didn't realize that I had a choice and it was a matter of doing it the easy way (cooperating) or the hard way (ending up in bracelets.) I'm betting that I'm not alone. Today, I'm much different. I'm respectful but firm and am willing to let things play out as they will.

[bubba84]

Its not an offense to know and assert your rights.

Not knowing them and acquiescing out of fear lies solely with you if the question is “can I run your pistol to see if it is stolen?”.

The officer has the authority to disarm you until the contact is over but he does not have the authority to “search” that pistol by running it while you are disarmed, if he hasnt been given consent and doesnt have PC/RAS.

[rtschl]

I don't have a problem with officer's asking for consent to search if no RAS/PC exists. However, I would have a problem if an officer assumes guilt because consent is not given. I realize they may call for K9, and watching LivePD I've seen a lot of times where K9 does indicate drugs as well as many times not. But can police detain you longer for a traffic stop solely for the purpose of waiting for K9? I would think that is questionable, because you are being detained longer than is reasonable for a traffic stop.

That being said, my favorite LivePD episode of a non-consent search was last month (July 20th) in Williamson County of the attorney from Austin. He did not consent but K9 Axel alerted and they found small amount of marijuana inside car driver side. It went downhill for him from there. In his trunk there was a large quantity of multiple drugs: https://www.kxan.com/investigations/aus ... tional-tv/ or here: https://www.statesman.com/news/20190723 ... affic-stop - the second link has the Affidavit of all the drugs found.

[dhoobler]

~snip~
But can police detain you longer for a traffic stop solely for the purpose of waiting for K9? I would think that is questionable, because you are being detained longer than is reasonable for a traffic stop.

SCOTUS agrees with you.

https://www.jordanucmjlaw.com/blog/2015 ... iolated-f/

"An officer...may conduct certain unrelated checks during an otherwise lawful traffic stop," ruled Justice Ginsberg. "A dog sniff, unlike the routine measures just mentioned, is not an ordinary incident of a traffic stop." Her majority opinion also stated: "A police stop exceeding the time needed to handle the matter for which the stop was made violates the Constitution’s shield against unreasonable seizures."