First LEO contact - disarmed and unloaded

[KRM45]

I have no idea as to what authority the DPS disarmed our officers (in reality there probably is no such authority unless they were being arrested) and I personally would not have given him my gun. I would have told him to call a supervisor to the location and let's talk about why he needed to disarm me. If he wanted to arrest me for a traffic violation then that's his right and then he could have disarmed me at that time. Knowing that every DPS stop is video recorded I would have made sure my conduct was professional and courteous.

I was thinking the same thing...

The reason that the DPS knew to ask if they were armed is because they identified themselves as LEOs. After that trooper would have known to ask if they were armed. Plus, both LEOs have CHLs and the trooper would have probably known already to ask that question since when he ran their plates it would have come back that they were CHL holders.

I have though about this. On our system the CHL status only shows up if you run the DL, not on the plates. I've not been pulled over since before I got my CHL, and before I became a peace officer. The next time I am pulled over I wonder if I will feel the need to inform the officer that I am armed...

I have been with other officers on a traffic stop that became upset when they found out that the violator was a CHL holder by running them. They then mistakenly (in my opinion) informed the violator that they were obligated to inform the officer of their status even though they were not carrying.

[CHL/LEO]

How I was told that plates get tied to a CHL holder on TCIC is - the CHL holder is pulled over and then issued a citation. On the citation the license plate of the vehicle is entered onto the ticket and then that information gets entered into a database. In the future when that plate is run it will come up that the driver has a CHL. I don't think that the LP folks and DPS (maintainer of CHL records) are cross referencing their databases at this time but they might be.

Just like warrants being attached to the driver of a certain vehicle this could present problems too. Many times I have run a plate and it came back with warrant hits on it. We do a traffic stop and then we determine the driver of the vehicle is not the person we're looking for. I've had drivers tell me that they get stopped two or three times a week because the car they're driving has warrants attached to that LP. It's usually a car that they purchased used and the previous owner (or driver) had warrants and now they get to deal with those consequences.

I remember one fellow that told me he had been stopped five times in one month - all of them being felony car stops where he and his family were ordered out of the car and proned out at gun point. After we got through with him on our stop I told him that the only way he was going to get this stopped was to go down and get new license plates issued for his car. My experience is that once someone's LPs are tagged in TCIC or NCIC it's next to impossible to get them cleared. Better to just get new plates than drive around just waiting to get pulled over.

[austin]

The DPS Trooper who pulled me over last year knew I was armed. No big deal.

[G Wagner]

As stated in a earlier post, the officer can check (run) the vehicle license plate for stolen and/or wanted. This is because the vehicle license plate is in "plain view"; however, and subject to court decision, the checking of the gun's serial number may come under Fourth Amendment rights.

To my knowledge, the Texas vehicle registration does not show if the owner has a CHL. Please correct me if this has changed. Unless the jurisdiction's computer system "strips" the owner's name and checks the name for "TEXAS or US" wants, the CHL information does not appear. CHL only appears when "wants" are checked, and not just because a license plate or driver's license is checked.



Thanks

[srothstein]

G Wagner,

Actually, CHL does not appear when wants are checked. It only appears as part of the TCIC returns when a driver's license is checked. Normally, we check the DL and the wants at the same time, but for the system, they are considered two separate checks. Last time I checked the TLETS terminal (which was a few years ago), I could run either a TDL check, a wants check, or both at once.

BUT, and this is important, many of the larger jurisdictions run their own systems. They may modify the checks any way they want so that their system will check a license plate against the court database and then run all known drivers of the car for DL and wanted checks. I do not know how others do it, but in 1998 when I left San Antonio, they would check the plate against municipal court files, a local file on suspicious people and cars, a file on gang membership, local stolen reports (including car being victimized for theft or burglary), and the TLETS stolen and registration returns.

It would not surprise me that they have expanded the list of databases they check internally or externally, to include the running of all DL's that come up in the municipal court file for that car. It WOULD surprise me if other cities like Houston or Dallas were significantly less thorough in checking their records when a car plate or person is run.

[kw5kw]

Russ,

If the trooper did run the serial number to check it for stolen, he was not just doing his job. He was implying that the driver was a thief. I personally have a problem with officers that think all citizens are criminals. Why would an officer think a gun needed to be checked for stolen, just because a CHL had it? In my opinion, the fact that the driver has a CHL would certainly imply to me that the gun was not stolen. After all, if I had a stolen gun, why would I go to the trouble of getting a CHL isntead of just carrying it illegally?

Would the officer check all the stereo's he finds? They are stolen at least as much as firearms are.

And, if the officer is taking the gun just to see if it is stolen, he is violating several laws. The law to disarm a CHL only allows it for officer safety (a very vague area). The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause to conduct a search. Asking for the weapon to get the serial number to run it constitutes a search. This is long decided court law (based on an officer turning a stereo around to get the serial number on it being a search).

I have never yet disarmed a CHL and do not see it happening (barring an arrest of some type or taking the weapon after a shooting). I will not second guess an officer who disarms for safety reasons, but if I were his supervisor he better be able to explain why this specific stop justified disarming. I will do my best to ensure that officer's obey the law on searching, as it is one of the bedrocks of our freedoms.

EDIT: Russ, when I reread this, it sounded like an attack on you. I did not mean it that way. I appreciate your support of law enforcement and your opinion. I meant it more as fighting the attitude of police that they can do almost anything and not pay attention to citizen's rights.

Steve,
I never took this as an attack. I will say that at the station in which I work troopers run less than 1% of the guns of the CHL'ers that they pull over. As a matter of fact, I know Troopers that would get upset with a CHL'er if they didn't have their gun with them.

Maybe there is a reason that they run the weapon on those few that the do. Could it possibly be the attitude ( ) or condition ( ) of the stoppee? In My Humble Opinion: "Most likely."

I run less than one gun a month, on an average, total for all of the troops that we handle out of our station.
Russ

edited by russ 22:27 20080617

[doejohn]

I may be new to this game, but I fully expect to be disarmed anytime I have broken the law. Even for a simple traffic stop, i would expect the officer to err on maximizing his safety.

This was a big topic in my CHL class and it makes no sense to me. The intructor seemed to be of the opinion that there is no reason to EVER be disarmed short of drawing your weapon. But I have LEO friends and they've said that it all depends on the situation at the time. My friend John told me, "Even the most law abiding person can give you an uneasy feeling at times and if that feeling comes around wth a CHL, disarm them first, then proceed."

That "uneasy feeling" may be wrong 99% of the time, but even 1% being right is worth the protection of our LEO.

Well, If I expected to be disarmed anytime I broke the law, then it I would probably expect to be disarmed 700-1000 times a year. Wow, that would be a lot of disarming. From slowly (after looking both ways twice) rolling through the neighboorhood stop sign, to turning right on red without a complete stop, to going over the speed limit to at least stay with the flow of traffic (if not more) . You can also add jaywalking and many more. Oh yea, and no front license plate. (of course I don't really do any of these things. I'm really talking about my friend). All kidding aside, I know you mean if the officer observed and stopped you for these infractions, not just if you did them. But still...

If the officer fears for his life, then with out a doubt he should disarm. If the officer constantly fears for his life, then he is in the wrong line of work...Especially if he fears CHL'ers simply because they have a gun.

[boomerang]

If the officer fears for his life, then with out a doubt he should disarm. If the officer constantly fears for his life, then he is in the wrong line of work...Especially if he fears CHL'ers simply because they have a gun.

You have to wonder if he also disarms off duty cops during traffic stops.

[HerbM]

The only decent reason I read in all the posts was:

"I disarm everyone so that no one can say I discriminate."

...sort of like carding 80 year olds for booze or cigarettes.

I have often wondered (and probably won't ever try to find out) what the story would be if this happened:

CHL: (Hands over DL/CHL)
LEO: Are you armed?
CHL: With all due respect officer, I prefer not to answer.

There is a legal requirement to hand over the CHL when asked for ID, but nowhere (that I have ever found) does it SAY you have to answer such a question. It is also a common recommendation to show the CHL even when you are not armed and not legally required to do so.

Of course, today, the wife (without a CHL but in the car) could be armed and would be under no obligation to divulge....

It is actually a flaw in the Texas law that we have to divulge -- there have been cases of escaping criminals using a LEOs car, gun, badge, and uniform to steal another car and kidnap the owner (and kill the owner sometimes).

A real LEO will find out through the computer, but a criminal in a stolen patrol car can't do that.

And CHL holders are NOT a danger -- the dangerous criminal is NOT going to tell the officer.

[austin-tatious]

The trooper simply ran the serial number on the gun to make sure it wasn't stolen, just as KBCraig said. (It's actually quite common.) And, if you did not purchase the gun new in the box from a licensed dealer, did you have someone run the serial number to make sure that it wasn't stolen years ago?

Always have a used gun's serial number ran before you purchase it. Troop's just doin' his job.

Russ

How do you run the serial number? Thanks.

[srothstein]

Most local police departments will run it for you, especially if you just bought it. Bring them the weapon and a receipt and you should have no problems. Without the receipt, it might be a little stickier for you if it comes up as stolen, especially if just taken recently.

just be aware that if it does come up stolen, you will not get the gun and the money you paid for it is between you and the seller.

[LabRat]

x2 on not getting the gun back.

Also, be able to describe your seller (in detail) to the LEO who takes the report.

I don't know if a receipt is going to get you completely out of the woods. To the cop, you're in possession of stolen property, no matter how you came into possession of it.
Your story will have to check out before you get a pass. Its works out better if you can lead them to your gun seller.

LabRat

[drw]

I don't know if a receipt is going to get you completely out of the woods. To the cop, you're in possession of stolen property, no matter how you came into possession of it.
Your story will have to check out before you get a pass. Its works out better if you can lead them to your gun seller.

I'm thinking of the scenario where you are buying a gun or two on a Saturday morning at a gun show from a couple random vendors (private party). Then you go to the police to have it checked, and if it comes up stolen, you are in trouble? It sounds to me like it's better to just not check the guns at all. Or am I missing something?

[Liberty]

x2 on not getting the gun back.

Also, be able to describe your seller (in detail) to the LEO who takes the report.

I don't know if a receipt is going to get you completely out of the woods. To the cop, you're in possession of stolen property, no matter how you came into possession of it.
Your story will have to check out before you get a pass. Its works out better if you can lead them to your gun seller.

LabRat

I thought I heard somewhere that there is no crime of "Possession of stolen property" in Texas. If you come into possession of stolen property and it wasn't unreasonable to believe it was not stolen there is no crime. If you are aware it is stolen then you are as guilty as the one that stole it. Guns are not any different than any other property.

[israel67]

I have no idea as to what authority the DPS disarmed our officers (in reality there probably is no such authority unless they were being arrested) and I personally would not have given him my gun. I would have told him to call a supervisor to the location and let's talk about why he needed to disarm me. If he wanted to arrest me for a traffic violation then that's his right and then he could have disarmed me at that time. Knowing that every DPS stop is video recorded I would have made sure my conduct was professional and courteous.

Fascinating thread. Do CHLs have to inform the officer that they are carrying? What if a CHL (as you say: calmy and courteously) refused to allow the LEO to disarm him? Hmm. Probably not a very good idea, on reflexion.

This is all good stuff to know for when I come over there and have my CHL. If I'm disarmed, I'll make a point of finding out why. After the event, of course.