Disarmed by the Police

[Jon Payne]

Anyone who actually knows me is well aware I am pro law enforcement. Being pro cop doesn't make me anti-armed citizen. My best friend was stopped for his rear license plate not being readable in the middle of nowhere in East TX. He informed the deputy he was carrying and produced his DL, LTC, and proof of insurance. The deputy disarmed him and went back to his unit to check the gun for stolen. All was in order and he was released to go about his business.

I called the sheriff and asked how my buddy was deemed to jeopardize the safety of himself or the deputy. The only answer He would give me is my buddy was armed and that was reason enough. His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen.

The sheriff and I had some choice words even after I read him Texas GC 411.207. I spoke with a program attorney who verified my understanding of the statute. My buddies only recourse is to file a complaint with the Texas AG.

In my buddy's defense he did everything the deputy told him to do and there was no conflict on the side of the road. I hope he does file a complaint. At the end of the day the sheriff thinks he's right and I know he's wrong. What do I win?

 

[Renegade]

What is your objection? The disarm or the stolen gun check?

I do not like either, but the disarm is lawful, I think the stolen gun check is an unlawful search.

I myself make it a habit to lock up my gun if pulled over to avoid this.

 

[Frank59]

Anyone who actually knows me is well aware I am pro law enforcement. Being pro cop doesn't make me anti-armed citizen. My best friend was stopped for his rear license plate not being readable in the middle of nowhere in East TX. He informed the deputy he was carrying and produced his DL, LTC, and proof of insurance. The deputy disarmed him and went back to his unit to check the gun for stolen. All was in order and he was released to go about his business.

I called the sheriff and asked how my buddy was deemed to jeopardize the safety of himself or the deputy. The only answer He would give me is my buddy was armed and that was reason enough. His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen.

The sheriff and I had some choice words even after I read him Texas GC 411.207. I spoke with a program attorney who verified my understanding of the statute. My buddies only recourse is to file a complaint with the Texas AG.

In my buddy's defense he did everything the deputy told him to do and there was no conflict on the side of the road. I hope he does file a complaint. At the end of the day the sheriff thinks he's right and I know he's wrong. What do I win? View attachment 151912

That officer has every right to disarm any LTC holder he wants. Don't understand why you had to make a phone call and start some shit when it didn't even happen to you sir!!

 

[vmax]

That is not reasonable

 

[Lunyfringe]

Anyone who actually knows me is well aware I am pro law enforcement. Being pro cop doesn't make me anti-armed citizen. My best friend was stopped for his rear license plate not being readable in the middle of nowhere in East TX. He informed the deputy he was carrying and produced his DL, LTC, and proof of insurance. The deputy disarmed him and went back to his unit to check the gun for stolen. All was in order and he was released to go about his business.

I called the sheriff and asked how my buddy was deemed to jeopardize the safety of himself or the deputy. The only answer He would give me is my buddy was armed and that was reason enough. His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen.

The sheriff and I had some choice words even after I read him Texas GC 411.207. I spoke with a program attorney who verified my understanding of the statute. My buddies only recourse is to file a complaint with the Texas AG.

In my buddy's defense he did everything the deputy told him to do and there was no conflict on the side of the road. I hope he does file a complaint. At the end of the day the sheriff thinks he's right and I know he's wrong. What do I win? View attachment 151912

What county?

 

[karlac]

See nothing "reasonable" about the policy of "check for stolen".
Don't see how simply having an LTC rises to the level of probable cause for that under the 4A.
Give'm an inch ....

 

[easy rider]

4th Amendment issue it sounds to me. I hope your buddy does file.

 

[robertc1024]

4th Amendment issue it sounds to me. I hope your buddy does file.

Yep and yep.

 

[Jon Payne]

That officer has every right to disarm any LTC holder he wants. Don't understand why you had to make a phone call and start some shit when it didn't even happen to you sir!!

Guess the same reason YOU chose to respond to this thread.

 

[Jon Payne]

What is your objection? The disarm or the stolen gun check?

I do not like either, but the disarm is lawful, I think the stolen gun check is an unlawful search.

I myself make it a habit to lock up my gun if pulled over to avoid this.

I disagree the disarm in my opinion wasn't lawful. So far I have one attorney who specializes in TX firearms laws that thinks the same as I.

 

[Renegade]

I disagree the disarm in my opinion wasn't lawful. So far I have one attorney who specializes in TX firearms laws that thinks the same as I.

"Sec. 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."

OK. So if the officer disarms not for safety, but to run a SN check, then I agree. Is that what you are getting at?

eta

How would officer handle it if DRIVER was NOT license holder?

 

[Jon Payne]

That officer has every right to disarm any LTC holder he wants. Don't understand why you had to make a phone call and start some shit when it didn't even happen to you sir!!

Perhaps it would serve you well to understand Texas Government Code 411.207 as well.

 

[Jon Payne]

What county?

Not divulging that yet.

 

[Jon Payne]

"Sec. 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."

OK. So if the officer disarms not for safety, but to run a SN check, then I agree. Is that what you are getting at?

Yes, in a nutshell.

 

[diesel1959]

Anyone who actually knows me is well aware I am pro law enforcement. Being pro cop doesn't make me anti-armed citizen. My best friend was stopped for his rear license plate not being readable in the middle of nowhere in East TX. He informed the deputy he was carrying and produced his DL, LTC, and proof of insurance. The deputy disarmed him and went back to his unit to check the gun for stolen. All was in order and he was released to go about his business.

I called the sheriff and asked how my buddy was deemed to jeopardize the safety of himself or the deputy. The only answer He would give me is my buddy was armed and that was reason enough. His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen.

The sheriff and I had some choice words even after I read him Texas GC 411.207. I spoke with a program attorney who verified my understanding of the statute. My buddies only recourse is to file a complaint with the Texas AG.

In my buddy's defense he did everything the deputy told him to do and there was no conflict on the side of the road. I hope he does file a complaint. At the end of the day the sheriff thinks he's right and I know he's wrong. What do I win? View attachment 151912

The deputy was entirely within his rights and within the law. The deputy electing to take this path is NOT an indictment of anything your friend did before or during the traffic stop, so you can shut off that train of thought right now. Doing a serial number check on the firearm is not a 4th Amendment violation either, just as it's not a 4th Amendment violation to run a license plate and then check it with the VIN plate on the vehicle during the course of a traffic stop.

The deputy's actions were not an attack on lawfully-armed citizens. I'm glad your friend cooperated.

 

[Renegade]

The deputy was entirely within his rights and within the law.

If the driver was not a license holder (or did not admit he had a gun) would the deputy be within his rights to search the car for a firearm?

 

[Jon Payne]

The deputy was entirely within his rights and within the law. The deputy electing to take this path is NOT an indictment of anything your friend did before or during the traffic stop, so you can shut off that train of thought right now.

The deputy's actions were not an attack on lawfully-armed citizens. I'm glad your friend cooperated.

We have different interpretations of what is REASONABLE. Guess that's why we have lawyers.

 

[diesel1959]

If the driver was not a license holder (or did not admit he had a gun) would the deputy be within his rights to search the car for a firearm?

Given the same set of facts,--"the driver told the officer he had a firearm"--then, yes. He would be allowed to check within the so-called "wingspan" of what the driver (or any others in the vehicle) could easily access. He would not have been permitted to go into bags or containers found within the vehicle or in the trunk of the vehicle without permission or without having further probable cause . . . (such as the odor of marijuana emanating from within the vehicle upon making contact with the driver).

If, as you stated (changing the facts), the driver had not stated he had a firearm, then it would not have been reasonable for the officer to search the vehicle unless he had other probable cause. But, there is case law that permits the officer to check the "wingspan" for his safety and that's not a violation.

 

[diesel1959]

We have different interpretations of what is REASONABLE. Guess that's why we have lawyers.

Yep. Been one since 1992, and been a Texas Peace Officer since 1996. :meh:

 

[Renegade]

Given the same set of facts,--"the driver told the officer he had a firearm"--then, yes. He would be allowed to check within the so-called "wingspan" of what the driver (or any others in the vehicle) could easily access. He would not have been permitted to go into bags or containers found within the vehicle or in the trunk of the vehicle without permission or without having further probable cause . . . (such as the odor of marijuana emanating from within the vehicle upon making contact with the driver).

What law or Case Law allows him to search and seize, since is not investigating a crime?