I don't know, have you come back from the dead Freddie Mercury?
I am Elvis, not Freddie.
I don't know, have you come back from the dead Freddie Mercury?
Doesn’t need to. He already knows everything.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.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.
Does anyone else see two different stories here? I sure as hell don't.
What law or Case Law allows him to search and seize, since is not investigating a crime?
He got out of the car before the officer approached? Unrelated to this specific incident, is that a normal thing to do?
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.
The lawful detention was based on the inoperable LP light/illegible plate. He WAS investigating a crime, covered in Texas Traffic Code.
BOOM!!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
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?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?
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.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?
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.If I worked for the BATFE, which I never had. Have you?
Can you clarify how disarming relates to the further action of performing a search on the weapon?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
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.What part of nearly half-dozen Case Law opinions starting with Carroll v. United States do you not understand?
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!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.
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.
Well, then I'm going to ruin the thread for you.You know the great things about theses threads is no one ever says, "you know I was wrong"