Disarmed by the Police

[Jon Payne]

I apologize--I just went back to your first post and you did not mention the vehicle having been searched.

But I still maintain that having disarmed the driver, the deputy was within the law when he took the weapon back to the patrol unit and ran it for stolen. That was NOT a 4th Amendment violation.

The sheriff told me EVERY LTC holder that is stopped will be disarmed and have their weapon checked for stolen. I have a problem with that. It came straight from the horses mouth. The LTC in this case will most likely be filing a complaint with the AG. We’ll see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jon Payne]

Seriously though, if an officer pulls me over, takes my gun and tells me he wants check to see if it's stolen, I say BS, show me where that's legal.

I wouldn’t. I would comply and fight my battle through the courts. Everyone gets to make their own decisions though. Hey, I’d put money on your books lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

I didn't mean I would say that to the cop, I was asking any here to show me.

 

[diesel1959]

The sheriff told me EVERY LTC holder that is stopped will be disarmed and have their weapon checked for stolen. I have a problem with that. It came straight from the horses mouth. The LTC in this case will most likely be filing a complaint with the AG. We’ll see.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fire away. But know that it's a pretty easily-defended policy (if, in fact, the sheriff has made it departmental policy).

 

[diesel1959]

Huh? Are you high?

Dank Nugs!

 

[oldag]

Probable Cause is built bit by bit. The probable cause for the stop was based upon the Traffic Code. If, as I hypothecated, there had been the smell of marijuana emanating from inside the vehicle upon making contact with the driver, then there is new probable cause--that there is a violation involving possession/use of marijuana. I'm not saying that's what was what happening in the situation that Jon Payne laid out, but I'm saying that probable cause builds upon itself based upon what happens during the course of the contact and colloquy between the driver and the officer.

Merely a traffic stop is not probable cause.

 

[oldag]

My experience has been that once I tell the LEO I have a CHL, they could care less that I am carrying. I ask if it is okay to get my wallet out of my hip pocket, but by that time they are watching the traffic and ignoring me.

And all but once I have been let off with a warning.

For the Sheriff to set the kind of policy described by Jon is just wrong, and I suspect not legal.

 

[Renegade]

yeah, the Terry frisk can extend to vehicles. Also, the "automobile exception" to the 4th Amendment is a very complex and interesting area of the law. There are twists and turns at every corner.

It might be legal, but it seems to me in this age of police hate, further alienating what few LE supporters are left seems like a bad public relations move to me.

 

[Jon Payne]

Fire away. But know that it's a pretty easily-defended policy (if, in fact, the sheriff has made it departmental policy).

All he has to say is “Officer Safety” according to the program attorney. The problem lies in his statement of every LTC will be treated as such to locate stolen guns. Has he made it policy? Don’t know, he stated it was his policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

I have registered my firearm with an FFL,

Which state did you go to for that?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Younggun]

Texas. When you buy or move a firearm through an FFL dealer, you fill out the form. Shocking I know.

Yeah, that’s not registration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[karlac]

Lot of the reasoning in favor of doesn't pass the smell test, IMO.

The Sheriff's policy as stated, is in effect saying that possession of an LTC is reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation of the law has occurred.

Unless what the officer was conducting was a temporary, “investigative” stop, it has the earmarks of a violation of the 4A for not raising to the level of probable cause.

Interesting to see what the Texas AG says. Hope the individual does file a complaint.

 

[Bithabus]

It might be legal, but it seems to me in this age of police hate, further alienating what few LE supporters are left seems like a bad public relations move to me.

All he has to say is “Officer Safety” according to the program attorney. The problem lies in his statement of every LTC will be treated as such to locate stolen guns. Has he made it policy? Don’t know, he stated it was his policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This. It may be legal but why would a Sheriff in his right mind want to harass LTC holders looking for "stolen guns"? LTC holders are the most pro LEO people out there. And don't carry stolen weapons! Find a real battle to fight, Sheriff.

 

[sharkey]

Not divulging that yet.

Why not?

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[mbash]

Sounds like this sheriff is a moron.
What LTC holder would risk his LTC by possessing a stolen gun? I would bet the odds are better that they would find stolen guns on other cops than finding a stolen gun on an LTC holder.

Also, I'm not sure how the disarm would be done safely. Does the LTC holder get handcuffed, then the cop takes the gun out of the holster? This sounds like a great way for a moronic cop to accidentally shoot an LTC holder with his own gun.

This sheriff needs to go. You should let people know who he is. It is voting season and he might be up for reelection right now.

 

[sharkey]

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

Did he seize it? He gave it back to him. Was checking it for stolen a search? I don't think a judge would see it that way. Some squads run LP readers now checked ng cars often for stolen. No PC is needed for that. Everyone agrees the LEO can disarm him, we just disagree on checking it for stolen.
We Ran a course to recruits on how they should interact with CHL folks the first few years when it came out. Personally, I would not have done that on a stop barring anything else but I think the officer was within the law in doing so.
I guess if your friend is upset about it, bring it up at his re-election. I doubt you will get anywhere with a complaint to the AG. Maybe call TCOLE, they like to put Poe dunk agencies thru the ringer.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

Seriously though, if an officer pulls me over, takes my gun and tells me he wants check to see if it's stolen, I say BS, show me where that's legal.

Well don't do that on the side of the road.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Texasjack]

Wait, I'm confused.

As far as I can see, the cop had the right to disarm the LTC holder in order to maintain safety. BUT, how does that translate to the right to run the serial number? As LTC holders statistically are very law abiding citizens, it would seem that the sheriff has made this policy strictly to hassel LTC holders. Yes, the serial number is readily available, once the gone is seized, but where's probable cause for the investigation?

I'm not fond of having anti-2A people in charge of LEOs, and that's what this sheriff appears to be.

 

[diesel1959]

Merely a traffic stop is not probable cause.

The traffic code violation is probable cause for the traffic stop. Almost every Class C misdemeanor in the State of Texas can result in the offender being instantered (taken into custody and then before a magistrate aka "arrested"). Speeding and a couple other offenses are excluded from this general rule. So, if you commit a traffic offense, you actually have provided the officer stopping you with probable cause to arrest you. Most officers issue a citation w/summons and then release from the scene; however, that is not what is required.

From the point of beginning the traffic stop, additional probable cause can be built based upon what is said, done, smelled, heard, seen during the contact between the officer and the driver and/or occupants of the vehicle. For instance, when walking up to the window, if the officer smells the odor of marijuana, he now has probable cause regarding possession of marijuana that he did not have until making the contact. If, after getting that driver out of the vehicle, the officer pats down the driver and feels a concealed handgun--AND THE DRIVER IS NOT LICENSED--he has probable cause to reach into the pocket, seize & secure the handgun, and then arrest the driver.

Probable cause builds based upon what is found during the contact. You start with the PC to make the stop and build from there. It's that simple.

 

[diesel1959]

All he has to say is “Officer Safety” according to the program attorney. The problem lies in his statement of every LTC will be treated as such to locate stolen guns. Has he made it policy? Don’t know, he stated it was his policy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. I'm not saying it's a wise policy or one that I would put in place were I the Sheriff; however, there's a LOT of things that can be labeled "for officer safety" and then made permissible. And I also agree with other posters who have stated that the majority of the times LEOs come in contact with a license holder, that's nearly the end of things and nothing further is done. That's fine, and not unusual . . . but it is NOT required.