Disarmed by the Police

[Frank59]

The deputy removed the pistol from the LTC’s holster.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

At this point the deputy has assumed full responsibility if he shoots himself in the foot, or worse, accidentally shoots the LTC holder.

 

[Frank59]

When officers stop you for traffic and check your license, they check for warrants. That is not considered a search so I would think a judge would see running the SN of the gun the same way.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

And you would be correct sir!!

 

[oldag]

I brought up an issue to assist oldag better understand probable cause and how it is built. It was clearly a hypothetical case and not necessarily the one OP discussed. Sometimes additional questions or twists arise . . . like when you added the twist of "what if the guy hadn't been licensed?" in post #16.

I was not talking at all about how probable cause was built. You are the only one talking about that.

A traffic violation in and of itself does not justify a search. At least according to LEO's I know.

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

The disarming is not in question.

Running the SN is.

If he, the LEO was that interested, why not run the VIN too?

Why not strip search him too, ok, ok, I kid, but the SN running after seeing the LTC is way outta line and should be filed on.

As a law abiding citizen, I certainly wouldn't take kindly to being treated like a criminal when I've not committed a crime..

We don't live in a police state, but treating people like we do in out of line.

Yes, I'm very pro L.E., but some actions by some L.E.O's is just plain wrong.

He, the L.E. was only following department policies/orders? - Where have I heard something like that before?

Gestapo?

 

[Lunyfringe]

The 4473 form sits at the FFL while it is still in business, and they can destroy it after 20 years. If the FFL goes out of business, they turn in their 4473s to the BATFE. There is NO "computerization" or putting the 4473s into a database, even after they're turned into the BATFE... they sit in boxes in a building, and someone has to go sift sift through them by hand if a "gun back trace" is requested. This process is usually only kicked off if there's a good reason (used in a crime, in possession by prohibited person or someone arrested, etc). Then they go to the manufacturer with the S/N- the manufacturer provides the FFL it was originally sold to. They check records at that FFL (log book) and if sold to a private party, the 4473 form that was filled out- then they talk to that person. That person either has information that's helpful, or they say they sold it... if there's info on where it went, then the process for that FFL/person continues with that new information, repeating until there's a dead end or something that traces the gun to where it is now.

Now when they're checking if it's stolen, they're looking at National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database... that will ONLY turn up a hit if that S/N has been reported stolen (or otherwise flagged, I don't access to the NCIC Database since I'm not a LEO) If the firearm belongs to your friend in Florida (but hasn't been reported stolen), it will not show in NCIC- that would require a back trace to find the gun's history (the manual paper search and investigation that could take weeks).

 

[sharkey]

My issue is with Texas Government Code Chapter 411.207.


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 just don't see how it's reasonable for his deputies to disarm every LTC they encounter. Now I'm not making this up; I spoke to the sheriff at length. He told me what his policy and directions were.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I get it and that is why we developed a lesson plan for interacting with CHL folks in the early days. We had officers disarming them, unloading the gun on the trunk, and all kinds of other BS BUT just because one agency does it one way doesn't mean another agency doing it another way is illegal and a violation of the 4A.

Who knows the background of the Sheriff and his deputies in what I assume is a small county in E. TX (You still haven't said). You obviously feel strongly about it and you saw my suggestions, I just don't think you are gonna get very far with it, well your friend.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

I was not talking at all about how probable cause was built. You are the only one talking about that.

A traffic violation in and of itself does not justify a search. At least according to LEO's I know.

It justifies a stop and depending on the encounter and what the LEO observes, smells, hears, and what the contact says will determine how it unfolds. The contact told the LEO he was a LTC holder so now the LEO assumes he is armed. Maybe the contact is or isnt but that is new info. Is ot worth investigating? I dunno, I wasnt there. Things have changed but out of all the times I asked to do a voluntary search, only 2 people told me no.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

The disarming is not in question.

Running the SN is.

If he, the LEO was that interested, why not run the VIN too?

Why not strip search him too, ok, ok, I kid, but the SN running after seeing the LTC is way outta line and should be filed on.

As a law abiding citizen, I certainly wouldn't take kindly to being treated like a criminal when I've not committed a crime..

We don't live in a police state, but treating people like we do in out of line.

Yes, I'm very pro L.E., but some actions by some L.E.O's is just plain wrong.

He, the L.E. was only following department policies/orders? - Where have I heard something like that before?

Gestapo?

Yeah, that E. Tx Cop was just like a Nazi.....

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Lunyfringe]

it's a RECORD, but not registration... (IMHO)

The definition that applies is "an entry in a register"
which means a central database (or spreadsheet )
So if BRD puts K777 on his spreadsheet, then THAT is registration.

Records scattered on paper throughout the country is not a "register"

but I can understand why people equate the 2... given some definitions of "register"

 

[Renegade]

The car was not searched. The officer had the power to disarm the LTC holder. I don't like it either, but that is what it is.

I am aware of that.

Folks have moved past the OP and are asking different scenarios.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Did you read the OP? Did you read what I posted about the sheriff’s response when I spoke with him?

Sure did. Nowhere in your OP or other posts is it literal that a stolen gun check was performed. I guess I can assume your friend was told the check was either done or would be done.

Post 1 and Post 42 tell two different stories and I'd like to better understand some aspects.

Post 1..."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."

• I missed the part where the deputy asked your friend if he was armed, since there's no duty to inform LEO about that unless specifically asked.
• I missed the part where the deputy informs your friend he actually performed this check.

Post 1 (cont)..."I called the sheriff... His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen."

• I missed if this is the Sheriff's talking point, personal policy or department policy.
• I get that a routine traffic stop is detainment, disarming for officer safety, talking points, etc., but I can't see how this isn't construed as a Terry frisk violation if it's actual department policy that's in effect, and that would be difficult to consistently apply (see below).

Post 42..."The sheriff told me EVERY LTC holder that is stopped will be disarmed and have their weapon checked for stolen."

• Is this statement actual department policy? See that Terry frisk part.
• Since duty to display is only required when identification is demanded AND an LTC holder is carrying, I'm curious what happens when the LTC holder doesn't display when identification is demanded (since it's not required to be in all cases) yet the DL search returns LTC status.
  • Several scenarios here that do not require LTC holders to display the license when ID demanded...LTC has no firearms of any kind in the vehicle; LTC has firearms, but no handguns, in vehicle but not in plain view; , LTC has firearms, but no handguns, in plain view; LTC has handgun, but it's unloaded and not in plain view and not readily accessible by the LTC holder. I'm sure there's one or two other permutations.
  • One other scenario: LTC holder has handgun and just chooses to not display LTC when ID is demanded creating a legal illusion for the deputy to presume the LTC holder is not armed.

ETA: I also saw in post 82 that the deputy removed the handgun from your buddies holster. So, at some point, was your buddy asked to step out of the vehicle? Was he OC or CC?

 

[toddnjoyce]

Here's 5,000 or so words on the ATF NTF trace process, which is much different than a NICS stolen property/gun check

 

[Frank59]

It justifies a stop and depending on the encounter and what the LEO observes, smells, hears, and what the contact says will determine how it unfolds. The contact told the LEO he was a LTC holder so now the LEO assumes he is armed. Maybe the contact is or isnt but that is new info. Is ot worth investigating? I dunno, I wasnt there. Things have changed but out of all the times I asked to do a voluntary search, only 2 people told me no.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

My recollection of a Traffic stop encounter is that you are 'technically" under arrest because the officer has restricted your ability to move about. Therefore under search and seizure without a warrant laws the officer may pat you down and search your vehicle under the guise of probable cause/reasonable suspicion. I'm not one to whine about how the officer interprets that. I agree with everyone here that this agency is barking up the wrong tree checking all serial numbers of LTC holders. But they are well within their rights to do so. Just be cooperative. Yes Sir. No sir. Then drive away with everything you had before you were pulled over.

 

[BRD@66]

I've been disarmed by a LEO once and that was 40 year ago. Not even the Rabbit Rangers when I am hunting are wont to disarm me - probably because I'm so innocent-looking.

 

[Frank59]

Here's 5,000 or so words on the ATF NTF trace process, which is much different than a NICS stolen property/gun check

I'm gonna read this when I have a couple of free hours!!

 

[Lunyfringe]

Here's 5,000 or so words on the ATF NTF trace process, which is much different than a NICS stolen property/gun check

One of many articles, including documentation of the process at the ATF itself:
https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/fact-sheet/fact-sheet-national-tracing-center

I thought about putting sources in my post, but wanted to see where the conversation went first.

 

[Jon Payne]

Mine in bold.

Sure did. Nowhere in your OP or other posts is it literal that a stolen gun check was performed. I guess I can assume your friend was told the check was either done or would be done.

Post 1 and Post 42 tell two different stories and I'd like to better understand some aspects. No they don't.

Post 1..."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."

• I missed the part where the deputy asked your friend if he was armed, since there's no duty to inform LEO about that unless specifically asked. Please elaborate on when a magistrate or peace officer demands identification there are times when you're not required to display your LTC especially when you're carrying a handgun. This was a traffic stop he was asked for ID. His ID included his DL, LTC, and Proof of Financial Responsibility.
• I missed the part where the deputy informs your friend he actually performed this check. He told him he was going back to his unit to run it for stolen.

Post 1 (cont)..."I called the sheriff... His policy was to check the firearms of every detained LTC holder and check for stolen."

• I missed if this is the Sheriff's talking point, personal policy or department policy.
• I get that a routine traffic stop is detainment, disarming for officer safety, talking points, etc., but I can't see how this isn't construed as a Terry frisk violation if it's actual department policy that's in effect, and that would be difficult to consistently apply (see below). The sheriff didn't state whether it was his personal policy or dept policy. I covered that in another reply.

Post 42..."The sheriff told me EVERY LTC holder that is stopped will be disarmed and have their weapon checked for stolen."

• Is this statement actual department policy? See that Terry frisk part.
• Since duty to display is only required when identification is demanded AND an LTC holder is carrying, I'm curious what happens when the LTC holder doesn't display when identification is demanded (since it's not required to be in all cases) yet the DL search returns LTC status.
  • Several scenarios here that do not require LTC holders to display the license when ID demanded...LTC has no firearms of any kind in the vehicle; LTC has firearms, but no handguns, in vehicle but not in plain view; , LTC has firearms, but no handguns, in plain view; LTC has handgun, but it's unloaded and not in plain view and not readily accessible by the LTC holder. I'm sure there's one or two other permutations.
  • One other scenario: LTC holder has handgun and just chooses to not display LTC when ID is demanded creating a legal illusion for the deputy to presume the LTC holder is not armed.

ETA: I also saw in post 82 that the deputy removed the handgun from your buddies holster. So, at some point, was your buddy asked to step out of the vehicle? Was he OC or CC?

He was CC and he met the deputy at his rear bumper.

 

[Jon Payne]

Post #1

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.

Post #42

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.

*To be fair I didn't ask if it was his personal policy, county policy, or dept policy.

Does anyone else see two different stories here? I sure as hell don't.

 

[TheDan]

He was CC and he met the deputy at his rear bumper.

He got out of the car before the officer approached? Unrelated to this specific incident, is that a normal thing to do?

I haven't had all that many traffic stops, but the one time I exited my vehicle without being ordered to the officer got really "excited". I haven't done that since and have had more pleasant encounters.

 

[Renegade]

Please elaborate on when a magistrate or peace officer demands identification there are times when you're not required to display your LTC especially when you're carrying a handgun.

The penalty was removed years ago.