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

[gigag04]

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?

Contact the local DPS station, and do some fact finding before firing off a letter. Think about the volume of paperwork the AGs office handles. If possible, get copies of the policies and directives that you want changed. Include them with the complaint.

[Oehamilton]

Probable cause requires a much greater amount of proof than reasonable suspicion. This is invoked for searching your clothes for evidence, searching your vehicle, and arresting you.

Police may search suspects without getting a search warrant, and the search will not violate the Fourth Amendment, only if probable cause to search exists. In Maryland v. Pringle, the United States Supreme Court stated that: “[t]he substance of all the definitions of probable cause is a reasonable ground for belief of guilt,” which must be accompanied by suspicion directly pointing to the individual / particular suspect who is being searched. Probable cause has been described by some Virginia courts as requiring somewhere around a 40% likelihood that some crime is taking place.

Probable cause without a warrant is determined by the officer who is allowed to consider all of his observations about the suspect and his property, the things and conditions around the suspect, any statements made, informant tips, the suspect’s behavior and conduct, in addition to the officer’s knowledge, training and experience. The courts judge whether the officer properly determined that there was probable cause to search a suspect by applying a perspective of “an objectively reasonable police officer.”

A recent Court of Appeals decision described probable cause as follows:

Probable cause “does not demand any showing that [the officer's] belief be correct or more likely true than false” that a criminal offense had occurred or was occurring. Thus, this Court need not find that it was “more likely true than false” that appellant was disregarding Officer Morris’s signal or attempting to escape or elude Officer Morris; rather, probable cause is a “flexible, common-sense standard” that in the totality of the circumstances would warrant a “person of reasonable caution to believe” that appellant was disregarding Officer Morris’s signal or attempting to escape or elude Officer Morris. Furthermore, under the probable cause standard, police officers are “not required to possess either the gift of prophecy or the infallible wisdom that comes only with hindsight. They must be judged by their reaction to circumstances as they reasonably appeared to trained law enforcement officers to exist” at that time.
Proffitt v. Commonwealth, Va: Court of Appeals 2011

...so the officer thought I had stole my gun

[Jaguar]

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.

I will look that up, I ask questions and post what I find, and not afraid to be wrong. At least I was half right.

4A law is very confusing, some people think police can look in any are in the passenger compartment without PC, others disagree. I am not sure, and it probably varies from state to state so asking my sister in MT who IAL wouldn't help.

[steveincowtown]

For what its worth I have requested a copy under the FOIA of all documents, memos, and stated polices pertaining to how DPS Officers have been instructed to handle stops with CHLers.

I have never done this before, and have no idea what I will get or not get. Whatever I do get, I will post on here when it becomes available.


Until then I am.....

[couzin]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

[57Coastie]

For what its worth I have requested a copy under the FOIA of all documents, memos, and stated polices pertaining to how DPS Officers have been instructed to handle stops with CHLers.

I have never done this before, and have no idea what I will get or not get. Whatever I do get, I will post on here when it becomes available.


Until then I am.....

Well done, Steve. That is exactly the way to go.

I know you will not be surprised to get a NO from the DPS, then the same from the AG. I will be looking forward to hearing your saga of developments, but I will not hold my breath while waiting.

Jim

[Sangiovese]

My understanding of the 4th amendment issue (and I could be wrong) is that probable cause *is* required even for warrantless searches (except for those that fall within one of the exceptions that has been carved out). However, evidence obtained from improper searches will only be excluded if the search is unreasonable. Which means that even though PC is technically required, there is no penalty for an improper search unless there was not only no PC to search, but also that the search was unreasonable.

As for the specific issue... once they disarm you, I agree that the plain view doctrine comes into play... and therefore looking at the serial number wouldn't be a "search" under the 4th amendment. It's a lousy thing to do, but I don't think they are violating the law by running serial numbers after disarming citizens... IF the reason they disarmed the citizen was legitimate. However, if they are using "officer safety" as a pretext to disarm people so they can run serial numbers then they are out of line.

Additionally, if they extend the stop by an unreasonable amount of time in order to run the serial number then it turns into an illegal seizure. How long would they have to extend the stop for that to happen? Depends on the courts... but SCOTUS has found an extension of a traffic stop by 10 minutes (waiting for a drug dog to arrive) to be unreasonable... so that's at least one data point.

[gigag04]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

[57Coastie]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

Jim

[C-dub]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

I think GigAg has already stated that he wouldn't run the serial number of a gun belonging to a CHL holder, but for an officer that would and then would not be concerned with other items wouldn't that show that they weren't really worried about the gun being stolen in the first place? And if that were the case, what would the real reason be for "running" that serial number?

[bizarrenormality]

This is another good example why we should remember the Fifth Amendment especially when some unconstitutional law says otherwise.

[couzin]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

I think GigAg has already stated that he wouldn't run the serial number of a gun belonging to a CHL holder, but for an officer that would and then would not be concerned with other items wouldn't that show that they weren't really worried about the gun being stolen in the first place? And if that were the case, what would the real reason be for "running" that serial number?

Yep!!

[gigag04]

I'd like to get stopped and have my PCW serial number run for stolen etc. - I would then insist they run everything in my possession. I keep a list of serial numbers and descriptions on my phone - should keep em on the side of the road for a couple hours...

Yeah...I would just tell you no.

I think GigAg has already stated that he wouldn't run the serial number of a gun belonging to a CHL holder, but for an officer that would and then would not be concerned with other items wouldn't that show that they weren't really worried about the gun being stolen in the first place? And if that were the case, what would the real reason be for "running" that serial number?

At some level, as things are written now, because they can.

Stupid I know, but that's how it is. Disarming someone puts the guy's SN in plain view. No way they will eliminate the provision allowing officers to do that, so until something changes, it's stuck.

And yes - the only CHL holders I've disarmed we're drunk and getting arrested for DWI.

[E.Marquez]

And yes - the only CHL holders I've disarmed we're drunk and getting arrested for DWI.

And good on you for doing it.... I no more want a intoxicated CHL dude on the streets then I do a intoxicated driver.

I have a HUGE issue with LEO's disarming, just because they can.. the law is clear, the authority to disarm exists only IF "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual."

I look forward to an officer articulating his belief I, the officer, or another individual needs protection from my holstered gun.

Im reasonable sure, the end result will at the least include an apology from the department chief, and implied "re look at policy or training" should I ever get disarmed.

As I can say for myself, should I get pulled over, I will present the text book "this guy is not a safety concern" contact.


GC §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. The peace officer shall return the handgun to
the license holder before discharging the license holder from the scene if
the officer determines that the license holder is not a threat to the officer,
license holder, or another individual and if the license holder has not
violated any provision of this subchapter or committed any other violation
that results in the arrest of the license holder.
\

[Oehamilton]

I don't see where there was probable cause to think that I as a danger. That's the only time a CHL should be, but if a CHL is a danger, then shouldn't his ability to have a CHL be in question all together? Unless the CHL holder has probable cause to use deadly force. All the CHL holders I know would only be a danger to someone if he or his family was in imminent danger. Good luck disarming them then.