Disarmed by the Police

[mp_tx]

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.



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

Sharkey pretty much covered my responses.

Do you mean Delaware v. Prouse, high speed? That case law prohibits a stop without reasonable suspicion to check an ID. Pretty sure it has been established the deputy had a lawful detention (and probable cause) due to the violation of Texas Traffic Code, per the OP's description of the stop.

If you are going to throw down case law, and try and make a reasonable argument, study harder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

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

Yes, feel free to run my LTC to see if it is still valid. The handgun itself is not licensed or registered by the state though.

 

[Renegade]

I would say that case has 0 to do with what we are talking about.

Do you mean Delaware v. Prouse, high speed? That case law prohibits a stop without reasonable suspicion to check an ID. Pretty sure it has been established the deputy had a lawful detention (and probable cause) due to the violation of Texas Traffic Code, per the OP's description of the stop.

If you are going to throw down case law, and try and make a reasonable argument, study harder.

Reading is fundamental - You asked:

"You got any case law that goes against "searching" a drivers license during a traffic stop?"

I gave you an example that does just that.

Except where there is at least articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered, or that either the vehicle or an occupant is otherwise subject to seizure for violation of law, stopping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver's license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Pp. 440 U. S. 653-663.

 

[Younggun]

My simple mind would extrapolate that to this situation and conclude that unless the officer has reason to believe the firearm is stolen, he shouldn’t be running the S/N.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

My simple mind would extrapolate that to this situation and conclude that unless the officer has reason to believe the firearm is stolen, he shouldn’t be running the S/N.

I am surprised there isn't Case Law to cover the examples I asked about in #129

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?

 

[Renegade]

Can he make you unlock your phone to get SN and run that?

Apparently not:

Riley v. California, 573 U.S. __ (2014) is a landmark[1] United States Supreme Court case in which the Court unanimously held that the warrantless search and seizure of digital contents of a cell phone during an arrest is unconstitutional.

 

[Renegade]

Can he run the SN of your gun?

Well not likely to find a direct case, as Case Law is generally not made by folks who are not arrested. But in cases of arrest, there are multiple examples where if the officer lawfully obtains the property, and the SN is in plain view, he can run the SN, if it is not in plain view, he needs a warrant.

In this case it is arguable (as Jon Payne pointed out), whether the gun was lawfully obtained. But for sake of argument, let us assume it is obtained lawfully under Terry and GC 411.207, thus the cases I found seem to say if SN is in plain view, he can run the SN, if it is not in plain view, he needs a warrant.

Keep in mind not all gun have SNs in plain view.

 

[Frank59]

I wouldn't be surprised if the Sheriff agency in question here were those idiots in Jefferson County! Nothing but a bunch of Libtard trash! Be just like them to go after law abiding gun owners!

 

[sharkey]

Yes, feel free to run my LTC to see if it is still valid. The handgun itself is not licensed or registered by the state though.

Splitting hairs. They check you and you car almost every time you are stopped. Once again, a lot here "feel" it.is wrong but can not show it is illegal.

As for the case you posted, I didn't ask you about stopping someone just to check a DL and again, it has 0 to do with the case.

Sent from my Pixel using Tapatalk

 

[Renegade]

They check you and you car almost every time you are stopped.

Not talking about the person or the car.

Once again, a lot here "feel" it.is wrong but can not show it is illegal.

As I pointed out above, Case Law shows it may or may not be legal depending upon a host of factors everyone is in dispute about.

As for the case you posted, I didn't ask you about stopping someone just to check a DL

Correct, it was mp_tx who asked for case law.

 

[diesel1959]

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

Running a serialized item for stolen through TCIC/NCIC is not a "search" for 4th Amendment purposes. The question is "by what right does the serialized item come to the officer's hand?" If that was done properly/legally, then the computer check is legit.

 

[V-Tach]

Forgive me.....but...........I understand the the original post to be.........

It's the Sheriff's policy that is a violation of the law........

Not the stop.........

Not the S/N check......

or am I misunderstanding?

 

[Younggun]

Put a piece of tape over the S/N on your carry gun, lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Frank59]

Forgive me.....but...........I understand the the original post to be.........

It's the Sheriff's policy that is a violation of the law........

Not the stop.........

Not the S/N check......

or am I misunderstanding?

At the very least it is probably border line abuse of power. I'm gonna defend law enforcement officers to the end. However, in this case, it looks like the sheriff is targeting the wrong group of people. Gonna be pretty interesting to see how this all plays out if Mr. Payne's friend does file a grievance with the state attorneys.

 

[sharkey]

Forgive me.....but...........I understand the the original post to be.........

It's the Sheriff's policy that is a violation of the law........

Not the stop.........

Not the S/N check......

or am I misunderstanding?

That might be since the OP stated the sheriff said it but is it the agency SOP? IF the SOP is illegal well than by action of the SOP, the officer's action would be illegal. Which is a good reminder, that legal eagles probably reviewed said policy. I would guess the OP and sheriff got into a pissing match on the phone. That said, bad policy is not necessarily illegal policy.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

 

[Frank59]

That might be since the OP stated the sheriff said it but is it the agency SOP? IF the SOP is illegal well than by action of the SOP, the officer's action would be illegal. Which is a good reminder, that legal eagles probably reviewed said policy. I would guess the OP and sheriff got into a pissing match on the phone. That said, bad policy is not necessarily illegal policy.

Sent from my SM-T380 using Tapatalk

I agree the department probably ran this through legal channels before implementing said policy!

 

[Jon Payne]

Make the complaint

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

He will be doing just that.

 

[toddnjoyce]

I'm still curious on the Sheriff's policy for plain view long guns and MPA-protected non-LTC holders that have a handgun in the trunk. Or, for that matter, long guns or hand guns or LTC holders his deputies encounter in other situations.

Say the complainant is an LTC holder and reports trespassers on his property, for instance.

 

[Jon Payne]

Forgive me.....but...........I understand the the original post to be.........

It's the Sheriff's policy that is a violation of the law........

Not the stop.........

Not the S/N check......

or am I misunderstanding?

You have it exactly right.

 

[diesel1959]

I'm still curious on the Sheriff's policy for plain view long guns and MPA-protected non-LTC holders that have a handgun in the trunk. Or, for that matter, long guns or hand guns or LTC holders his deputies encounter in other situations.

Say the complainant is an LTC holder and reports trespassers on his property, for instance.

My surmise is that if that Sheriff has a policy, that policy is to run stolen on each and every firearm encountered during citizen contacts. So NOT just LTC firearms.

I think it's overdoing things to make such checks on license-holders who are carrying, and I'm sure there are Deputies who would not follow such a policy; however, it seems this Sheriff has other ideas.