DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

[TexasCajun]

In my experience this can and does happen. Years (4-5?) ago a friend and myself were driving to the range, and were pulled over by a DPS officer for some unbeknownst reason. We, of course, had guns in the car (wouldn't be really possible to shoot without them!), and as soon as the officer found out, he immediately made his intent to inspect them known. Friend was removed from the vicinity of the vehicle, and the officer opened the rear hatch where we had the guns stored, and I politely asked him if I could join him and was told to stay seated in the vehicle with the doors closed. He ran the numbers on the guns we had (a few pistols and rifles - the most fancy thing in there was my Saiga 12) and I was questioned about them. Specifically the S12: officer wanted to know what "caliber it was", which was hilarious because he asked "What is this Saiga 12 gauge?" leading into the question. Asked me where I got it, and how long I had it, etc. It was pretty clear that he was fishing to see if I knew anything about the firearm to determine if it was mine or not.

Friend was back at the patrol car (just standing outside it, not cuffed or anything) and confirmed that he heard the officer call the S/N's in. They all came back clean, of course.

The kicker? The officer didn't at all care about my carry gun, NOR seeing my ID or CHL when I informed him that I was carrying. He didn't even bat an eye at or bother to look at/take my ID's when I tried to hand them to him. Pretty interesting that you would want to search someones firearms without even determining whether or not they are who they say they are, or apparently caring about the firearm said person is carrying. Ultimately we were sent on our way about an hour or so later. No citations were given, and the only thing the officer said when we asked why were pulled over was that he saw a break light was not functioning. Funnier yet? We didn't break until after he lit us up. We weren't even close to speeding or driving in a manner that could be deemed dubious or unsafe. It was a pretty shady stop all in all. I can tell you that I felt pretty sick to my stomach about the whole thing after it happened - we both felt violated because were were stopped and our firearms inspected for no reason that was explained to us other than "It's department policy" (as per the officer when I asked him). My gut tells me we were stopped because of the area we were in, direction of travel, (between Presidio and Marfa) and because of appearances (my friend's Explorer looked like it had seen better days) - IE: thinking we were from Mexico and running something illegal. Just spit balling here, though.

YMMV - Just my own experience.

TL;DR: DPS officer incorrectly profiled us, determined we were innocuous citizens, ran our numbers anyway and then sent us on our merry way.

Well that chain of "events" is on you. All you had to do was refuse consent to a search of the rear hatch area.

As far as the rest of this thread is concerned, the applicable statute has already been quoted. If asked by an LEO to disarm, it wouldn't be out of line to ask the officer to specifically articulate what factors are contributing to the required necessity to disarm. Of course, if the LEO is bent on disarming & subsequently ruining the serial number on my gun(s), I would comply and the address the entire incident with the officer's supervisor.

[4t5]

The sole discretion to disarm is that of the officer's. no one, meaning the courts or his/her superiors is going to second guess an officer's decision to disarm someone. All an officer has to say is that he did it for his safety, end of discussion.
....

If a LEO really feels threatened or unsafe, wouldn't he call for backup straight away? Unless he does, it seems to me that this is just an underhanded way to perform an illegal search.

[texanjoker]

A friend of mine was stopped by dps a few weeks ago, he handed him his chl and the trooper asked if he was armed, replied yes I am - trooper asked where the gun was , in the consol , trooper said hand it over so he could check if the gun was stolen.

I'd have refused to "hand it over" (politely, of course) on those grounds and requested he get a supervisor out there (I think they have to call in the request, don't they?). Unless I'm mistaken (which happens more often than not - LOL), LEOs can ONLY disarm you if they believe it necessary for their safety, your safety, or the safety of others. To "check if the gun was stolen" doesn't meet those requirements.

Now, if the supervisor sided with the officer, I'd comply. But I'd get the officer's and supervisr's information and file a formal complaint ASAP.

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

[jimlongley]

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

Which law is that?

[texanjoker]

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

Which law is that?

If you would read this thread you would have seen it posted several times.

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.

[2firfun50]

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

Which law is that?

If you would read this thread you would have seen it posted several times.

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.

I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

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.[/quote]

[EEllis]

I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

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.

Why should they need to explain? It is well documented by court cases and officers are trained that it's reasonable to secure firearms in any custodial situation. All they have to say is "for safety" and they are good. This is even without the additional written authority to disarm license holders.

[ldj1002]

I have read this thread and it mostly refers to CHL holders. This thread gives conditions where LEO can disarm a CHL. OK, What if same conditions exist except I am not a CHL holder but I have the gun in my car legally. I am waiting for my CHL to be processed. Maybe I shouldn't have got it. Is the laws you all refer to for CHL only?

[Jumping Frog]

The law permits the officer to disarm the CHL holder. He does not have to have probable cause to disarm, a warrant is not required for him to run the serial number just as he does not require a warrant to run a drivers license check on you once you hand him your DL.
So until someone wants to challenge the law permitting the officer to disarm you, you have two choices, comply with te law or challenge it and be prepared to suffer consequnces.

Let's not mix topics here. There are two distinct legal issues here.

First, the authority to disarm. Second, the right to check the serial number.

I am not going to even argue whether an officer has the right to disarm. The Supreme Court has created numerous precedents and has been very mindful of officer safety in such decisions. It is 't even worth trying to argue this point.

However, running the serial number clearly constitutes a "search". Now, if a person simply hands the firearm over with the serial number in plain sight, the "plain sight" exception clearly allows the search. If a person tapes over the serial number, that would seem to go a long way towards probable cause.

However, handing over a pocket pistol still in the pocket holster creates a different issue altogether. The serial number is covered and thus not in plain sight. Absent other articulable facts creating legal standing for a search, running the serial number in this circumstance is clearly not justified.

[RottenApple]

I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

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.

Why should they need to explain? It is well documented by court cases and officers are trained that it's reasonable to secure firearms in any custodial situation. All they have to say is "for safety" and they are good. This is even without the additional written authority to disarm license holders.

If you file a formal complaint, and that complaint eventually lead to a day in court, the officer may be required to explain his reasoning. If the officer says (as was claimed in one of the posts in this thread) that he is disarming "to check if the gun is stolen", then he clearly is not disarming for safety reasons (which is legal). And should it come down to a court case (don't see why it would, but lets pretend), he is going to perjur himself if he tries to claim it was for safety. Can I prove it? Yes. Because I have started recording all encounters I have with LEOs. Fortunately that's been a grand total of 2 since I've had my CHL.

Look, I don't want to give a LEO a hard time, they've got a tough enough job as it is, but I'm not going to be passive in asserting my rights and, should it be necessary, trying to correct an injustice. As I said earlier, should I ever find myself in this situation, I'll request that he call a supervisor. If necessary, I'll comply. But I will be filing a complaint at the first opportunity.

[jimlongley]

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

Which law is that?

If you would read this thread you would have seen it posted several times.

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.

I see conditional authority, not absolute authority.

And that does not include authority to even unload the gun, much less run its serial number.

[EEllis]

I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

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.

Why should they need to explain? It is well documented by court cases and officers are trained that it's reasonable to secure firearms in any custodial situation. All they have to say is "for safety" and they are good. This is even without the additional written authority to disarm license holders.

If you file a formal complaint, and that complaint eventually lead to a day in court, the officer may be required to explain his reasoning. If the officer says (as was claimed in one of the posts in this thread) that he is disarming "to check if the gun is stolen", then he clearly is not disarming for safety reasons (which is legal). And should it come down to a court case (don't see why it would, but lets pretend), he is going to perjur himself if he tries to claim it was for safety. Can I prove it? Yes. Because I have started recording all encounters I have with LEOs. Fortunately that's been a grand total of 2 since I've had my CHL.

Look, I don't want to give a LEO a hard time, they've got a tough enough job as it is, but I'm not going to be passive in asserting my rights and, should it be necessary, trying to correct an injustice. As I said earlier, should I ever find myself in this situation, I'll request that he call a supervisor. If necessary, I'll comply. But I will be filing a complaint at the first opportunity.

Honestly I think it's pointless theorizing which may get someone in trouble because they may decide to go all "I know my rights!" based on what people here state as settled points of law. I doubt a court would ever even make a cop say why they secured a gun on a stop. Courts have ruled that it's reasonable for any office to secure any weapon in any custodial stop. Cops are trained to do so for "safety" even when they aren't really worried about the weapon. Focusing on that issue is foolish and won't go anywhere. Clearly it's legal and a usable loophole that I have no doubt will be open no matter what internet warriors think of it. Now maybe focusing on the DPS policy, or even just covering the S/N as discussed may be an option, but the attempt to re-engineer current law by saying that things "should be" is a waste of time.

[EEllis]

I have read this thread and it mostly refers to CHL holders. This thread gives conditions where LEO can disarm a CHL. OK, What if same conditions exist except I am not a CHL holder but I have the gun in my car legally. I am waiting for my CHL to be processed. Maybe I shouldn't have got it. Is the laws you all refer to for CHL only?

Nope it's well established that it's constitutionally within the authority of any police office to secure any weapon during a custodial encounter. Basically if they can keep you from walking or driving away they can temporarily secure anything they consider a weapon until the end of the encounter or you are arrested. Personally I think the chl thing was put in to eliminate some of the arguments that people would try saying that they didn't have to allow officers to disarm them. It also sets a specific penalty for a chl doing so rather than the generic obstruction charge or whatever the DA might choose instead.

[sjfcontrol]

It also sets a specific penalty for a chl doing so rather than the generic obstruction charge or whatever the DA might choose instead.

I don't see any specific penalty mentioned in GC411.207.

[texanjoker]

That would put you in a difficult position as we do not have to call a supervisor and the law requires a CHL holder to surrender your weapon when instructed to do so on a traffic stop.

Which law is that?

If you would read this thread you would have seen it posted several times.

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.

I find your post to be rather disturbing. I may be reading it incorrectly, but when later challenged, wouldn't the officer be required to explain the safety reason for disarming? I see nothing in the law that says, "because an officer said so...."

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.

[/quote]

Not sure why it is disturbing. The law allows a peace officer to disarm somebody for the reasons stated above. If the officer has a reason under the law, he can disarm a CHL holder. There is no requirement for the officer to explain at the time of disarming why he is doing it. In some form or manner he/she will merely ask for the weapon, probably say they are taking it for the duration of the traffic stop and hopefully in some safe manner take the gun. It is the LEO's opinion if it is a safety issue or not and not the CHL holders. One is required under the law to surrender the gun. It would not be wise for somebody at this point prior to being disarmed to start challenging the officer as that will escalate a situation and when guns are involved that is dangerous. Additionally, there is no legal requirement for an officer to call a supervisor because a CHL holder does not want to surrender a gun.