DPS

[Roger Howard]

easttexas, the trooper did not violate your rights, but it does sound like he was a bit rude. Everyone has a bad day, that could have been his. As stated in previous post, there are two sides to every story.

If you feel you were treated poorly by the trooper you are within your rights to complain. If you do decide to write a complaint letter do it soon, take your time writing the letter, make sure it is clear and factual, and include as much detail as you can remember.

[casselthief]

I believe a discussion took place in another thread corresponding to whether or not a CHL presented "probable cause."
as I remember, I believe it was ascertained that a CHL did not present PC, and therefore a search was not warranted based on that alone.

now there are a few other things that are interesting, and could give a little more insight into what went through the DPS officer's mind, at that time.
I am merely speculating here, but maybe it seemed odd that a CHL holder would have two unloaded weapons on him.
everyone here would say two things:
1. not uncommon to unload before/after a range trip
2. an unloaded gun doesn't provide you any protection

I'm going to leave #2 completely alone.
but, once again, seeing as the officer felt inclined to look at said pistols, maybe they were looking for a guy who had a particular weapon on him, and he was seeing if your weaponry fit that bill, so to speak.
again, I think you consented to a search when he asked if he could go into your vehicle and look at the aforementioned items.
no biggie, but I agree that 20 mins on the side of the road is quite the pain, especially taking into consideration that if it was too cold for the range, it was probably a tid bit nippy on the side o' the road.

[txinvestigator]

Yes you can and should refuse a search (rights not used are lost MY OPINION).

A LEO does not need your permission to conduct a Terry search of your vehicle. Nor does he need permission to conduct a search if he has probable cause that contrband might be in the vehicle (Carroll vs US)

Either I am reading this wrong, or we have 2 different opinions here.

The question, as I see it, is this: I get pulled over for speeding, I inform the officer that I have a CHL and a handgun in the vehicle. If he wants to search my vehicle, based only on that information, does he have the right to do so?

Interesting question. It is illegal to resist a search, even an unlawful one.

If the officer asks you permission to search, your refusal does not equal resisting. However, if the officer then searches anyway, you cannot resist, other than to assert your denial. Any interference past stating your wishes would be resisting.

Many officers, even if they believe they can search under Terry or Carroll will ask for permission anyway. Gaining permission would counter any assertion in court later that contraband was gained as the result of an improper search.


Unless there has been a court ruling of which I am unaware, I believe announcing that you have "2 guns in cases in the back seat" allows the officer to search under Terry. Google Terry vs Ohio and Carrol vs US for specific details on those cases as well as what limitations are for each search.

[txinvestigator]

I believe a discussion took place in another thread corresponding to whether or not a CHL presented "probable cause."
as I remember, I believe it was ascertained that a CHL did not present PC, and therefore a search was not warranted based on that alone.

PC is not required for a Terry search. Reasonable suspicion is.

[easttexas]

Yes llwatson said what I was wanting to ask after reading the then following replies I think I can see the troopers motive I guess, anyway at least I got it off my chest to more informed people other than familiy and friends.
Thanks.

[casselthief]

I believe a discussion took place in another thread corresponding to whether or not a CHL presented "probable cause."
as I remember, I believe it was ascertained that a CHL did not present PC, and therefore a search was not warranted based on that alone.

PC is not required for a Terry search. Reasonable suspicion is.

Ah! thank you for the info.
well, then, to further the discussion just a bit, does having a CHL create reasonable suspicion?
it would seem reasonable to me that announcing you have a gun would, while having a CHL while not carrying (for shame!!!) would not.
what is your perspective?
thanks in advance.

[KBCraig]

A LEO does not need your permission to conduct a Terry search of your vehicle.

You forgot, "while you are in your vehicle".

If you are outside your vehicle and it is locked, nothing inside is a danger to the officer, and Terry does not apply.

The officer has the right to demand you step out of the vehicle. If he asks you to step out, lock the doors before doing so. He has the right to frisk you for his own safety. He does not have the right to conduct a warrantless search of your locked, unoccupied vehicle without your consent.

Kevin

[Right2Carry]

The officer has the right to demand you step out of the vehicle. If he asks you to step out, lock the doors before doing so. He has the right to frisk you for his own safety. He does not have the right to conduct a warrantless search of your locked, unoccupied vehicle without your consent.

Interesting.

[Mike1951]

In my opinion, once the driver was outside the car and separated from his firearms, there was no longer any issue about the trooper's safety and no reason to see the firearms.

So I don't see any case for even reasonable suspicion.

It appears he was definitely 'fishing' and coerced permission from the driver.

[Liberty]

It was a couple years ago, that I was with a co-worker in Longview. My co-worker was driving and we got pulled over leaving a Whatataburger because the driver didn't have his seat belt on. He asked the driver to exit the car and he did. with a cigar in his hand, he bent down to set the cigar against his tire, so he could retrieve it later. The DPS threatened to ticket him for littering.. It was pretty obvious my friend was only trying to be polite and not blow smoke in his face.
At any rate, he got the ticket. I don't know if it is the same rude DPS officer that EastTexas had the bad luck to run into or whether there is a systematic problem with DPS officers in Longview.

[carlson1]

Yes you can and should refuse a search (rights not used are lost MY OPINION).

A LEO does not need your permission to conduct a Terry search of your vehicle. Nor does he need permission to conduct a search if he has probable cause that contrband might be in the vehicle (Carroll vs US)

Either I am reading this wrong, or we have 2 different opinions here.

The question, as I see it, is this: I get pulled over for speeding, I inform the officer that I have a CHL and a handgun in the vehicle. If he wants to search my vehicle, based only on that information, does he have the right to do so?

No Ma’am He can take your weapon until the stop is over. Reasons for search. . .
1. Immediate area for "his" safety
2. Probable cause.
3. Inventory search. - This is done after an arrest and everything in the vehicle is placed on a log. They say they do this to stop the tow truck driver, etc. . . from taking things and so the suspect can say something was taken, but it is a SEARCH.

If I am wrong or it has changed please let me know, but I don't think it has.

[Skipper5]

I believe a discussion took place in another thread corresponding to whether or not a CHL presented "probable cause."
as I remember, I believe it was ascertained that a CHL did not present PC, and therefore a search was not warranted based on that alone.

PC is not required for a Terry search. Reasonable suspicion is.

Ah! thank you for the info.
well, then, to further the discussion just a bit, does having a CHL create reasonable suspicion?
it would seem reasonable to me that announcing you have a gun would, while having a CHL while not carrying (for shame!!!) would not.
what is your perspective?
thanks in advance.

I guess I better take off my NRA Life Member and TRSA Stickers off back window as relates 'reasonable suspicion' TXI? Yeah, probably a bad day for the Trooper, and probably a letter to the Sgt(s) for that area and factual lay out the facts as stated by the citizen/driver. I've been told by a Lt in a local PD close by, that some LEOs appreciate seeing and checking out handguns- basically gun enthusiasts and they wanna check out everything. Never experienced that here; just passing on his comment. And, I do usually side with LEO personal safety issues however, that being said, I agree with Mike 1951..."[if] the driver was outside the car and separated from his firearms; there was no longer any issue about trooper's safety, etc"....[sic] don't see any case for even reasonable suspicion."

[Commander]

EastTexas: If the traffic stop is as you say it was, the trooper involved was not following policy for a traffic contact with a CHL holder. If you wish to pursue it further go to the following link - all complaints are investigated:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_s ... plaint.htm

[Crossfire]

No Ma’am He can take your weapon until the stop is over. Reasons for search. . .
1. Immediate area for "his" safety
2. Probable cause.
3. Inventory search. - This is done after an arrest and everything in the vehicle is placed on a log. They say they do this to stop the tow truck driver, etc. . . from taking things and so the suspect can say something was taken, but it is a SEARCH.

I understand that a peace officer can disarm a CHL holder “at any time the officer reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual� (Section 411.207)

However, if my lawfully carried weapon is in a case, in my car, then removing me from the car effectively disarms me, right?

I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative, but I need to know how to answer a student who asks me... does an officer have the right to search my car just because I am a lawfully armed CHL holder?

[carlson1]

but I need to know how to answer a student who asks me... does an officer have the right to search my car just because I am a lawfully armed CHL holder?

My Final Answer is no they do not have a right to search because you have a CHL. By the way I can't believe you would even think you were difficult (Marty on the other hand, well. . .). In fact I think after all of this reading I am confused.

Mrs. Linda my answer would yes to the removal from the car and NO on the search. They can REMOVE you from the vehicle and they can search whatever is in your immediate reach. Example a LOCKED glove box is NOT in your immediate reach. An UNLOCKED glove box is searchable. A LOCKED brief case setting next to you is NOT in your immediate reach, while an UNLOCKED brief case is in your immediate reach. Again I am no longer in LE, but this was pounded in to us over over again. Every in service school this was brought out. I do not believe it is any different now. ------------------
With that said, as TXI said the officer can search for no reason, but it would be against the law. Most searches that are conducted are from people who "give permission." I am one who believes in saying NO to the search. I am not going to argue or resist, but I am going to say NO for the consent to search. Now all of the post will come if you are not hiding anything why would you say NO because it is my RIGHT to say NO! Notwithstanding there are some officers that are not going to follow the law, but I think you will find for the most part (especially DPS) they are professional and know what they can and cannot do.