Disarmed by the Police

[Renegade]

I don't know, have you come back from the dead Freddie Mercury?

I am Elvis, not Freddie.

 

[Kingarthur777]

Doesn’t need to. He already knows everything.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tell me what you know?

 

[toddnjoyce]

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.

OK: Sec. 411.205. REQUIREMENT TO DISPLAY LICENSE. If a license holder is carrying a handgun on or about the license holder's person when a magistrate or a peace officer demands that the license holder display identification, the license holder shall display both the license holder's driver's license or identification certificate issued by the department and the license holder's handgun license.

It's a conditional statement. If armed, then required. If not armed, then no requirement.

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

The two stories are this:

1. The facts and circumstance surrounding your friend's specific interaction with an LEO

• I certainly was not there to witness this event, so there's some clarity to be gained around the totality of circumstances that resulted in the deputy's actions. You have more knowledge of what happened than I do, but there's at least two sides to every story.

2. The Sheriff's statement and whether or not that statement is, in fact, an approved departmental policy. I doubt we'll ever get the answer to this one without a lawsuit.

 

[mp_tx]

Officer can disarm for his safety. Its covered in 411.207 and there is case law to support it. Personal safety is a subjective measurement and your friend had about the same chance of winning the powerball than winning this fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mp_tx]

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

The lawful detention was based on the inoperable LP light/illegible plate. He WAS investigating a crime, covered in Texas Traffic Code.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CyberWolf]

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

Absolutely not.


If already out, stay out.

If in, stay in unless requested to do otherwise.

 

[Renegade]

Officer can disarm for his safety. Its covered in 411.207 and there is case law to support it. Personal safety is a subjective measurement and your friend had about the same chance of winning the powerball than winning this fight.

It is as if you did not read a single post in this thread before responding.

 

[Renegade]

The lawful detention was based on the inoperable LP light/illegible plate. He WAS investigating a crime, covered in Texas Traffic Code.

RIF

Did not ask about the detention.

 

[Frank59]

Officer can disarm for his safety. Its covered in 411.207 and there is case law to support it. Personal safety is a subjective measurement and your friend had about the same chance of winning the powerball than winning this fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BOOM!!

 

[Frank59]

RIF

Did not ask about the detention.

The fact that he was detained for violating a Texas Motor Vehicle Code gives the officer the right to frisk and or search the vehicle. What part of that do you not understand sir?

 

[Renegade]

The fact that he was detained for violating a Texas Motor Vehicle Code gives the officer the right to frisk and or search the vehicle. What part of that do you not understand sir?

What part of nearly half-dozen Case Law opinions starting with Carroll v. United States do you not understand?

 

[Jon Payne]

The fact that he was detained for violating a Texas Motor Vehicle Code gives the officer the right to frisk and or search the vehicle. What part of that do you not understand sir?

You couldn't possibly in the history of the US Constitution be more wrong than you are in this statement. You have learned absolutely nothing about the 4th Amendment, Searches, and Seizures.

 

[sharkey]

If I worked for the BATFE, which I never had. Have you?

Nope only local and county. My state time don't count cause they refused to carry my license. That said, I do know the process of how they trace back a firearm. In fact, try putting those words into the search engine.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[sharkey]

You know the great things about theses threads is no one ever says, "you know I was wrong"

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Mowingmaniac 24/7]

"The fact that he was detained for violating a Texas Motor Vehicle Code gives the officer the right to frisk and or search the vehicle. What part of that do you not understand sir?" I love the 'sir' as it lends a certain and false je ne sais quoi, even bonhomie..that is not vaguely meant.

Ya vol mein herr!

Ve vil do as you command!!

So, being stopped for a minor traffic violation provides a certain type of carte blanche police powers over the stopped driver, who is advised by a passive, intimidated populace to - keep ones head down as we are not worthy. Please don't attract the nice officer's keen scrutiny, you're after all, just a citizen swine hundt - keep your eyes lowered or else?

Yes, I'm pro-police, but not the 'You inna heap o'trouble boy' kind of overbearing police ego maniacs.

Fortunately, they are few and far between, but some are still around continuing to throw their weight around..

 

[zincwarrior]

Officer can disarm for his safety. Its covered in 411.207 and there is case law to support it. Personal safety is a subjective measurement and your friend had about the same chance of winning the powerball than winning this fight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

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

 

[Frank59]

What part of nearly half-dozen Case Law opinions starting with Carroll v. United States do you not understand?

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.

You couldn't possibly in the history of the US Constitution be more wrong than you are in this statement. You have learned absolutely nothing about the 4th Amendment, Searches, and Seizures.

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!

 

[Renegade]

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.

It actually refutes what you wrote as you stated the mere act of being detained gives the officer the RIGHT to search. "The fact that he was detained for violating a Texas Motor Vehicle Code gives the officer the right to frisk and or search the vehicle."

This is patently false as Carroll predicates 2 requirements, "1) a vehicle could be searched without a search warrant if there was probable cause to believe that evidence is present in the vehicle, 2) coupled with exigent circumstances to believe that the vehicle could be removed from the area before a warrant could be obtained."

Neither of which are present in a typical MV infraction stop.

 

[benenglish]

You know the great things about theses threads is no one ever says, "you know I was wrong"

Well, then I'm going to ruin the thread for you.

I was wrong.

The thread was too polluted to be useful so I closed it. After some well-reasoned feedback, the decision was made to do what you do with polluted things - clean it up.

The thread will now be re-opened in the hope that the folks who were making such wonderful posts will continue while the folks who were throwing up obtuse garbage will mercifully find somewhere else to play.

Here's hoping that there will not be another devolution.

PS - The cleanup has caused the post numbers to change. This will affect any reference to any post by number but shouldn't make it too difficult to figure out what's being discussed.

 

[benenglish]

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