DPS Serial Number Check Strategy

[dac1842]

Folks, this really isn't as complicated as you make it, or want to make it. I realize no matter how simple this gets broke down some here will disagree. That is your right. Hey if we all agreed this board would be real boring!
Let's say you get pulled over. You produce your CHL and DL and the officer inquires are you carrying? You respond yes. At this point the officer has 2 choices, say ok, and let you keep possession of your weapon, or for his own safety, he elects to disarm you.
Note: The law does not say he has to fear for his safety, the law does not state he has to feel threatened. YOU HAVE GUN, he has the authority to disarm you PERIOD! This is not something he has to justify his actions for later. IF the officer feels it is reasonable for his safety to disarm you he can. There is not a level of suspicion required. There is not a court in the land going to admonish the officer. All he has to say is that he did so for his personal safety. That is what he is authorized to do.

Now you have given him your firearm, he will unload it. At this point he has LEGALLY come into possession of your firearm. He can at this point run the serial number. NO warrant is needed, he has legally come into possession of the firearm. For all intents and purposes it was a consensual search as you gave him the firearm! Call it legislatively mandated consent, but it is in no way an illegal search or seizure.

I know some will argue why disarm me? I have been through a background check? Well all that background check means is that on the date and time you were checked you were clear. It does not mean you have not gone to the dark side since. I know statistically less than 1% of CHL holders go dark. How does he know you are not that <1%? .

In reality very few officers disarm. I have been stopped numerous times since I got my CHL. I have only been disarmed once, it did not bother me or offend me. IF I was still on the streets I would probably not disarm all CHLs, Depending on the time and place of the stop there are a few I would. It is strictly a judgment call the officer has to make. He has to do whatever he feels is necessary, LEGALLY, to go home to his family at the end of his shift.

Until a court states the law is unconstitutional this is the reality.

[Wes]

YOU HAVE GUN, he has the authority to disarm you PERIOD! This is not something he has to justify his actions for later. IF the officer feels it is reasonable for his safety to disarm you he can. There is not a level of suspicion required.

This sounds a bit contradicting to me by saying he doesn't have to justify his actions yet you add if the officer feels it is reasonable. Saying the officer has to have a reasonable safety concern, as the law states, would mean he does have to justify it. I understand what you are trying to say but an officer can not just do anything he wants here. Granted, he could say you not having your hands on the steering wheel made him have safety concerns and it would be enough, but if he comes out and says it was to run the serial number then that is not allowed by law IMO. As vague as the law is, I will agree that the court will almost always side with the officer on a disarming case though.

[flechero]

I know some will argue why disarm me? I have been through a background check? Well all that background check means is that on the date and time you were checked you were clear. It does not mean you have not gone to the dark side since. I know statistically less than 1% of CHL holders go dark. How does he know you are not that <1%? ..

I don't disagree with that statement but the same can be said for the officer.... he was a good guy when he got hired on, but no better guarantee that he's stayed any cleaner than the guy who's gun he is running. It's still checking to see if we have become criminal, as opposed to having an actual purpose for running numbers. If that's cool, why not go door to door and check serial numbers?

A criminal would just not hand over the chl and not volunteer that he has a weapon on him. This is another area where ONLY the law abiding citizen gets his rights trampled.

In the grand scheme of things, I could care less if they ran my serial numbers, as I know mine are clean. But it's the what is next that I don;t like.... I have no stolen goods in my home but I don;t need anyone rummaging through my stuff just to see if they can find something. I hardly think you'd appreciate it either.

just my $0.02

[suthdj]

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.

Now in this situation, If the LEO said "hand it over" I don't think I would comply I am not touching my weapon, sorry the LEO can get it himself. Which bring up another situation he can't search(enter vehicle) without PC or search warrant or am I miss guided on this.

[lrpettit]

Now in this situation, If the LEO said "hand it over" I don't think I would comply I am not touching my weapon, sorry the LEO can get it himself. Which bring up another situation he can't search(enter vehicle) without PC or search warrant or am I miss guided on this.

Please share with the forum how your tasering experience goes

[suthdj]

Now in this situation, If the LEO said "hand it over" I don't think I would comply I am not touching my weapon, sorry the LEO can get it himself. Which bring up another situation he can't search(enter vehicle) without PC or search warrant or am I miss guided on this.

Please share with the forum how your tasering experience goes

LOL, funny, however it would be better then getting shot.

[4t5]

Folks, this really isn't as complicated as you make it, or want to make it. I realize no matter how simple this gets broke down some here will disagree. That is your right. Hey if we all agreed this board would be real boring!
Let's say you get pulled over. You produce your CHL and DL and the officer inquires are you carrying? You respond yes. .....

What if I say that I don't want to talk to you?

[Lucky]

That's another way to end the arguing.

[dac1842]

Don't talk to me then. Your right. I was a LEO for 15 years, I simply try to bring in that perspective. The bottom line is simple, the law says he can do it. You can refuse, but it won't end well for you. If I was still on the street, the odds of me disarming most would be slim. But if I asked you to hand over your weapon and you refused, there would be no further discussion you would be treated as an armed gunman at that point and removed from the vehicle at gunpoint. Then you would be taken to jail.
If you have 30-40k to throw at defense attorney to exercise your right to be a stubborn that is up to you.
I am not trying to offend anyone, just I deal in reality. Here is another dose of reality, the majority of this thread deals with something that when looked at state wide rarely happens.
Carry on, carry often.

[4t5]

Don't talk to me then. Your right. I was a LEO for 15 years, I simply try to bring in that perspective. The bottom line is simple, the law says he can do it. You can refuse, but it won't end well for you. If I was still on the street, the odds of me disarming most would be slim. But if I asked you to hand over your weapon and you refused, there would be no further discussion you would be treated as an armed gunman at that point and removed from the vehicle at gunpoint. Then you would be taken to jail.
If you have 30-40k to throw at defense attorney to exercise your right to be a stubborn that is up to you.
I am not trying to offend anyone, just I deal in reality. Here is another dose of reality, the majority of this thread deals with something that when looked at state wide rarely happens.
Carry on, carry often.

This just keeps getting better!

[jimlongley]

Folks, this really isn't as complicated as you make it, or want to make it. I realize no matter how simple this gets broke down some here will disagree. That is your right. Hey if we all agreed this board would be real boring!
Let's say you get pulled over. You produce your CHL and DL and the officer inquires are you carrying? You respond yes. At this point the officer has 2 choices, say ok, and let you keep possession of your weapon, or for his own safety, he elects to disarm you.
Note: The law does not say he has to fear for his safety, the law does not state he has to feel threatened. YOU HAVE GUN, he has the authority to disarm you PERIOD! This is not something he has to justify his actions for later. IF the officer feels it is reasonable for his safety to disarm you he can. There is not a level of suspicion required. There is not a court in the land going to admonish the officer. All he has to say is that he did so for his personal safety. That is what he is authorized to do.

But nowhere in the statute does it specify it is for safety, only "reasonably believes it is necessary for the protection of the license holder, officer, or another individual." and that does not mean "disarm you PERIOD" it means that his decision to disarm you has to be a reasonable decision, and that means that he must be prepared to justify his actions.

[srothstein]

I miss a day or two and we get some really interesting discussion going on. Now I just have to chime in. And I both agree and disagree with several people who can't seem to find the middle of the road.

First, I want to agree in part with Dac1842. The law does not say the officer must feel threatened or have a specific reason that this stop is different. He may disarm you any time he reasonably believes it is for the safety of you, him, or someone else. And this means it could very well be his policy to disarm every CHL he stops in a traffic stop since he could reasonably feel this is for his safety. He could feel this way because he was taught in the academy that anyone who is not a cop who has a gun is a danger to all cops. I don't say I agree, but I think the courts would find this reasonable.

But I agree with others that this is not carte blanche to disarm everyone and that it would never be questioned. If you called the supervisor and complained, he would need to explain himself. He would probably be upheld, but he would have to explain himself. And if you filed a civil rights lawsuit, the courts would also second guess his decision. If he made an arrest based on the disarming, the courts would definitely second guess him. This is how we get SCOTUS decisions on what the Fourth Amendment means.

I also agree with him that if you are in a traffic stop and he asks for your weapon, the law does not allow you to refuse. But that is because a traffic stop is a special circumstance where you have already been suspected of a crime ( the traffic violation). And where I agree with others is that you have the legal right to refuse if he states the disarming is for some other reason, such as the statement that started the discussion about wanting the weapon to runt he serial number. That is a search, not a safety thing. The Fourth Amendment forbids unreasonable searches (not all searches) without a warrant. My call would be that this search is unreasonable. Obviously the courts would second guess me too and might disagree.

And that gets me to my last point about what is a search and what the officer can do once he legally has your pistol. Noting the serial number and running it is a search. The courts ruled this more than once, though i don't think it was firearms. I have slept once or twice since my training classes, so I don't remember the cite, but there was a case where detectives went into a pawn shop to look for stolen property. They found a stereo they wanted to check, so they turned it around to read the serial number and run it. The stereo was on a shelf where customers could see it. The court ruled that turning the stereo around was what made the search illegal, since the serial number was not in plain view to start with. From this, I would say that the officer could runt he serial number of a gun he legally came into contact with if it was not covered or blocked in some way. Given the moving of the gun to his car from you, I think he could turn the gun to read the serial without going wrong, but he could not move something to make the serial visible. In this case, the normal movement of the gun would allow him to see the number without a problem. But if the serial was blocked by something, I don't see that the officer could unobscure it. For example, if the pistol were turned over in a holster, I don't think he could legally remove it from the holster. If it were covered by tape, I don't think he could untape it (though tape might be unusual enough to give suspicion that could rise to probable cause under the right circumstance). And there were some aftermarket grips and all that could cover some serial numbers and I don't think he would be justified in removing them to see the number.

And the most clear cut example of what I think is an illegal search is the case described of people going to the range and the officer wanting to run each number. That is pretty clearly a search that would need to be justified by probable cause. No need for a warrant due to the portability of the car, but it needs to have PC at the very least. Obviously, I am going on the description given and not what the officer might have seen or known.

[chuck j]

I have a pretty good idea how this situation would work out for me . If the officer wants to check the SN on whatever gun I'm carrying I'll run around the car 10 times or how ever long it takes to sing the national anthem then the girl will jump out of the big cake and she and the officer will sing happy birthday for me . At that point I'll be sucked up in the sky by a big green light and wake up in the mother ship where the aliens will give me a brand new Beretta Nano just like I'v ben thinking about buying . I'll wake up driving home for a dinner of pork chops , taters and gravy , fried okra with pecan pie and I'll be glad I got pulled over . The end

[CWOOD]

This discussion made me curious. I have been stopped a few times(by DPS, Austin PD, and a couple of others)during the 14 or so years that I have had my CHL and have never been disarmed.

I was curious enough that I have filed my very first Freedom of Information request. The text is simple, perhaps too simple, since this my first effort in this regard.

Request for Texas DPS policy regarding CHL firearms check
Show Details
I would like to obtain any records regarding Texas Department of Public Safety policy of disarming Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees at routine traffic stop encounters and then doing a records check on the serial number of the handgun for "Stolen" status.

This is happening across the state and would, on its face, seem to be a slap in the face to the integrity of a group who have been shown to be one of the most law abiding group of citizens in the state.



This was done through the Governors 'contact" page on his website

http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/PIRInfo.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will post here if/when I get a reply. I have no idea how long that might take.

[RX8er]

This discussion made me curious. I have been stopped a few times(by DPS, Austin PD, and a couple of others)during the 14 or so years that I have had my CHL and have never been disarmed.

I was curious enough that I have filed my very first Freedom of Information request. The text is simple, perhaps too simple, since this my first effort in this regard.

Request for Texas DPS policy regarding CHL firearms check
Show Details
I would like to obtain any records regarding Texas Department of Public Safety policy of disarming Texas Concealed Handgun Licensees at routine traffic stop encounters and then doing a records check on the serial number of the handgun for "Stolen" status.

This is happening across the state and would, on its face, seem to be a slap in the face to the integrity of a group who have been shown to be one of the most law abiding group of citizens in the state.



This was done through the Governors 'contact" page on his website

http://governor.state.tx.us/contact/PIRInfo.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I will post here if/when I get a reply. I have no idea how long that might take.

I'm not sure they will honor the request through a contact web page. Most of the FOIA requests I have done have to come via letter and signed. You also should let them know how much money you will be willing to spend before they contact you for additional copy charges. You can also state that anything over 30 pages be placed on to a CD instead of paper.

If you don't get anywhere with this, you may try separating your request:

Any disarm policy
Any SN check policy
How many SN checks from traffic stops
How many illegal guns found as a result of the the routine traffic stop check

They may not be able to provide everything because they don't track it but is worth a shot.