Disarmed by the Police

[TheDan]

Thanks! I do like the 4A discussions.

 

[TheDan]

No way you are a cop and I think you made this whole story up to start a flamer thread. Good Job!

That's his real name. Just google him... He's not trolling.

 

[CyberWolf]

In the interest of lightening up this conversation, I'll just leave y'all with this:

(warning: language NSFW)

 

[Renegade]

That's his real name. Just google him... He's not trolling.

Yeah, he is hiding in plain sight.

 

[Jon Payne]

Carroll v. U.S. was a supreme court decision that ultimately expanded the case for warrantless searches of an automobile. It just confirms what I was saying. Regardless, that idiot who posted that I was using the word "sir" to degrade you is an idiot. I was trying to be respectful of your view of things while politely disagreeing.

And you know nothing about warrantless searches where probable cause/reasonable suspicion are valid. No way you are a cop and I think you made this whole story up to start a flamer thread. Good Job!

I know a whole hell of a lot about warrantless searches and about not violating citizens rights. Believe what you want, I don't hide behind a screen name. I have 30 years behind a badge with 18 of those years in TX. I'm a Master Peace Officer, TCOLE Instructor and TCOLE Firearms Instructor. I don't flaunt my background on this forum or pretend to know more than I actually do.

(Just wanted to add I just bought a Pawnshop so now I'm a FFL too. Oh, I'm also a Suarez International Staff Instructor)

 

[Frank59]

I know a whole hell of a lot about warrantless searches and about not violating citizens rights. Believe what you want, I don't hide behind a screen name. I have 30 years behind a badge with 18 of those years in TX. I'm a Master Peace Officer, TCOLE Instructor and TCOLE Firearms Instructor. I don't flaunt my background on this forum or pretend to know more than I actually do.

(Just wanted to add I just bought a Pawnshop so now I'm a FFL too. Oh, I'm also a Suarez International Staff Instructor)

My apologies Mr. Payne. Thank you for your service sir!!

 

[Jon Payne]

My apologies Mr. Payne. Thank you for your service sir!!

Thank you, you’re too kind. I don’t flaunt my background because I learn shit all the time just like everyone else. Generally when I do speak up it’s on a subject I’m throughly versed in. Sometimes that makes me appear gruff or harsh. Not my intention but I’m the same way in person. I’ve learned to love me and get passed it lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mp_tx]

Can you clarify how disarming relates to the further action of performing a search on the weapon?

The same way the police "search" your drivers license number when they check for a validation or attached warrants during a lawful detention during a traffic stop. You got any case law that goes against "searching" a drivers license during a traffic stop? Do the courts consider a DL check a "search?" No. It's a records check.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

The same way the police "search" your drivers license number when they check for a validation or attached warrants during a lawful detention during a traffic stop.

No it is not the same. It is not even close. Driving is an activity licensed by the state. What an officer can or cannot do is well defined in policy and law and Case Law dating back decades.

Running the SN of your property he comes into contact with outside the course of a lawful investigation into that property is much different. Whether it is your gun, your stereo, cell phone or whatever, possession of these items does not require a state license, and what an officer can do when he comes into contact is not well defined, which is why we are here discussing it.

Can he run the SN of your gun?
Can he pull out the head unit of your stereo and run the SN?
Can he make you unlock your phone to get SN and run that?

All reasonable questions.

You got any case law that goes against "searching" a drivers license during a traffic stop? Do the courts consider a DL check a "search?" No. It's a records check.

Actually yes, Prouse vs US, which precludes the officer from stopping you in the first place to check your ID!

 

[easy rider]

Thread re-opened. If anybody has any trouble posting, feel free to drop me a note.

G minor.

 

[benenglish]

 

[easy rider]

I know a whole hell of a lot about warrantless searches and about not violating citizens rights. Believe what you want, I don't hide behind a screen name. I have 30 years behind a badge with 18 of those years in TX. I'm a Master Peace Officer, TCOLE Instructor and TCOLE Firearms Instructor. I don't flaunt my background on this forum or pretend to know more than I actually do.

(Just wanted to add I just bought a Pawnshop so now I'm a FFL too. Oh, I'm also a Suarez International Staff Instructor)

Maybe you can register his firearms for him.

 

[sharkey]

No it is not the same. It is not even close. Driving is an activity licensed by the state. What an officer can or cannot do is well defined in policy and law and Case Law dating back decades.

Isn't your ability to carry a handgun licensed by the state too?

Running the SN of your property he comes into contact with outside the course of a lawful investigation into that property is much different. Whether it is your gun, your stereo, cell phone or whatever, possession of these items does not require a state license, and what an officer can do when he comes into contact is not well defined, which is why we are here discussing it.

That's where things get murky. Many here agree with you but many do not and have posted reasons why. On a traffic stop there is a bit of an investigation going on and depending on the circumstances, it may or may not stop at the traffic violation. Again, I wouldn't have run it but that doesn't mean the Sheriff's policy is a violation of law.

Can he run the SN of your gun?
Can he pull out the head unit of your stereo and run the SN?
Can he make you unlock your phone to get SN and run that?
All reasonable questions.

I guess but surely you see the difference between a handgun and a stereo or phone. I didn't have to apply with DPS to carry my stereo or phone.

Actually yes, Prouse vs US, which precludes the officer from stopping you in the first place to check your ID!

I would say that case has 0 to do with what we are talking about. PC for the stop is not in question and neither is the disarming. So LEOS routinely run LPs and DLs for stolen and warrants but you and others draw the line at checking a weapon for stolen? Why?

 

[V-Tach]

Wow....just read the entire thread........

I don't mind he was asked to disarm...reasonable, imho...

The fact his S/N was run....well the officer could possibly give a reasonable explanation..( I know of a couple of pretty sketchy LTC holders that just haven't been convicted of anything.....yet)

If the above is an isolated incident, reasonable.....

What is not reasonable is the policy of the department (written or verbal) of disarming and running S/N of every LTC stopped by the department. That is unreasonable and to me would violate state law....

jmho....am not an LEO, Attorney or a Mensa member....

 

[Texasjack]

Regardless, any Texas sheriff who makes a policy of hassling LTCs by taking their guns and running checks on the serial numbers needs to be unelected.

 

[Saltyag2010]

The good thing about sheriffs is that they are elected. VOTE THAT ASS OUT.

 

[Lunyfringe]

Regardless, any Texas sheriff who makes a policy of hassling LTCs by taking their guns and running checks on the serial numbers needs to be unelected.

That's why I asked what county... but denied.

 

[Jon Payne]

That's why I asked what county... but denied.

Once all the ducks are in a row and the AG has made a determination I will name the sheriff, county, and victim.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Lunyfringe]

Once all the ducks are in a row and the AG has made a determination I will name the sheriff, county, and victim.

Thanks, I'm sure the LTC public in that county will appreciate the information.
In my county the Sheriff is not up for re-election in the mid-terms (and every candidate at the county level on my ballot is running unopposed)... but since it's an elected position, their constituents should know about the policy.

Whether or not it's a legal policy, it's a poor policy that I cannot support.

 

[SC-Texas]

Make the complaint

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk